Is the Church's Ban on Non-Abortive Artificial Birth Control a Doctrine or Discipline?

[Corki]

Also, if ABC is INTRINSICALLY immoral, then that means that for an HIV positive rapist to contracept would be immoral also, no? What about the Catholic rape victim who knows about the Church teaching on ABC (who has full knowledge and full consent and has even reflected on this very topic before being raped) who begs her rapist to use a condom (which HAS happened, btw)? Is she or he guilty of mortal sin, or should she/he should just allow themselves to be raped with no protection without putting up a fight about it because of Church teaching? If that victim dies unconfessed without an act of perfect contrition, then is that rape victim destined to spend eternity in hell?

Duh! Rape is a sin with or without a condom!!!

Using what ever means necessary to repel an unwanted agression is usually held to be moral. At the very worst, she would not be culpable in such a situation.

Thoughfulone,

You keep coming up with these extreme “what if” examples that, I believe you intend to “prove” that the rule is not always applicable. But they are really just example of the exception that proves the rule.

Before you get all hung up on the theological intricacies of infallible teaching, which is a fairly advanced Catholic topic, start with Catholicism 101:

What are the conditions for a sin to be mortal? It has to involve grave matter, full knowledge and free consent.

A rape victim is not going to be in a situation where she can give free consent. Likewise, the spouse of a HIV positive husband who intends to have sex with her no matter what (also rape, BTW) is not giving free consent. etc., etc., etc.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Duh! Rape is a sin with or without a condom!!!

Using what ever means necessary to repel an unwanted agression is usually held to be moral. At the very worst, she would not be culpable in such a situation.

Thoughfulone,

You keep coming up with these extreme “what if” examples that, I believe you intend to “prove” that the rule is not always applicable. But they are really just example of the exception that proves the rule.

Before you get all hung up on the theological intricacies of infallible teaching, which is a fairly advanced Catholic topic, start with Catholicism 101:

What are the conditions for a sin to be mortal? It has to involve grave matter, full knowledge and free consent.

A rape victim is not going to be in a situation where she can give free consent. Likewise, the spouse of a HIV positive husband who intends to have sex with her no matter what (also rape, BTW) is not giving free consent. etc., etc., etc.

Darf. I know that rape is a sin no matter what. That is not the argument. The argument is that yes, obviously the rapist is committing a sin. That is a given. But if the victim insists on the use of a condom, that must also be a sin, because the use of a condom is INTRINSICALLY evil according to the Catholic Church. According to the CC, the victim should not ask the rapist to use a condom because the use of a condom is INTRINSICALLY EVIL, no matter the circumstance. The victim may not be able to consent to sex, but the circumstances are fair game. The circumstances are visited upon the victim and the victim must then decide what is or is not moral/immoral, and according to the Catholic Church, condom use is ALWAYS immoral . If the morality of the use of contraception is simply dependent on the circumstance of the act in itself, then you have just proven my point.

 

[davidv]

Darf. I know that rape is a sin no matter what. That is not the argument. The argument is that yes, obviously the rapist is committing a sin. That is a given. But if the victim insists on the use of a condom, that must also be a sin, because the use of a condom is INTRINSICALLY evil according to the Catholic Church.

This not correct. A condon is an inanimate object, which cannot be good or evil. What the Church teaches as intrinisically evil is contraception, whatever the method.

According to the CC, the victim should not ask the rapist to use a condom because the use of a condom is INTRINSICALLY EVIL, no matter the circumstance.

See above.

The victim may not be able to consent to sex, but the circumstances are fair game. The circumstances are visited upon the victim and the victim must then decide what is or is not moral/immoral, and according to the Catholic Church, condom use is ALWAYS immoral . If the morality of the use of contraception is simply dependent on the circumstance of the act in itself, then you have just proven my point.

Since your conclusion is based on a false premise, your point has not been proven.

I don’t think you understand what the Church teaches in regard to how to determine the morality of an action.

 

[Julia1996]

This not correct. A condon is an inanimate object, which cannot be good or evil. What the Church teaches as intrinisically evil is contraception, whatever the method.

See above.
Thoughtfulone didn’t say that a condom is intrinsically evil. Thoughtfulone said that the USE OF A CONDOM is intrinsically evil.
Since your conclusion is based on a false premise, your point has not been proven.
On which false premise is Thoughtfulone’s conclusion based on? All the premises seem to be true. The USE of condoms, being a form of artificial contraception IS intrinsically evil.
I don’t think you understand what the Church teaches in regard to how to determine the morality of an action.

 

[jilly4ski]

I think you misunderstood davidv’s point. Contraception by any means is intrinsically evil, but begging a rapist to use a condom (and the rapist actually using one) would be defense against violent aggression. Which the Church allows. That is why Thoughtfulones point is based on a false premise.

