Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

[Michie]

this part I can not say for sure but I think a rapist wearing a condom would be viewed as morally similar to a condom in use by a gay couple to prevent disease. There are, of course, differences in those examples. But the similarity is that both are not the conjugal act. Both are deformed actions from the start. Because rape is an act of violence and not the conjugal act it is a different moral object in contraception terms. That is how it seems the Bishops can directly say, as directly as they do that non-abortive contraception is allowable in rape. I mean...this has been a longstanding policy and the Vatican and very conservative bishops have not opposed the continual inclusion of this view. And I think it revolves around the nature of the act as having a different object.

It makes sense to me up to a point. It's a disordered act anyway you look at it so if conception has not occured...then it is permissable to take action from that occuring to ease the suffering of the victim.

But does the rapist wearing a condom...& many do to prevent DNA evidence make the act any less evil?

Gay couples, same question?

It seems to me that preventative sponges & condoms would be a grey area depending...

 

[sylverpiano]

To be very truthful here, I do not know if I would have been able to carry a pregnancy as a result of my assault to term. At times I have a very tenuous grasp on my sanity, and when I woke up in that ambulance I was horribly afraid that, in addition to my injuries, I would be pregnant. At that time I was unaware of the case of chlamydia I had received.

I was peering into a very dark abyss of madness. It was a long road back, and sometimes I don't think I am all the way home.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Contrary to Mike's Title and OP. . Contraception . .ANY contraception is INTRINSICALLY EVIL according to the teaching of the Catholic Church:

The Immorality of Contraception

Contraception is morally wrong not simply because of its direct link to abortion; it is wrong in itself. In his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI gives an authoritative definition of contraception as "every action which, either 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."xii Paul VI goes on to reaffirm the Church's constant teaching that such actions are intrinsically evil (intrinsice inhonestum),xiii explaining that contraception violates "the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and theprocreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."


USCCB
USCCB - Pro-Life Activities - Contraception and Abortion: The Underlying Link



PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF" ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT


2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "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:159
​

 

[Gwendolyn]

Contraception is not intrinsically evil. NFP is contraception - you only have sex when you know you are not fertile, acting against (contra) conception (ception).

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil when it comes to the conjugal act.

Rape is not a conjugal act. It is an act of violence.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Contraception is not intrinsically evil. NFP is contraception - you only have sex when you know you are not fertile, acting against (contra) conception (ception).

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil when it comes to the conjugal act.

Rape is not a conjugal act. It is an act of violence.

Conjugal act is sex. The conjugal ACT does not change simply because it is abused or misused.


The conjugal act is not defined by intention . .but by action . .ie sexual intercourse.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Also, hormones are hormones. They are not drugs. The "morning after pill" is a hormone pill, not a drug.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Additionally, the statement is from a committee not necessarily the same thing as the USCCB making an official statement.


According to the reasonsing being presented by some here, if the woman does not consent to the sexual act, she has the right to prevent pregnancy.

If the woman is married and does not consent to the sexual act wth her husband but he forces himself on her anyway, does the wife have the right to prevent a pregnancy?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Also, hormones are hormones. They are not drugs. The "morning after pill" is a hormone pill, not a drug.

That makes it a drug.

 

[Davidnic]

Contraception is not intrinsically evil. NFP is contraception - you only have sex when you know you are not fertile, acting against (contra) conception (ception).

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil when it comes to the conjugal act.

Rape is not a conjugal act. It is an act of violence.

Yep. And I am assuming, you....like me learned that in graduate level moral theology taught by a Bishop approved professor.

 

[Michie]

Yep. And I am assuming, you....like me learned that in graduate level moral theology taught by a Bishop approved professor.

But even a child concieved in rape has the same right to life as one joined in sacramental marriage. Correct?

 

[Davidnic]

Additionally, the statement is from a committee not necessarily the same thing as the USCCB making an official statement.


According to the reasonsing being presented by some here, if the woman does not consent to the sexual act, she has the right to prevent pregnancy.

If the woman is married and does not consent to the sexual act wth her husband but he forces himself on her anyway, does the wife have the right to prevent a pregnancy?

Rape is rape and it happens in marriage too. The marriage vows are not a license to take your wife by force, it is an agreement of mutual self donation. Force in a marriage is counter to the essence of marriage. So it is exactly the same as rape outside of marriage with the Bishops same logic applying.

 

[Davidnic]

Conjugal act is sex. The conjugal ACT does not change simply because it is abused or misused.


The conjugal act is not defined by intention . .but by action . .ie sexual intercourse.

It is defined by far more than the physical act. Rape is not the conjugal act it is violence. The conjugal act is an act of mutual self donation.

Now, that donation can be properly ordered or improperly disposed in various ways (outside of marriage or with pleasure as the goal of the mutual donation) Only in marriage and ordered toward children and love is it properly ordered. But when the act is free willed it is the same basic act.

When free will is removed it is not the same act. It is not even physically and mechanically the same in many respects. But the limited surface similarities do not change rape into the conjugal act.

