Would you want emergency contraception if you or yours were raped?

[Island_Oak]

Brad:

An authoritative teaching of the Church is one on faith or morals from the teaching authority of the Church - the Magisterium.

I’m not suggesting the USCCB is advocating a contradictory position as I said that I neither agree nor disagree with the statement with my limited information. I’m simply saying that this comes from the USCCB and not the teaching magisterium of the Church. The USCCB is a committee of US Bishops - it is not the teaching authority. This would be done through an encyclical or other document from the Vatican congregations or Pope.

In the Church, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice"Lumen Gentium, 25]. “The ordinary
and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for” (CCC 2034).

The Magisterium or teaching office of the pastors of the Church in moral matters "is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit"of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which set out the principles of moral life valid for all men” [CCC 2033].

“The authority of the Magisterium extendsnot only to deposit of divine revelation, but also to the specific precepts of the natural law because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation” (CCC 2036). “Asf ar as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magesterium on moral questions. Personal conscienceand reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law orthe Magisterium of the Church” [CCC 2039].

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

In the Church, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice"Lumen Gentium, 25]. “The ordinary
and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for” (CCC 2034).

The Magisterium or teaching office of the pastors of the Church in moral matters "is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit"of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which set out the principles of moral life valid for all men” [CCC 2033].

“The authority of the Magisterium extendsnot only to deposit of divine revelation, but also to the specific precepts of the natural law because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation” (CCC 2036). “Asf ar as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magesterium on moral questions. Personal conscienceand reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law orthe Magisterium of the Church” [CCC 2039].

What magnificent references from the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church - like music to the ears. And, you threw in a Vatican II council document for good measure - also great stuff.

The key hear regarding the USCCB document is that the authors and approvers must be Bishops in communion with the Magisterium on this topic. I’m not saying that they are not - just that it is possible.

To shed some light onto where I’m coming from - I currently believe that most if not all USCCB Bishops are in communion with the Magisterium. However, there are, without question in my mind, employees of the USCCB that are not in communion with some Church teaching and some of these employees author USCCB documents.

This is getting off-topic however.

 

[Island_Oak]

Brad, with all due respect I’m not sure you know where you’re coming from. You questioned the existence of the policy on EC and I pointed out the reference. Next you claimed that since the policy was authored by the bishops and not the Vatican it was not an authoritative teaching. I supplied several further sources demonstrating that this was not correct. Now you’re trying to argue that it’s possible that some US bishops are not, in YOUR opinion, in communion with the Pope and suggest that any writings/teachings promulgated by them do not have the full force and effect of "authoritative teachings. You can’t play that game here. You may not like it or agree with it, but you have to honor it as a valid teaching of the Church. Period. End of sentence.

Not to lump you personally into this, Brad, but I’m finding an interesting trend emerging on these forums particularly among some self-styled “conservative” Catholics. They rally and decry the loss of tradition and lack of respect for Church authority…then in the same breath dismiss any number of formally declared, authentic teachings, traditions, and policies as “liberal,” “feminist” or “politically correct.” This is often most in evidence in the heated discussions about the mass itself. However, I’ve read suggestions on these formus that certain policies, even some adopted by our Holy Father, are nothing more than the fruit of conniving and trickery undertaken by agenda-toting bishops. Someone please explain to me how this arrogance and self rightousness differs from the charges lobbed at “cafeteria Catholics” who are accused of picking and choosing which teachings they will follow and who are so frequently harpooned by the supposedly obedient traditionalists!

 

[katybird]

cainem:

from a totally selfish view point i would ask my wife to take emergency contraception, i could not love the child or bear to see my wife pregnant from such a horrific attack how many people could honestly say their relationship would survive even though their wife was forcibly impregnated, sorry not the answer you want to hear but an honest one

OK, if it’s possible to get the treatment that PREVENTS contraception, but does not cause an abortion, I can understand what you’re saying.