It is kind of like the Church allows women to use hormonal treatments (one of which might be the pill) for medical reasons. Even though using the Pill for contraception is an intrinsic evil, using it as a medical treatment is not an intrinsic evil.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I think you misunderstood davidv’s point. Contraception by any means is intrinsically evil, but begging a rapist to use a condom (and the rapist actually using one) would be defense against violent aggression. Which the Church allows. That is why Thoughtfulones point is based on a false premise.

It is kind of like the Church allows women to use hormonal treatments (one of which might be the pill) for medical reasons. Even though using the Pill for contraception is an intrinsic evil, using it as a medical treatment is not an intrinsic evil.

How is asking a rapist to use a condom a defense against violent aggression? The condom is still being used at the victim’s request to prevent pregnancy, which, according to the Church, is a moral evil under any circumstances, correct? The Church states that if something is intrinsically evil, then it is never acceptable. Contraception for the purposes of preventing pregnancy is intrinsically evil according to the CC.

 

[davidv]

How is asking a rapist to use a condom a defense against violent aggression? The condom is still being used at the victim’s request to prevent pregnancy, which, according to the Church, is a moral evil under any circumstances, correct? The Church states that if something is intrinsically evil, then it is never acceptable. Contraception for the purposes of preventing pregnancy is intrinsically evil according to the CC.

It is up to you to try understand what we type. If you want to twist things in attempt to justify your position expect opposition. In my view there can be no contraception in the case of rape, no matter what the victim asks, if they are even able. Even if you want to call this contraception there is no sin on the part of the victim, as the act is not freely chosen by the victim.

 

[choose_to_love]

T-one,

As has been pointed out, the Church is against contraception. It is against contraception because it disorders the marital act. As you pointed out, rape is already a sin and a disordered act per se. Asking the rapist to use a condom is not contraceptive in the theological sense because rape has no unitive component. It is not an act of self-donation as intended by our Creator, but a gross violation of the person and the purpose of the act.

The victim is defending herself against the not only the initial aggression of the rape and potential for disease but also against the potential for continuing aggression of the rapist’s sperm traveling through her reproductive tract.

 

[Corki]

Darf. I know that rape is a sin no matter what. That is not the argument. The argument is that yes, obviously the rapist is committing a sin. That is a given. But if the victim insists on the use of a condom, that must also be a sin, because the use of a condom is INTRINSICALLY evil according to the Catholic Church. According to the CC, the victim should not ask the rapist to use a condom because the use of a condom is INTRINSICALLY EVIL, no matter the circumstance. The victim may not be able to consent to sex, but the circumstances are fair game. The circumstances are visited upon the victim and the victim must then decide what is or is not moral/immoral, and according to the Catholic Church, condom use is ALWAYS immoral . If the morality of the use of contraception is simply dependent on the circumstance of the act in itself, then you have just proven my point.

While contraception is intrinsically evil, it is not true that the use of a condom is itself intrinsically evil.

Trying to keep this discussion productive is difficutl since you don’t have the basics down. The morality of an act is tied to the circumstances. The sinfulness of an act is tied to both the circumstances and the interior disposition.

Shooting someone in the head is an intrinsic evil. Shooting someone accidentally in the head due to negligence could be a moral evil but only a venial sin, depending on the circumstances. Shooting someone in the head who is attacking your family is probably not a sin at all.

How is asking a rapist to use a condom a defense against violent aggression? The condom is still being used at the victim’s request to prevent pregnancy, which, according to the Church, is a moral evil under any circumstances, correct? The Church states that if something is intrinsically evil, then it is never acceptable. Contraception for the purposes of preventing pregnancy is intrinsically evil according to the CC.

Do you really not understand how a rape victim would be defending against violent aggression? Here is a document that explains the moral response to rape better than I could. It is not an official Church document (unless you are a Catholic hospital in PA) but it does lay out the moral issues in rape very well.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/HOSPSEX.HTM

However, the act of a desperate woman in the process of being raped has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the doctrinal basis for the Church’s teaching on contraception.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

T-one,

As has been pointed out, the Church is against contraception. It is against contraception because it disorders the marital act. As you pointed out, rape is already a sin and a disordered act per se. Asking the rapist to use a condom is not contraceptive in the theological sense because rape has no unitive component. It is not an act of self-donation as intended by our Creator, but a gross violation of the person and the purpose of the act.

The victim is defending herself against the not only the initial aggression of the rape and potential for disease but also against the potential for continuing aggression of the rapist’s sperm traveling through her reproductive tract.

Yes, I can definitely see your point, and I agree with much of it, but how does this square with Church teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception?"

