Non-abortvie Contraception always wrong, but it doesnt add up if

[carn]

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.

Yes, the are silent.
So one cannot say whether non-abortive contraception is intrinsically evil.

A discussion aligned to opposed views is fine. Granting that, my personal stance is to adopt a conservative position.

Problem is, i do not see how such a position could be argued for consistently, because whatever argument forms in my head, i can always imagine a scenario where it would fall apart.
If it would be argued dogmatically, it would not need an argument. But as the church is silent, this is alos not possible.

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 (even
barrier methods) has complicated medical issues beyond the current competence of the Church as it is, so I can understand the dilemma. In the case of the Connecticut bishops on rape cases, they plant their approval of “medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization” in the event that conception has not occurred yet. The good bishops fail to note that there is no accurate scientific method of determining whether conception has taken place, nor that Plan B is medically guaranteed to prevent
ovulation and not interfere with subsequent implantation. In the case of a potential rape victim resorting to spermicides as a defensive act, it cannot be ascertained medically whether a breakthrough sperm might result to a deformed foetus for example. There are
medical issues still unknown which are beyond the competent judgment of bishops, at least as of now.

I see the problem of the after rape cases.
And about spermicides you might be correct, though even if, it might not mean its wrong. The women is allowed to defend herself, even if it carries the risk, that injury in the abdomen leads to risks for a potential fetus.
And pure barrier diaphragma i cannot see any argument. Absolutely no abortive risk or risk for a potential fetus. It might cause a moral hazard that acting to prevent pregnancy the women will be more inclined to decide for abortion if it fails. But moral hazard in itself makes nothing wrong.

edit:
I just realized that by changing the scenario it would fall into at least the verbatim description of intrinsic evil of the CC - if the man and women are married (though here im in doubt, as i do not know what exactly is the catholics teaching if in marriage one partner wants to abuse the marriage. How the other partner might react towards that). But that does not imply anything for the non-married case.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Yes, the are silent.
So one cannot say whether non-abortive contraception is intrinsically evil.

Problem is, i do not see how such a position could be argued for consistently, because whatever argument forms in my head, i can always imagine a scenario where it would fall apart.
If it would be argued dogmatically, it would not need an argument. But as the church is silent, this is alos not possible.

I see the problem of the after rape cases.
And about spermicides you might be correct, though even if, it might not mean its wrong. The women is allowed to defend herself, even if it carries the risk, that injury in the abdomen leads to risks for a potential fetus.
And pure barrier diaphragma i cannot see any argument. Absolutely no abortive risk or risk for a potential fetus. It might cause a moral hazard that acting to prevent pregnancy the women will be more inclined to decide for abortion if it fails. But moral hazard in itself makes nothing wrong.

edit:
I just realized that by changing the scenario it would fall into at least the verbatim description of intrinsic evil of the CC - if the man and women are married (though here im in doubt, as i do not know what exactly is the catholics teaching if in marriage one partner wants to abuse the marriage. How the other partner might react towards that). But that does not imply anything for the non-married case.

Even a “pure barrier diaphragm” raises scientific questions. Nature has a way of selecting the single champion sperm among the hundreds of thousands so a contraceptive barrier is an interference (certainly not 100% guarantee) that may cause an abnormality, who knows. I admit it is a tricky issue, but you offer reasonable arguments.

On valid marriages, it is still indissoluble even if one partner is abusive to an extent. There should always be an opportunity for redemption.

 

[Mudgely]

Yes, the are silent.
So one cannot say whether non-abortive contraception is intrinsically evil.

Problem is, i do not see how such a position could be argued for consistently, because whatever argument forms in my head, i can always imagine a scenario where it would fall apart.
If it would be argued dogmatically, it would not need an argument. But as the church is silent, this is alos not possible.

