Ah! Ah! Thanks… I undertand fast when someone explains to me slowly…Women is abducted by single man and put into the closed back of a van. He says he is driving to some place where he is going to rape her. When checking the interior of the van, she doesn’t find anything to defend herself. Since the man uses the van for transporting medical goods, she finds by chance a package of diaphragms and spermicide. She thinks about applying both to avoid getting pregnat due to being raped. Moral or immoral?
And the difference between the prostitute is that the prostitutes actions are immoral whether she contracepts or not. This women up to that point did not act immorally in any way.
Mind that i ask not whether its a somewhat lesser evil and that therefore under the circumstances it is the less immoral act. I’m asking whether its moral.It’s the same sort of thinking I was using in suggesting that a rape victim’s use of contraception (to prevent disease and pregnancy from the rape) can be understood as moral.
I don’t think destroying sperm is the issue with contraception as much as destroying potential life. There is plenty of sperm in the world.Mind that i ask not whether its a somewhat lesser evil and that therefore under the circumstances it is the less immoral act. I’m asking whether its moral.
To put it differently:
It is moral for the women to keep the attacker from touching her and if the only means to achieve that is to destroy the brain cells of the attacker of the attacker, then it is moral.
And even if her resistance is unsuccessful or only partly successful (e.g. he manages to subdue her, but during the rape she knocks him out) it is still moral.
If it is moral to destroy his brain, why should it be immoral to destroy his sperm?
Is it a categorical rule?I don’t think destroying sperm is the issue with contraception as much as destroying potential life. There is plenty of sperm in the world.
There is a difference in moral consideration between categorical and situational moral standards. When is killing moral? Not for expression of anger, but yes for self defense. The OP is asking if there is a situational exception to the moral standard against contraception, or if it is a categorical rule.
Yes, you could argue that. Now you are talking about intent. A sin requires certain intent.Is it a categorical rule?
I read that the first time, therefore i ask.
And even if, the question is, whether it is actually contraception. Because the church allows the use of contraceptive devices or substances, if the contraceptive effect is not the goal but an unavoidable side effect.
Here on could argue, that it is an act of self-defense, because thew women preferably wants to have nothing of him on or in her. If that goal is only achievable partly, then this should not make it immoral. The contraceptive effect could be viewed as a side effect.
And that is the problem, the intent is to keep him and that includes his sperm of her body as far as possible. If the only option in that regard is using contraceptive devices, i do not see a difference to the intent of not getting pregnant from him, as that is the only thing the women in that scenario is expected to influence by her action and she knows so.Yes, you could argue that. Now you are talking about intent. A sin requires certain intent.
It is not a problem in Catholic doctrine. To be a mortal sin, there must be knowledge of the act, and also intent. Otherwise it is not considered to be a sin.And that is the problem, the intent is to keep him and that includes his sperm of her body as far as possible. If the only option in that regard is using contraceptive devices, i do not see a difference to the intent of not getting pregnant from him, as that is the only thing the women in that scenario is expected to influence by her action and she knows so.
I have been in the midst of violence. One time I was in a coffee shop, full of patrons. Late morning on Sunday. The place was full of families. Standing room only to get a table. In comes a gunman to hold the place up. I was in the thick of it, having been seated right next to the cash register. Later, a friend who grew up in a violent urban neighborhood scolded me, “any fool knows you don’t sit next to the cash.” But that event was so traumatic for the restaurant staff that 50% of them resigned within a month. In the trauma of the moment, I doubt that anything a women did to defend herself from rape is likely to be sinful, given the state of mind.I am reminded of the Connecticut Bishops’ statement as well as the USCCB’s
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7836
usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/
when they released statements saying to the effect that the rape victim has the right to defend herself from conception coming from a non-marital aggression (sexual assault is a non-marital act) , assuming there is no danger of the medication being abortifacient. Similarly the Connecticut bishops appear to see the issue along the same lines.
The issue is all about the acceptability of administering Plan B to rape victims, assuming that ovulation has not taken place. It drew some avid discussions in Catholic circles at the time.
Note that the Connecticut Bishops for their part said that ***"…since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter…", ***
it would appear that there is some ambiguity in the area. This is just my opinion.
Anyway in the theoretical scenario that Carn illustrates, it seems that in the face of an imminent rape, using a barrier device on the part of the would-be rape victim would
constitute an acceptable defense from a sexual assault if we go by the principle of the Connecticut and USCCB statements. If for example the woman has used a barrier method other than a conventional contraceptive (hmm something like a chastity belt) then there would be no question it is acceptable defense. Or perhaps some other form of resistance. Is using conventional barrier contraceptives like diaphrams, cervical caps, spermicides,…a proper form of resistance?
Personally I would stick to a conservative position here (absolute prohibition of contraceptives), until such time that a more definitive papal pronouncement comes along. I am not aware of any definitive Magisterial statement that qualifies exceptions to the “intrinsic evil” of contraception.
That is a reasonable appreciation of this issue. I have often come across discussions on the principle of “intrinsic evil”, and things such as contraception and lying comes to mind. The proposition is that contraception (or lying) is always a sin (that is why it is intrinsically wrong - in and of itself regardless of circumstance and intentions) but the particular intents and circumstances of the situation may mitigate the sin.I have been in the midst of violence. One time I was in a coffee shop, full of patrons. Late morning on Sunday. The place was full of families. Standing room only to get a table. In comes a gunman to hold the place up. I was in the thick of it, having been seated right next to the cash register. Later, a friend who grew up in a violent urban neighborhood scolded me, “any fool knows you don’t sit next to the cash.” But that event was so traumatic for the restaurant staff that 50% of them resigned within a month. In the trauma of the moment, I doubt that anything a women did to defend herself from rape is likely to be sinful, given the state of mind.
