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

[thereselittleflower]

you could perform a:

Luteinizing dip test
progesterone test

these determine if ovulation has taken place. If it has not...you can use contraceptives. The Bishops are crystal clear on this. This is not what was offered in Kosovo. There, with no test...they were giving things that would kill a conceived child and calling it emergency contraception when it does not fit the definition of what the Bishops call real emergency contraception.

That makes no sense david.


If ovulation has not taken place, and there is no threat of it taking place in the near future, there is no need for any contraception.

If there is any question then you have another problem.

If ovulation hasn't taken place, that doesn't mean it's not about to take place.

If you give such drugs, it does not ensure that ovulation wil not take place.

If you give such drugs, it does not ensure that conception does not take place.


If conception does occur, then you have given a drug that most assuredly will make it impossible for that newly conceived child to live.


The ONLY EFFECTIVE contraception is the morning after pill post rape. And that is condemned by the Church for the reasons above.

When someon is raped, there is not time for any other form to be effective, as there is significant delay between the time of rape and the time help is sought. By then, even using spermicides will have little effect. It is like putting a bandaid on a mortal wound.


So, even though some try to confuse the issue, let's be real.


There is no real contraception after rape that is not an abortificant.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Now, back to the issue of the intrinsic evil of contraception and the conjugal act.


Much has been made in this thread that contraception is only intrinsically evil if it occurs in marriage, and to support that, it is claimed that the only place we are told it is intrinsically evil is in relationship to the conjugal act which, it is argued, only occurs in marriage.

The question I asked remains unanswered. . . would that mean that contraception is not intrinsically evil if it is used during fornication - sex outside of marriage?


So, exploring this argument further, a NEW QUESTION needs be asked:

Is the claim that the conjugal act is only conjugal if it is performed inside marriage a fact or an assumption?

An exploration of the CCC will show it is not a fact at all, but merely an assumption being treated, by some, as a fact upon which to base an arugment that the only time contraception is intrinsically evil is in marriage.

The premise that the conjugal act is only conjugal in marriage is faulty and flawed. And given that it is faulty and flawed so is the conclusion that contraception is only intrinsically evil inside of marriage.


So what does the CCC say?

Here we see discussion of what the christian conjugal act is to be and it compares it to the NATURAL conjugal act

V. THE GOODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONJUGAL LOVE

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all
the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body
and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity,
aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a
deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in
one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it
demands indissolubility and faithfulness in
definitive mutual giving; and it is open to
fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal
characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but
with a new significance which not only purifies and
strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of
making them the expression of specifically Christian
values."152
​

So we see two concepts, that of natural conjugal love and the elevated chrsitian conjugal love.


Now exploring this further:

Conjugal fidelity

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate
partnership of life and love established by the
Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the
conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable
personal consent."147 Both give themselves
definitively and totally to one another. They are no
longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The
covenant they freely contracted imposes on the
spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and
indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined
together, let not man put asunder."149
​

Pay special attention to "they form one flesh"


The question must be asked, does this conjugal act forming one flesh ONLY happen in marriage? Or does the sexual act create this conjugal bond even outside of marriage as well?


If we look at the index in the CCC under CONJUGAL we find something interesting.

Conjugal fidelity, 1646-51, 2364-65

concubinage and, 2390
divorce and conjugal fidelity of a spouse who has abandoned the sacrament of Matrimony, 2386
gift of the Holy Spirit, 1624
motive for, 1647-48
obligation of, 1643-44, 1646, 2363
separation and, 1649
significance of, 2365
witness of, 1611, 2223


​

The CCC links concubinage with the conjugal act. Concubinage is not marriage it is sexual relations outside of marriage.


Additionally, we find the CCC's treatment of pornography which relates the sexual act in pornography to the conjugal act:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

​

Now, in case someone might be tempted to say that the CCC is defining the conjugal act even there to be only the intimate giving of spouses to each other rather than a comparison being made between the right use of the conjugal act and a perverted use of the conjugal act, there would be a very big problem with such an attempt.

First, it would not be a perversion of the conjugal act if it were not the conjugal act being engaged in in the first place.

Second, we go back to the beginning of this post . . .remember, I asked readers to:

Pay special attention to "they form one flesh"

​

That is the definition of conjugal given in CCC 2364, and remember there is the natural conjugal act and the elevated christian conjugal act which takes the natural and raises it higher.


So the question really comes down to this . . . . is the conjugal forming of one flesh something that can only happen in marriage?


If one reads the above CCC protions properly the answer is no. It can happen outside of marriage as well, and in fact sexual activity between man and women is indeed conjugal as it forms between them one flesh regardless of whether they are married or not.


And in case someone still persists in arguing against this understanding, here is what the Apostle Paul had to say on the matter:

1 Cor 6:16

What? know ye not that he which is
joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

​

Who does Paul say says this? Who is the "saith he"?


GOD.