I see the problem of the after rape cases.
And about spermicides you might be correct, though even if, it might not mean its wrong. The women is allowed to defend herself, even if it carries the risk, that injury in the abdomen leads to risks for a potential fetus.
And pure barrier diaphragma i cannot see any argument. Absolutely no abortive risk or risk for a potential fetus. It might cause a moral hazard that acting to prevent pregnancy the women will be more inclined to decide for abortion if it fails. But moral hazard in itself makes nothing wrong.

edit:
I just realized that by changing the scenario it would fall into at least the verbatim description of intrinsic evil of the CC - if the man and women are married (though here im in doubt, as i do not know what exactly is the catholics teaching if in marriage one partner wants to abuse the marriage. How the other partner might react towards that). But that does not imply anything for the non-married case.

Yes, that is an interesting hypothetical. What about the woman in a marriage with an abusive spouse? In her opinion, he forces sex on her. In his opinion, it is his marital right.

 

[Nate13]

Contraception goes against the idea that the act is a complete gift of oneself. If your not married to the other person making a complete gift of yourself isn’t possible whether contraception is being used or not. Even if the couple is married and for the instance the wife was forced to have sex that would also have already thrown what the marriage act is supposed to be out the door. I believe this is why non-abortive contraceptive would be allowed in the case of rape or even marital rape. At that point the rape act itself is already a lie with or without contraception, and using a contraceptive is acknowledging the fact that the act is a lie.

 

[rmills1]

a women can expect to be raped. Assumption for the discussion is that the women could use diaphragm or spermicidic creme or other non-abortive contraceptive methods, which do not rely on the man doing his part. Second assumption is that a women knows it is likely she will be raped (meaning her options to avoid being raped are not reliable for whatever reasons).

If i understood correctly contraception (of course i am not talking about NFP here) is wrong because:

• it turns martial realtionship into a lie.
  Well, thats not a problem here, using contraception is certainly no lie, because the women does not want to have sex obviously
• it encourages immoral behavior
  The rapists will not ask, so it certainly does not encourage anything in that direction
• it changes the natural way things work by direct human interference
  Drawing a gun and putting a bullet into the would be rapist head is also a planned human intereference and it is something that - lacking alternatives - would not be immoral

So i cannot see that using non-abortive contraception methods would be always immoral in that circumstances, though of course there are a lot of other options, what the women is allowed to do to defend herself and this option is inferior to many others (e.g. informing the police, so the would be rapist is arrested). But it would depend on the situation.

The only RATIONAL time that a woman can expect to be raped is when she is in a dangerous situation where she has had no control over the previous course of events and also has no control over the subsequent course of events. How it could it be assumed that she could stop the uncontrollable situation to insert a diaphragm or FORCE the man to put on a condom?
The pill in order to be “effective” would have to been taken for months ahead of time and thus could not be justified by such an UNPREDICTABLE situation.

 

[Corki]

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?

Immoral but not necessarily sinful. The duress involved in the situation would make it unlikely that the conditions for mortal sin could be met.

I’ll have to find the sources, but it is documented that nuns have used birth control pills in war-torn countries were the risk of rape is high.

That was a single Bishop who offered that opinon and his opinion has been refuted.

But see HH Benedict XVI, as quoted in Peter Seewald, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

But still immoral. It was a step in the direction of moralization but not all the way there. In other words, it is *slightly less *immoral, but not moral.

 

[carn]

The only RATIONAL time that a woman can expect to be raped is when she is in a dangerous situation where she has had no control over the previous course of events and also has no control over the subsequent course of events. How it could it be assumed that she could stop the uncontrollable situation to insert a diaphragm or FORCE the man to put on a condom?

I gave an example:
“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?”

Being abducted and put unbound into an enclosed van is not, unlikely such things have happened. Having a diaphragm by chance at hand ist unlikely. But:

When claiming an act is always immoral it is claimed that the act is in all conceivabe situations not only in likely situations.
If something is only immoral in likely situations, it is not always immoral.

