The Immaculate Conception VS. abortion

[Schrode]

I do not disagree with the bishops.
However, I’ve known a number of women who have conceived as a result of rape.
Their example and valor in carrying those children to term awed me.
So yes, my personal preference would be “do nothing.”
The bishops say we can do something -
so we can.

A child born of rape is, for me, simply another child.

Catherina, I appreciate what you said. The only thing that bothers me is that you keep refering to “children”. If one grants that the Church is correct in saying that life begins at conception, then are you only referring to those women who are ovulating when raped and become pregnant or are you referring to those women that are raped, are not pregnant and are not ovulating but will ovulate in the next 72 or so hours? IMHO, there in lies the difference. No child/no life is present when the woman is not pregnant or is not ovulating when the test is taken after the rape. (the latter doesn’t even garuntee a pregnancy) The only life that is present is if the woman is already pregnant or possibly if she unfortunately ovulating when the rape occurs. There is the “potential” for life if the woman does nothing and she ovulates within the next 72-96 or so hours - but luckily, the Church in its wisdom has seen that the “potential” for life does not a child make in every case.
And I would like to add - I Know that you mentioned that the four rape victims you knew or were aware of were happy to have a child borne of rape. I have known only two others from when I was doing counselling at a Church. Both women who were pregnant at the time didn’t realize they had the option of plan B - (not until too late). One woman didn’t go to the hospital after the rape until she came into my office (two days later). One woman was so overcome with a feeling of disgust over knowing that a part of the rapist still was within her that she tried to kill herself. The other believed she and her husband could handle having a child borne of rape. This was not the case - she also had extremely negative feelings everytime she realized a change in her body as this caused her to realize a piece of the rapist was still within her. She miscarried at nearly 5 months. I honestly believe that this was due to the amount of stress she was under due to the rape and subsequent pregnancy. I know that both would had benefitted if they had been tested for pregnancy and ovulation and if at the time they were not ovulating would have been able to take plan B. BTW, we do know from the second woman that she wasn’t ovulating until 2 days after - she and her husband used NFP. I have no doubt had plan b been an option for her, she would have chosen it. This also caused great upheaval with her husband - he had a hard time accepting that the pregnancy hadn’t occured because of him as well as the fact that his wife had been violated. So while there may be some situations that turned out brilliantly, there are others that have turned out horribly. I’m glad you’re aware of so many that turned out well - unfortunately, that’s not always the case. If plan B will help those women like the two I mentioned, then I think in these rare cases it should be looked at like a gift - the article that Rence mentioned even said (and I paraphrase) that the rapist’s sperm can be considered an aggressor - IMO aggressive sperm were not something that God wanted present when making a child…
God Bless
Schrode

 

[catharina]

Catherina, I appreciate what you said. The only thing that bothers me is that you keep refering to “children”. If one grants that the Church is correct in saying that life begins at conception, then are you only referring to those women who are ovulating when raped and become pregnant or are you referring to those women that are raped, are not pregnant and are not ovulating but will ovulate in the next 72 or so hours? IMHO, there in lies the difference. No child/no life is present when the woman is not pregnant or is not ovulating when the test is taken after the rape. (the latter doesn’t even garuntee a pregnancy) The only life that is present is if the woman is already pregnant or possibly if she unfortunately ovulating when the rape occurs. There is the “potential” for life if the woman does nothing and she ovulates within the next 72-96 or so hours - but luckily, the Church in its wisdom has seen that the “potential” for life does not a child make in every case.
And I would like to add - I Know that you mentioned that the four rape victims you knew or were aware of were happy to have a child borne of rape. Yes, I was pleased and am pleased (and privileged) to have a part of those histories. I have known only two others from when I was doing counselling at a Church. Both women who were pregnant at the time didn’t realize they had the option of plan B - (not until too late). One woman didn’t go to the hospital after the rape until she came into my office (two days later). One woman was so overcome with a feeling of disgust over knowing that a part of the rapist still was within her that she tried to kill herself. The other believed she and her husband could handle having a child borne of rape. This was not the case - she also had extremely negative feelings everytime she realized a change in her body as this caused her to realize a piece of the rapist was still within her. She miscarried at nearly 5 months. I honestly believe that this was due to the amount of stress she was under due to the rape and subsequent pregnancy. I know that both would had benefitted if they had been tested for pregnancy and ovulation and if at the time they were not ovulating would have been able to take plan B. BTW, we do know from the second woman that she wasn’t ovulating until 2 days after - she and her husband used NFP. I have no doubt had plan b been an option for her, she would have chosen it. This also caused great upheaval with her husband - he had a hard time accepting that the pregnancy hadn’t occured because of him as well as the fact that his wife had been violated. So while there may be some situations that turned out brilliantly, there are others that have turned out horribly. I’m glad you’re aware of so many that turned out well - unfortunately, that’s not always the case. If plan B will help those women like the two I mentioned, then I think in these rare cases it should be looked at like a gift - the article that Rence mentioned even said (and I paraphrase) that the rapist’s sperm can be considered an aggressor - IMO aggressive sperm were not something that God wanted present when making a child…
God Bless
Schrode