To quote a speech given by a priest on intrinsic evil,

“An intrinsic evil as an act that is always bad, always sinful, always always
always. Never good, never appropriate, never useful, never, never, never. It is an act that
is ALWAYS SINFUL in every time, every epoch, every era, every age, every place,
every situation, every every every. There is NO GREY AREA! No doubt, no question
that these acts (acts that are intrinsically evil) are always and everywhere and for
everybody and for every situation, SINFUL and NEVER ACCEPTABLE.”

That certainly doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room, rape victim or no, and THIS is why I think the CC has gone too far in declaring contraception intrinsically evil.

And David, of course this is an act of contraception:

con·tra·cep·tion (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.
[contra- + (con)ception.]

And Corki, the morality of an INTRINSIC evil is NOT tied to the circumstance, not at all. That’s why it’s called an intrinsic evil.

Now, the victim’s guilt may be mitigated because of the circumstance (at least, I would hope so), but the fact remains that according to the CC, the victim is making the morally wrong choice because using contraception is always evil.

 

[Corki]

Thoughtfulone,

With all respect to the priest you quote, his statement is not fully what the Church teaches. Do you have a reference so we can see it in context? Was he even talking about contraception?

Even with regard to contraception, the Chuch teaches that using contraception is intrinsically evil when used by spouses as a means or an end to hinder the procreative aspect of the marital act. (CCC 2370 and 2399)

Spouses.

When used outside of marriage, it is undoubtedly grave matter, subject to the other requirements to make it a sin, but I can’t find any Church document that uses “intrinsically evil” when referring to the use of contraception, for example, in the case of rape. Sin always requires free will. A rape victim is not operating with free will. She is not, as you put it earlier, “destined to spend eternity in hell.”

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The priest quoted was merely defining ïntrinsically evil". He went on to talk about other things which the Church teaches as intrinsically evil, including contraception.

On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II told a group of priests that “contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that, in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” - Not quite an official Church document (no time to look right now, but i will search later)

I agree that the rape victim is not under mortal sin as such because I believe that the sin is MITIGATED by the rape itself. In this circumstance, however, I think she is still under free will because the free will aspect refers not to the sexual act itself, but to the decision to contracept. Sufficient knowledge and reflection can be said to have been had prior to the rape itself if she was aware of the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. While the victim’s culpability is most assuredly lessened because of the horrendous circumstances, if one accepts the Church’s position of the intrinsic evil of contraception, then one MUST accept that the woman was indeed committing a sin by doing something that is NEVER o.k. THIS is why I have a problem with this teaching. It is simply NOT TRUE that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Anything that is intrinsically evil cannot be good, EVER. The evil is intrinsic to the act itself. Murder is intrinsicallly evil, killing is not. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is always murder, regardless of the circumstances (rape, incest, etc.) If the Church’s position is that contraception is intrinsically evil, then there can be no circumstance in which its use is not evil, period.

 

[Corki]

I agree that the rape victim is not under mortal sin as such because I believe that the sin is MITIGATED by the rape itself. In this circumstance, however, I think she is still under free will because the free will aspect refers not to the sexual act itself, but to the decision to contracept. Sufficient knowledge and reflection can be said to have been had prior to the rape itself if she was aware of the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Sin can not be mitigated by another’s act. Sin is mitigated only by an absence or reduction of one of the three conditions for sin. 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, 3) full consent. If the rape is a mitigating factor, it is because it mitigates one of those three conditions and I contend that it mitigates consent.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Sin can not be mitigated by another’s act. Sin is mitigated only by an absence or reduction of one of the three conditions for sin. 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, 3) full consent. If the rape is a mitigating factor, it is because it mitigates one of those three conditions and I contend that it mitigates consent.

Well, personally, I think that God’s grace would indeed prevent this woman from having the stain of mortal sin on her soul, given the circumstances.

But, if you are correct and sin cannot be mitigated according to another’s act, then she may very well be committing a mortal sin according to the Catholic Church because all of these conditions may in fact be present. She may not have full consent regarding the sex act, but she absolutely has full consent regarding the decision to contracept that act, yes?

 

[Corki]

Well, personally, I think that God’s grace would indeed prevent this woman from having the stain of mortal sin on her soul, given the circumstances.

But, if you are correct and sin cannot be mitigated according to another’s act, then she may very well be committing a mortal sin according to the Catholic Church because all of these conditions may in fact be present. She may not have full consent regarding the sex act, but she absolutely has full consent regarding the decision to contracept that act, yes?

No! In order to give full consent, one must not be coerced or, in legal terms, put under undue pressure. Being raped is definately undue pressure!

