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

[Davidnic]

The only post rape contraceptive is a drug Mike. And you came in to defend its use. . so don't tell me who my beef is with when you put yourself along side with this idea.

So your opinion of the Bishops instruction; which is what he quotes and defends:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19
​

It basically says if contraception has not occurred it is licit to prevent conception in this manner. And the logic seems to be the difference in the nature of the acts: Love vs Rape

 

[thereselittleflower]

So your opinion of the Bishops instruction; which is what he quotes and defends:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19
​

It basically says if contraception has not occurred it is licit to prevent conception in this manner. And the logic seems to be the difference in the nature of the acts: Love vs Rape

I stand with the Vatican.

4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.
​

 

[MikeK]

This article speaks a bit to my concerns about the morning after pill and what the Bishops who approved it's use were thinking. There are good arguments made by both sides.

Reluctant Compliance | News | NCRegister.com

I don't believe there are any good arguments that support the statement "contraception is intrinsically evil."

 

[Davidnic]

And that instruction is against the Vatican's own statement on the matter.

4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.
​

There are drugs other than the morning after pill. And the Bishops directly state that abortifacients are not allowed. The Bishops address methods other than those that are abortifacient can be used. In fact that is the whole point of what they wrote.

 

[Davidnic]

I stand with the Vatican.

4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.
​

So does the USCCB:

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.
​

Rape is not an act of love that is the position of the Church. So the bishops allow non abortive contraception. They are very clear on it

 

[MikeK]

It's worth noting that and act's effectiveness as contraception or not is not as important is the intent. Simple actions like vaginal swabbing or flushing, kegel exersizes, etc, if intended to prevent conception, are contraception and therefore forbidden by the Church when used in conjunction with or after the conjugal act. They would be licit for the purpose of contraception in the case of rape.

 

[sylverpiano]

Hi there!

I deleted a pretty long post. I am sure all of you are really tired of hearing about my assault.

But I will say that I am very glad that I was not left pregnant by this assault. I am not sure what I would have done had this been the case. It is very likely that I would have made a poor choice no matter what.

I came very close, once I found out that I was not pregnant,to having a tubal ligation. I was terrified of this happening to me again. It was weeks before I was able to leave the house.

(Yeah I know. It sounds a little crazy)

 

[thereselittleflower]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS
THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE,
TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

Unlawful Birth Control Methods​

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
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)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Concern of the Church​

18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.



Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968
​

 

[Michie]

Hi there!

I deleted a pretty long post. I am sure all of you are really tired of hearing about my assault.

But I will say that I am very glad that I was not left pregnant by this assault. I am not sure what I would have done had this been the case. It is very likely that I would have made a poor choice no matter what.

I came very close, once I found out that I was not pregnant,to having a tubal ligation. I was terrified of this happening to me again. It was weeks before I was able to leave the house.

(Yeah I know. It sounds a little crazy)

It does not sound crazy at all.

 

[Rebekka]

it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it ​

​

That's debatable. Self defence may include killing another person, which is evil, but it is allowed to save your own life by killing someone who's trying to kill you. Another example is lying to the nazis that no, there are no jews hiding in your attic. Lying is evil, but sometimes you have to in order to save a life.

 

[Fantine]

I found the thread title puzzling. The fact is that "popular belief" is that contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

Depending on what polls you look at, that view is even shared by 78 to 90% of Catholics.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil is an unpopular belief, shared by few.

And I am sharing that as a statistic only, not as a recommendation one way or the other.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

To the OP:

Sorry but...

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

the Catechism is 'higher authority' than the source you gave. This is the official Church teaching from the Vatican.

 

[Davidnic]

Remember in the Pope's book where people lost their minds because he was talking about contraception and when it could be used and he mentioned gay sex to prevent disease because it was not the same act as the marital act. Really it is a related moral argument. Rape is not an act of love, contraception is wrong because it deforms the nature of the act of love (be that act licit or illicit). But contraception does not deform Rape because rape is a deformed act in and of itself. So non-abortive contraception and the Bishops are clear in their instruction is licit in that circumstance.

