Amppax Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Here's the link. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/german-bishops-morning-after-pill-decision-causes-concern/ It would seems that there's a lot more here than what it seems on the surface, it seems a lot like the outcry about Pope Benedict's statements about condoms a few year ago. It seems there's a nuanced moral theology issue at play here. But I admit, I was pretty disturbed when I first saw this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The key here, as I see it, is whether or not they can truly guarantee that this pill will not prevent implantation of a zygote. If they can guarantee that beyond any reasonable doubt, then we can discuss a few more of the secondary issues, but if that cannot be guaranteed, then it is indefensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 "If there is a pill that prevents that there be a conception in cases of rape, then it is licit to prevent it." [However,] "We have no knowledge of a morning-after pill without abortifacient effects. If it does exist, it may be used, with the doctrine we have." "If it does exist, we will be sure to know it .... all morning-after pills have this possible abortive effect. Therefore, its use is illicit. If it does exist in Germany, we are not aware of it. It is not known to us that this technical possibility exists." - Bishop Juan Antonio MartÃnez Camino (Source: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-spaniards-get-it-right-and-dangers.html) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 "If there is a pill that prevents that there be a conception in cases of rape, then it is licit to prevent it." [However,] "We have no knowledge of a morning-after pill without abortifacient effects. If it does exist, it may be used, with the doctrine we have." "If it does exist, we will be sure to know it .... all morning-after pills have this possible abortive effect. Therefore, its use is illicit. If it does exist in Germany, we are not aware of it. It is not known to us that this technical possibility exists." - Bishop Juan Antonio MartÃnez Camino (Source: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-spaniards-get-it-right-and-dangers.html) The doctors I have heard quoted, including in the article in the OP, seem to agree that the existence of a truly non-abortifacient morning after pill is sketchy at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 The key here, as I see it, is whether or not they can truly guarantee that this pill will not prevent implantation of a zygote. If they can guarantee that beyond any reasonable doubt, then we can discuss a few more of the secondary issues, but if that cannot be guaranteed, then it is indefensible. I guess I'm just confused as to why it's allowed. Maybe I'm being dense, but why is it okay to allow contraception here? I mean, it's a terrible situation, and I don't mean to be offensive, because it's truly a terrible situation. But I'd always thought that contraception wasn't ever allowed. Someone I talked to earlier was saying that this wasn't the case, that was referring to marriage. I guess I'm just a little confused. I understand the distinction between the drug preventing implantation vs. being an abortifacient; I'm wondering why the first is okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The doctors I have heard quoted, including in the article in the OP, seem to agree that the existence of a truly non-abortifacient morning after pill is sketchy at best. It just goes back to negligence and imprudence on part of the German Bishops, like that of imploding a residential building without knowing whether or not it is occupied by human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I guess I'm just confused as to why it's allowed. Maybe I'm being dense, but why is it okay to allow contraception here? I mean, it's a terrible situation, and I don't mean to be offensive, because it's truly a terrible situation. But I'd always thought that contraception wasn't ever allowed. Someone I talked to earlier was saying that this wasn't the case, that was referring to marriage. I guess I'm just a little confused. I understand the distinction between the drug preventing implantation vs. being an abortifacient; I'm wondering why the first is okay. I would quickly be getting out of my depth in this subject, but this is how I understand the situation as-is. The prohibition against contraception applies specifically to consensual sexual intercourse, which of course is only licit in marriage. The primary reason contraception is wrong is that it undermines the twofold purpose of intercourse, which is that it be procreative and unitive. It undermines both aspects, first because one actively rejects the procreative obligation, and second because one holds a vital piece of themselves back from their partner. The argument is that our objections to contraception do not apply in the case of rape, because the act itself is already such a violation that its unitive aspect is utterly annihilated. Like I said, I am getting very quickly out of my depth, so I do not want to say more than this. And I will also be clear that this represents the status of the question as I understand it, rather than my personal views on the matter. It just goes back to negligence and imprudence on part of the German Bishops, like that of imploding a residential building without knowing whether or not it is occupied by human beings. If I am remembering correctly, this is the same bishops' conference that was found to own a publishing company that published erotic novels. What exactly is going on in Germany these days? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 If I am remembering correctly, this is the same bishops' conference that was found to own a publishing company that published erotic novels. What exactly is going on in Germany these days? :blink: The erotic universe of the German people is famously something that that you should avoid poking too deeply into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 The erotic universe of the German people is famously something that that you should avoid poking too deeply into. Amen. Largest porn industry in the world. The annual "Love" Parade... I asked this question in another thread on this topic and never got an answer: What if a woman is raped by her husband? Assuming that such a non-abortifacent morning-after pill were procurable, could she take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Are the erotic novels Church approved? *is hopeful* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Really Germany?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Amen. Largest porn industry in the world. The annual "Love" Parade... I asked this question in another thread on this topic and never got an answer: What if a woman is raped by her husband? Assuming that such a non-abortifacent morning-after pill were procurable, could she take it? Well, for most of European history, at least in the anglophone world, the idea of marital rape was not a coherent concept. Until the later half of the 20th century is was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Once given, consent could not be withdrawn. I wonder if that history was codified at all in Church doctrine (genuinely don't know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Husband and wife are neither to force, nor refuse one another. Refusing the act can only be done for grave reasons. Forcing may never be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Well, for most of European history, at least in the anglophone world, the idea of marital rape was not a coherent concept. Until the later half of the 20th century is was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Once given, consent could not be withdrawn. I wonder if that history was codified at all in Church doctrine (genuinely don't know) I know. That's why I'm asking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Husband and wife are neither to force, nor refuse one another. Refusing the act can only be done for grave reasons. Forcing may never be done. Right. It "may" never be done in society at large, either, and yet it happens all the time. So... The question is: Would the Church recognize such a rape as forced and permit the woman to take the pill, or would the Church argue that there is no such thing as marital rape and so forbid her to take the pill? That's the whole point I'm trying to get at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now