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

[Michie]

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

Which are?

 

[thereselittleflower]

It seems to me that accepting the possiblity of new life as a result of rape is the eptimone of Christ's teaching to turn the other cheek.

 

[Michie]

It seems to me that accepting the possiblity of new life as a result of rape is the eptimone of Christ's teaching to turn the other cheek.

Yeah...but not everyone is Catholic or Christian.

 

[Davidnic]

Which are?

If it can be shown that conception did not take place delaying ovulation for the period where the sperm is viable or hormones that change the travel of the sperm or egg.

But you would have to show that conception did not take place because if you change the travel of a fertilized egg or prevent implantation it is an abortion. There is a fine line but the Bishops clearly draw it. Not being scientists they do not address methods...only that methods that cause an abortion are not allowed.

 

[JoabAnias]

It seems to me that accepting the possiblity of new life as a result of rape is the eptimone of Christ's teaching to turn the other cheek.

Common sense isn't so common.

 

[MikeK]

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

The very fact that the Bishops state that contraception is sometimes allowable means that it cannot be intrinsically evil. Contraception in the conjugal act can be intrinsically evil, but there is nothing conjugal about rape.

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

I don't understand your question. What I do know is that some contraceptives are never abortifacient, some are in certain circumstances, and some always are.

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

Um, yeah.

Whats the point of bringing this up Mike?

To clear up misconceptions (heh - conceptions) about the teaching of the Church.

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?

The 2nd and 3rd ones.

Which in and of itself would not morally justify the use of abortifacients for any reason.

Sort of. Abortifacients may be used, but only after it is made certain that they will not cause an abortion. Some medications both prevent conception and make the womb hostile to embryos. So long as there is reasonable certainty that conception has not taked place, these methods would be okay according to the USCCB's instructions to Catholic hospitals.

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?

Again, that's the reason. To spread truth and correct error.

Does this conclude youe questioning?

 

[sylverpiano]

It seems to me that accepting the possiblity of new life as a result of rape is the eptimone of Christ's teaching to turn the other cheek.

One could make the assumption that this possibility is one you have not personally faced. I don't wish it upon anyone, but the issue looks a lot different from the inside than it does from a purely intellectual viewpoint.

 

[Michie]

If it can be shown that conception did not take place delaying ovulation for the period where the sperm is viable or hormones that change the travel of the sperm or egg.

But you would have to show that conception did not take place because if you change the travel of a fertilized egg or prevent implantation it is an abortion. There is a fine line but the Bishops clearly draw it. Not being scientists they do not address methods...only that methods that cause an abortion are not allowed.

I don't understand how they can detect a fertilized egg while it is in the processs of traveling through the fallopian tubes. Before it adheres to the uterine wall. To my knowledge, there is no such type of test that can detect that. And if that is the case...it seems to be splitting hairs & sort of puts other areas of reproduction & contraception in Catholic teaching in question.

 

[JoabAnias]

The very fact that the Bishops state that contraception is sometimes allowable means that it cannot be intrinsically evil. Contraception in the conjugal act can be intrinsically evil, but there is nothing conjugal about rape.

Yes and the distinction between abortifacient has to be made as the Bishops did.

I don't understand your question. What I do know is that some contraceptives are never abortifacient, some are in certain circumstances, and some always are.

Right. That means those that aren't can "sometimes" be used in instances that are not evil thus meaning such use is not intrinsic. The ones that ALWAYS are evil, are always evil. Its the "always" that makes their use intrinsic or not. There is a distinction in type that the Bishops make.

To clear up misconceptions (heh - conceptions) about the teaching of the Church.

Ah, well, it is confusing sometimes. Most people don't consider the distinction. Contraception is contraception to most people and Humane Vitae advises against artificial means for more than the reason that an abortifacient is an intrinsic, while a non-abortifacient may not be.

The 2nd and 3rd ones.

It is good to know what an abortifacient is. Any good NFP class should explain that.

Sort of. Abortifacients may be used, but only after it is made certain that they will not cause an abortion. Some medications both prevent conception and make the womb hostile to embryos. So long as there is reasonable certainty that conception has not taken place, these methods would be okay according to the USCCB's instructions to Catholic hospitals.

OK, but in that case, if such determination could be made, how could that use be claimed to as an abortifacient? Its my understanding that for an abortifacient to be an abortifacient it must destroy a life there by making it intrinsic. Mere prevention of life may not in all circumstances be evil thereby not an intrinsic. That does not make its use acceptable in most/all cases nevertheless.

Again, that's the reason. To spread truth and correct error.
Does this conclude your questioning?

Just want to be sure this isn't a quest to justify unnatural contraception simply based on the grounds that there are instances certain forms of artificial birth prevention are not intrinsically evil in all circumstances.

