Is this really the Catholic teaching on rape/contraception?

[UKcatholicGuy]

from a recent article on Catholic hospitals and emergency “contraception” for a woman who is raped:

“Catholic moral teachings allow the woman to protect herself from possible conception as a result of the assault so long as any medications administered to do so do not cause an abortion . . .” said Barry Feldman, general counsel for St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford.

Is that true? The Church teaches that contrception is intrinsically evil-- that is, nothing can ever justify its use. So why the exception here? Or is this guy the article quoted even correct?

 

[Reepicheep]

The usual disclaimer: I am not a theologian. The following is, I think, accurate: but I speak under correction from anyone more qualified.

Artificial contraception is forbidden because those who engage in the act of intercourse must remain open to the possibility of life resulting from the act.
The victim of rape did not consent to the act of intercourse, and so is under no obligation to be “open to the possibility of life” resulting from the rape. She may therfore take measures to prevent conception from taking place.

 

[JB]

Should conception occur, however, she may not kill.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

+JMJ

The fellow in the article is referring to the position put out by the USCCB, which as you know is not beyond reproach. Thus he is in error referring to “Catholic moral teaching,” since the Holy See has not said anything one way or the other.

At any rate, the USCCB says that the prevention of conception after a rape is acceptable, once medical technology is advanced enough for that, which I don’t think it currently is. There can be no chance of killing. I’ll try to find the document in which they issued their opinion.

 

[DreadVandal]

I’m glad someone brought this up because I’ve been confused as well. Could the technology ever be such that it could detect without fail that the woman hadn’t conceived? I was a little surprised when I heard the USCCB position; though maybe I shouldn’t be. I am suspicious as well.

 

[Corki]

In some of the commentary that I have read on this position, they mention testing to determine whether ovulation had taken place. If that test was definitively negative ( I do not know if such a test is currently available) then the killing the sperm would be considererd repelling an agression. No ovulation = no chance of conception having occurred. They also mention, using spermicidal douching which would only affect sperm that have not traveled far enough to cause conception.

This is a very grey area for me, I must admit.

 

[Catholic2003]

UKcatholicGuy:

The Church teaches that contrception is intrinsically evil-- that is, nothing can ever justify its use.

I think it is instructive to look at the precise wording of the Church’s teaching on this matter (from Humanae Vitae 14):

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

So, even if one generalizes this teaching to include non-marital relations, it is still the case that it is not contraception which is intrinsically wrong, but deliberately contraceptive intercourse. Thus, deliberately contraceptive rape is intrinsically wrong (i.e., it cannot be justified by any possible circumstance), but I would venture to say that all rape is intrinsically wrong. However, it is the rapist who is sinning, and not the victim, even when the victim makes use of contraception.

 

[Brendan]

Rape is not considered ‘the marital act’, but rather, an invasion and assault upon the body.

It has been the position of the Catholic Church that steps may be taken to prevent contraception as long as there is no chance of an abortive effect.

For example, a woman may be treated for rape at a Catholic Hospital and the following treatments would be considered.

1. a flushing of a the vagina to remove any sperm.
2. A blood test to see if ovulation has occured in the last 48 hours.
   Note this is a test for OVULATION. There is no blood test than can test for CONCEPTION in so short of an interval. But the release of an ovum in the previous 48 hours can be detected by a blood test.

If there has been on Ovulation in the past 48 hours, there is no chance of a pregnancy, so hormones (the Pill) may be used to impede ovulation, and a spermicide flushing of the uterus conducted.

If there HAS been an ovulation in the past 48 hours, the above methods could have an abortive effect, and thus may not be used.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

+JMJ

I’d like to make an amendment to my first post on this thread. I was too hasty in my wording by saying that this was the opinion of the USCCB. What I’ve learned since looking into it a bit more is that it’s actually the opinon of a committee that has USCCB sanction, which isn’t necessarily the same thing. For instance, it was some office within the USCCB that came out a couple years about talking about how great John Kerry is, starting that group “Catholics for Kerry” and such. That wasn’t actually the USCCB, but sort of had their stamp on it. Kind of like how the news will say “Vatican official says that homosexuality is a-OK,” and then it turns out to be a priest living in Rome. Sure, he has authority, but it’s quite a bit different than the Vatican actually saying something.

At any rate, the USCCB comittee document that has the contraception bit can be found here:
**Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition

**The appropriate passage is Part 3, no. 36:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Partially in response to this, there is a great article found here that comes out of Christendom College.

 

[LittleDeb]

Further clarification on something previously stated. Since rape is not an act of sexual intercourse but an act of violence anything done to prevent conception is not contraception since an actual sex act did not occur. Many people believe that rape is an act of sex because, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” It isn’t. I have a good analogy but it is not very PG-13 so I won’t post it.

The easier and better way to define the procedures following a rape are to use the true terms. Spermicide is administered similarly as any other antiseptic. The poison entering her body just happens to be sperm. Ovulation suppression can be administered if there is a chance of conception. (Generally the patient must ask for it not to be administered so it is tough on Catholics because they look at you funny in a non-Catholic hospital. The ovulation predictor test usually has to be specifically requested. Some hospitals do not even keep them on hand.)

The most important thing to understand is that rape is not an act of sex. Healing is much easier for a rape survivor if they understand this one point. What we as Catholics should be emphasizing is that those items which the general public uses as contraception are actually for the treatment of rape victims.

 

[Palamite]

While I have no disagreement with the RC position on contraception and rape, the position would seem to make pretty clear that contraception itself is not “intrinsically evil”. This is impossible, since context can never objectively modify the permissability of an intrinsically evil act. For example, abortion is intrinsically evil, because even if the conceived child was the result of rape, this still would not allow the victim to under go an abortion.

LittleDeb,

Further clarification on something previously stated. Since rape is not an act of sexual intercourse but an act of violence anything done to prevent conception is not contraception since an actual sex act did not occur.

While I agree that rape is an act of violence and a heinous sin, it is still technically a sexual act. If words are going to have a consistant meaning, this conclusion cannot be avoided.

 

[LittleDeb]

Palamite:

While I agree that rape is an act of violence and a heinous sin, it is still technically a sexual act. If words are going to have a consistant meaning, this conclusion cannot be avoided.

I agree that it is a sexual act, but is not an act of sexual intercourse. Intercourse, whether verbal or sexual requires at least two participants. Hence “inter”-course. Sorry I wasn’t more specific in my meaning. I was having trouble keeping it PG-13. I think this might suffice though.

Contraception is directly related to the act of sexual intercourse. Acts that seek to change the act of sexual intercourse into something else are wrong. Some are more wrong than others, rape being way up there on the instrinsically wrong scale. In my years of research on this topic, understanding rape helped lead me to understand that contraception was wrong. Even though rape is sometimes reproductive, the act at its root is very much, “against the beginning.” Rape is the ultimate, most ugly way to separate sex from its procreative nature. The other sexual sins descend from there.

Again, I am having trouble keeping it PG-13 so I will stop.

EDIT: Thanks Palamite for pointing it out. I did mean to say, “…since sexual intercourse did not occur.” I was also trying not to veer off topic into those circumstances that conception can occur when intercourse did not. While important, it is the topic of another thread. While trying not to veer, I was unclear instead.