Is ABC ever permissable

[Corki]

And there also could be the possibility that even though she knows the Church says it’s grave matter, she honestly believes it’s what she has to do for herself and her children…

.

That would not change the fact that she had full knowledge.

and perhaps has even been told by a priest to do so.

This, on the other hand, probably would.

 

[Debora123]

That would not change the fact that she had full knowledge.

This, on the other hand, probably would.

…Annnd that’s why I put them together as one sentence for a reason.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom, I just gave your thread a 5 star rating. …I am sorry you were faced with the insults, curt remarks, and ad hominems from a couple members throughout this thread.

Hello Debora:
Thanks a lot for your 5 star rating and also your kind words and comments. You have made my day.
Best wishes and good luck.

 

[Debora123]

Hello Debora:
Thanks a lot for your 5 star rating and also your kind words and comments. You have made my day.
Best wishes and good luck.

And same to you, my friend.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you believe that all prescription contraceptive drugs are abortifacient? I know that some are, but I did not know that all of them are.

Not all are. However, we can’t be sure when they are acting as an abortifcacient, and when they are merely preventing ovulation.

Thus, it’s best to err on the side of caution and not use an oral contraceptive that may indeed allow a new life to be formed and then create an inhospitable environment for this new life to thrive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not sure what you mean here…

But my point was that contrary to popular belief, God does not put us in Hell. We put ourselves in Hell due to a fully deliberate rejection of God.

Hope that clears up what I meant.

Yes Debora I agree completely that we put ourselves in hell rather than God punishes us in some arbitrary, authoritarian external manner. Even the CCC says this as well.

What I was fine tuning on is that some can put themselves in hell and still think God has somehow made a mistake. Hence the kicking and screaming is possible, “you’ve made a mistaaaaaaaaaaake, it isn’t fairrrrrrrrrrrrr.”

The two things are not contradictory when it comes to the deeper sins - which are of the intellect (pride of life) as Aquinas states. Not a biggie.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the best image of hell that I’ve read is from Peter Kreeft: “The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, a**s the light of God shines endlessly behind him. **If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.”

Nice insight, haven’t seen that angle on it before.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

If we know something is grave matter, and choose to do it anyways, using our own free will (not being coerced), then we are turning away from God. We don’t have to literally say we want to turn away from God. By knowingly and willfully choosing to do the action that is grave matter, we are choosing that over God.

Right, but her culpability might still be lessened even if she knows it’s grave matter and does it anyway. (Remember, it’s grave matter, knowledge, and consent of the will… not just grave matter and knowledge.)

…Annnd that’s why I put them together as one sentence for a reason.

And that is why I put them as one sentence as well

The quote from the Catechism was to show that if we are doing something grave matter, with full knowledge and full will, then we are automatically turning our back on God and choosing that over Him. It isn’t that it is possible to have all three (grave matter, full consent, full will) and not turn our back on God… in choosing to do this grave wrong knowingly, with full will, we are turning our back on God.
Now, we are in agreement that we can never presume to know a person’s situation completely nor know what is truly in their heart. Perhaps they have been coerced, or perhaps they truly did not have full knowledge at the time… God knows what is in our hearts, He knows if we are presuming He will be ok with something we know is not ok, or if our culpability is greatly mitigated for x or y reason.
It’s kind of interesting, though, when people bring up ABC being used to avoid pregnancy for fear of losing life… The real purpose of using ABC is to be able to have sex without getting pregnant (and even then, it can fail)… I would think that technically no one needs ABC to not lose their life.

 

[1ke]

Let’s loop back around to the OP. In it, the question was twofold.

The first part of the question was “is it permissible”/“are there any exceptions”?

The answer to that question is: No. Contraception is intrinsically evil. There are no exceptions. Spacing/avoiding children can be done by abstinence (periodic or complete), not via contraception or sterilization.

The second part was regarding mortal sin, basically about the hypothetical woman going to hell, or how or whether it could be “fair” that this woman would go to hell for contracepting.

