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

[Davidnic]

And if the fact that the Bishops use the phrase "defend herself from potential conception" shows that rape is different form the conjugal act as far as the Church is concerned...I don't know what does.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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

It was a committee David. . not the USCCB as a whole. And what comes out of a committee is irrelevant if it diagrees with the Vatican.

In addition, when the Connecticut Catholic Bsihops came out and approved Plan B for rape, as I posted earlier, the Catholic Medical Association Opposed it.

HARTFORD, September 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A statement issued by the Connecticut Catholic Bishops yesterday, which is posted on the Catholic Conference’s web page, notes that the Bishops have approved the administration of the morning after pill Plan B for rape victims at the four Catholic hospitals in the state. While the Bishops claim to be in accord with Church teaching on the matter, the only statement from the Vatican on the measure opposed it since the pill can cause abortions.

"In accordance with Catholic moral teaching, these hospitals provide emergency contraception after appropriate testing," says the letter from the Bishops. "Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape," it adds.

However, the Vatican statement on the morning after pill, issued in 2000, condemns its use outright. The Pontifical Academy for Life states that

"the 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." (see the full Vatican statement here:
​

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_a…


The morning after pill works in three ways: To slow motility of the sperm, to inhibit ovulation and to prevent implantation of the embryo. The Vatican document stated:

"It is clear, therefore, that the proven ‘anti-implantation’ action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing."


​

However, even if such tests could accurately determine that ovulation has not yet occurred another difficulty exists. A study by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn in 2003 found that the pill only works to halt ovulation half the time. Thus fertilization may occur even after the pill is administered, and an abortion would result since in addition to stopping ovulation the pills act to weaken the lining of the uterus making implantation unsustainable.



Connecticut Bishops Allow Plan B in Catholic Hospitals for Rape - Catholic Medical Association Opposed | LifeSiteNews.com
​

 

[thereselittleflower]

And if the fact that the Bishops use the phrase "defend herself from potential conception" shows that rape is different form the conjugal act as far as the Church is concerned...I don't know what does.

They are not, in and of themselves, the Magesterium. We are not to blindly chuck our own intelligence at the door when listening to teaching from a group within the Church. All throughout history, groups of Bishops have been found to be in error on one matter or the other.

Just look at the Arian heresy for a perfect example as to how large groups of Bishops can be carried away into error.

 

[Davidnic]

It was a committee David. . not the USCCB as a whole.

The Ethical Directives was approved by the full body of US Bishops June 2001 in general assembly. So it can not simply dismissed as a committee.

 

[Davidnic]

They are not, in and of themselves, the Magesterium. We are not to blindly chuck our own intelligence at the door when listening to teaching from a group within the Church. All throughout history, groups of Bishops have been found to be in error on one matter or the other.

Just look at the Arian heresy for a perfect example as to how large groups of Bishops can be carried away into error.

Indeed groups of Bishops can be in error. So can internet message boards. Given the Priests I have talked to, Graduate level Moral Theology classes and the opinion of the others in this thread with that same background...I do not think they are out of line with the Vatican. And nothing posted make me think they are.

 

[isshinwhat]

1) It's my wife's birthday and I'm not going to spend it on here, but I wanted to report back that Father, an FSSP priest active in the pro-life movement, agreed with the USCCB's assessment of the situation for the reasons stated before: rape is not a conjugal act, conception has not taken place, contracepting in this case is a defense against the continued assault. I'll go into more detail Mon or Tues.

2) All conjugal unions are carnal unions, not all carnal unions are conjugal unions; e.g., Fornication and Adultery.

3) My saying that the documents you are quoting refer to conjugal unions, thus those taking place in a marriage, does not mean that I have said that the Church teaches that contraception is not intrinsically evil in other voluntary carnal unions, such as fornication and adultery. I have said that multiple times which makes me wonder if you are reading my posts, or if I just cannot communicate that thought well.

4) TLF, you still have not answered if adultery is intrinsically evil, and if so, how fornication differs from it in that regard.

 

[Davidnic]

David, my specialtiy is obsterics.