**I have no objection to any allowance granted by the bishops.
I do think that calling the sperm of a rapist “an aggressor” is over the top.

My point is: I welcome all pregnancies, all children.
(Obviously, no conception equals no pregancy equals no child -
so I must be missing your point … .)**

 

[elts1956]

I do not disagree with the bishops.
However, I’ve known a number of women who have conceived as a result of rape.
Their example and valor in carrying those children to term awed me.
So yes, my personal preference would be “do nothing.”
The bishops say we can do something -
so we can.

A child born of rape is, for me, simply another child.

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this Catharina, although the Bishops have given, in my estimation, a convoluted interpretation of the ability to “prevent” a conception in the instance of rape. Many years ago, there were no exceptions. A woman had the choice to “bear” the pain of not only rape, but also a pregnancy, or the choice of having a backstreet abortion. Really a rough predicament, but survivable. In spite of the pain, both physically and emotionally one can SURVIVE. What is nine months compared to eternity? I do not agree with the Bishop’s recommendation and cannot believe they would allow this exception. But there it is, in black and white. They are walking a tight rope on this one and yes, it is a hole in the dike, just as the contraceptive pills have led to the state we are morally in today. So much for Bernadin’s Social Justice theory.

 

[catharina]

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this Catharina, although the Bishops have given, in my estimation, a convoluted interpretation of the ability to “prevent” a conception in the instance of rape. Many years ago, there were no exceptions. A woman had the choice to “bear” the pain of not only rape, but also a pregnancy, or the choice of having a backstreet abortion. Really a rough predicament, but survivable. In spite of the pain, both physically and emotionally one can SURVIVE. What is nine months compared to eternity? I do not agree with the Bishop’s recommendation and cannot believe they would allow this exception. But there it is, in black and white. They are walking a tight rope on this one and yes, it is a hole in the dike, just as the contraceptive pills have led to the state we are morally in today. So much for Bernadin’s Social Justice theory.

If I recall, Cardinal Bernrdine clearly warned new priests:
"Beware of the slippery slope … " and the context was this:
even religious power can, over the course of time, lead down a slippery slope.

So I can say, the bishops have approved this procedure under certain circumstances,
and who am I to disagree with them? I do not disagree with them.

With you though, I KNOW that a woman can endure the nine months of a pregnancy, a mere moment in time, compared with the glory and joy of an infinite eternity.

 

[elts1956]

If I recall, Cardinal Bernrdine clearly warned new priests:
"Beware of the slippery slope … " and the context was this:
even religious power can, over the course of time, lead down a slippery slope.

So I can say, the bishops have approved this procedure under certain circumstances,
and who am I to disagree with them? I do not disagree with them.

With you though, I KNOW that a woman can endure the nine months of a pregnancy, a mere moment in time, compared with the glory and joy of an infinite eternity.

Not to be argumentative, it is the hole in the dike and in this circumstance and others, some of our religious leaders are failing to be true to Church teaching. I do question several of their decisions such as this. I look to Rome when in doubt, but I wonder if Rome knows of this teaching.

 

[Schrode]

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this Catharina, although the Bishops have given, in my estimation, a convoluted interpretation of the ability to “prevent” a conception in the instance of rape. Many years ago, there were no exceptions. A woman had the choice to “bear” the pain of not only rape, but also a pregnancy, or the choice of having a backstreet abortion. Really a rough predicament, but survivable. In spite of the pain, both physically and emotionally one can SURVIVE. What is nine months compared to eternity? I do not agree with the Bishop’s recommendation and cannot believe they would allow this exception. But there it is, in black and white. They are walking a tight rope on this one and yes, it is a hole in the dike, just as the contraceptive pills have led to the state we are morally in today. So much for Bernadin’s Social Justice theory.