So, back to the portion of the catechism which states that contraception is intrinsically evil. . . . since the conjugal act is conjugal regardless of whether or not it is in marraige our outside of marriage, any linkage of contrception being intrinsically evil applies to all sexual acts irregardless of the state of marriage, and so, as I originally argued, contraception is intrinsically evil in every circumstance in every situation.

CCC
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
​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

therelittleflower, are you trying to prove that rape is "conjugal love"?

 

[thereselittleflower]

therelittleflower, are you trying to prove that rape is "conjugal love"?

I am proving that contraception is intrinsically evil in all situations and cirumcstances by definition - not just within marraige as has been argued in this thread.

In rape the conjugal act is forced onto another.

 

[patricius79]

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 would say that is not contraceptive because the woman did not consent to the sex

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am proving that contraception is intrinsically evil in all situations and cirumcstances by definition - not just within marraige as has been argued in this thread.

In rape the conjugal act is forced onto another.

So rape is a conjugal act by your definition of conjugal act. And what is that definition you use for "conjugal act"?

 

[Davidnic]

In rape the conjugal act is forced onto another.

Actually it is not, it is a different act.

So are you saying the whole USCCB in their instruction and ethical medical directives are wrong and out of line with the Vatican?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I looked up "conjugal" at webster-merriman and this is what they gave as a definition:

: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

 

[Davidnic]

That makes no sense david.


If ovulation has not taken place, and there is no threat of it taking place in the near future, there is no need for any contraception.

If there is any question then you have another problem.

If ovulation hasn't taken place, that doesn't mean it's not about to take place.

If you give such drugs, it does not ensure that ovulation wil not take place.

If you give such drugs, it does not ensure that conception does not take place.


If conception does occur, then you have given a drug that most assuredly will make it impossible for that newly conceived child to live.


The ONLY EFFECTIVE contraception is the morning after pill post rape. And that is condemned by the Church for the reasons above.

When someon is raped, there is not time for any other form to be effective, as there is significant delay between the time of rape and the time help is sought. By then, even using spermicides will have little effect. It is like putting a bandaid on a mortal wound.


So, even though some try to confuse the issue, let's be real.


There is no real contraception after rape that is not an abortificant.

If a woman ovulates within 72 hours of sex there can be conception. This is a basic fact of NFP for those of us who practice it. Ovulation does not need to take place before sex for conception to take place. There is a window.

And if ovulation has not taken place you can indeed slow it until the window of conception closes. Not only does science agree...but the Bishops document shows they are well aware of this fact. Since they specifically say that you are allowed to use contraception to delay ovulation in the case of a rape.

The Bishops are clear and they are in agreement with the Vatican. Like four people have said over and over...this is not a new policy. In moral theology classes and papers this has been discussed and it is really actually simple.

I guess people can keep repeating it over and over. I probably won't since I have other things to do. I might, depends how much free time I have.

Rape is a totally different act; the Bishops document is clear and short on what can be used and they say it in pretty distinct forward language.

 

[Davidnic]

I looked up "conjugal" at webster-merriman and this is what they gave as a definition:

Yep, which is how the Church uses it. And in sex outside of marriage that is free willed She sees it as an illicit form of that act. But Rape is seen as a different act altogether. It is even defined as such by the Church...if rape is the conjugal act and the Church defines Rape as intrinsically evil...which she does...then the conjugal act is intrinsically evil. Since it is not...then that means (and moral theology it is clear) that the Church holds that rape is a separate objective act from the conjugal act.

I think most people see that.

 

[Gwendolyn]

TLF, your definition of conjugal is just plain wrong.

Here are some definitions for you, complete with etymology (from Latin, the sacred language of the Church - I know Latin):

con·ju·gal   [kon-juh-guh

l] Show IPA
–adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
2.pertaining to the relation of husband and wife.

conjugal con·ju·gal

1. matrimonial, nuptial, connubial.
2. marital.

conjugal (ˈkɒndʒʊɡ ə l) — adj
of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: conjugal rights

And here is the etymology:

Conjugal
From the Latin, conjunx(conjugis) meaning "spouse", and from the verb conjugare, "to join together". Con ("together") + jugare ("to join") with jugare from jugum, meaning "yoke" (of marriage).

It is cruel to refer to rape as conjugal when it is clearly ANYTHING BUT.

 

[thereselittleflower]

If a woman ovulates within 72 hours of sex there can be conception. This is a basic fact of NFP for those of us who practice it. Ovulation does not need to take place before sex for conception to take place. There is a window.

David, my specialtiy is obsterics. Conception can take place WELL after 72 hours of intercourse.

And if ovulation has not taken place you can indeed slow it until the window of conception closes. Not only does science agree...but the Bishops document shows they are well aware of this fact. Since they specifically say that you are allowed to use contraception to delay ovulation in the case of a rape.

Such slowing, etc is NOT GUARANTEED. It is wishful thinking to believe that there is no chance of conception and a resulting abortion under such circumstances.

