USCCB OKs contraception in rape cases?

[CCF_Jeff]

Hi, LR, thanks for your thoughts. I’m not quite sure I follow you, however. I think there are too many variables in your statement to determine the licitness of some of the actions.

LoneRanger: if a woman takes a drug, be it for whatever reason… she is single, either way she is celibate, she has not had sex, does not plan to have sex (ever) and this drug renders the womb unable to support life…

I think the “for whatever reason” is too broad a statement. The situation for a woman taking cancer treatments which have the secondary and unintended effect of making her (temporarily?) infertile is quite different than someone taking drugs to render herself sterile “just in case” she gets raped, or because she doesn’t want to have periods anymore.

The fist situation is would be a licit use of such drugs, the second & third examples would not be licit.

i can see the issue is she were married, or taking while being actively sexual to keep from having children…

but remember, she has no plans to have sex, and would brutally defend herselp from being forced to have sex…

now, she is not aborting a concieved child… she is just protecting herself from harm…

Are you saying she wants to in effect be sterilized “just in case”? If so, that is NOT licit. Sterilization in that case would be an intentional self-mutilation which is not licit even if done for good purposes.

 

[Curious]

A baby, however, is different, because she is yours. She belongs and is welcome

Yes - yours and your rapist’s.

 

[fix]

CCF_Jeff:

No the CCC references were showing that the Church considers “conjugal acts” to mean within the context of marriage. I don’t see anywhere she uses it in a sense synonymous with sexual intercourse (which would include unmarried couples).

I really find it hard to follow your points. The Church always taught that contraceptive sex is a grave sin whether in marriage or outside of marriage. Rape is an act of aggression it is not part of marriage. So what point are you arguing?

 

[Pug]

Curious:

Yes - yours and your rapist’s.

I think you are remarking on the repugnance a woman might feel at having an established link to the rapist. I don’t feel eradicating the child destroys the link. There would remain the link that together the two had conceived offspring. That could never be changed. Perhaps in killing the baby a woman thinks she can more easily forget, but I don’t know about that. She will have killed, which I doubt one ever forgets. One probably only pretends not to remember.

I think a better chance at dealing with an overwhelming repugnance is to take care of the child until birth and then perhaps put her up for adoption. Then at least the woman would not have the pain of failing in her duty for the child. However, I can believe that some women would not really accept themselves for giving the child up for adoption, either.

Either way, rape never goes away.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

Catholic2003:

For faithful Catholics, the USCCB statement is in itself an official Church document.

The statement may be “an official” Church document in one sense of the word but I wouldn’t consider it any kind Magisterial teaching (doctrinal) document at all. The Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities is not the same thing as “the USCCB” and the USCCB is not synonymous with “the Magisterium”.

That fact sheet is not signed by anyone and we don’t know who wrote it or who approved it. I would guess that one or more bishops are involved, but it is probably not outside the realm of possibility that someone else did.

The “Magisterium” is the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. Although we owe a great deal of respect to our Bishops (& our priests, of course) as successors to the Apostles, they can and do make mistakes.

Bishops have been forced to retract imprimaturs from books they had approved as not being contrary to the faith after the Vatican found otherwise. Portions of documents from various USCCB committees have come under heavy fire for not being exactly doctrinally sound. “Always Our Children” had to be modified & clarified if I remember correctly.

In similar fashion there was quite a bit of backpedalling and “clarifying” that had to be done after a document put out by one of the Bishops’ committees(?) when it apparently gave the impression that the Jews had their own parallel Covenant to the Christian one and that they had no real need to accept Jesus Christ as Messiah.

The ICCEL battled for years with the Vatican on liturgical translations until the Vatican eventually got so fed up they finally asked that all ofthe members of that committee be replaced as they apparently refused to accept the Vatican norms for translation.

I remember one Bishop speaking out that a number of his fellow Bishops were none too pleased with some of the documents that were coming out in their name, when in fact they had no opportunity to give any (name removed by moderator)ut or even to see the documents before hand.

Most of us also remember the brouhaha that ensued from some group/committee that at least gave the impression they were speaking for the Bishops, when they criticised Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ” as anti-semitic before it even came out of production. They did so based on an unfinished, stolen copy of the script.