Elts, I’m not trying to sound like I’m doing anything but asking a question - I guess the question is - what part of what the Bishops have stated do you not agree with? You mention “what is nine months compared to an eternity?” - are you saying this because you feel the mother would be committing a sin or is there some other reason? I’m not trying to be dense here or anything, but I don’t understand the problem. They’re not saying that the Plan B pills can be used as an abortifacient. They’re saying that if the woman who has gone through this awful trauma, through no fault of her own takes a pregnancy test as well as an ovulation test and it is found she is neither ovulating or pregnant then she can take the plan B pills and keep herself from getting pregnant if she was to ovulate in the next 72-96 hours. No one dies in this situation - the only thing that dies is the possibility of a pregnancy that would have come out of violence and pain. A pregnancy that the woman had no intention of having and would then be forced to carry if she were to ovulate and the sperm was able to implant itself in the egg. Personally, and I have known others and read a great deal on this from when I counselled - after this horrible act, the last thing most would want is any part of that sick person on you or in you. The idea of having any of that rapists fluids in me or on me literally causes some women to vomit and shower time and time again hoping that it will take away the contamination from that rapist. Yes, if someone gets pregnant from a rape, it is possible to carry a pregnancy to term - but from what I’ve encountered and read, it can cause greater emotional problems for the victim - I will grant that there are some out there who feel that something good comes out of the act in the form of a child when pregnancy occurs - but that isn’t true for each act.
IMHO, I would prefer to see a woman be tested and use plan B instead of not doing it, hoping she doesn’t get pregnant but does wind up pregnant and gets an abortion. I believe it’s fairly common for raped women that become pregnant to get an abortion. I’ve looked at a number of recent articles and as often happens it depends which one you look at - pro choice gives a higher percentage than the pro life articles regarding the amount of abortions performed on rape victims.
I guess Elts, I’m just having trouble understanding why you seem so vehemently opposed when there is no abotion performed under the paramaters the UCCB set out allowing women to use Plan B after rape.
God Bless
Schrode

 

[Schrode]

**I have no objection to any allowance granted by the bishops.
I do think that calling the sperm of a rapist “an aggressor” is over the top.

My point is: I welcome all pregnancies, all children.
(Obviously, no conception equals no pregancy equals no child -
so I must be missing your point … .)**

The reason I’m bringing up the calling of the sperm an “aggressor” is because although I understand you feel it’s “over the top”, it does seem (IMO) to follow exactly what the Bishop’s state : “A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault”

IMO the Bishops say that the woman can “defend” herself - so that’s why when the article mentioned the comment about the sperm being the aggressor, I was suprized to see you say you felt it was over the top - I don’t know what else I would call something that a woman might “defend herself against…”

Also you said in another post that "I KNOW that a woman can endure the nine months of a pregnancy, a mere moment in time, compared with the glory and joy of an infinite eternity. " and Elts said “What is nine months compared to eternity?” - I’m not sure what you guys are trying to say or implying by saying this. IMO, I havn’t seen anything that would indicate the loss of Heaven for eternity if a woman were to use Plan B after being checked for pregnancy and to see if she’s ovulating. Yes, I agree that a woman CAN endure the rape in most cases (sadly as I mentioned, there are times, however rare where a woman will take her life or attempt to due to the stress and emotional anguish which occurs over a rape and the subsequent realization that she has a part of the rapist inside of her which she (if Catholic) probably feels obligated to carry to term).

