The Big C Word . . . Contraception

[ffg]

Is contraception morally acceptable in the case of rape or not?

If we learned that an exception is allowed in an extreme case, it doesn’t prove anything related to the normal.

Are you asking because you think rapists pull out condoms?

Is your question specifically related to the morning after pill?

I have heard of an exception at a convent that was always under attack by rapists. I don’t remember the details. I want to say they asked the pope for an exception and he granted it. I’m sure Google or someone who knows about it could find it. I don’t remember the form of contraception requested.

But remember, married and on the same page with regard to desire to do the act is step 1, then the rules kick in for unity and procreation.

Outside of that the sins are more than contraception. If forced, it’s rape, even inside of marriage.

 

[inocente]

It’s good to see it’s still about 400.

Out of two million possible. But there’s no reason to get hung up on that number when it’s dwarfed by the 500 billion sperm a man produces in a lifetime. “A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.” - livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html

And every one of them would make a different person, but only one can fertilize the egg, which only sometimes happens. So 40 million to 1.2 billion potential persons are permanently lost every time, with or without a condom.

 

[Tomdstone]

If we learned that an exception is allowed in an extreme case, it doesn’t prove anything related to the normal.

Are you asking because you think rapists pull out condoms?

Is your question specifically related to the morning after pill?

I have heard of an exception at a convent that was always under attack by rapists. I don’t remember the details. I want to say they asked the pope for an exception and he granted it. I’m sure Google or someone who knows about it could find it. I don’t remember the form of contraception requested.

But remember, married and on the same page with regard to desire to do the act is step 1, then the rules kick in for unity and procreation.

Outside of that the sins are more than contraception. If forced, it’s rape, even inside of marriage.

In the case of rape, it would not be a matter of the man pulling out a condom. It might be a case of the woman flushing out the uterus area with spermicide.
If contraception is inherently or intrinsically evil, why would it be allowed in some cases. I thought that Catholics were not supposed to choose evil.

 

[inocente]

If sex is reserved for married folks and has the purposes of Unity and Procreation…

If that is what God intends, you don’t see a problem with cutting off both purposes? (or even one)

Nope, no problem at all, because there’s no harm to anyone.

By comparison: us rich folk don’t care enough to help poor countries, and as a result every minute of every day a child below the age of five dies of diarrhea from contaminated water.

That’s real moral evil, it causes real harm. So compared with that, and murder, theft, rape, lying… where’s the suffering caused by a condom?

 

[ffg]

Out of two million possible. But there’s no reason to get hung up on that number when it’s dwarfed by the 500 billion sperm a man produces in a lifetime. “A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.” - livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html

And every one of them would make a different person, but only one can fertilize the egg, which only sometimes happens. So 40 million to 1.2 billion potential persons are permanently lost every time, with or without a condom.

I agree it is important not to get lost in the numbers, that’s why I highlighted the important part - potential does not equal ‘is’.

You posted what’s been taught for decades ~400 eggs.

Same with sperm and persons, there is no such thing as a potential person, there are humans, (fertilized egg until it dies at whatever stage) and there are not.

Calling follicles and sperm ‘potential’ something else, is not defining what they are, for the purpose of the educator to 1) reduce the importance of the change upon fertilization, which allows 2) relaxation on the thought that if the fertized egg dies, it’s no big deal. Which 3) paves the way for comfort with abortion.

Calling things what they are, is important.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

Nope, no problem at all, because there’s no harm to anyone.

By comparison: us rich folk don’t care enough to help poor countries, and as a result every minute of every day a child below the age of five dies of diarrhea from contaminated water.

That’s real moral evil, it causes real harm. So compared with that, and murder, theft, rape, lying… where’s the suffering caused by a condom?

I’ll leave the discussion between you and God, if there is a God and he desires unity and procreation in marriage out of the sex act. If that is the case, you just told him you don’t have a problem breaking his rules. He sees that.

With regard to moral relativism, regardless of belief in original sin, if it is true, one act of disobedience regarding eating what came off a tree ( seems healthy, right?)…

That act had a negative effect on all of humanity.