The bottom line is that although we owe a lot of respect to our Bishops and although the vast vast majority of what is put out in the name of the USCCB is very sound, edifying, uplifting and often quite eloquent, we cannot and should not uncritically accept everything put out in their name at face value.

There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with carefully examining such documents, particularly when they seem to be breaking new ground or may perhaps even be at some variance with what we perceived to be Church teaching or practice.

More than likely, we will find that we need to bring our understanding in line with these documents. On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that the sensus fidei could have an impact on the direction of these documents now or in the future.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

f****ix: I really find it hard to follow your points.

Sorry about that. I’ll try to rephrase my thoughts below.

The Church always taught that contraceptive sex is a grave sin whether in marriage or outside of marriage. Rape is an act of aggression it is not part of marriage. So what point are you arguing?

I thought that contraception was inherently wrong “whether in marriage or ouside of marriage” as you said above. That was why I was startled when I saw the USCCB fact sheet that OKed in in rape cases.

That posed a dilemma for me. Either I had been mistaken all along (the most likely scenario) and contraception was not inherently wrong (eg. murder, rape etc.) OR the fact sheet was wrong.

I am certainly open to learning/changing my position/enlarging my understanding of this or any other issue, and indeed I am grateful for it. On the other hand, there is also the possibility, however slight, that some document inadvertantly slipped through the USCCB vetting process. (1) (2)

I tried to look at the Magisterial documents on the subject, primarily Humana Vitae and the Catechism to see if I could reconcile them with the Bishop’s statement and my own understanding.

In reality, on a “gut level”, it seems like a woman who was raped should be able to attempt to prevent conception from taking place.

I found no statement from those documents that explicitly and unambiguously said that contraception itself is intrinsically wrong.

This statement in Humanae Vitae seems pretty close, however:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) (3)

The reason I was exploring the different words used in the English translations, is that I think they could potentially be the difference between whether or not it would be licit to attempt contraception in cases of rape. The EWTN translation of Humanae Vitae and the Catechism both use the phrase “conjugal act” rather than “sexual intercourse”.

“Conjugal” means “marital”. Rape would not be considered to be “conjugal” but would be “sexual intercourse”.

Defining the prohibition against contraception more narrowly to be within the bounds of the “conjugal” or “marital act” fits in nicely with the reasoning behind the prohibition as explicated in both Humanae Vitae & the Catechism. It makes the appearance of a full and mutual self giving of the partners a lie when perhaps the most critical aspect of that self-giving, one’s fertility, is deliberately withheld.

Since rape is not a “conjugal act” everything would seem to fit nicely. On the other hand, if defined that narrowly, wouldn’t that also mean that contraception would not be prohibited in other non-“conjugal acts”? eg. prostitutes or those having in casual sex?

We can’t have it both ways. We should consistently interpret the definitions either broadly or narrowly.

It does seem that the encyclicals may leave a little room for interpretation in an area that has not been clearly defined by the Magisterium yet. The bishops rightfully step in for guidance in such situations and their subjects can safely follow that guidance without sinning.

On the other hand, it seems good to try and explore the reasoning behind the guidance, and the “OK” to use contraception in these tragic situations is not a requirement to do so.

I think it is also prudent to bring up what appears to me to be the abortifacient nature of the “morning after pills” even if used according to their guidelines, even though those guidelines would reduce the number of abortions that would result.

I think overall we’re probably pretty close on most of our views, but I’m still trying to reconcile everything in my own mind.

Thanks for the feedback.

Endnotes:

1. Are all USCCB documents “magisterial” ones?
   forums.catholic-questions.org/…618
2. Actually, I do in fact still think that it is wrong to allow the use of “emergency contraceptive drugs” because as far as I can tell they will still cause early abortions even with the safeguards they recommend (testing for whether or not ovulation has already occurred). (link 1) (link 2).
3. Humanae Vitae
   Pope Paul VI 7-25-68
   link

 

[yochumjy]

All,

I’m wondering something: I looked at webster.com and got this for a definition of conjugal:
Main Entry: con·ju·gal
Pronunciation: 'kän-ji-g&l also k&n-'jü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjugalis, from conjug-, conjux husband, wife, from conjungere to join, unite in marriage
: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

Notice that from conjungere: to join, unite in marriage. So the conjugal act is the act that officially makes the marriage official, correct? Thus conjugal relations could imply that both people agree on the act, thus joining them as one. Obviously, people not married can agree to be one without implying marriage, yet maybe the agreement set the stage for some type of psuedo-marital agreement. Rape, has no agreement to it, it is forced, thus it does not adhere to the inherent attitude/formula of conjugal, either within or outside of marriage.