But, sometimes this is not possible. If she is in a certain part of her cycle, the risk of aborting a fertilized egg is too great.

In which case, she will have to carry to term. Would you be able to tolerate this? Would you be OK with it if she put the baby up for adoption? What if she didn’t want to?

Actually, this is a good question for the guys: if your wife was raped, would you want to raise the baby or put it up for adoption? Let’s say her attacker was of a different race, so the baby would NOT look anything like you and the rest of your family… would you be able to stand this, or not?

 

[cainem]

being honest i could not tolerate it, every time you looked at the child you would in your minds eye be looking at the rapist the man who violated your wife the mother of your children, if it was to late i would want her to put child into adoption, however after going to term my wife is not sure if she would agree with me, if the attacker was different race how would you explain to children under ages of six why the new baby is a different colour?

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

Brad, with all due respect I’m not sure you know where you’re coming from. You questioned the existence of the policy on EC and I pointed out the reference. Next you claimed that since the policy was authored by the bishops and not the Vatican it was not an authoritative teaching. I supplied several further sources demonstrating that this was not correct. Now you’re trying to argue that it’s possible that some US bishops are not, in YOUR opinion, in communion with the Pope and suggest that any writings/teachings promulgated by them do not have the full force and effect of "authoritative teachings. You can’t play that game here. You may not like it or agree with it, but you have to honor it as a valid teaching of the Church. Period. End of sentence.

Not to lump you personally into this, Brad, but I’m finding an interesting trend emerging on these forums particularly among some self-styled “conservative” Catholics. They rally and decry the loss of tradition and lack of respect for Church authority…then in the same breath dismiss any number of formally declared, authentic teachings, traditions, and policies as “liberal,” “feminist” or “politically correct.” This is often most in evidence in the heated discussions about the mass itself. However, I’ve read suggestions on these formus that certain policies, even some adopted by our Holy Father, are nothing more than the fruit of conniving and trickery undertaken by agenda-toting bishops. Someone please explain to me how this arrogance and self rightousness differs from the charges lobbed at “cafeteria Catholics” who are accused of picking and choosing which teachings they will follow and who are so frequently harpooned by the supposedly obedient traditionalists!

The USCCB has allowed documents to be published that had to be corrected by Rome later. The USCCB only has teaching authority when their documents are in union with Rome. Not every document from them is automatically a teaching document that is necessarily infallible or binding on every Catholic conscience.

It is usually quite easy to discern what is Catholic teaching and what contradicts it. Not always easy, but often. We have plenty of resources today to check and see what is legitimate and what is not. Are you claiming every Catholic needs to put right reason aside and obey every command from every cleric no matter what?

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

The USCCB has allowed documents to be published that had to be corrected by Rome later. The USCCB only has teaching authority when their documents are in union with Rome. Not every document from them is automatically a teaching document that is necessarily infallible or binding on every Catholic conscience.

It is usually quite easy to discern what is Catholic teaching and what contradicts it. Not always easy, but often. We have plenty of resources today to check and see what is legitimate and what is not. Are you claiming every Catholic needs to put right reason aside and obey every command from every cleric no matter what?

I am not necessarily taking issue with what you have very carefully worded above. Although on the topic at hand I would not agree that the USCCB has stepped out of line or is not in communion on their teaching about EC. If you disagree, I would appreciate correction via an authoritative cite so that I might be better informed.

On the larger issue I raised, however, there is an element of self-discipline that must be employed when using right reason, discernment, investigation and research to avoid the error of simply determining that in one’s own opinion that a given teaching is not in communion with the Church and choosing not to follow it. That latter is disobedience, pure and simple. Cafeteria Catholics come in all stripes–the picking and choosing doesn’t become less offensive because one comes from a more “traditional” perspective vs. “liberal” one.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

I am not necessarily taking issue with what you have very carefully worded above. Although on the topic at hand I would not agree that the USCCB has stepped out of line or is not in communion on their teaching about EC. If you disagree, I would appreciate correction via an authoritative cite so that I might be better informed.