God Bless
Schrode

 

[catharina]

The reason I’m bringing up the calling of the sperm an “aggressor” is because although I understand you feel it’s “over the top”, it does seem (IMO) to follow exactly what the Bishop’s state : “A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault”

IMO the Bishops say that the woman can “defend” herself - so that’s why when the article mentioned the comment about the sperm being the aggressor, I was suprized to see you say you felt it was over the top - I don’t know what else I would call something that a woman might “defend herself against…”

Also you said in another post that "I KNOW that a woman can endure the nine months of a pregnancy, a mere moment in time, compared with the glory and joy of an infinite eternity. " and Elts said “What is nine months compared to eternity?” - I’m not sure what you guys are trying to say or implying by saying this. IMO, I havn’t seen anything that would indicate the loss of Heaven for eternity if a woman were to use Plan B after being checked for pregnancy and to see if she’s ovulating. Yes, I agree that a woman CAN endure the rape in most cases (sadly as I mentioned, there are times, however rare where a woman will take her life or attempt to due to the stress and emotional anguish which occurs over a rape and the subsequent realization that she has a part of the rapist inside of her which she (if Catholic) probably feels obligated to carry to term).

God Bless
Schrode

Schrode, honestly, I can’t understand your issue/question.

Would I (personally) prefer that a sperm not be called an aggressor?
Yes.
A sperm is a sperm. A rapist is an aggressor.
Calling a sperm an aggressor could result in cloudy thinking.
It could also reflect cloudy thinking.
So why go there?

Do I find the bishops’ statement reasonable? Yes - it could be seen that way.
Yet even rence admits that in reality, few medical facilities test for ovulation.
So it’s likely this will not be done at all in most circumstances, -
so bye-bye to the bishops’ suggested plan.

I am not talking about anyone losing salvation.
No one has suggested such a thing.

I am talking about the FACT that any resultant pregnancy is “new life.”
My preference is to allow for the possiblity of “new life.”

I am perfectly free to state that this is my preference and
I am perfectly free to state that an invented term ‘sperm as agressor’ is distasteful to me.

I not only knew and helped women in such pregancies, I also knew the babies after birth.
I also was very aware of the families awaiting the births of these babies.

So what is your question?

 

[Rence]

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this Catharina, although the Bishops have given, in my estimation, a convoluted interpretation of the ability to “prevent” a conception in the instance of rape. Many years ago, there were no exceptions. A woman had the choice to “bear” the pain of not only rape, but also a pregnancy, or the choice of having a backstreet abortion. Really a rough predicament, but survivable. In spite of the pain, both physically and emotionally one can SURVIVE. What is nine months compared to eternity? I do not agree with the Bishop’s recommendation and cannot believe they would allow this exception. But there it is, in black and white. They are walking a tight rope on this one and yes, it is a hole in the dike, just as the contraceptive pills have led to the state we are morally in today. So much for Bernadin’s Social Justice theory.

Well, I can understand your perspective Elts. You’re not the only Catholic to not agree with a Catholic teaching. You’re just like all of us, you just having stumbling blocks in different areas than others do. It’s part of growth and development of every human being to explore and think about issues, and we’re not always going to see eye to eye on everything. But we’re all Catholics doing our best, in that, we’re all the same

 

[elts1956]

Elts, I’m not trying to sound like I’m doing anything but asking a question - I guess the question is - what part of what the Bishops have stated do you not agree with? You mention “what is nine months compared to an eternity?” - are you saying this because you feel the mother would be committing a sin or is there some other reason? I’m not trying to be dense here or anything, but I don’t understand the problem. They’re not saying that the Plan B pills can be used as an abortifacient. They’re saying that if the woman who has gone through this awful trauma, through no fault of her own takes a pregnancy test as well as an ovulation test and it is found she is neither ovulating or pregnant then she can take the plan B pills and keep herself from getting pregnant if she was to ovulate in the next 72-96 hours. No one dies in this situation - the only thing that dies is the possibility of a pregnancy that would have come out of violence and pain. A pregnancy that the woman had no intention of having and would then be forced to carry if she were to ovulate and the sperm was able to implant itself in the egg. Personally, and I have known others and read a great deal on this from when I counselled - after this horrible act, the last thing most would want is any part of that sick person on you or in you. The idea of having any of that rapists fluids in me or on me literally causes some women to vomit and shower time and time again hoping that it will take away the contamination from that rapist. Yes, if someone gets pregnant from a rape, it is possible to carry a pregnancy to term - but from what I’ve encountered and read, it can cause greater emotional problems for the victim - I will grant that there are some out there who feel that something good comes out of the act in the form of a child when pregnancy occurs - but that isn’t true for each act.
IMHO, I would prefer to see a woman be tested and use plan B instead of not doing it, hoping she doesn’t get pregnant but does wind up pregnant and gets an abortion. I believe it’s fairly common for raped women that become pregnant to get an abortion. I’ve looked at a number of recent articles and as often happens it depends which one you look at - pro choice gives a higher percentage than the pro life articles regarding the amount of abortions performed on rape victims.
I guess Elts, I’m just having trouble understanding why you seem so vehemently opposed when there is no abotion performed under the paramaters the UCCB set out allowing women to use Plan B after rape.
God Bless
Schrode

I can’t explain it any better than to say, it is an action opposed to life.