I have had far too many priests confirm this difference, along with the USCCB instruction and the Bishops constant support of the Ethical guidelines for hospitals to agree with how you see it. And I am sure the Vatican and the USCCB are on the same page as far as what rape is as opposed to the conjugal act. Rape is defined by the Church as an act of intrinsic evil...so if rape can also be the conjugal act in a more than mechanically similar way..then it can be argued the conjugal act is an intrinsic evil. But it is not because they are two distinctly different objective acts. So no...it is fairly clear that the Bishops and the Vatican are on the same page but some interpretation here is not correct.

 

[Davidnic]

But even a child concieved in rape has the same right to life as one joined in sacramental marriage. Correct?

Yep if conception has taken place. And the document in question is clear on that. This conversation changes if conception takes place. The difference only exists if you are slowing ovulation or dealing with the violence before conception takes place.

So yes a conceived child of rape is the same as a fully grown adult or any other conceived child. This only applies to contraception.

 

[Michie]

Yep if conception has taken place. And the document in question is clear on that. This conversation changes if conception takes place. The difference only exists if you are slowing ovulation or dealing with the violence before conception takes place.

So yes a conceived child of rape is the same as a fully grown adult or any other conceived child. This only applies to contraception.

Ok....so preventative measures can be taken in acts of violence such as rape from the act itself up to 72 hours later? And it is not considered a sin?

 

[thereselittleflower]

DAILY CATHOLIC WEDNESDAY April 14, 1999 vol. 10, no. 73



VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- "The morning-after pill does not exist. This is an abortion." That statement was issued by Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, in response to reports that UN authorities are issuing "emergency contraceptives" to women in Kosovo, to be used in case of rape.


The effect of the "morning-after pill" is to make the womb inhospitable to the unborn child, Bishop Sgreccia pointed out. The massive doses of hormones contained in these pills do not prevent pregnancy, but rather prevent the implantation of a fetus in the womb when a pregnancy has already occurred. Thus the "morning-after pill" does not prevent conception; "it is really a technique of abortion," he concluded.

Several years ago, nuns in Congo were administered contraceptive pills as a defense against pregnancy in case of rape. But that case cannot be compared with the situation of Kosovo refugees who have already been raped, the bishop said. "No one ever envisioned a 'post-coital contraception' for those nuns," he explained, "because every form of 'post-coital contraception' is by definition abortifacient."
Once conception has occurred-- even as a result of rape-- the life of a human being is at stake, Bishop Sgreccia observed. "We must distinguish between the act of violence and the reality of new human beings who had no control over how their lives began," he said.


April 14, 1999 NEWS & VIEWS: (apr14nv2.htm)
​

 

[Michie]

I need to ask my priest about this... very cloudy.

 

[Davidnic]

And I and the Bishops are not talking about the Morning after pill. The Bishops address that the means can not be abortive.

 

[JoabAnias]

In the interests of correcting an oft-repeated falsehood, I submit the following:

USCCB - Pro-Life Activities - Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault

I don't see where that article mentions intrinsic evil one way or the other.

You do realize that a contraceptive is not always an abortifacient but it sometimes is correct? The article does mention this.

And that for an evil to be intrinsic it must be always, in every way, place or time, always always always wrong?

Whats the point of bringing this up Mike?

Are you trying to justify forms of abortifacient contraception or do you have concern for the victims of asexual assault or is it, as you allude in the title, just to correct those who think there is no exception to the use of non-abortifacient contraception? Which in and of itself would not morally justify the use of abortifacients for any reason.

In other words, what is your sole intention for bringing it up? Is it, as the Bishops statement says:

Conclusion
The law should not require hospitals to administer so-called "emergency contraception" when those drugs will end the life of a newly conceived human embryo. Hospitals can offer rape victims treatments that are truly contraceptive and address their other needs with compassion and respect.

Or is it for other reasons?

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is defined by far more than the physical act. Rape is not the conjugal act it is violence. The conjugal act is an act of mutual self donation.

Now, that donation can be properly ordered or improperly disposed in various ways (outside of marriage or with pleasure as the goal of the mutual donation) Only in marriage and ordered toward children and love is it properly ordered. But when the act is free willed it is the same basic act.

When free will is removed it is not the same act. It is not even physically and mechanically the same in many respects. But the limited surface similarities do not change rape into the conjugal act.

I have had far too many priests confirm this difference, along with the USCCB instruction and the Bishops constant support of the Ethical guidelines for hospitals to agree with how you see it. And I am sure the Vatican and the USCCB are on the same page as far as what rape is as opposed to the conjugal act. Rape is defined by the Church as an act of intrinsic evil...so if rape can also be the conjugal act in a more than mechanically similar way..then it can be argued the conjugal act is an intrinsic evil. But it is not because they are two distinctly different objective acts. So no...it is fairly clear that the Bishops and the Vatican are on the same page but some interpretation here is not correct.

Most bishops and priests were Arian at one point too.


And there are many liberal theologians with advance theological training.

The Vatican has been clear on the matter, even denying such measures to the rape victims in Kosovo.


The VATICAN is who we should be listening to when the waters begin to be muddied by theologians and bishops.

 

[Davidnic]

Ok....so preventative measures can be taken in acts of violence such as rape from the act itself up to 72 hours later? And it is not considered a sin?

According to the USCCB and the medical directives for at least a decade. When you talk to your priest take him the USCCB citations.