Is ABC ever permissable

[PRmerger]

Thats fine, you are the one who made the statement not me. Here is what you said:** “It appears to me as if you are saying that the Pill, as an object, isn’t intrinsically evil.”**

PRM the problem is that it is by no means clear what you mean by “contraception is intrinsically evil?” You seem to mean “use of ABC is always evil” which is only slightly more meaningful than “the pill is evil.” This isn’t really what the Church teaches.

Sorry, Blue. I am not understanding your question.

Are you saying that you don’t really know what “contraception is intrinsically evil” means?

If so, I suppose your question really is: what is contraception?

Because, I assume, that the other part of the question–the “intrinsically evil” part–is understood by you?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not disagreeing with you at all here, just want to clear up a possible inconsistency I might have seen.

I have made it a point before, in another thread, that if a couple is having sex outside of marriage, using a non abortifacient contraceptive won’t add to their sin of fornication… because fornication is not the conjugal act and is therefore not called to be unitive and procreative, it is just called to stop taking place altogether. I then pointed out certain quotes from the CCC and from humanae vitae where they always spoke of the morality of contraception in the context of the marital act only.

Anyway, no one else was agreeing with me on that, and perhaps I’m wrong, but I think you might have been one of them…

Its an interesting angle Debora.
I think the problem with this approach is the phrase “fornication … is not called to be unitive or procreative.”

What does this phrase really mean? At heart it seems to mean unmarried sex is by definition not unitive or procreative…because the Church considers only married sex to legitimately refer to those qualities. Therefore the splitting off of these purposes by unmarried contracepting is not a contraceptive moral issue.

I think this might be no more than a playing around with definitions rather than playing around with the actual realities that these definitions signify.

At the heart of it unmarried sex is still inherently reproductive in nature/consequences (even if not “procreative” ie working with God) and that is primary end of sex. I think we are called to respect this inherent purpose/nature of sex regardless of whether or not our partner is actually married to us. (What if they were betrothed/engaged?) I do not think the procreative purpose of sex (and hence the definition of “procreative end”) disappears just because a couple are not legally married.

Likewise I don’t think we can say the reality of the unitive nature/purpose of sex (as defined by the Church definition) disappears from the moral equation simply because sex partner’s aren’t married. Sex is very bonding and is destructive if I am single and my partner is married to another.

At a human level, I think we can also see different sins in play here. An unintended one night stand between old high school friends meeting at a country lodge summer wedding is immoral of course. However additionally contracepting seems to add/reveal a far deeper evil to the scenario. It reveals other abiding intentions as well (“I’ll bring a condom along just in case I get lucky”).

But maybe I have misunderstood your approach?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hypothetical scenario… a woman is kidnapped and about to be raped, would it be morally wrong of her to beg her attacker to at least wear a condom if he’s going to rape her?

Yes good point Debora. Similar is treatment of rape victims immediately after attack with contraceptive methods (I am not an expert but presume spermicidals?) Such has been approved by various Church authorities without demurr by the Vatican.

That doesn’t mean its a done deal. But, until the vatican specifically rules against such a thing, acceptable choice for Catholics.

If it was intrinsically evil I am pretty sure the Vatican rotweillers would have been unleached long ago to stop the rot.

In fact, some Church authorities, in war mass rape circumstances, have allowed use of contraceptive methods that were reasonably suspected of having abortifacient properties (ie regardless of whether women were known to be their infertil phase or not).

How could use of spermicidals etc in such cases be allowed if “contraception is intrinsically evil.”

Either:
(a) contraceptive human acts are not intrinsically evil (we know this is not the case)
(b) this is not actually a case of contraception as defined by the Church (though physical contracepting took place and was intended to take place)
(c) The Magisterium does not agree but is keeping quiet for the moment
(d) The Magisterium itself has not decided on the matter yet and is allowing debate so that it may be better informed before making a ruling.

 

[PRmerger]

At the heart of it unmarried sex is still inherently reproductive in nature/consequences (even if not “procreative” ie working with God) and that is primary end of sex. I think we are called to respect this inherent purpose/nature of sex regardless of whether or not our partner is actually married to us. (What if they were betrothed/engaged?) I** do not think the procreative purpose of sex** (and hence the definition of “procreative end”) disappears just because a couple are not legally married.

Are you saying that extra-marital sex is procreative, or not?