 

[elts1956]

Elts, I’m not trying to sound like I’m doing anything but asking a question - I guess the question is - what part of what the Bishops have stated do you not agree with? You mention “what is nine months compared to an eternity?” - are you saying this because you feel the mother would be committing a sin or is there some other reason? I’m not trying to be dense here or anything, but I don’t understand the problem. They’re not saying that the Plan B pills can be used as an abortifacient. They’re saying that if the woman who has gone through this awful trauma, through no fault of her own takes a pregnancy test as well as an ovulation test and it is found she is neither ovulating or pregnant then she can take the plan B pills and keep herself from getting pregnant if she was to ovulate in the next 72-96 hours. No one dies in this situation - the only thing that dies is the possibility of a pregnancy that would have come out of violence and pain. A pregnancy that the woman had no intention of having and would then be forced to carry if she were to ovulate and the sperm was able to implant itself in the egg. Personally, and I have known others and read a great deal on this from when I counselled - after this horrible act, the last thing most would want is any part of that sick person on you or in you. The idea of having any of that rapists fluids in me or on me literally causes some women to vomit and shower time and time again hoping that it will take away the contamination from that rapist. Yes, if someone gets pregnant from a rape, it is possible to carry a pregnancy to term - but from what I’ve encountered and read, it can cause greater emotional problems for the victim - I will grant that there are some out there who feel that something good comes out of the act in the form of a child when pregnancy occurs - but that isn’t true for each act.
IMHO, I would prefer to see a woman be tested and use plan B instead of not doing it, hoping she doesn’t get pregnant but does wind up pregnant and gets an abortion. I believe it’s fairly common for raped women that become pregnant to get an abortion. I’ve looked at a number of recent articles and as often happens it depends which one you look at - pro choice gives a higher percentage than the pro life articles regarding the amount of abortions performed on rape victims.
I guess Elts, I’m just having trouble understanding why you seem so vehemently opposed when there is no abotion performed under the paramaters the UCCB set out allowing women to use Plan B after rape.
God Bless
Schrode

Well, I can understand your perspective Elts. You’re not the only Catholic to not agree with a Catholic teaching. You’re just like all of us, you just having stumbling blocks in different areas than others do. It’s part of growth and development of every human being to explore and think about issues, and we’re not always going to see eye to eye on everything. But we’re all Catholics doing our best, in that, we’re all the same

I wonder what Pope Benedict XVI would say about this? Think he would approve? I would like to know what he has written to the Bishops on this. Talk about not following Church teaching. To me, it is not Church teaching. Just another way to get around absolute truth.

 

[Schrode]

Schrode, honestly, I can’t understand your issue/question.

Would I (personally) prefer that a sperm not be called an aggressor?
Yes.
A sperm is a sperm. A rapist is an aggressor.
Calling a sperm an aggressor could result in cloudy thinking.
It could also reflect cloudy thinking.
So why go there?

Do I find the bishops’ statement reasonable? Yes - it could be seen that way.
Yet even rence admits that in reality, few medical facilities test for ovulation.
So it’s likely this will not be done at all in most circumstances, -
so bye-bye to the bishops’ suggested plan.

I am not talking about anyone losing salvation.
No one has suggested such a thing.

I am talking about the FACT that any resultant pregnancy is “new life.”
My preference is to allow for the possiblity of “new life.”

I am perfectly free to state that this is my preference and
I am perfectly free to state that an invented term ‘sperm as agressor’ is distasteful to me.

I not only knew and helped women in such pregancies, I also knew the babies after birth.
I also was very aware of the families awaiting the births of these babies.

So what is your question?