With respect I have talked to other people, my own family members, one with a specialty in obstetrics as well as other medical degrees and they disagree with your assessment. So I am going with them as well as moral theologians I have met. And when I combine those two sets of opinions that span about 6 people I have personally talked to on the subject in real life...they completely agree with the USCCB who are not opposing the Vatican with this directive.

given that and the fact that the Bishops are clear on their instruction, I am choosing to go with the USCCB who approved this as a body of Bishops in 2001.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Indeed groups of Bishops can be in error. So can internet message boards. Given the Priests I have talked to, Graduate level Moral Theology classes and the opinion of the others in this thread with that same background...I do not think they are out of line with the Vatican. And nothing posted make me think they are.

It is only your opinoin you are expressing. And it does not substitute for the Magesterial teaching of the Church.

So we disagree on your interpretation.

And so if we err, we must err on the side of caution, not on the side of liberty.

This would mean then that we take the most cautious approach, which is to hold that contraception is always intrinsically evil in every situation as the word intrinsic defines something to be.

Additionally, whereas the Church has differentiated between types of sexual activity, ie married sex, pornography, fornication, adultery, the Church has never differentiated in any manner between contraception used in marriage or contraception used outside of marriage.

Contraception is not called conjugal contraception (if we are to accept that conjugal only and always refers to actual marraige) and nonconjugal contraception.

Married sex can only occur in marriage. Fornication can only occur outside of marriage. Adultery can only occur between a married and unmarried person.

However, there is no such differentiation when it comes to contraception.

It can occur in marriage and outside of marriage. In any situation in which sexual activity can occur.

It is ONLY called contraception.

And as we have seen, the natural conjugal act is not limted to marriage, for it is defined, by the Church, as the couple becoming one flesh, and Paul tells us becoming one flesh occurs between even a man and a harlot. So these words about contraception apply to all such occurance.

So when the Church says that contraception is intrinsically evil . . . when it says that

"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
​

it refers to all contraception in all circumstance and all situations.

 

[thereselittleflower]

With respect I have talked to other people, my own family members, one with a specialty in obstetrics as well as other medical degrees and they disagree with your assessment. So I am going with them as well as moral theologians I have met. And when I combine those two sets of opinions that span about 6 people I have personally talked to on the subject in real life...they completely agree with the USCCB who are not opposing the Vatican with this directive.

given that and the fact that the Bishops are clear on their instruction, I am choosing to go with the USCCB who approved this as a body of Bishops in 2001.

Then go with them David and be wrong.

"In certain environments such as the female reproductive tract beyond the cervix, sperm can live for as much as five to seven days. The woman's cervical mucus gives this long life to the sperm. In other biological environments such as the vagina, sperm may live only a few hours. In contrast, the egg has a life-span of only about one day from the time it bursts from the ovary. Thus, fertilization can occur anytime live sperm meet up with a live egg, which can happen even if the sperm are deposited up to seven days in advance of ovulation. "

How Long Can Sperm Survive? - Pregnancy Articles



When did I conceive?

In order to conceive, an egg needs to be released from your ovaries (ovulation). Ovulation usually happens about 14 days after the first day of your last period.
An egg lives for about 12-24 hours after it’s released. For you to get pregnant, a sperm must fertilise the egg within this time.
Sperm can live for up to seven days inside your body. This means, if you have sex up to seven days before you ovulate, or within a day or so of ovulating, you could conceive.
If you are trying to get pregnant, guidance from NICE advises that, for the best chance of success, you should have sex every two to three days throughout the month. You don’t need to time it to coincide with the days when you ovulate.
Around seven days after you conceive, HCG might be noticeable in your urine in very low levels, though this varies from woman to woman. Most tests need a higher level of HCG to give a positive result.

How soon can I do a pregnancy test?

​

This is all common medical knowledge David - it has been for a very long time . . . so I have to wonder about your sources or ask are you sure you properly understood what you were told or read?

 

[Davidnic]

Then go with them David and be wrong.

Fully happy to go with them, family members with medical degrees and priests I went to grade school with as well as everything I learned about Moral Theology in restful confidence of being in line with the Church and not being wrong. Perfectly happy to go with all of them on their medical knowledge and knowledge of the Church. On that note I think the evidence in favor of the Ethical Directives and the USCCB is well presented in this thread. In fact it was well presented in the first five pages.