Looking at people who are in continual trauma, the military standard is the state of mind of the combatant. In other words, what would be reasonable and legal given what the combatant perceived to be true. I would think that a similar standard would apply for a rape victim.
That is what I meant by “categorical” vs “situational” morality. If one lies to save a life, is it a sin? Kant would say yes, there is always a way to tell the truth. Others might say no. I think that the Church says, no. Lying is wrong categorically, but this instance is mitigated situationally.That is a reasonable appreciation of this issue. I have often come across discussions on the principle of “intrinsic evil”, and things such as contraception and lying comes to mind. The proposition is that contraception (or lying) is always a sin (that is why it is intrinsically wrong - in and of itself regardless of circumstance and intentions) but the particular intents and circumstances of the situation may mitigate the sin.
A few comes to mind:Can anyone think of an immoral act which could never be mitigated by circumstances?
Just to clarify, technically all immoral acts MAY be mitigated. Only God can judge the hearts of sinners and render justice.Can anyone think of an immoral act which could never be mitigated by circumstances?
And what are these bishops talking about?A few comes to mind:
In the Catholic tradition, morality of an act is determined according to the three fonts: 1) the object, 2) the intent, and 3) the circumstances. A 4th may be added: the element of scandal.
- Murder (as opposed to self-defense which is an altogether different matter)
- Abortion and Euthanasia, similar to murder.
- Artificial embryo creation and/or its subsequent manipulation/ destruction
- Contraception - always intrinsically wrong in the Catholic tradition (to which I agree)
When we say the act is intrinsically wrong, it goes without saying that it is morally unacceptable irrespective of intentions and circumstances. The sin may be mitigated by the intentions and circumstances, but it is still a sin.
Carn,And what are these bishops talking about?
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7836
“Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape.”
Why is catholic teaching not opposed to contraception if it is always a sin?
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault.”
According to them the potential conception due to rape is part of the assault, otherwise they would not use “defend”.
" 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."
The critical point to the bishops is whether the contraceptive means will kill a human being. If the contraceptive means are non-abortive (either generally or due to circumstances) they are fine.
This seems to be inconsistent with above assertion that catholic church regards contraception always a sin, because bishops would not declare anything unproblematic that is a sin (at least if they know their job).
edit:
According to these bishops the women of my example would act morally.
Please a source.As of now, the Church officially teaches that contraception is an intrinsic evil.
I think we already have said that killing a person (or murder) can be mitigated. What about the case of a doctor who has a gun pointed at his or her head, unless an abortion is performed? We have already said that in the case of rape that contraception would be OK. It seems far fetched, but you could take over a fertility clinic and hold the staff under threat of violence and force them to destroy embryos. It seems to me that the immoral act is being committed by the gun men, etc…A few comes to mind:
In the Catholic tradition, morality of an act is determined according to the three fonts: 1) the object, 2) the intent, and 3) the circumstances. A 4th may be added: the element of scandal.
- Murder (as opposed to self-defense which is an altogether different matter)
- Abortion and Euthanasia, similar to murder.
- Artificial embryo creation and/or its subsequent manipulation/ destruction
- Contraception - always intrinsically wrong in the Catholic tradition (to which I agree)
When we say the act is intrinsically wrong, it goes without saying that it is morally unacceptable irrespective of intentions and circumstances. The sin may be mitigated by the intentions and circumstances, but it is still a sin.
You are right that Humanae Vitae speaks only in the context of the conjugal union. Yes, those statements do not apply to sex outside marriage. However it is also dangerous to assume that just because HV omits specific prohibition of contraceptives outside of the marital union, it automatically grants a blanket approval to its use outside of marriage in the event that practical circumstances justify. It is essentially silent, and that is my main point. A discussion aligned to opposed views is fine. Granting that, my personal stance is to adopt a conservative position. I wish the Church would clear this out, at least in the specific scenario of the OP. Let us just be reminded that this issue of contraceptives (evenPlease a source.
I found:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
"14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)"
This is a statement about “Christian doctrine of marriage”. Where does it imply, that these statements also refer to sexual activity outside marriage?
I can only see, that in marriage contraception is an intrinsic evil. Outside marriage the text seems to imply nothing. (Though there might be other teachings regarding sex outside marriage and contraception.)
Well, if a person commits an objectionable act under duress, it does not constitute a sin. Therefore mitigation is irrelevant. Sin is committed only when free will is present, among others.I think we already have said that killing a person (or murder) can be mitigated. What about the case of a doctor who has a gun pointed at his or her head, unless an abortion is performed? We have already said that in the case of rape that contraception would be OK. It seems far fetched, but you could take over a fertility clinic and hold the staff under threat of violence and force them to destroy embryos. It seems to me that the immoral act is being committed by the gun men, etc…
That is what I was driving at. Is there an act which is so intrinsically evil that the motive of the direct actor is unimportant? It seems that I can always come up with a hypothetical, even if far fetched which mitigates that act.