On the larger issue I raised, however, there is an element of self-discipline that must be employed when using right reason, discernment, investigation and research to avoid the error of simply determining that in one’s own opinion that a given teaching is not in communion with the Church and choosing not to follow it. That latter is disobedience, pure and simple. Cafeteria Catholics come in all stripes–the picking and choosing doesn’t become less offensive because one comes from a more “traditional” perspective vs. “liberal” one.

I agree that cafeteriaism can be found on the left and right. I hardly ever see it on the right on these forums, but see it regularly from the left here.

Common knowledge shows the USCCB is very liberal. If you want to debate that we can start a new thread. My posts regarding emergency contraception all agree with Church teaching. You can go back and check.

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

Brad, with all due respect I’m not sure you know where you’re coming from. You questioned the existence of the policy on EC and I pointed out the reference. Next you claimed that since the policy was authored by the bishops and not the Vatican it was not an authoritative teaching. I supplied several further sources demonstrating that this was not correct. Now you’re trying to argue that it’s possible that some US bishops are not, in YOUR opinion, in communion with the Pope and suggest that any writings/teachings promulgated by them do not have the full force and effect of "authoritative teachings. You can’t play that game here. You may not like it or agree with it, but you have to honor it as a valid teaching of the Church. Period. End of sentence.

Not to lump you personally into this, Brad, but I’m finding an interesting trend emerging on these forums particularly among some self-styled “conservative” Catholics. They rally and decry the loss of tradition and lack of respect for Church authority…then in the same breath dismiss any number of formally declared, authentic teachings, traditions, and policies as “liberal,” “feminist” or “politically correct.” This is often most in evidence in the heated discussions about the mass itself. However, I’ve read suggestions on these formus that certain policies, even some adopted by our Holy Father, are nothing more than the fruit of conniving and trickery undertaken by agenda-toting bishops. Someone please explain to me how this arrogance and self rightousness differs from the charges lobbed at “cafeteria Catholics” who are accused of picking and choosing which teachings they will follow and who are so frequently harpooned by the supposedly obedient traditionalists!

Not playing any games - this is too serious.

Obviously I would disagree with you on the point that I don’t know where I’m coming from. No matter how strongly you make a point, if it is not correct - I won’t agree with it. If you don’t understand where I’m coming from, that’s a different story and we can work towards understanding.

I will show you how easy it is to get confusing, if not contradictory, information from USCCB resources. The following document calls into question the use of emergency contraception as to whether it it really prevents contraception or simply acts as an abortifacent. It also questions other aspects of emergency contraception.

nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/abortion/fact1098.htm

Emergency contraception is highly touted by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providing agencies as a way to prevent conception. Planned Parenthood likes to use emergency contraception to prevent conception from “date rape” or any other type of “unwanted” sexual intercourse giving fornicators plenty of wiggle room to get out of an unwanted result of wanted intercourse - and believe me, PP doesn’t care if a human life is killed in the process - whoops - and never follows up with authorities to charge the rapist.

A document authored by the Bishops is not necessarily authoritative teaching. They ARE NOT the teaching Magisterium of the Church - they ARE NOT infallible. If the Holy Father wrote an encyclical or any other document relating the same - I would consider it authoritative teaching. The teaching authority of the Church sits in the Vatican - there are hundreds of other countries besides the United States - what the USCCB teaches can be wrong and sometimes is confusing and contradictory.

This is not to say that there isn’t some very useful information provided by the USCCB but if their information conflicts with council documents, papal encyclical, or document produced by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congregation for Divine Worship then I would have to disagree with it.

This is not arrogance - this is faithfulness to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Bishops disagree with one another - there has to be a final say - that say sits in Rome.
When 3 of the USCCB board members support abortion, let’s say I’m skeptical about some of their output.