I agree I may be out on a limb here, grasping for understanding… Any other thoughts? Maybe this will spark someone else’s understanding…

John

 

[CCF_Jeff]

yochumjy:

All,

I’m wondering something: I looked at webster.com and got this for a definition of conjugal:
Main Entry: con·ju·gal
Pronunciation: 'kän-ji-g&l also k&n-'jü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjugalis, from conjug-, conjux husband, wife, from conjungere to join, unite in marriage
: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

Notice that from conjungere: to join, unite in marriage. So the conjugal act is the act that officially makes the marriage official, correct? Thus conjugal relations could imply that both people agree on the act, thus joining them as one. Obviously, people not married can agree to be one without implying marriage, yet maybe the agreement set the stage for some type of psuedo-marital agreement. Rape, has no agreement to it, it is forced, thus it does not adhere to the inherent attitude/formula of conjugal, either within or outside of marriage.

I agree I may be out on a limb here, grasping for understanding… Any other thoughts? Maybe this will spark someone else’s understanding…

John

Thanks for the feedback, John. What you are saying does seem to me to be what the theologians must be reasoning. It also seems intuitively “right”.

On the other hand, it seems to be a little bit of a stretch to me. In the case of prostitutes, drug addicts giving sex for drugs, or in casual or “recreational sex”, orgies, group sex etc. there wouldn’t seem to be even a “psuedo-marital” agreement and yet my gut feeling is that contraception in such cases would still be one more sin on top of any others. Maybe not, though, or maybe I’m missing something. Maybe the “marital act” is so sinfully twisted and distorted at that point that the contraception wouldn’t matter. I too welcome any additional insights.

 

[yochumjy]

CCF_Jeff:

Thanks for the feedback, John. What you are saying does seem to me to be what the theologians must be reasoning. It also seems intuitively “right”.

On the other hand, it seems to be a little bit of a stretch to me. In the case of prostitutes, drug addicts giving sex for drugs, or in casual or “recreational sex”, orgies, group sex etc. there wouldn’t seem to be even a “psuedo-marital” agreement and yet my gut feeling is that contraception in such cases would still be one more sin on top of any others. Maybe not, though, or maybe I’m missing something. Maybe the “marital act” is so sinfully twisted and distorted at that point that the contraception wouldn’t matter. I too welcome any additional insights.

Thanks for your feedback.

I agree about the stretch part, and also it seems somehow right. I also hope that someone else will put in their thoughts.

I disagree that contraception doesn’t matter in the case of otherwise sinfully acts. If we allow God, he will bring us out of sin. By allowing even part of the marital act to be united with God’s way (non-contraceptive, at least) we/they could be opening themselves up to allowing God to begin to work a healing. Maybe a child would change their life and help them to turn from sin, or at least some sin. I couldn’t say, but God can work in mysterious ways, so we should let him in whatever way we can. And who is to say that a mistake in taking the pill/condom use isn’t just God’s way of moving into a person’s life.

John

 

[CCF_Jeff]

yochumjy: I disagree that contraception doesn’t matter in the case of otherwise sinfully acts. If we allow God, he will bring us out of sin. By allowing even part of the marital act to be united with God’s way (non-contraceptive, at least) we/they could be opening themselves up to allowing God to begin to work a healing. Maybe a child would change their life and help them to turn from sin, or at least some sin. I couldn’t say, but God can work in mysterious ways, so we should let him in whatever way we can. And who is to say that a mistake in taking the pill/condom use isn’t just God’s way of moving into a person’s life.

John

Well, I agree with you here as well. That’s why it’s giving me a little “cognitive dissonance” or whatever you want to call it in trying to reconcile these views. It seems to me, and I always assumed that using contraceptives was wrong in all of those other relationships as well. It was compounding sin with more sin.