The pill in order to be “effective” would have to been taken for months ahead of time and thus could not be justified by such an UNPREDICTABLE situation.

Guess what, i can think even think up a situation for that. But i do not want to make this into a creative competition to think up unlikely and necessarily gruesome situation, where a women knows she is going to be raped, but lacks options to defend herself effictively.

So please accept the assumption:
A women can expect to be raped and can as only act incluencing the circumstances of the rape decide to use or not use non-arbortive contraception. Moral or immoral and why?

 

[carn]

Immoral but not necessarily sinful. The duress involved in the situation would make it unlikely that the conditions for mortal sin could be met.

Why?

In the CCC i did not see any teaching regarding contraception regarding sex outside marriage and especially nothing about contraception in case of rape, except that killing the child of a rape is wrong. But that is not an issue with non-abortive contraception.

 

[carn]

Even a “pure barrier diaphragm” raises scientific questions. Nature has a way of selecting the single champion sperm among the hundreds of thousands so a contraceptive barrier is an interference (certainly not 100% guarantee) that may cause an abnormality, who knows. I admit it is a tricky issue, but you offer reasonable arguments.

It sounds hard, but raping is also a natural way to get women pregnant, depending on definition of natural. And bullets interfere with that. Still bullets are not always immoral.
Furthermore if a women does not have an orgasm, likely in case of rape, the transportation of sperm is slightly worse, so its natural in case of rape to have a reduced chance for pregnancy.

So what mean “nature” and how to discern conclusive information from it?

 

[carn]

I think i can formulate the point, where it doesn’t add up for me more precisely:

It is gravely immoral and (presumably) against Gods will, if a man sets out to impregnate a women he is not married to without her consent. (that should not imply anything in case of marriage, but that would be more complicated)

And (at least thats on position in this thread) it is gravely immoral and (presumably) against Gods will, if the women tries to prevent this with non-abortive contraception without evident harm to third parties and in case she has no other options. All other means one can imagine, that are not of harm to a third party are ok to use as self-defense and (presumably) not against Gods will.

While i cannot understand Gods will or decide whether its sensible, i can judge that this looks to me like an obvious and glaring contradiction.

 

[passer_by]

I think i can formulate the point, where it doesn’t add up for me more precisely:

It is gravely immoral and (presumably) against Gods will, if a man sets out to impregnate a women he is not married to without her consent. (that should not imply anything in case of marriage, but that would be more complicated)

And (at least thats on position in this thread) it is gravely immoral and (presumably) against Gods will, if the women tries to prevent this with non-abortive contraception without evident harm to third parties and in case she has no other options. All other means one can imagine, that are not of harm to a third party are ok to use as self-defense and (presumably) not against Gods will.

While i cannot understand Gods will or decide whether its sensible, i can judge that this looks to me like an obvious and glaring contradiction.

Your question has been answered on Page 1 and I was surprised it still continues.

Can a woman who is about to get raped use non-abortive contraception? The answer is YES!!!

Why?

Because contraception is only immoral WITHIN MARRIAGE.

So when someone says using contraception while having pre-marital or extra-marital sex or rape is a sin, that is incorrect. But pre-marital sex, extra-martial sex and rape are GRAVE SINS. The actions of people who engage in such activity are immoral for that very reason alone. Use of contraception neither adds or reduces the sin.

 

[carn]

Your question has been answered on Page 1 and I was surprised it still continues.

Can a woman who is about to get raped use non-abortive contraception? The answer is YES!!!

Why?

Because contraception is only immoral WITHIN MARRIAGE.

There were claims to the contrary, e.g. that contraception is always a sin or that the matter is simply open and no definite answer possible.

I agree with your answer, but was interested in the opposing views, as they lead to a contradiction in my eyes.

 

[carn]

Your question has been answered on Page 1 and I was surprised it still continues.

Can a woman who is about to get raped use non-abortive contraception? The answer is YES!!!