 

[Rence]

*Originally Posted by Rence
Well, I can understand your perspective Elts. You’re not the only Catholic to not agree with a Catholic teaching. You’re just like all of us, you just having stumbling blocks in different areas than others do. It’s part of growth and development of every human being to explore and think about issues, and we’re not always going to see eye to eye on everything. But we’re all Catholics doing our best, in that, we’re all the same *

I wonder what Pope Benedict XVI would say about this? Think he would approve? I would like to know what he has written to the Bishops on this. Talk about not following Church teaching. To me, it is not Church teaching. Just another way to get around absolute truth.

Yes, I think he approves. The Vatican has not contradicted this statement from the US Bishops. I would think that if they didn’t agree with it, they would have made it known. Surely the Bishops know what Church teaching is.

There is no Church teaching not being followed by preventing a conception due to rape. We have no obligation to be open to life in a rape. Being open to life is a directive given in the context of marriage, and most definitely part of that directive is that it must be consensual.

 

[Rence]

Personally, and I have known others and read a great deal on this from when I counselled - after this horrible act, the last thing most would want is any part of that sick person on you or in you. The idea of having any of that rapists fluids in me or on me literally causes some women to vomit and shower time and time again hoping that it will take away the contamination from that rapist. Yes, if someone gets pregnant from a rape, it is possible to carry a pregnancy to term - but from what I’ve encountered and read, it can cause greater emotional problems for the victim - I will grant that there are some out there who feel that something good comes out of the act in the form of a child when pregnancy occurs - but that isn’t true for each act.

It sure makes my skin crawl just reading it, that’s for sure. I give those ladies who don’t choose plan b in a rape situation due credit. But women who want plan b should be given plan b in the case or rape.

IMHO, I would prefer to see a woman be tested and use plan B instead of not doing it, hoping she doesn’t get pregnant but does wind up pregnant and gets an abortion. I believe it’s fairly common for raped women that become pregnant to get an abortion. I’ve looked at a number of recent articles and as often happens it depends which one you look at - pro choice gives a higher percentage than the pro life articles regarding the amount of abortions performed on rape victims.

I prefer the woman be offered Plan B in a rape with only the negative pregnancy test. I wouldn’t even bother with the ovulation test. The chances that she’s conceived in that few-hour interval is so low, that it would be worth it. What is worth it, is taking the Plan B and preventing from conception from happening — rather than (yes, I agree with you Schrode) having an abortion later.

 

[elts1956]

Yes, I think he approves. The Vatican has not contradicted this statement from the US Bishops. I would think that if they didn’t agree with it, they would have made it known. Surely the Bishops know what Church teaching is.

There is no Church teaching not being followed by preventing a conception due to rape. We have no obligation to be open to life in a rape. Being open to life is a directive given in the context of marriage, and most definitely part of that directive is that it must be consensual.

So if there is no one saying, No No you can’t do that, we can ignore the natural law? Very convenient. As I said before, this mistaken? “compassion” of the Bishops is a hole, among several others, in the dike. The flood of exceptions will keep coming.

There are some things I am aware of in which the Holy Father has given direction to the Bishops. Most have ignored him. So don’t begin to think that all the Bishops here in the US follow the narrow path laid out by Christ and His Vicar.

And please don’t accuse me again of not following Church teaching. This exception to the rule of conception is not a Church Law. It is an opinion given by a few Bishops. When the Bishops meet for a conference, all clergy are heard, but not all have power to vote against liberal Bishops who are trying to make the Church in their own image. There are nore liberal Bishops than conservative. The conservatives are outvoted every time. So unless they want a split in the hierarchy, they teach the truths to those that listen and let their fellow Bishops slide away. What else can they do without disrupting the whole Church? But then maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing. At least the house would be cleaner.

 

[Rence]

So if there is no one saying, No No you can’t do that, we can ignore the natural law? Very convenient. As I said before, this mistaken? “compassion” of the Bishops is a hole, among several others, in the dike. The flood of exceptions will keep coming.

There is nothing natural about raping a woman and forcing her to become pregnant. However, it is natural for someone to fight back in defense when assaulted. The compassion of the Bishops for the woman is correct and just.

There are some things I am aware of in which the Holy Father has given direction to the Bishops. Most have ignored him. So don’t begin to think that all the Bishops here in the US follow the narrow path laid out by Christ and His Vicar.