The answer to that question is: we don’t know. We can’t know what is in any person’s heart, much less a hypothetical person. What we can say is that mortal sin is constituted of grave matter, free will, and full knowledge. So, at least one of the three-- grave matter-- is indeed present.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let’s loop back around to the OP. In it, the question was twofold.

The first part of the question was “is it permissible”/“are there any exceptions”?

The answer to that question is: No. Contraception is intrinsically evil. There are no exceptions.

1ke I know what you mean, unfortunately I read what you said.

I do not believe we can find a sentence from a Magisterial document that says anything that comes close to saying “Contraception is intrinsically evil.” (Believe me I have looked).

“Contraception” is a very unhelpful word when we start looking at the true teaching because it is too ambiguous.

The Church’s teaching does NOT refer to anything that can be seen or touched because it is not about mere use of ABC.

It looks to be about inferred “human acts” not visible “bodily actions.”
Human acts have intent/purpose - and some of them are contraceptive even if there isn’t a pill or condom in sight. (And conversely in rare situations an ABC may be used without this being a contraceptive act).

It is Human acts (whose matter/object is reasonably judged to be contraceptive in nature) that are intinsically evil. There is more to the definition than simply using a condom or taking a pill.

Contraception is intrinsically evil. There are no exceptions.

Only with the above understanding it seems can we understand how the Church has in fact allowed “contraception” exceptions.

How can there be exceptions?
There can be “exceptions” because in some rare cases of ABC use they are not actually contraceptive human acts - even though an ABC was used.

The example is that of Congo Nuns in the 1960s who, due to increasing lawlessness, stayed on in their mission at the risk of being raped. Advice was sought from the Vatican as to whether or not it was acceptable that the Nuns could be advised to take the Pill on an ongoing basis precisely so as to avoid pregnancy if raped at a later date. Approval was given.

I accept that the Pill is reasonably judged to be an abortifacient nowadays.
However that is not the point - in the 1960s the best medical information available to Church authorities at that time considered it to be simply contraceptive.

So here was have a case of the use of ABC precisley to stop conception - yet the Nuns did not commit a contraceptive human act in taking them to avoid pregancy if raped.

The same appears to be the case for professional married female athletes of the same time who took the Pill to avoid menstruation at critical competition event times. I believe this was also considered acceptable until medical opinion deemed the Pill abortifacient.

It is very hard to see how use of a contraceptive could ever be justified in the case of regular healthy, fertile married couples.

However, it would appear acceptable that a condom could be used to prevent passing on HIV to one’s married partner during sex in the infertile phase (or if one is sterile). Some very respected theologians go further and opine that it could be acceptable even outside the fertile phase. The jury is still out on that one so I would presume this practise would be regarded as at least illicit until definitive judgement be forthcoming otherwise from the CDF.

In short, the Church’s definition of a contraceptive act is about more than mere physical contracepting consequences.

 

[PRmerger]

1ke I know what you mean, unfortunately I read what you said.

I do not believe we can find a sentence from a Magisterial document that says anything that comes close to saying “Contraception is intrinsically evil.” (Believe me I have looked).

“Contraception” is a very unhelpful word when we start looking at the true teaching because it is too ambiguous.

The Church’s teaching does NOT refer to anything that can be seen or touched because it is not about mere use of ABC.

You seem to be arguing that since the Pill is concrete, and the teaching on the Church is abstract, this calls into question whether the Church actually has a teaching specifically about artificial contraception.

Is that a correct synopsis of your position?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You seem to be arguing that since the Pill is concrete, and the teaching on the Church is abstract, this calls into question whether the Church actually has a teaching specifically about artificial contraception.

Is that a correct synopsis of your position?

I don’t really know what you are saying.

All definitions are of course abstract.
They have to be applied by reason to the details at hand to decide what definition best applies to a given scenario .

You are seen to purposefully kill a 4 yr old child in the street. Was it murder, homicide or self defence?
Depending on which definition best applies you are either evil or good.