I see where the USCCB is coming from and how it is in line with the teaching of the Popes on this. It is actually pretty clear. I give the body of my Bishops giving me instruction the benefit of the doubt. They have read HV and the quote from them on this is pretty straightforward.

HV deals with this in the context of the marital act...be that act in the proper place in marriage and properly ordered to children and donation of self. It also addresses illicit acts related to the marital act that take the marital act and misplace it...either for pleasure as the sole intent or outside of marriage. This is a totally different act than Rape...if it was not the USCCB could not have written what they have written.

So either the interpretation that HV applies to rape as the same act as the marital act of love is what the Bishops oppose here with their instruction. And they are right.

 

[Michie]

I found the thread title puzzling. The fact is that "popular belief" is that contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

Depending on what polls you look at, that view is even shared by 78 to 90% of Catholics.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil is an unpopular belief, shared by few.

And I am sharing that as a statistic only, not as a recommendation one way or the other.

Oh lets not start nitpicking thread titles.

 

[MikeK]

To the OP:

Sorry but...

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.

the Catechism is 'higher authority' than the source you gave. This is the official Church teaching from the Vatican.

Bolding mine. Rendering impotent the conjugal act (such as by contraception) is intrinsically evil. Contraception itself and the act of contracepting are not intrinsically evil, or else they would not be sometimes allowed, as in the case of rape victims. It might seem to the casual oberver that the good Bishops are opining in opposition to the CC and Humanae Vitae (which is written about marriage, read the whole document, not just the snippet quoted in this thread), but they are not, and that's why the Vatican has not spoken in opposition to this teaching.

 

[Michie]

So a woman wearing a contraceptive sponge as a preventative in case of rape is not frowned upon.... I dunno....

 

[Davidnic]

To the OP:

Sorry but...

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

the Catechism is 'higher authority' than the source you gave. This is the official Church teaching from the Vatican.

So does Rape:

respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.
​

This is why the USCCB is still in full conformity with the Church (since this in not a new policy.) Because sex in freedom and rape are different acts. Methods of NFP are allowed because they respect the freedom and do not deform the act as contraception does. But in rape the act is not the same as the marital act and is an act of violence not of love.

The only way for the teachings on contraception to apply to rape is to argue rape is an act of love and is the same act as the act of normal free willed sex which is deformed by contraception. It is not, so that act of free will is not deformed becuase it does not even take place.

So is anyone here arguing that the act of rape is an act of love that is deformed by contraception?

Or that the USCCB is blatantly in in dissent hand raised from the Magisterium of the Church?

I think given those two options the reasonable thing to do is admit the USCCB and this policy are in harmony with the Church and that there is something those who say otherwise are missing. Because the USCCB directly says:

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.
​

And that is not new. Those directives are, in many forms over a decade old (this one about 9-10 years old). So obviously the USCCB is in union with the Church on this and I think I have explained how. But if that's not enough...whatever. I am not going to judge the USCCB when the Vatican, and people like Archbishop Chaput (from within the USCCB who has fully endorsed the listed directives in the Sr. McBride Case) have had the opportunity to do so and not corrected them.

 

[MikeK]

I found the thread title puzzling. The fact is that "popular belief" is that contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

Depending on what polls you look at, that view is even shared by 78 to 90% of Catholics.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil is an unpopular belief, shared by few.

And I am sharing that as a statistic only, not as a recommendation one way or the other.

You're correct. It is a popular belief only among a certain population.

 

[Lady Bug]

Listen to yourself Mike ... ."CAN BE" . . . . .not "HAS TO BE"


Conception can take place in minutes.


Again There is absolutely no possible way to know if a drug will end the life of a newly concieved human embryo.

No way at all.




It's not about how a new life is conceived. It is about a new life THAT HAS BEEN conceived or MAY BE CONCEIVED. How is irrelevant.

is this true though? (asking those who are in agreement with the OP)

 

[Davidnic]

So a woman wearing a contraceptive sponge as a preventative in case of rape is not frowned upon.... I dunno....

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.