So to compare your sin rather than recognize it for what it is- doesn’t serve you or the comparative any good.

Because sin is common, we like to compare, but if we focus on when it was not common ( didn’t exist specifically) it can help us understand how bad it really is to sin.

Then we can do what we can in our life to work toward reconciliation with God.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

In the case of rape, it would not be a matter of the man pulling out a condom. It might be a case of the woman flushing out the uterus area with spermicide.
If contraception is inherently or intrinsically evil, why would it be allowed in some cases. I thought that Catholics were not supposed to choose evil.

Well, this is where we realize the true power of using faith and reason and realize that the Church walks the talk.

Focusing on the ‘not normal’ will potentially result with a ‘not-aligned with normal’ answer from the Church. it evaluates ‘thinks’ regarding specific cases.

It’s important to put all the pieces together, or better see how they are not together, to understand a dispensation. In the convent case, the women would never be in the situation where sex was ‘right’ and the two purposes of sex existed. So if it was to occur, it would be by rape. With the addition of the history that this convent could reasonably assume it would happen again, a request was made to consider the case.

Take care,

Mike

 

[tonyrey]

In the case of rape, it would not be a matter of the man pulling out a condom. It might be a case of the woman flushing out the uterus area with spermicide.
If contraception is inherently or intrinsically evil, why would it be allowed in some cases. I thought that Catholics were not supposed to choose evil.

Sometimes Catholics have a moral obligation to choose the lesser of two or more evils.
Life is not always black and white! We can be green with envy, red with rage, yellow with cowardice, black with malice, purple with pride and indignation…

 

[ffg]

Sometimes Catholics have a moral obligation to choose the lesser of two or more evils.
Life is not always black and white! We can be green with envy, red with rage, yellow with cowardice, black with malice, purple with pride and indignation…

Oh no Tony!

We can’t say ‘no moral relativism’ and then say - except for here.

Though I understand what you are saying, it may be too confusing.

Another angle -

Assuming if the Church is God’s, the Church and God are probably aligned in that ‘no evil is good evil’.

So what we have to ask, is why is contraception NOT evil in a dispensation case?

Bolded because blanket statements don’t look at individual cases, which is where a dispensation would occur.

I think it goes like this -

In order for contraception to be evil, it must be against the Will of God, if what we’ve laid out as the Will of God (unity and procreation within marriage) is ‘good’…

Then the natural course of contraception’s ‘evil’ is within marriage with the two people having the desire to have sex…

Because that is where the ‘good’ (unity and procreation) rules live.

(that’s not to say, contraception is not evil elsewhere, just that elsewhere there are other sins as well, where the ‘good’ is ‘not have sex’.)

So - in the case of say the convent, the dispensation is reasonable because there is no ‘good’ (Will of God) in the rape. Thus I think - IN DISPENSATIONS - the evil drops.

So a key action of the convent was to ask for dispensation, as they wanted approval, but that approval comes with the blessing that they are NOT doing evil in dealing with this problem.

To take the next step, there have been kids born to nuns through rape. These are typically examples of Good triumphant over evil as who do you think kids living in convents typically become?

Fairly strong advocates for God.

 

[inocente]

I agree it is important not to get lost in the numbers, that’s why I highlighted the important part - potential does not equal ‘is’.

You posted what’s been taught for decades ~400 eggs.

Same with sperm and persons, there is no such thing as a potential person, there are humans, (fertilized egg until it dies at whatever stage) and there are not.

Calling follicles and sperm ‘potential’ something else, is not defining what they are, for the purpose of the educator to 1) reduce the importance of the change upon fertilization, which allows 2) relaxation on the thought that if the fertized egg dies, it’s no big deal. Which 3) paves the way for comfort with abortion.

Calling things what they are, is important.

Take care,

Mike

I’ve cited two articles, both say out of a potential two million. Philosophers talk about potential persons and this is a philosophy forum, but if you’re not happy talking about numbers fair enough. The thread is about contraception so I think we don’t need to worry about other topics.