Let me give you another example that might help you see things the way Catholics do. If an unmarried girl is pregnant, the Church usually will not marry her and the child’s father. The reason is that the state of being pregnant outside of marriage takes away some of the free will in entering the marriage. The couple has plenty of time to prepare for the marriage and even attend all the classes so there is no question of having time to consider. If being pregnant is enough to take away free will, being raped surely is!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

No! In order to give full consent, one must not be coerced or, in legal terms, put under undue pressure. Being raped is definately undue pressure!

Let me give you another example that might help you see things the way Catholics do. If an unmarried girl is pregnant, the Church usually will not marry her and the child’s father. The reason is that the state of being pregnant outside of marriage takes away some of the free will in entering the marriage. The couple has plenty of time to prepare for the marriage and even attend all the classes so there is no question of having time to consider. If being pregnant is enough to take away free will, being raped surely is!

Good example, and that definitely helps, thanks.

I’m still not sold on the intrinsic evil of contraception though

 

[Rence]

I agree that the rape victim is not under mortal sin as such because I believe that the sin is MITIGATED by the rape itself. In this circumstance, however, I think she is still under free will because the free will aspect refers not to the sexual act itself, but to the decision to contracept. Sufficient knowledge and reflection can be said to have been had prior to the rape itself if she was aware of the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. While the victim’s culpability is most assuredly lessened because of the horrendous circumstances, if one accepts the Church’s position of the intrinsic evil of contraception, then one MUST accept that the woman was indeed committing a sin by doing something that is NEVER o.k. THIS is why I have a problem with this teaching. It is simply NOT TRUE that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Anything that is intrinsically evil cannot be good, EVER. The evil is intrinsic to the act itself. Murder is intrinsicallly evil, killing is not. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is always murder, regardless of the circumstances (rape, incest, etc.) If the Church’s position is that contraception is intrinsically evil, then there can be no circumstance in which its use is not evil, period.

Your right, it is NOT TRUE that contraception is intrinsically evil. Contraception is a medication/hormone, and neither evil or good. It is an object used by people, whose actions are either good or evil. When used for medical reasons, contraceptives are not against the rules of the Church. What is forbidden is to “contracept”, that is, to prevent pregnancy by artificial means.

However, the US Bishops gave rape victims permission to use emergency contraception as part of their treatment in the emergency room immediately following the rape under two conditions: 1) she must test negative for a pregnancy test to ensure she isn’t already pregnant from before the rape and 2) she has to test negative for ovulation

Fr. Saunders explains it in his article, with references and quotes from the US Bishops’ statement here: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

 

[Corki]

Good example, and that definitely helps, thanks.

I’m still not sold on the intrinsic evil of contraception though

I don’t really like the terminology “intrinsic evil” either, in part because for something to be evil, there has to be malevolent intent. Genocide is intrinsically evil, so it adultery. I prefer to say that contraception is objectively and gravely wrong.

When contraception is introduced between married spouses, it would be intrinsically evil (per the CCC) and I can never conceive of a time it wouldn’t be considered such. But even then, there are cases where free consent and/or full knowledge is not present. An example of the former would be when one spouse insists; an example of the latter would be when a couple gets bad advice from a counselor or even a priest.

That doesn’t change its role in doctrine, however. It just points to the work that needs to be done.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Your right, it is NOT TRUE that contraception is intrinsically evil. Contraception is a medication/hormone, and neither evil or good. It is an object used by people, whose actions are either good or evil. When used for medical reasons, contraceptives are not against the rules of the Church. What is forbidden is to “contracept”, that is, to prevent pregnancy by artificial means.

However, the US Bishops gave rape victims permission to use emergency contraception as part of their treatment in the emergency room immediately following the rape under two conditions: 1) she must test negative for a pregnancy test to ensure she isn’t already pregnant from before the rape and 2) she has to test negative for ovulation

Fr. Saunders explains it in his article, with references and quotes from the US Bishops’ statement here: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

I was speaking of contraception as an action, not as a thing. I am aware that things cannot be evil in and of themselves.

Also, if a woman tests negative for ovulation, isn’t contraception unnecessary?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I don’t really like the terminology “intrinsic evil” either, in part because for something to be evil, there has to be malevolent intent. Genocide is intrinsically evil, so it adultery. I prefer to say that contraception is objectively and gravely wrong.

When contraception is introduced between married spouses, it would be intrinsically evil (per the CCC) and I can never conceive of a time it wouldn’t be considered such. But even then, there are cases where free consent and/or full knowledge is not present. An example of the former would be when one spouse insists; an example of the latter would be when a couple gets bad advice from a counselor or even a priest.

That doesn’t change its role in doctrine, however. It just points to the work that needs to be done.

Between spouses, with NFP being at LEAST as accurate as condoms, I really don’t see the point of contraception. Although I will say that the prospect of someday being 50 and becoming pregnant with a severely disabled child is a very scary thought and enough to make one consider some form of contraception in addition to NFP.