And please don’t accuse me again of not following Church teaching. This exception to the rule of conception is not a Church Law. It is an opinion given by a few Bishops. When the Bishops meet for a conference, all clergy are heard, but not all have power to vote against liberal Bishops who are trying to make the Church in their own image. There are nore liberal Bishops than conservative. The conservatives are outvoted every time. So unless they want a split in the hierarchy, they teach the truths to those that listen and let their fellow Bishops slide away. What else can they do without disrupting the whole Church? But then maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing. At least the house would be cleaner.

If the Vatican had a problem with the directive to Catholics put forth from the Bishops, he’s not shy, the Pope will say so. I’m quite certain he’s seen this directive. This directive was the right thing to do. The house would be cleaner if they put forth more effort into preventing rapes from happening in the first place, not by helping to hold down women by limiting their options even more than they have available now and forcing them to become pregnant against their will through no fault of their own. Giving women the choice in a rape situation empowers them by giving them back their body, and makes them feel less helpless in a situation where all their will was taken away from them.

If more effort were put into sanctioning sexual assaults of all kinds (from priests molesting children, to women being raped) there would be no need for Plan B in the ER in response to rape. I have never, ever, never, seen a representative from the Church take a stand against rape of women except the Bishops in allowing Plan B. I am hoping it’s just a coincidence and that someone can prove me wrong, but I’ve never seen a campaign by a representative of the Church against violent crimes against women. If they put half as much effort into it as they do abortion, it would make a big difference. Oh yeah, those little babies are so helpless and dependent on society. So are rape victims – just as much. They need protection and avocates too. The Bishops advocated for the rights of women against violent crimes, and I appreciate it and believe me, I have spread the word.

 

[choose_to_love]

elts, being “opposed to life” is not the reasoning used by the Church in defining the problem with contraception. It’s the intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative nature of the act, contrary to God’s evident design. By that definition, NFP is “opposed to life”, and probably not having relations when the wife is fertile would qualify as “opposed to life”.

As Rence has ably pointed out (I love it when I can agree with you on something, Rence!), that reasoning does not apply in any way to a rape situation. A rape is not an act of total self-donation, as the marital act is intended to be, nor a reflection of trinitarian love, a clue, as it were, to the divine nature stamped right into our bodies. Because it is not any of those things, the usual reasoning does not apply. therefore one need not feel squeamish about the prevention of conception in instances of rape.

Once there is a new life, however, it should be obvious that one cannot terminate that innocent life, no matter the behavior of the father. Equally so, we should err on the side of caution, vis-a-vis administration after ovulation but before our technolgy can determine if conception has occurred, given the gravity of purposefully ending an innocent life.

 

[elts1956]

There is nothing natural about raping a woman and forcing her to become pregnant. However, it is natural for someone to fight back in defense when assaulted. The compassion of the Bishops for the woman is correct and just.

Apparently you don’t know what is meant by “natural law”. Read Evangelium Vitae.

If the Vatican had a problem with the directive to Catholics put forth from the Bishops, he’s not shy, the Pope will say so. I’m quite certain he’s seen this directive. This directive was the right thing to do. The house would be cleaner if they put forth more effort into preventing rapes from happening in the first place, not by helping to hold down women by limiting their options even more than they have available now and forcing them to become pregnant against their will through no fault of their own. Giving women the choice in a rape situation empowers them by giving them back their body, and makes them feel less helpless in a situation where all their will was taken away from them.

I am not saying Pope Benedict does not put forth directives. I am saying MANY Bishops ignore him.

If more effort were put into sanctioning sexual assaults of all kinds (from priests molesting children, to women being raped) there would be no need for Plan B in the ER in response to rape. I have never, ever, never, seen a representative from the Church take a stand against rape of women except the Bishops in allowing Plan B. I am hoping it’s just a coincidence and that someone can prove me wrong, but I’ve never seen a campaign by a representative of the Church against violent crimes against women. If they put half as much effort into it as they do abortion, it would make a big difference. Oh yeah, those little babies are so helpless and dependent on society. Do I sense some sarcasm here? That is certainly an indication of how you really feel about abortion being an intrinsic evil.

So are rape victims – just as much. They need protection and avocates too. The Bishops advocated for the rights of women against violent crimes, and I appreciate it and believe me, I have spread the word.

Of course you have, just making the hole in the dike larger.