I’ll leave the discussion between you and God, if there is a God and he desires unity and procreation in marriage out of the sex act. If that is the case, you just told him you don’t have a problem breaking his rules. He sees that.

With regard to moral relativism, regardless of belief in original sin, if it is true, one act of disobedience regarding eating what came off a tree ( seems healthy, right?)…

That act had a negative effect on all of humanity.

So to compare your sin rather than recognize it for what it is- doesn’t serve you or the comparative any good.

Because sin is common, we like to compare, but if we focus on when it was not common ( didn’t exist specifically) it can help us understand how bad it really is to sin.

Then we can do what we can in our life to work toward reconciliation with God.

Take care,

Mike

God doesn’t make arbitrary rules, and there’s no law against condoms in revelation. It was Aquinas who decided procreation should be a moral good, and Aquinas isn’t part of my tradition, so no, I’m not sinning.

Sin, according to Paul (Romans 14), is everything that does not come from faith. There’s no prohibition on condoms in my faith, so I’m not sinning. Whereas if I were to call condoms evil I would be sinning, by acting against my faith.

I think you may have a wrong understanding of moral relativism. I’m not a relativist just because I have different laws to you, any more than you’re a relativist because you don’t follow Muslim or Jewish rules about not eating pork. Nor is Tony a relativist because he recognizes the greater of two evils (although I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why you guys think a condom is evil, and what harm is does).

 

[edwest2]

There is a vast difference because immune system suppressing drugs are used to treat an abnormal physical condition whereas ovulation suppressing drugs interfere with a normal physical function.

Health care is meant to relieve or cure a medical condition. Health care, in this case, is not health care when it suppresses a normal bodily function in otherwise healthy men and women. Reproductive health should be based on Self Control, which people have been brainwashed to believe that they cannot control their own bodies or to use a natural method to regulate births among married couples.

Ed

 

[ffg]

Sin, according to Paul (Romans 14), is everything that does not come from faith. There’s no prohibition on condoms in my faith, so I’m not sinning. Whereas if I were to call condoms evil I would be sinning, by acting against my faith.

I think I’ve spilled enough text to make my points, you can keep the last word there. If you have a question or want me to respond to any bit of it, let me know.

Here you bring up what could be an interesting next conversation!

Let’s see if we can gear it toward contraception, though more general might be more fun…

Essentially, what you wrote above is an ‘eye of the beholder’ attitude to sin.

What we need to discover is if sin is sin, or if sin is relative.

What if I was looking to convert to your religion / denomination, would you teach me that contraception was wrong until I converted?

Take care,

Mike

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, this is where we realize the true power of using faith and reason and realize that the Church walks the talk.

Focusing on the ‘not normal’ will potentially result with a ‘not-aligned with normal’ answer from the Church. it evaluates ‘thinks’ regarding specific cases.

It’s important to put all the pieces together, or better see how they are not together, to understand a dispensation. In the convent case, the women would never be in the situation where sex was ‘right’ and the two purposes of sex existed. So if it was to occur, it would be by rape. With the addition of the history that this convent could reasonably assume it would happen again, a request was made to consider the case.

Take care,

Mike

Permission to use contraception in the case of rape goes beyond the case of nuns in a convent, according to my understanding.

 

[ffg]

Permission to use contraception in the case of rape goes beyond the case of nuns in a convent, according to my understanding.

Like I said earlier, dispensations are case specific and not granted by one’s own heart.

Would be nice to hear from someone who works with dispensations to learn a bit as I’m sure they are requested. I just don’t know if say an evil event happened at 10pm, if someone could be in the Bishop’s office by 11 and on the horn with Rome to figure out the case. I don’t have experience there.

Consider this with the nun’s - The move to seek permission shows they knew the Church’s position on contraception.

Why is this important?

Even in the face of evil, they did not want to do evil…

As mentioned above, the dispensation does not come with strings - (to be sure to hit confession)…

They receive a blessing that they may not fear they are doing a ‘wrong’.