Why?

Because contraception is only immoral WITHIN MARRIAGE.

There were claims to the contrary, e.g. that contraception is always a sin or that the matter is simply open and no definite answer possible.

I agree with your answer, but was interested in the opposing views, as they lead to a contradiction in my eyes.

And throughful undestanding the general issue of contraception is for me important as in many people i know seem to think, that deep down in the teaching of the church womens prime role is considered to be baby producers (this translation is a pretty nice word compared to the german original “Gerbärmaschine”). I do not assume that to be true, but i am intend on understanding in case in end up in discussions.

 

[Nate13]

There were claims to the contrary, e.g. that contraception is always a sin or that the matter is simply open and no definite answer possible.

I agree with your answer, but was interested in the opposing views, as they lead to a contradiction in my eyes.

And throughful undestanding the general issue of contraception is for me important as in many people i know seem to think, that deep down in the teaching of the church womens prime role is considered to be baby producers (this translation is a pretty nice word compared to the german original “Gerbärmaschine”). I do not assume that to be true, but i am intend on understanding in case in end up in discussions.

Haha yes women are the ones who give birth to babies last time I checked. Saying that is their prime role is like saying a man’s prime role is producing sperm. The Church does not say anything about what a woman’s prime role in life is. For some women that is being a mother. For others it may be researching a way to cure cancer. I think no one will deny that being a mother is an important role of every woman’s life just as being a father is an important role in a man’s life. It doesn’t matter how much good we do ourselves in this generation if we don’t teach the next generation.

As far as whether using contraception outside of marriage is a sin, I would ask an apologist. In my mind I would reply that the act of contracepting outside of marriage in and of itself would not be a sin. The sin would be fornication. Giving someone contraceptives would be a sin though. It would be like giving a gun to someone you know is thinking about murdering someone. Check with an apologist though and see what they say.

 

[passer_by]

There were claims to the contrary, e.g. **that contraception is always a sin or that the matter is simply open and no definite answer possible.
**
I agree with your answer, but was interested in the opposing views, as they lead to a contradiction in my eyes.

And throughful undestanding the general issue of contraception is for me important as in many people i know seem to think, that deep down in the teaching of the church womens prime role is considered to be baby producers (this translation is a pretty nice word compared to the german original “Gerbärmaschine”). I do not assume that to be true, but i am intend on understanding in case in end up in discussions.

Contraception is always a sin ONLY within marriage. Outside of it, it is neutral. The sinfulness of acts outside of marriage are determined on the nature of the acts.

So this is actually a definitively settled matter.

What society needs to realize today is

1. Contraception within marriage is a grave sin
2. Sexual activity outside of marriage is a grave sin

About the baby producing comment, this is somewhat true. The call of a woman does include motherhood. But that is within marriage. Not outside of it.

 

[Willy_Jose]

There were claims to the contrary, e.g. that contraception is always a sin or that the matter is simply open and no definite answer possible.

Yes, because it is the only “claim” that is supported by official Church pronouncements. On the other hand the claim that “Contraception is always a sin ONLY within marriage” is not supported anywhere in Magisterial documents.

…many people i know seem to think, that deep down in the teaching of the church womens prime role is considered to be baby producers

Again, not supported. Women’s prime role (and men) for that matter, is to love God with all mind, heart and strength.

 

[underacloud]

Yes, because it is the only “claim” that is supported by official Church pronouncements. On the other hand the claim that “Contraception is always a sin ONLY within marriage” is not supported anywhere in Magisterial documents.

Humanae Vitae speeks to married couples. It is clear from the introduction and throughout the document.

So neither claim - “that contraception is always a sin” or “that contraception is always a sin ONLY within marriage” - is logically supported. Because the document is talking about the marital act, we cannot draw conclusions regarding contraception outside of marriage from HV.