Certian forms are intrinsic. There is a difference that can depend on circumstances and either way, because x is sometimes permissible, does not mean that y is always permissible. Thanks for clearing that up. Now come to my ghetto thread. Lamont is bored.

 

[MikeK]

It seems to me that accepting the possiblity of new life as a result of rape is the eptimone of Christ's teaching to turn the other cheek.

Right. Which is why the Church calls upon women to not resist rape upon being notified that they are about top be made a victim of it.

Wait, it doesn't? Oh.

Well, surely it teaches that once a rape begins, the woman must not try to stop it, right, as stopping intercourse before completion is sinful? Oh, Mother Church doesn't say that either? I wonder why? I suspect it's because rape is not a conjugal, martital or unitive act. Different rules apply when being victimized by an aggressor and making love with one's spouse.

 

[Gwendolyn]

That makes it a drug.

No, it doesn't.

Clomipamine is a drug. Anti-depressant.
Ativan is a drug. Sedative.
Misoprostol is a drug. Induces abortion.
Estrogen is not a drug. It is a hormone.

Are vitamins drugs because they come in pill form?

 

[Gwendolyn]

Also, why is everyone ignoring Mike's comment about spermicide? Spermicide is never abortive. If, hypothetically, a woman injects/applies spermicide after a rape in the hope of discouraging fertilisation, is that the same as if she ingested progestin/estrogen (which prevents ovulation, but also has the capacity to discourage implantation)?

 

[Michie]

No, it doesn't.

Clomipamine is a drug. Anti-depressant.
Ativan is a drug. Sedative.
Misoprostol is a drug. Induces abortion.
Estrogen is not a drug. It is a hormone.

But hormones can be used to produce effects like a drug.

Steroids are natural but supplements are considered a drug.

 

[MikeK]

No, it doesn't.

Clomipamine is a drug. Anti-depressant.
Ativan is a drug. Sedative.
Misoprostol is a drug. Induces abortion.
Estrogen is not a drug. It is a hormone.

Yeah, but if religion is the opiate of the masses, then what are opiates? Answer that, smart guy. Girl.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yeah...but not everyone is Catholic or Christian.

Doesn't matter


Contraception is INTRINSICALLY EVIL. That means it is not just evil, it is EVIL in and of itself.


That means it is ALWAYS evil in EVERY situation, becasue the evil is not situational, it is INTRISNIC to the act itsef.

This may help:

What Is An Intrinsic Evil And What Is Its Significance For The
Catholic Voter?

A lot of people talk about what is and what isn’t an intrinsic evil. Do we really know how the Catholic Church views the idea of an intrinsic evil? I used to think of an intrinsic evil as “an act that’s really bad.” This is of course true, an intrinsic evil is an act
that is “really bad” but this definition doesn’t go far enough and it doesn’t give us the kind of view of an intrinsic evil that the Church has, at least in its fullness.

“Intrinsic” means that it is inherent or built-in or essential to the act. In the case of an “intrinsic” evil it means that evil in that given act is built-in or essential or inherent or “intrinsic” to that act. I once heard a Catholic writer and speaker give a talk and he was referring to acts that are “intrinsically evil” and stopped to define an intrinsic evil. Now this speaker knew well the maxim “repetition is the mother of learning.” I am going to try to quote him because it really stuck with me and I think it will stick with you too (it will merely be a poor paraphrase as this man is much more eloquent in his speech than I).

He defined an intrinsic evil as an act that is always bad, always sinful, always always always. Never good, never appropriate, never useful, never, never, never. It is an act that is ALWAYS SINFUL in every time, every epoch, every era, every age, every place, every situation, every every every. There is NO GREY AREA! No doubt, no question that these acts (acts that are intrinsically evil) are always and everywhere and for everybody and for every situation, SINFUL and NEVER ACCEPTABLE.

Powered by Google Docs



CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS


1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.





Intrinsic evil refers to actions that are morally evil in such a way that is essentially opposed to the will of God or proper human fulfillment. The key consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged to be so solely by their object, independently of the intention that inspires them or the circumstances that surround them (See the Catechism, Part Three, Section One, Chapter One, Article 4, n. 1756). In this sense, "intrinsic" does not convey the notion of a particularly heinous act (although all heinous acts are intrinsically evil), but that the act is wrong no matter what its circumstances. Aquinas says that the goodness of the will is derived from the fact that a person wills that which is good (see Summa Theologica I-II, Question 19, Article 1). In other words, the object of the act must be good in itself (essentially ordered to the will of God or proper human fulfillment) in order for the will that intends that object to be good. Although Aquinas never used the actual term "intrinsic evil" (intrinsece malum), he does in a way define the term, by saying that "the goodness of the will’s act depends on that one thing alone, which of itself causes goodness in the act; and that one thing is the object, and not the circumstances, which are accidents, as it were, of the act" (see Summa Theologica I-II, Question 19, Article 2). According to this understanding, while a morally good action may be made more or less good by the circumstances in which it occurs, the circumstances of an act or the good intentions of the agent may never make an intrinsically evil action good. Actions that are intrinsically evil, then, may never licitly be performed. Indeed, the term itself is commonly used in a more general way to refer to actions that are never morally permissible.