99% of the time you would prob be a murderer. But it cannot be decided simply on the thin fact that you intentionally killed the child. There are some rare cases when it could be self defence. If you are a soldier at a checkpoint in Vietnam and the approaching child had two unpinned handgrenades hidden behind his back…

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t really know what you are saying.

It appears to me as if you are saying that the Pill, as an object, isn’t intrinsically evil. And we know this because the Church doesn’t specifically address this particular object.

To wit: there is nothing at all about the Pill in this teaching in the CCC #2370

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Is that a correct synopsis of your argument?

 

[Tomdstone]

The example is that of Congo Nuns in the 1960s who, due to increasing lawlessness, stayed on in their mission at the risk of being raped. Advice was sought from the Vatican as to whether or not it was acceptable that the Nuns could be advised to take the Pill on an ongoing basis precisely so as to avoid pregnancy if raped at a later date. Approval was given…

How does that relate to CCC#2370:

“In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil”

 

[PRmerger]

How does that relate to CCC#2370:

“In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil”

I think the answer is: rape is not a conjugal act.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the answer is: rape is not a conjugal act.

Yet you cannot deny that the nuns also freely and purposefully chose to use ABC explicitly for its contraceptive consequences. And, had they been raped, such action would have had the intended contraceptive result.

Is this not “contraception” - at least in terms of the ambiguous statement you originally put forward as Church teaching - which is supposed to be intrinsically evil?
If its ontrinsically evil it should not be permissable in any sexual scenario whatsoever regardless of whether we are talking about sexual intercourse in the context of fornication, adultery, prostituion etc etc.

Clearly it is not.
I have attempted to resolve the contradiction your literal statement involves.
Ultimately my explanation involves a much broader understanding of the definition of “contraception” to involve factors other than simply “use of a condom.” In fact you have already partly agreed. The detail/circumstance of “marital” is not something concrete, not something one can see? Likewise “forced” (rape obviously can ocurr in marriage) is not always something one can “see.” Sounds like the sort of “abstract” detail you are talking about above I suppose. If that is what you mean by abstract then yes, I agree with you.

If you do not accept my explanation that’s fine - but then we still need to find some explanation to resolve the contradiction… I cannot think of another, can you?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How does that relate to CCC#2370:

“In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil”

Perhaps you can suggest…I am not sure of your angle here?

If we research what is meant by “action” (I mean check the Latin that came from the Vatican theologian’s rather than the US bishops conference translation into English) I think you will find it comes back to “human act” (from the point of view of the acting person) rather than the examination of “video evidence” - aha! I see a condom, it MUST therefore be a contraceptive act. That looks to be as fallacious as saying - aha I see a innocent 4 yr old being killed by an adult, it MUST be murder.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It appears to me as if you are saying that the Pill, as an object, isn’t intrinsically evil. And we know this because the Church doesn’t specifically address this particular object.

Sounds like you partly have what I am suggesting PRM.

"you are saying that the Pill, as an object, isn’t intrinsically evil. "

This is correct. When theologian’s talk about the object of a human act they are not talking about any concrete thing (like a condom or a Pill). They are talking about a “scenario” and that scenario is more than what can be caught on video tape. We have to identify what, objectively, is going on. Is it murder, it it self-defence. Sometimes the external video (sometimes called the “external act”) of “the object” purposed will look exactly the same in both cases.

This apparantly is one of the most complex areas of moral theology. You will see people gamely trying to boil a “human act” down to “the three fonts” (following Aquinas) of purpose, circumstances and matter (or object).

Yet the relationship of the three is fraught with subtleties and as they are “components” of a single act no single font can be rightly considered fully “free floating” and independent of the other two fonts. Even our defining of the actual “object” (usually a trivial judgement)under investigation can change due to an understanding of what the actor purposed.

Many educated Catholics get ensnared at this point and say - an intrinsically bad object cannot be made good by a good intention (or circumstances). This is true - provided we have correctly identified the moral object to start with! In fact** there are different sets of circumstances/detail and varieties of intent** involved when analysing moral acts - depending on exactly what component we are considering.