On the other hand, if we are being consistent, it would seem to me that many of these other relationships also lack that “marital” or even “pseudo-marital” aspect inherent in the “conjugal act” as Our Lord intended it. If the lack of that aspect renders contraception licit in the case of rape, wouldn’t it do the same thing in other relationships lacking that aspect?

Of course the instances I mentioned at least had some semblance of consent by both parties. But I can think of instances where full and free consent of one or another of the parties might be impaired even in a true marital relationship and would expect that virtually no one would contend that contraception would be licit in such instances.

For instance, what if a husband was really pressuring his wife for sex even though he knew she did not want to. Maybe she had had a very problematic pregnancy and had not even fully recovered from it. What if he wasn’t Catholic or didn’t live his faith and tried to pressure her to use birth control and threatened to leave her (or go visit his “girlfriend” or find a prostitute or whatever) unless she gave him what he wanted when he wanted it.

Obviously the guy is a cad and most women would probably want at least a separation from him at some point, but many, perhaps even most women would be heavily pressured at that point. For those who felt they were forced into sex acts in which they didn’t even pretend to be giving fully and completely of themselves (and which their partner could care less about anyway and obviously was not giving of himself reciprocally either), would it not still be wrong to contracept?

There are any number of potential variations of the above scenario but I had always assumed using contraception in such instances was always objectively wrong, though the subjective guilt might be mitigated by the circumstances.

It seems to me that if USCCB statement is correct, and contraception is not* itself* intrinsically wrong, it might actually be licitly used in such circumstances. The sin would exclusively be in distorting the true meaning of the marital act by pressuring one’s partner to engage in it against their will. If the true meaning of the marital act is already destroyed, there is no sin in contracepting on the part of the pressured party as there was no pretense of self-giving in the first place. Or at least that’s how it seems to me, though I know I may be missing something.

 

[tuopaolo]

CCF_Jeff:

It seems to me that if USCCB statement is correct, and contraception is not* itself* intrinsically wrong, it might actually be licitly used in such circumstances. The sin would exclusively be in distorting the true meaning of the marital act by pressuring one’s partner to engage in it against their will. If the true meaning of the marital act is already destroyed, there is no sin in contracepting on the part of the pressured party as there was no pretense of self-giving in the first place. Or at least that’s how it seems to me, though I know I may be missing something.

I would say that the intention of having sexual intercourse while contracepting is what is to be considered intrinsically wrong. That would make things consistent.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

tuopaolo:

I would say that the intention of having sexual intercourse while contracepting is what is to be considered intrinsically wrong. That would make things consistent.

But wouldn’t that mean that someone who had no intention of contracepting, but later changed their mind because of a change in circumstances would be committing no sin thereby?

For instance, what if a husband and wife engaged in the conjugal act deliberately being open to the gift of new life. The next day the husband is severely injured or killed (or laid off from work etc.). Would it then be licit for his wife to use spermicide or other means to prevent conception? They had no intention of contracepting when they engaged in conjugal relations afterall.

 

[tuopaolo]

CCF_Jeff:

But wouldn’t that mean that someone who had no intention of contracepting, but later changed their mind because of a change in circumstances would be committing no sin thereby?

For instance, what if a husband and wife engaged in the conjugal act deliberately being open to the gift of new life. The next day the husband is severely injured or killed (or laid off from work etc.). Would it then be licit for his wife to use spermicide or other means to prevent conception? They had no intention of contracepting when they engaged in conjugal relations afterall.

You are correct. But it wouldn’t be every day that the husband is severely injured or killed or laid off the next day.

 

[Pug]

CCF_Jeff:

For instance, what if a husband and wife engaged in the conjugal act deliberately being open to the gift of new life. The next day the husband is severely injured or killed (or laid off from work etc.). Would it then be licit for his wife to use spermicide or other means to prevent conception? They had no intention of contracepting when they engaged in conjugal relations afterall.

I think it would be wrong to interfere with the natural consequences of legitimate intercourse for some end that involves some type of contraception. Take a look at this CCC

**2370 **…“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

The sin would take place when the widow applied the spermicide, not when they had conjugal relations. Do you see this passage another way?

 

[ames61]

CCF_Jeff:

But wouldn’t that mean that someone who had no intention of contracepting, but later changed their mind because of a change in circumstances would be committing no sin thereby?