Likewise I don’t think we can say the reality of the unitive nature/purpose of sex (as defined by the Church definition) disappears from the moral equation simply because sex partner’s aren’t married. Sex is very bonding and is destructive if I am single and my partner is married to another.

The unitive aspect of extra-marital sex does not exist. It is merely illusory.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ah, now I see where PRMerger (and yourself) are coming from…

Keep in mind that "conjugal act’ is often simply a euphemism for sexual intercourse (which of course must be conjugal if we assume we have celibate Cardinals talking to good Catholics hmmmnn). But taking things in context is is relatively clear it is not actually limited to the married.

And if you look at the vatican’s own text here
you can see it has quoted “conjugal act” from Humanae Vitae as “sexual intercourse.”

So Humanae Vitae is not talking about just married couples when it comes to contraception and sex. This is actually already a given in debates between leading theologians.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you saying that extra-marital sex is procreative, or not?

The unitive aspect of extra-marital sex does not exist. It is merely illusory.

PRM please prove to us from Magisterial documents that extra marital sex is anywhere stated as completely non unitive. I do not believe you will find anything, I have looked many times over the years. Perhaps you might find something I have overlooked.

I realise that many popularist marriage writers (with very poor moral theology backgrounds) push this line even with condomised sex within marriage. As do one or two highly respected Canon Lawyers.

Yes, they are of course allowed to try and “lead a charge” but the Vatican has never stated such a thing (as far as I know) and if we were to take a literal approach to what the Magisterium has actually said to date it would tend against this extremist position.

Many people who engaged in fornication have never had other partners before or after and end up marrying their first love. (Did you read the poster survey on this Forum before it quickly got closed down last month? Fascinating.) Try and tell them unmarried sex has no beauty or unitive dimension .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Tomdstone
I don’t see Father Curran mentioned here.
" Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

1ke I don’t think you are facing the challenge on this one.
I do not say you are wrong, in fact I would be very interested to find out if you are actually right.

However if you want your view to be accepted in this discussion I believe the ball is in your court to prove your dramatic statement. I have never heard anything like it since hearing about the Congo Nuns case many years ago. I can certainly understand why the Vatican would be very discrete about this judgement - especially when we see the furore over a single line written in Pope Benedict’s recent book.

But to say the Congo Nun incident is a complete fabrication … well please reference authoritative sources for us so we can make up our own minds whether you are right on this?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

On this we are agreed.

How come we seem to disagree re everything else PRM .

 

[Elizium23]

But to say the Congo Nun incident is a complete fabrication … well please reference authoritative sources for us so we can make up our own minds whether you are right on this?

Oh, no, no. The onus is on YOU to reference authoritative sources to PROVE that the “Congo nun” story is true.

 

[Tomdstone]

The “Congo nuns” tale is exactly that-- a tale. It has NO substantive proof that it ever happened. It is a Catholic urban legend of grand proportion supported by NO Vatican document and put forward by a censured Catholic priest and known Humanae Vitae dissenter-- Charles Curran.

So, I reject the big fat Congo nun whopper.

““An article in the Jesuit magazine Civillta Catolica, which is approved before publication by the Vatican, argues that contraception is a legitimate form of self-defence for a rape victim. The author, Fr Giacomo Perico, says that rape is an act of violence, to which the rules applying to an act within marriage cannot apply.
…The article in Civillta Catolica makes it plain that nuns in the Belgian Congo had been allowed to use contraceptives in the early Sixties when they were in danger of rape.””
independent.co.uk/news/uk/vatican-acts-overbosnian-rapes-birth-control-ban-eased-for-women-at-risk-1485928.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes. I have never proposed that this is limited to the married. Extra-marital sex is merely a feigned conjugal act.

My point is that rape is not a conjugal act. It is not even a feigned conjugal act.

Ok I am missing something…

I understand you to be saying that contracepted rape (whether of the married or unmarried) can never be capable of being judged as contraceptive.
Presumably because forced sexual acts cannot meet your definition of “contraception?”

OK if I understand you correctly then, how did you come to the conclusion that the Magisterium agrees with your definition? Is it because you believe Humanae Vitae is saying that contraceptive sex has to involve a “conjugal act?” And you understand a “conjugal act” to simply mean voluntary sex?

So you accept, that in Humanae Vitae, “conjugal sex” really is just a euphemism for dignified sexual intercourse?