Though to avoid a pregnancy would be the goal of the request for dispensation. I think not doing a ‘wrong’ was more important to the nuns.

Have a great weekend!

 

[Tomdstone]

Why is this important?

Because it is problematic to give permission to choose evil.

 

[ffg]

Because it is problematic to give permission to choose evil.

That logic is not consistent with what happens in dispensation. Which has already been explained.

let me know if you have any other questions.

Take care,

Mike

 

[inocente]

Essentially, what you wrote above is an ‘eye of the beholder’ attitude to sin.

You’re the only person I’ve even seen to call St Paul a moral relativist, so I think you need to study the differences between objective morality, absolute morality and moral relativity.

–

I’ve asked more than once for anyone to say what evil or harm is caused by condoms, and no one has, so it looks very much as if no one can.

 

[ffg]

I’ve asked more than once for anyone to say what evil or harm is caused by condoms, and no one has, so it looks very much as if no one can.

This has been answered many times in this thread and you acknowledged the answer while acknowledging you ‘see no harm’, including ‘if’ the answer is God’s rule, you still were good with disagreement. Again, the ball is now in the court with you and God. But if you still need to hash out any details, folks are here to help.

Would you mind answering my question?

If you are right and contraception is not wrong for you because of your denomination, I think that is pretty important.

I am ok with setting aside that until your point that I questioned, You wrote about contraception universally.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[inocente]

This has been answered many times in this thread and you acknowledged the answer while acknowledging you ‘see no harm’, including ‘if’ the answer is God’s rule, you still were good with disagreement. Again, the ball is now in the court with you and God. But if you still need to hash out any details, folks are here to help.

Would you mind answering my question?

If you are right and contraception is not wrong for you because of your denomination, I think that is pretty important.

I am ok with setting aside that until your point that I questioned, You wrote about contraception universally.

Thanks,

Mike

You appear to have invented your own definition of harm. The OED defines it as “physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted”, “material damage”, and “actual or potential ill effects or danger”.

No one has shown that a condom inflicts any of those.

I already answered your question. Muslims and Jews have a rule against eating pork, your denomination doesn’t. Do you believe your own religion is wrong, and eating pork is immoral because other religions say so? Then why do you expect others to believe our religions are wrong and condoms are immoral because you say so?

We seem to be going round in circles, thanks for the discussion, see you on another thread.

 

[ffg]

You appear to have invented your own definition of harm. The OED defines it as “physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted”, “material damage”, and “actual or potential ill effects or danger”.

No one has shown that a condom inflicts any of those.

I already answered your question. Muslims and Jews have a rule against eating pork, your denomination doesn’t. Do you believe your own religion is wrong, and eating pork is immoral because other religions say so? Then why do you expect others to believe our religions are wrong and condoms are immoral because you say so?

We seem to be going round in circles, thanks for the discussion, see you on another thread.

Answering questions help clarify things, and it doesn’t hurt - I’ll even touch on what I said I was done with because you brought it back here -

Ourselves are who we harm when we sin (go against God’s rules). Because sin breaks relationship with God, which is personal.

In the case specific to a condom, assuming sex is in it’s natural place, in marriage, if God’s rules are as explained in this thread with sex in marriage as unitive and procreative as purposes, condoms break both of those purposes. So apply the persons hurt to husband and wife. Also, though we can’t hurt God, as He would see us separating from him with our choices and acts, I’m sure it saddens him.

I don’t expect anything from anyone. I’m just here to help lay out what is true per the Catholic Church in my own style of writing and thinking, perhaps God will consider this work my penance for the sins I’ve committed.

If I stray from what the Church teaches, I hope someone corrects me or the site mods ban me.

I don’t think the Church thinks eating pork is right or wrong, but you don’t have the full teaching, as pork is actually forbidden along with all other meat on Fridays in Lent for Catholics (age and health exceptions). This is applied to a few other days in the year as well and I think it used to be every Friday ( someone can correct, if desired).

So we actually have a similar teaching as the religions you mentioned, just number of days as a difference with regard to pork.

Take care,

Mike