ALL of that said, I am not saying that the document you referenced falls into a category of conflict with Rome. I am unsure if it does. Humanae Vitae condemns all contraception and certainly all abortion but it doesn’t address the issue of contraception in cases of rape.

 

[misericordie]

katybird:

I’m already a single mom with a baby conceieved out of wedlock. I can’t even imagine the embarrassment of showing up pregnant again. I mean, would I have to explain to everyone “I got raped?” I don’t think I’d want to do that, and it would be impossible to do it, much of the time.

I wouldn’t hold it against the baby, though. I’d love to have another baby. I don’t know how I’d ever afford it and I don’t know how I’d manage two little children. It would break my heart to not keep the baby - I know I would love the baby desperately.

I think, if the Morning After Pill could PREVENT conception, I would absolutely go for it. I mean, if I could be induced to menstruate the very next day, I think the chances of completely averting pregnancy would be very good.

If that’s not an option, I guess I’d go to one of those homes for pregnant women or some sort of convent. Someplace away from everyone I know where I can pray a lot and be with people who understand. Giving up the baby would be very, very difficult, although at least I’d still have my son and I’d know that I was doing it for HIS good, as well.

Somebody above said “I’d rather die than be raped.” I have to admit that the example of Maria Gorretti has always disturbed me. A man threatened her with a weapon and she said “I can’t do that! It would be a mortal sin!” WOULD it be sinful for a woman to allow a man to rape her if he threatened her life? What about all those prayers that say “Lord, I would rather DIE than offend you in any way!” Are we expected to choose martyrdom? I think that choosing martyrdom is, of course, a beautiful thing. But, if I did that, my son would be an orphan!

What do you all think?

By the way, the so called “morning after pill” is nothing less than an actual abortion too. And of course severe health risks and even deaths have occured in many women who have taken the pill due to very bad side effects.

 

[Brad]

Note this article regarding emergency contraception.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=17763

 

[Vincent]

The following distinction might clarify the morality behind preventing conceptions due to rape:

“There has been increasing recognition that the subject of the Church’s anti-contraception teaching is not biological intercourse which would be *coitus *in Latin but *marital *sexual intercourse, called usus matrimonii in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.”

—John F. Kippley. Sex and the Marriage Covenant, p. 299​

 

[katybird]

cainem:

being honest i could not tolerate it, every time you looked at the child you would in your minds eye be looking at the rapist the man who violated your wife the mother of your children, if it was to late i would want her to put child into adoption, however after going to term my wife is not sure if she would agree with me, if the attacker was different race how would you explain to children under ages of six why the new baby is a different colour?

What if your wife didn’t want to? What if she loved the baby as much as she did her other children? Would you insist? What if she refused?

I ask these questions because rape happens to married women, too. So, the issues of wanting or not wanting the child involve more than one person…

 

[katybird]

misericordie:

By the way, the so called “morning after pill” is nothing less than an actual abortion too. And of course severe health risks and even deaths have occured in many women who have taken the pill due to very bad side effects.

Your post had practically nothing to do with my post. I said IF there were a way to prevent fertilazation… other people are debating whether or not the morning after pill is always an abortificant.

I am really tired of being told things by people on this forum who don’t really seem to read my posts. It’s like you think there are idiots lurking behind every bush who need to be corrected or something.

Nobody has talked about the issue I brought up, which is “Is it sinful to submit to a rapist if he’s holding a weapon to your head?” But, when it is erroneously believed that I’m espousing some incorrect view, then they’re all suddenly Johnny On The Spot.

 

[Catholic_Mike]

katybird:

Nobody has talked about the issue I brought up, which is “Is it sinful to submit to a rapist if he’s holding a weapon to your head?” But, when it is erroneously believed that I’m espousing some incorrect view, then they’re all suddenly Johnny On The Spot.

My guess is that people either view the answer as obvious, or the issue too difficult to even get near.