Intrinsic Evil





CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
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
​

 

[Michie]

Doesn't matter


Contraception is INTRINSICALLY EVIL. That means it is not just evil, it is EVIL in and of itself.


That means it is ALWAYS evil in EVERY situation, becasue the evil is not situational, it is INTRISNIC to the act itsef.

This may help:

What Is An Intrinsic Evil And What Is Its Significance For The
Catholic Voter?

A lot of people talk about what is and what isn’t an intrinsic evil. Do we really know how the Catholic Church views the idea of an intrinsic evil? I used to think of an intrinsic evil as “an act that’s really bad.” This is of course true, an intrinsic evil is an act
that is “really bad” but this definition doesn’t go far enough and it doesn’t give us the kind of view of an intrinsic evil that the Church has, at least in its fullness.

“Intrinsic” means that it is inherent or built-in or essential to the act. In the case of an “intrinsic” evil it means that evil in that given act is built-in or essential or inherent or “intrinsic” to that act. I once heard a Catholic writer and speaker give a talk and he was referring to acts that are “intrinsically evil” and stopped to define an intrinsic evil. Now this speaker knew well the maxim “repetition is the mother of learning.” I am going to try to quote him because it really stuck with me and I think it will stick with you too (it will merely be a poor paraphrase as this man is much more eloquent in his speech than I).

He defined an intrinsic evil as an act that is always bad, always sinful, always always always. Never good, never appropriate, never useful, never, never, never. It is an act that is ALWAYS SINFUL in every time, every epoch, every era, every age, every place, every situation, every every every. There is NO GREY AREA! No doubt, no question that these acts (acts that are intrinsically evil) are always and everywhere and for everybody and for every situation, SINFUL and NEVER ACCEPTABLE.

Powered by Google Docs



CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS


1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.





Intrinsic evil refers to actions that are morally evil in such a way that is essentially opposed to the will of God or proper human fulfillment. The key consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged to be so solely by their object, independently of the intention that inspires them or the circumstances that surround them (See the Catechism, Part Three, Section One, Chapter One, Article 4, n. 1756). In this sense, "intrinsic" does not convey the notion of a particularly heinous act (although all heinous acts are intrinsically evil), but that the act is wrong no matter what its circumstances. Aquinas says that the goodness of the will is derived from the fact that a person wills that which is good (see Summa Theologica I-II, Question 19, Article 1). In other words, the object of the act must be good in itself (essentially ordered to the will of God or proper human fulfillment) in order for the will that intends that object to be good. Although Aquinas never used the actual term "intrinsic evil" (intrinsece malum), he does in a way define the term, by saying that "the goodness of the will’s act depends on that one thing alone, which of itself causes goodness in the act; and that one thing is the object, and not the circumstances, which are accidents, as it were, of the act" (see Summa Theologica I-II, Question 19, Article 2). According to this understanding, while a morally good action may be made more or less good by the circumstances in which it occurs, the circumstances of an act or the good intentions of the agent may never make an intrinsically evil action good. Actions that are intrinsically evil, then, may never licitly be performed. Indeed, the term itself is commonly used in a more general way to refer to actions that are never morally permissible.

Intrinsic Evil





CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
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
​

Well something is shady somewhere. This thread leaves me feeling disturbed...

 

[JoabAnias]

The CCC is right on.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well something is shady somewhere. This thread leaves me feeling disturbed...

me too. But, follow the Pope when such disturbing feelings come.

 

[Michie]

me too. But, follow the Pope when such disturbing feelings come.

Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying.

We talk of leading people astray yet this subject does not sow seeds of confusion? Granted, there may be nuances to any given situation but something just seems wrong here.

But I'm seriously confused now.

I'm left with an impression that as long as there is no fertilized egg one can contracept to make sure there is no fertilized egg.

Within marriage, thats not allowed, I get that.

But it seems that this is something that could easily lead to other situations...

 

[isshinwhat]

Right. Which is why the Church calls upon women to not resist rape upon being notified that they are about top be made a victim of it.

Wait, it doesn't? Oh.

Well, surely it teaches that once a rape begins, the woman must not try to stop it, right, as stopping intercourse before completion is sinful? Oh, Mother Church doesn't say that either? I wonder why? I suspect it's because rape is not a conjugal, martital or unitive act. Different rules apply when being victimized by an aggressor and making love with one's spouse.

This. ^^^ We are not talking about a conjugal act in the case of rape, and the Church's teaching about the intrinsic evil of contraception that I have read deal with conjugal, or at least voluntary, unions.