The point I am making is that the first step in making a practical moral judgement is to apply the correct moral definition to “the object” of this particular human act. And that applied definition may change due to “circumstance” (which could be abstract (eg she is forced against her will, they are not married)) or the “intent” of the person acting (eg I must defend my checkpoint by killing this child).

So when we are trying to define the font called “object” when we look at considerations of various details and agent intent we are not actually speaking of the other 2 fonts at this stage. But, once the object is correctly defined, then we looks at circumstances (eg duress, gravity of consequences) and purpose (I chose this contraceptive object so my wife wouldn’t have a nervous breakdown with kid number 5) to see how bad it actually is as a whole and how imputable it is to the person.

And we know this because the Church doesn’t specifically address this particular object

No, you understand me completely wrong on this point.
I am not saying that “contraception” (whatever that means exactly) has exceptions just because thePill was not mentioned by name in a Papal document. That would be silly.

I am saying that most of us do not have a good grasp on the principle itself.
Most people do not know what a “contraceptive human act” (let alone the object of a **human act **) really is as understood by the Magisterium.

I include myself in that. Though I may not know enough to confidently discuss exactly what the “object of a human act” is I do feel confident enough to recognise what it is not.

And the object of a contraceptive human act is always evil - but it isn’t merely the external fact of the chosen use of the Pill or a condom. In 99.9% of cases it probably will be, but not all.

 

[Debora123]

The quote from the Catechism was to show that if we are doing something grave matter, with full knowledge and full will, then we are automatically turning our back on God and choosing that over Him. It isn’t that it is possible to have all three (grave matter, full consent, full will) and not turn our back on God… in choosing to do this grave wrong knowingly, with full will, we are turning our back on God.
Now, we are in agreement that we can never presume to know a person’s situation completely nor know what is truly in their heart. Perhaps they have been coerced, or perhaps they truly did not have full knowledge at the time… God knows what is in our hearts, He knows if we are presuming He will be ok with something we know is not ok, or if our culpability is greatly mitigated for x or y reason.

You are correct, you did put the word “willful” in there… I hadn’t seen that. Either way, I’m sure it didn’t hurt for me to reiterate to the OP exactly what “willful” means by showing examples.

When we are in a state of emotional distress, or when we are afraid, or when we are addicted, or when we feel a certain sense of obligation to do something,… can all be examples of not having full consent of the will.

It’s kind of interesting, though, when people bring up ABC being used to avoid pregnancy for fear of losing life… The real purpose of using ABC is to be able to have sex without getting pregnant (and even then, it can fail)… I would think that technically no one needs ABC to not lose their life.

Technically, you are correct. But sex can be very important in a marriage, and if one partner knows that there would be huge problems in the marriage if one of them stopped having sex for any reason other than legitimate illness or paralysis, they might feel like it’s something they have to do for the good of the family.

It’s always best not to jump to conclusions.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet you cannot deny that the nuns also freely and purposefully chose to use ABC explicitly for its contraceptive consequences. And, had they been raped, such action would have had the intended contraceptive result.

Is this not “contraception” - at least in terms of the ambiguous statement you originally put forward as Church teaching - which is supposed to be intrinsically evil?
If its ontrinsically evil it should not be permissable in any sexual scenario whatsoever regardless of whether we are talking about sexual intercourse in the context of fornication, adultery, prostituion etc etc.

Clearly it is not.
I have attempted to resolve the contradiction your literal statement involves.
Ultimately my explanation involves a much broader understanding of the definition of “contraception” to involve factors other than simply “use of a condom.” In fact you have already partly agreed. The detail/circumstance of “marital” is not something concrete, not something one can see? Likewise “forced” (rape obviously can ocurr in marriage) is not always something one can “see.” Sounds like the sort of “abstract” detail you are talking about above I suppose. If that is what you mean by abstract then yes, I agree with you.

If you do not accept my explanation that’s fine - but then we still need to find some explanation to resolve the contradiction… I cannot think of another, can you?

I think the apparent “contradiction” is easily resolved with this: rape is not a conjugal act.