My initial thoughts…

In general, we are allowed - but not obligated - to use violence to protect ourselves in some cases, right? Or am I wrong? Are we required to set aside justice for ourselves and simply be merciful? But if we are allowed to use violence… maybe a woman is allowed to let something bad (like rape) happen if it will save her life. But how can she know? There has to be a lot of discresion given to women in these circumstances… there are a lot of factors to consider in predicting what behaviors will lead to what outcomes. And really, given the mental state a person with a gun to her head has to be in… I don’t think anything a person does in that situation would earn them much guilt.

I’ve asked my girlfriend what she would do in a situation like that. She wasn’t sure, but she guessed she’d try to keep fighting no matter what. That really made me scrunch up inside. I wouldn’t want to lose her… I’d want her to do whatever would keep herself alive… even if that meant giving in. But I don’t think I could fault her for fighting to that point. And I don’t know what reaction makes women more likely to get away anyhow.

But maybe that is part of it… if a woman has children or others who depend on her, maybe that needs to be taken into consideration.

Bottom line is that I don’t know.

I’ve gone out on a limb and bainstormed some thoughts, hopefully nobody will get ticked off at anything I wrote.

 

[cainem]

katybird:

What if your wife didn’t want to? What if she loved the baby as much as she did her other children? Would you insist? What if she refused?

I ask these questions because rape happens to married women, too. So, the issues of wanting or not wanting the child involve more than one person…

in all honsesty i dont know but i dont think i could stay in the same house as it, if i couldn’t love the baby the same as my own children, perhaps it would be best if i kept my distance from it, will just have to pray that it would never happen to us

 

[homeschoolhelen]

This subject is a little close to my heart for a variety of reasons. I myself am a rape victim, but I didn’t get pregnant. I was afraid I was and was very naive about everything when it happened. I was 18 when it happened and 23 when I finally told my family about it. I remember waiting and waiting to see if I was pregnant and if I was, I was going to just be forced to tell my family what happened sooner. The thought of abortion, never crossed my mind. Honestly. Because I was raised pro-life no matter what the circumstances. This rape put my life into a tale spin of bad decisions etc., but again I ended up not being pregnant.

Looking back, I am 39, married with four children, I realize that everyone that has commented is on a journey to understand this situation. In the end there is one common denominator. God. Life comes from God. Contraception, morning after pills, abortions are all ways to stop life from God. God doesn’t make mistakes. We do. We feel we can say no to God. Every single child that is sent here has a reason in this life. Maybe it is to be adopted by a family that can’t have their own children. No matter what, babies conceived by violence deserve to be born and loved, they are blessings just the same, but maybe for someone else or maybe for the mother carrying that baby!

 

[Pug]

katybird:

Nobody has talked about the issue I brought up, which is “Is it sinful to submit to a rapist if he’s holding a weapon to your head?” But, when it is erroneously believed that I’m espousing some incorrect view, then they’re all suddenly Johnny On The Spot.

I read that question of yours, but didn’t answer as it seemed off topic on first glance. I understand your annoyance on that other issue.

Here is a place in the bible that seems obliquely to touch your question Deuteronomy 22:23-27. It’s about punishments differing depending on if the girl cried out for help (like struggling maybe).

 

[Island_Oak]

I know this is starting to veer off the original thread topic–but where does the issue of consent ever enter into a discussion of rape? At what point after being either abducted, beaten, tied up, pinned down or threatened with a weapon do you have an option not to “submit?” At the core of its commonly understood meaning, rape involves sexual contact that is unwanted and forced upon one by another without consent.

 

[Brad]

Vincent:

The following distinction might clarify the morality behind preventing conceptions due to rape:

—John F. Kippley. Sex and the Marriage Covenant, p. 299​

Thanks for providing.

My concern is not emergency contraception following a rape. My concern is emergency abortion under the name “emergency contraception” following a rape.

The leading abortion mills are the biggest promotors of “ermergency contraception”. As a result, I am a skeptic of its implementation.