You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
e_c
Guest
Of course, it is a part of “circumstance.”Precisely. Though as I point out above, one does need to consider consequences when judging morality.
This is a great example of what goes awry when the demarcation of the moral object gets screwed up in people’s heads… The distinction between contraception and defense against pregnancy is lost.
R
Rau
Guest
I am not so sure that it is marriage that makes the difference here, though contraception is typically described in that context.…But yes your correct that it is a different matter than married persons using contraception (a grave sin).
What is sufficient to definitively determine that no act of contraception occurred (regardless of the ingestion of any pills) is that at no time was there any intent or free choice to engage in sexual relations.
PS: it would be helpful to cease using the term “contraception” to refer to the pill. This only creates confusion between a drug, and the human act of contraception.
E
Ender
Guest
This is misleading. Most oral contraceptives work by inhibiting ovulation. A secondary process is a thickening of the cervical mucus producing a physical barrier to the migration of sperm to the egg. It is theoretically possible that these contraceptives may also interfere with implantation, which would constitute an abortifacient property. So, it is not true that oral contraceptives *are *abortifacient. It is true that they may be in some rare number of cases. This is based on what is known today; it isn’t clear how much of this was known back in the '60s.The problem with the nuns in the Congo scenario is that oral contraceptives are abortifacient.
Ender
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Use of contraception in cases of rape is indirect, and moral. Sexual acts naturally proceed toward conception, so the prevention of conception is morally an interruption of the rape (direct) and the lack of procreation is in the consequences (indirect).It can be argued that the abortifacient nature of some drugs raises moral questions about their use in the “nun scenario”. Even if this act is immoral, it would not be the immoral act of contraception, but rather the immorality (if any) may derive from the potential consequences of the act.
If the question were instead - may a woman, fearing rape, “wear” a barrier device which impedes semen - the answer would be, “yes, certainly”. Such an act (in the event of rape) is not the immoral act of contraception.
But the use of abortifacient contraception is not indirect, since killing an innocent prenatal does not interrupt or stop a rape. So the morality of the act does not depend only on the consequences.
At the time (in the 1960’s), theologians and people in general did not realize that oral contraceptives are abortifacients. That is why some theologians approved of their use in cases of rape. But given what we now know, their use is NOT moral in cases of rape – unless it can be determined that, in a particular instance, the pill will only act as a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
R
Rau
Guest
An act which has a possible death as a consequence is not a willful killing. Shooting down a jet bomber before it drops its bombs upon innocents, even if that action may kill an innocent hostage in the plane, is permissible subject to the balance of consequences.Use of contraception in cases of rape is indirect, and moral. Sexual acts naturally proceed toward conception, so the prevention of conception is morally an interruption of the rape (direct) and the lack of procreation is in the consequences (indirect).
But the use of abortifacient contraception is not indirect, since killing an innocent prenatal does not interrupt or stop a rape. So the morality of the act does not depend only on the consequences.
R
Regina7
Guest
I don’t understand these analogies. Contraception isn’t fighting the rapist. Contraception is fighting against a possible baby.An act which has a possible death as a consequence is not a willful killing. Shooting down a jet bomber before it drops its bombs upon innocents, even if that action may kill an innocent hostage in the plane, is permissible subject to the balance of consequences.
D
dans0622
Guest
It might take a few days more but, yes, I agree and see no connection. The whole answer was quite odd, right from saying “abortion is not the lesser of two evils” when that’s not what the questioner was suggesting…to the Congo story…to the “evil of avoiding pregnancy” to concluding with a comment about “this situation” (which one? Zika or the Congo?)…I’d like His Holiness to clarify this.
Anyone with even one day of study in moral theology would recognize that the two situations aren’t even in the same ballpark, let alone comparable from a moral standpoint.
…
I don’t expect a clarification from the pope, though…
Dan
B
Bookcat
Guest
R
Rau
Guest
When the rapist is gone, but his uninvited semen remains, sweeping away the semen prior to conception is also not the moral wrong of contraception, anymore than heaving his body of the victim’s body moment prior to ejaculation is an act of contraception.I don’t understand these analogies. Contraception isn’t fighting the rapist. Contraception is fighting against a possible baby.