I am not disputing how long sperm can survive. The Bishops are talking about actions in the first 72 hours if conception has not happened; that is why I talked about three days (also because in NFP you can shoot for that window rather than a 7 day one for effective conception). I thought that was obvious from the language of the directives to those who read them...if I was unclear that I believed sperm can not survive beyond three days accept my apology. Sperm can survive for a good bit of time. Without an egg it is not going to do much. And that is why the Bishops allow contraception that suppresses ovulation but will not cause an abortion. And that is what I am saying. What I am saying people who I know disagree with you on is that all methods of emergency contraception that delay ovulation cause abortion. And the Bishops, since they approve emergency contraception that is not abortive...also seem to agree with them that it exists. That is where the people I have talked to disagree. That and the whole argument that rape is the conjugal act. Rape is an objectively different act. That I know is right from Moral Theology, multiple priests and the wording of the eithical directives as well as all Church teaching on rape. I saw that directly when a priest corrected a deacon who argued what you have been citing. And every priest I have ever talked to, in academic and pastoral settings agreed.

So fully happy to side with their view.

 

[Davidnic]

We are going to go round and round TLF, with respect and love for each other we have posted lots of info here. I am confident people can make up their minds on what was presented. So I am going to do other things. Blessed night.

 

[Gwendolyn]

2) All conjugal unions are carnal unions, not all carnal unions are conjugal unions; e.g., Fornication and Adultery.

TLF, this is not what you are getting.

When you have sex, you become one flesh - no one is denying that. We are telling you that you are misguided in your understanding of what the meaning of conjugal is. The 'conjugal act' is sex within marriage - that is why the CCC says fornication and adultery (and rape) pervert the 'conjugal act', because they aren't conjugal at all, and sex is intended to be conjugal (within marriage).

You are, of course, free to ignore the theological definition of conjugal, which a few of us here (Mike, David, and isshin, for example) have already mentioned. You can also ignore the definitions from every dictionary, as well as the etymological evidence that points to the meaning of the word (especially the Latin, which is the language of the Church - and do not forget that our documents are still written in Latin before being translated into the world's languages).

Can you really not accept the fact that your definition of conjugal is wrong? Being wrong about the definition doesn't change the fact that abortifacients are evil in every circumstance.

 

[Basil the Great]

I recall reading 18-36 months ago, that the Vatican said that at the urging of some Bishops, it would look at the specific situation where one partner in a marriage has AIDS and whether ABC might be justifiable in such a circumstance. However, I never heard anymore. Does anyone know if the issue is still pending or did I just miss Pope Benedict's teaching?

 

[Basil the Great]

1) It's my wife's birthday and I'm not going to spend it on here, but I wanted to report back that Father, an FSSP priest active in the pro-life movement, agreed with the USCCB's assessment of the situation for the reasons stated before: rape is not a conjugal act, conception has not taken place, contracepting in this case is a defense against the continued assault. I'll go into more detail Mon or Tues.

2) All conjugal unions are carnal unions, not all carnal unions are conjugal unions; e.g., Fornication and Adultery.

3) My saying that the documents you are quoting refer to conjugal unions, thus those taking place in a marriage, does not mean that I have said that the Church teaches that contraception is not intrinsically evil in other voluntary carnal unions, such as fornication and adultery. I have said that multiple times which makes me wonder if you are reading my posts, or if I just cannot communicate that thought well.

4) TLF, you still have not answered if adultery is intrinsically evil, and if so, how fornication differs from it in that regard.

I find it hard to believe that adultery could be intrinsically evil, as many that commit adultery have fallen out of love with their spouse and are now deeply in love with their new partner. This is not to say that their new love justifies the act of adultery. However, it certainly throws doubt on the proposition that their sinful act is intrinsically evil.

 

[thereselittleflower]

TLF, this is not what you are getting.

No, it's what I diagree with. There is a difference.

When you have sex, you become one flesh - no one is denying that. We are telling you that you are misguided in your understanding of what the meaning of conjugal is. The 'conjugal act' is sex within marriage - that is why the CCC says fornication and adultery (and rape) pervert the 'conjugal act', because they aren't conjugal at all, and sex is intended to be conjugal (within marriage).

No one has presented a theological definiton of conjugal.

People have presented their opinons as theological definitions.

No one, but myself, has differentiated between the NATURAL conjugal act and the CHRISTIAN conjugal act.

The CCC gives us the definition of natural conjugal act. . . one that makes of two people, one flesh.

In scripture, Paul extends this to man with a harlot, which I have already posted , as Paul quoting God.

Where the CCC talks about contraception, it says conjugal act . . and does not differentiate between natural and christian, so it refers to ALL conjugal acts, and all contraception for all conjugal acts is intrinsically evil according to the Catholic Church.