As far as I know, the documents cited above regarding US Bishops approval of emergency non-abortive contraception (and similar statements have been released elsewhere, including the UK) have remained unchallenged by the Vatican.

The Vatican has not addressed the issue of emergency non-abortive contraception for rape victims, which is why we have threads like this one. The ethics are perhaps grey, but I find the arguments compelling that a rape victim is entitled to defend herself against the invading sperm (though not to abort a fertilised egg).

 

[Rence]

Carn,
Yes I understand. I am however, talking about the Magisterium. In other words, the consistent, official teaching of the Church which is characterized by the unity of all the dispersed bishops around the world in union with the Pope. The Vatican never officially responded to the statements of the Connecticut bishops, which means there is no definitive, doctrinal statement on the matter. As of now, the Church officially teaches that contraception is an intrinsic evil. Exceptions have never been officially laid out which has the weight of universal and official bearing.The Connecticut bishops statement was met with controversy, it cannot be considered as definitive (as may be need to be clarified further), as a development of teaching is in order.

Again let us take note that the Connecticut Bishops admitted — *"…since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter…", *

The teachings of the Church are in regards to marriage, not to rape. Unmarried people are forbidden from having sex in the first place. In order for a sex act to be licit according to the Church (and it can only be licit between a married couple, according to the Church), the unitive and procreative properties must be present. This is the reason why artificial contraception is forbidden by the Church: because it intereferes with the unitive property. However, there is no reason in the world for the need to defend the unitive and procreative properties associated with a rape.

If I were ever raped, I know the first thing I’d do is go to an ER that I know stocks emergency contraception, and I don’t think I’d do anything faster than take it it to prevent a conception. Period. You all can do what you like, and I will do the same. And if I were in a situation in which I knew my chances of getting raped was high, and I had no choice in remaining there (ie couldn’t move out of that area, was being held against my will, etc), I would be on birth control with absolutely no remorse. Practicing Catholics who are single have no need to take ABCs unless they live in such a situation (such as missionaries) which makes them high risk. I’m not chaste only to be made pregnant by a rapist. If I’m a practicing Catholic and I’m married, then there would be no need for ABCs for me. For me, intent is important. If a woman is in a high risk situation, she has the right to protect herself. If she’s a practicing Catholic, she won’t be having sex just because she’s on ABCs.

ABCs themselves are not evil. They are neutral. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to use them for medicinal purposes.

The good thing about these discussion boards is that it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. They’re great for discussions, but in the end, we’re all going to do what’s best for us in our situations.

 

[passer_by]

Yes, because it is the only “claim” that is supported by official Church pronouncements. On the other hand the claim that “Contraception is always a sin ONLY within marriage” is not supported anywhere in Magisterial documents.

The reason for absence of such a thing is because sex outside of marriage is automatically a GRAVE SIN. It isn’t till recently (and only in the West) that people started having sex outside and before marriage like it was common.

If you understand why Contraception is wrong, you would understand that it is not wrong outside of marriage.

To try and explain really quickly, contraception is considered wrong because it violates the complete giving of one spouse to another. Outside of marriage, especially in a case like rape, there is no requirement to completely give one self to the rapist. So contraception is not a sin in rape.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Humanae Vitae speeks to married couples. It is clear from the introduction and throughout the document.

So neither claim - “that contraception is always a sin” or “that contraception is always a sin ONLY within marriage” - is logically supported. Because the document is talking about the marital act, we cannot draw conclusions regarding contraception outside of marriage from HV.

As far as I know, the documents cited above regarding US Bishops approval of emergency non-abortive contraception (and similar statements have been released elsewhere, including the UK) have remained unchallenged by the Vatican.

The Vatican has not addressed the issue of emergency non-abortive contraception for rape victims, which is why we have threads like this one. The ethics are perhaps grey, but I find the arguments compelling that a rape victim is entitled to defend herself against the invading sperm (though not to abort a fertilised egg).

This is fair enough. Thanks