The analogy I presented addressed another issue raised by Ron conte.
S
sherimarie
Guest
Ron, Thank you, thank you so much for posting this! I felt sick after hearing what the Pope said about Paul vi. I hope Rome puts forth another clarification.
Thank you again.
Thank you again.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The CT bishops approved the use of levonorgestrel-only Plan B meds after a rape; levonorestrel prevents ovulation.Use of contraception in cases of rape is indirect, and moral. Sexual acts naturally proceed toward conception, so the prevention of conception is morally an interruption of the rape (direct) and the lack of procreation is in the consequences (indirect).
But the use of abortifacient contraception is not indirect, since killing an innocent prenatal does not interrupt or stop a rape. So the morality of the act does not depend only on the consequences.
At the time (in the 1960’s), theologians and people in general did not realize that oral contraceptives are abortifacients. That is why some theologians approved of their use in cases of rape. But given what we now know, their use is NOT moral in cases of rape – unless it can be determined that, in a particular instance, the pill will only act as a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
S
St_Francis
Guest
WRT the issue of the nuns in the Congo, at the time this is reported to have happened, 1961, the Pill was a fairly new thing and not a lot was known about it.
One of the reasons that the Church did not immediately rule it as contraception and therefore immoral as contraception is that its main inventor, Dr John Rock, a sincere Catholic, thought that its use would be allowed due to the permission of the Church to use knowledge of a woman’s fertility cycle to avoid conception. The Pill was seen as a sort of regulator of a woman’s cycle, so Dr Rock thought, as did many others, that it would be permissible.
It was not until later that… Humanae Vitae came out, that we learned about the abortifacient aspects of the Pill, that we learned of the dangers of using the Pill. Thus, during a time when the question of using the Pill was still up in the air, that that the nuns could use the Pill for potentially contraceptive purposes might have been a decision (if indeed the Pope did concur) that would not have been made later on, like after HV clarified the position of the Pill as definitely an artificial form of contraception and thus immoral.
I originally read about Dr Rock’s misunderstanding several years ago, and I have no idea where. This is a summary of a New Yorker article which mentions the misunderstanding. The summary states this: “if Rock wanted to demonstrate that the Pill was no more than a natural variant of the rhythm method,” and this is not exactly what I read in the article I read years ago, which more definitely said that Dr Rock thought the Pill would fall under the rhythm method.
One of the reasons that the Church did not immediately rule it as contraception and therefore immoral as contraception is that its main inventor, Dr John Rock, a sincere Catholic, thought that its use would be allowed due to the permission of the Church to use knowledge of a woman’s fertility cycle to avoid conception. The Pill was seen as a sort of regulator of a woman’s cycle, so Dr Rock thought, as did many others, that it would be permissible.
It was not until later that… Humanae Vitae came out, that we learned about the abortifacient aspects of the Pill, that we learned of the dangers of using the Pill. Thus, during a time when the question of using the Pill was still up in the air, that that the nuns could use the Pill for potentially contraceptive purposes might have been a decision (if indeed the Pope did concur) that would not have been made later on, like after HV clarified the position of the Pill as definitely an artificial form of contraception and thus immoral.
I originally read about Dr Rock’s misunderstanding several years ago, and I have no idea where. This is a summary of a New Yorker article which mentions the misunderstanding. The summary states this: “if Rock wanted to demonstrate that the Pill was no more than a natural variant of the rhythm method,” and this is not exactly what I read in the article I read years ago, which more definitely said that Dr Rock thought the Pill would fall under the rhythm method.
D
dans0622
Guest
Father Z weighs in:
wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/
It is also interesting that the Pope said that he “doesn’t remember” the 2003 CDF document on civil unions.
Dan
wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/
It is also interesting that the Pope said that he “doesn’t remember” the 2003 CDF document on civil unions.