 

[thereselittleflower]

TLF, your definition of conjugal is just plain wrong.

Here are some definitions for you, complete with etymology (from Latin, the sacred language of the Church - I know Latin):

con·ju·gal   [kon-juh-guh

l] Show IPA
–adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
2.pertaining to the relation of husband and wife.

conjugal con·ju·gal

1. matrimonial, nuptial, connubial.
2. marital.

conjugal (ˈkɒndʒʊɡ ə l) — adj
of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: conjugal rights

And here is the etymology:

Conjugal
From the Latin, conjunx(conjugis) meaning "spouse", and from the verb conjugare, "to join together". Con ("together") + jugare ("to join") with jugare from jugum, meaning "yoke" (of marriage).

It is cruel to refer to rape as conjugal when it is clearly ANYTHING BUT.

Then why does Paul tell us that God says a man consorting with a harlot becomes one flesh with her?

The definition given in the catechism of the natural conjugal act is indeed becoming one flesh.



The conjugal act, rightly ordered, is directed to marriage. That is the only place it can be rightly ordered. That is why it is called conjugal.

The fact that it is wrongly ordered outiside of marriage does not change the fact that it is stil conjugal.

If it were not still conjugal, then the act of sex in pornograhy could not be a perversion of the conjugal act, as the act would be something other than conjugal.

The fact is, it is conjugal and its use is perverted in pornography.

 

[Davidnic]

It is cruel to refer to rape as conjugal when it is clearly ANYTHING BUT.

Yep which is why the Bishops define it as a different act.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That makes no sense david.


If ovulation has not taken place, and there is no threat of it taking place in the near future, there is no need for any contraception.

If there is any question then you have another problem.

If ovulation hasn't taken place, that doesn't mean it's not about to take place.

If you give such drugs, it does not ensure that ovulation wil not take place.

If you give such drugs, it does not ensure that conception does not take place.


If conception does occur, then you have given a drug that most assuredly will make it impossible for that newly conceived child to live.


The ONLY EFFECTIVE contraception is the morning after pill post rape. And that is condemned by the Church for the reasons above.

When someon is raped, there is not time for any other form to be effective, as there is significant delay between the time of rape and the time help is sought. By then, even using spermicides will have little effect. It is like putting a bandaid on a mortal wound.


So, even though some try to confuse the issue, let's be real.


There is no real contraception after rape that is not an abortificant.

That is the ONLY known drug to ensure pregnancy doesnt take hold - and it aborts a conceived child.

There is nothing to prevent the conception after the fact.

This is why barriers and the pill etc must all be taken prior to the act.
Conception can occur within hours and up to 5 days.

There is nothing to do but abort the child once it is conceived so it cannot implant into the womb.

And as far as i have ever read - even a child of rape is entitled to life.

I am pretty shocked at this argument.

Has the child become less human now?

 

[thereselittleflower]

So rape is a conjugal act by your definition of conjugal act. And what is that definition you use for "conjugal act"?

I think I put all that into my post. Please don't simply have a kneejerk reacion.

The Church speaks of TWO kinds of conjugal acts.

The NATURAL conjugal act and the CHRISTIAN conjugal act. With that in mind, maybe rereading what I posted will be helpful?

 

[Davidnic]

So you are saying that the Bishops, after consultation with both medical experts and moral theologians in creating the ethical directives for Catholic hospitals are advising and have advised for over a decade, a course of action that is not possible when they say to use not abortive contraception after a rape if conception has not occurred.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yep which is why the Bishops define it as a different act.

"contraception" after the fact is abortion. There are no two ways about it.

I have always heard that a child conceived is not to be aborted - because the child should not be killed because the father committed violence.
Its like killing all children of killers because the father was horrid.

I dont see how anyone can prevent pregnancy after the fact, there is nothing that exists except RU486 and one other such abortificant. [I believe there is one more now]

Its like closing the gate after the horses are out of the barn.

 

[Davidnic]

And as far as i have ever read - even a child of rape is entitled to life.

I am pretty shocked at this argument.

Has the child become less human now?

For I think...eleventh time and 4th person to say it...the Bishops have said you can not use abortive means and can only use contraception if conception has not occurred.

No one is calling the child less human...least of all the entire USCCB in their ethical directives for some time now. The Bishops words are clear in ethical directive no.36:

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
​

 

[Davidnic]

"contraception" after the fact is abortion. There are no two ways about it.

I have always heard that a child conceived is not to be aborted - because the child should not be killed because the father committed violence.
Its like killing all children of killers because the father was horrid.

I dont see how anyone can prevent pregnancy after the fact, there is nothing that exists except RU486 and one other such abortificant. [I believe there is one more now]

Its like closing the gate after the horses are out of the barn.

It is not after conception see above post that quotes the Bishops.

So are you saying they and their medical experts are advising a course that does not exist?