 

[elts1956]

There is nothing natural about raping a woman and forcing her to become pregnant. However, it is natural for someone to fight back in defense when assaulted. The compassion of the Bishops for the woman is correct and just.

If the Vatican had a problem with the directive to Catholics put forth from the Bishops, he’s not shy, the Pope will say so. I’m quite certain he’s seen this directive. This directive was the right thing to do. The house would be cleaner if they put forth more effort into preventing rapes from happening in the first place, not by helping to hold down women by limiting their options even more than they have available now and forcing them to become pregnant against their will through no fault of their own. Giving women the choice in a rape situation empowers them by giving them back their body, and makes them feel less helpless in a situation where all their will was taken away from them.

If more effort were put into sanctioning sexual assaults of all kinds (from priests molesting children, to women being raped) there would be no need for Plan B in the ER in response to rape. I have never, ever, never, seen a representative from the Church take a stand against rape of women except the Bishops in allowing Plan B. I am hoping it’s just a coincidence and that someone can prove me wrong, but I’ve never seen a campaign by a representative of the Church against violent crimes against women. If they put half as much effort into it as they do abortion, it would make a big difference. Oh yeah, those little babies are so helpless and dependent on society. So are rape victims – just as much. They need protection and avocates too. The Bishops advocated for the rights of women against violent crimes, and I appreciate it and believe me, I have spread the word.

elts, being “opposed to life” is not the reasoning used by the Church in defining the problem with contraception. It’s the intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative nature of the act, contrary to God’s evident design. By that definition, NFP is “opposed to life”, and probably not having relations when the wife is fertile would qualify as “opposed to life”.

As Rence has ably pointed out (I love it when I can agree with you on something, Rence!), that reasoning does not apply in any way to a rape situation. A rape is not an act of total self-donation, as the marital act is intended to be, nor a reflection of trinitarian love, a clue, as it were, to the divine nature stamped right into our bodies. These have nothing to do with the possibility that life has begun., Because it is not any of those things, the usual reasoning does not apply. therefore one need not feel squeamish about the prevention of conception in instances of rape.

Once there is a new life, (you really think the medical personnel are going to check this…or the woman who is the victim of a tremendous assault is going to demand it…? You don’t quite understand human nature.)however, it should be obvious that one cannot terminate that innocent life, no matter the behavior of the father. Equally so, we should err on the side of caution, vis-a-vis administration after ovulation but before our technolgy can determine if conception has occurred, given the gravity of purposefully ending an innocent life.

So do you think as time passes, the medical personnel will become more careful in ascertaining whether a woman has ovulated, or that new life has begun, or do you think they and the patient just might begin to get a little bit sloppy and disregard those facts? There is always a chance, that life created by God has already begun. For myself, I would rather trust His decisions than that of a medical team.

Rence has already said that the various hospitals in her/his vicinity do not have the facilities to test for ovulation. Uh, already there is a step being missed. Eventually there will be many steps missed and we will see just plain old D&C, or another surgical way to get rid of the baby that just might exist.

In this instance I will take the black and white shades, not the grey.,

 

[Rence]

If more effort were put into sanctioning sexual assaults of all kinds (from priests molesting children, to women being raped) there would be no need for Plan B in the ER in response to rape. I have never, ever, never, seen a representative from the Church take a stand against rape of women except the Bishops in allowing Plan B. I am hoping it’s just a coincidence and that someone can prove me wrong, but I’ve never seen a campaign by a representative of the Church against violent crimes against women. If they put half as much effort into it as they do abortion, it would make a big difference. Oh yeah, those little babies are so helpless and dependent on society. Do I sense some sarcasm here? That is certainly an indication of how you really feel about abortion being an intrinsic evil.

So are rape victims – just as much. They need protection and avocates too. The Bishops advocated for the rights of women against violent crimes, and I appreciate it and believe me, I have spread the word.

Of course you have, just making the hole in the dike larger.

If you are sensing some sarcasm with my post, you are not sensing sarcasm from me. I was dead serious. Rape victims need an advocate, and it would be nice if the Church would step up to the plate as the Bishops have done.

There is no hole to begin with. The “hole in the dike” is your impression only of the Bishops’ statement in defense of women. I am not making the hold in the dike larger by spreading the word about what the Bishops have taught in their statement because there is no hole.