Dan
R
Rau
Guest
The Jimmy Akin piece in post #48 does a better job of identifying the proper principles.Father Z weighs in:
wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/
It is also interesting that the Pope said that he “doesn’t remember” the 2003 CDF document on civil unions.
Dan
K
kevin1313
Guest
Thank you for understanding the whole scenario. Use of contraception doesn’t protect against any evil (rape) Mechanical contraception can prevent the Author of life from creating a soul made in His image and likeness while chemical contraception can expel a fertilized egg (immortal soul) causing death.I don’t understand these analogies. Contraception isn’t fighting the rapist. Contraception is fighting against a possible baby.
To argue about whether or not an infallibly defined doctrine can be bound or loosed by Peter is silly. “The Church has always affirmed that the licitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception……” See Catholic Answers tract on birth control catholic.com/tracts/birthcontrol
Lord have mercy on us!
R
Rau
Guest
No one is seeking to overturn any teaching. But teachings have to be properly understood, and this means understanding what constitutes a particular sinful act, what gives it its moral a character.?..To argue about whether or not an infallibly defined doctrine can be bound or loosed by Peter is silly. “The Church has always affirmed that the licitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception……” See Catholic Answers tract on birth control catholic.com/tracts/birthcontrol
All acts that avoid a conception are not the morally wrong act we call “contraception”, just as all acts that see one human die are not the moral wrong we call murder.
If a woman has been raped, an act to sweep away the semen, which has no right to be within her body, is not an act of contraception. You will find the US Bishops have themselves affirmed this by virtue of the treatments approved in US Catholic hospitals for rape victims.
An act which intends to kill a conceived child is murder, and that is also not in dispute.
K
kevin1313
Guest
If contraception, a barrier or chemical taken to prevent conception is used, please explain how that is ever licit in the context of what is being discussed -Zika.
Pope and bishops are suggesting new doctrine of licit use of contraception to prevent “possible” birth defect due to Zika. Why can’t contraception be used for other eugenic reasons -to prevent cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, etc…?
Pope and bishops are suggesting new doctrine of licit use of contraception to prevent “possible” birth defect due to Zika. Why can’t contraception be used for other eugenic reasons -to prevent cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, etc…?
R
Rau
Guest
to whom do you address the question? I for one know of no scenario where a married couple may do as you suggest. I’ve not said otherwise.If contraception, a barrier or chemical taken to prevent conception is used, please explain how that is ever licit in the context of what is being discussed -Zika.
I am unaware of these suggestions.Pope and bishops are suggesting new doctrine of licit use of contraception to prevent “possible” birth defect due to Zika. Why can’t contraception be used for other eugenic reasons -to prevent cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, etc…?
K
kevin1313
Guest
Pope Francis suggested that a married couple may use contraception to avoid Zika. He claims that Paul VI allowed nuns in Africa to use contraception to avoid pregnancy (at best, a dubious claim and probably an outright deception as has already been established in this thread) See his interview ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome/ He says contraception can be the “lesser of two evils” when compared with abortion (as if those are the only 2 options a woman can choose between to avoid Zika) because he goes on to say there is a “conflict between the fifth and sixth commandments”. He further states that contraception is not an “absolute evil”. Fr. Lombardi later clarified the Pope’s remarks about “avoiding pregnancy” to in fact mean contraception and condoms. lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-vatican-affirms-pope-was-speaking-about-contraceptives-for-zika And now the Philippine Bishops are saying contraception may be used to prevent spread of Zika ksl.com/?nid=1016&sid=38578516&title=philippine-bishops-back-popes-remarks-on-zika-contraceptionto whom do you address the question? I for one know of no scenario where a married couple may do as you suggest. I’ve not said otherwise.
I am unaware of these suggestions.
Contrast this new doctrine making headlines and influencing the practices of people throughout the world with what CA says is an already-defined infallible doctrine.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control "The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception…"
My question is posed to anyone who can make sense of it all. Are we to follow infallibly defined doctrine of the Church since Her inception or what the Pope, Fr Lombardi, and the Philippine bishops are now espousing?
The salvation of millions of souls who may be influenced to contracept is at stake!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.