For instance, what if a husband and wife engaged in the conjugal act deliberately being open to the gift of new life. The next day the husband is severely injured or killed (or laid off from work etc.). Would it then be licit for his wife to use spermicide or other means to prevent conception? They had no intention of contracepting when they engaged in conjugal relations afterall.

Try this-a rape voids the conjugal act by its very nature. It renders an intrinsically good action into an evil one. So protecting the victim from the consequenses (pregnancy) would not be changing the consequences of the conjugal act, because the conjugal act, as such never occured. What occured was a violation which in and of itself was an evil, so avoiding the consequences of an evil act is not evil in and of itself (though you can still not use an abortifacient)

Whereas the husband wife scenario, it was a conjugal act so it any action to avoid the consequences would be an affront to the conjugal act, and thus an intrinsic evil.

Don’t know if this holds up, but its how I rationalize the emergency contraception protocol.

In Christ,
Amy

 

[tuopaolo]

Pug:

I think it would be wrong to interfere with the natural consequences of legitimate intercourse for some end that involves some type of contraception. Take a look at this CCC

**2370 **…“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

The sin would take place when the widow applied the spermicide, not when they had conjugal relations. Do you see this passage another way?

In Catholic moral theology the mere intention to do something sinful realizes the sin even when that intention is not executed. So for example if I intend to steal a million dollars then I have already sinned and would need to confess my intention of stealing – even if on the way to the bank I change my mind. So if a couple have sex, intending to contracept it afterwards, they have already sinned at the moment the intention is formed.

 

[allhers]

CCF_Jeff:

I was floored when I first read this. What’s up here?

Fact Sheet
Emergency Contraception and Treatment
of Victims of Sexual Assault

www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.htm

…A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.2

Hospitals should develop appropriate protocols to determine whether administering emergency contraception would have an abortifacient effect. Tests are available to determine whether ovulation has occurred.3

…

---

Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3070

 

[allhers]

Maybe everyone ought to re-read this, it sounds fine to me just the way it is. Pay special attention to the wording this time, it says NOTHING about using artificial contraception or even emergency contraception, what it does say however, is that AS LONG as CONTRACEPTION HAS NOT taken place yet, then she would be allowed to be treated. Nothing wrong with this at all, the Doctors know how long it takes to be able to safely treat her, and as long as she is honest about how long ago it happened, then all would be well. Seems to me this is why they say to go to the hospital IMMEDIATELY if at all possible. As so many here have already pointed out, if she has already CONCEIVED, (become preganant) then, she will not be allowed to use any thing that would KILL the baby. As for those bringing up all these different reasons why anyone would change their mind after having marital relations with your spouse, for whatever reason, (his death, lack of employment, etc…) NO, you cannot for ANY reason use these options then. No matter what. Period. End of story!

 

[allhers]

Maybe everyone ought to re-read it, it sounds fine to me just the way it is, what the Bishops said. Pay special attention to the wording this time, it says NOTHING about using artificial contraception or even emergency contraception, what it does say however, is that AS LONG as CONTRACEPTION HAS NOT taken place yet, then she would be allowed to be treated. Nothing wrong with this at all, the Doctors know how long it takes to be able to safely treat her, and as long as she is honest about how long ago it happened, then all would be well. Seems to me this is why they say to go to the hospital IMMEDIATELY if at all possible. As so many here have already pointed out, if she has already CONCEIVED, (become preganant) then, she will not be allowed to use any thing that would KILL the baby. As for those bringing up all these different reasons why anyone would change their mind after having marital relations with your spouse, for whatever reason, (his death, lack of employment, etc…) NO, you cannot for ANY reason use these options then. No matter what. Period. End of story!

 

[ames61]

allhers:

Maybe everyone ought to re-read it, it sounds fine to me just the way it is, what the Bishops said. Pay special attention to the wording this time, it says NOTHING about using artificial contraception or even emergency contraception, what it does say however, is that AS LONG as CONTRACEPTION HAS NOT taken place yet, then she would be allowed to be treated. Nothing wrong with this at all,

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm

To me “defending herself from potential conception”, “treatments to surpress ovulation and incapcitate sperm” would definitely qualify as contraception. I’m curious, if this is not contraception, how would you define it?