 

[thereselittleflower]

What's important to understand with this directive everyone has been arguing about, is it's meaningless in the real scheme of things.

To condemn the use of the only one effective contraceptive, and still say that other forms of contraception could be allowed, is meaningless and clouds the issue.

People jump in and say they can use spermicide to protect themselves agaisnts the assault of sperm.

Really?

How does that even begin to make sense?


As I posted above, sperm may live for a few hours in the vagina. . .the only place you can use spermicide. The life span of the sperm in the vagina is incredibly short.

BY THE TIME a rape victim even seeks care, the sperm have either moved on inside the cervix and thus out of the reach of a spermicide, or are already dead if they remain in the vagina.


It is MEANINGLESS to even suggest other forms of contraception, other than chemical abortificants, could be used or give any help. It gives false hope.


A meaningless directive is nothing. It cloud the issues, and makes something that is intrinsically evil seem not so, even though it can provide absolutely no real beneift at all.


The ONLY effective mesures is a chemical abortificant. We do not need a directive to tell us what we can and cannot do with such measures .. the Vatican has clearly spoken.

 

[MikeK]

I've posted everything I had to say in this thread, and unless anyone cares to bring anything new to the table, I'll bow out. I'd like to thank everyone who participated, it's been an interesting discussion and even though I've participated in the same discussion elsewhere, this one has stayed more on topic than most. Not many 22 page two day internet discussions do that.

So far, my opinion hasn't changed but has been solidified. It is clearer than ever to me that rape is not conjugal, marital or unitive and as such few parallels can be drawn between it and mutual self-giving. While of course killing children is never acceptable, there is no sin in preventing a child from being created post rape, pre-conception. I understand that there are some perhaps who don't appreciate the fact that with modern medicine we can tell if women have ovulated or not (and as such, if there is any chance that she has become pregnant) and we can, through a myriad of methods - chemical and otherwise - prevent that conception from ever taking place. Rape victims are not forced by our Church to "turn the other cheek" as one poster suggested and wait patiently to see if she would become pregnant following her asault. They are allowed to defend themselves both durring and after the attack, so long as they don't harm any innocents.

 

[MikeK]

People jump in and say they can use spermicide to protect themselves agaisnts the assault of sperm

Are you certain your specialty is OB? We're not talking about someone's home and a cream they found on a drugstore shelf, this is a hospital. It certainly is possible to cleanse a woman's cervix or sperm and/or apply spermicide. It is a routine procedure following a sexual assault. The only think remarkable about the USCCB's directive is that they allow it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I find it hard to believe that adultery could be intrinsically evil, as many that commit adultery have fallen out of love with their spouse and are now deeply in love with their new partner. This is not to say that their new love justifies the act of adultery. However, it certainly throws doubt on the proposition that their sinful act is intrinsically evil.

Where we passsed each other like ships in the night was over the concept of sex being intrinsically evil. . it's not.

However, ona different level, acts that involve sex can be.

So Adultery is called intrinsically evil by the Church.

The Church has not defined, that I can find, that fornication is intrisically evil.

I can easily see how one would be and the other not be, as adultery is absolutely against the sacredness of marital fidelity and conjugal love, it acts against the sacrament already received and unalterable vows already made.

Adultery is ALWAYS this. It can never be anything else but this no matter the circumstance or intent.

However, when it comes to fornication, there are no vows already entered into, there is no scrament already received. It is the misuse of the natural conjugal act outside of marriage, but it unites the two into one flesh as Paul has stated in scripture that I shared before:

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.
​

And the natural conjugal act entered into outside of marriage can be redeemed by entering into marraige, especially christian marraige.

The adulterous act can never be redeemed unless there has been the death of a spouse and the other is free to marry the one they entered into the adulterous relationship with. . but then it is not the adulterous act that is redeemed. . it is abandoned and a proper conjugal love is entered into.

An example in point is David and Bathsheba.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Are you certain your specialty is OB? We're not talking about someone's home and a cream they found on a drugstore shelf, this is a hospital. It certainly is possible to cleanse a woman's cervix or sperm and/or apply spermicide. It is a routine procedure following a sexual assault. The only think remarkable about the USCCB's directive is that they allow it.

Mike, I worked High Risk Obstetrics for years. I've caught many a baby in my own two hands.