Allowing Contraception?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.htm[/url]

Please explain this.

[qfnol31]

Double Effect?

Edited October 8, 2004 by qfnol31

[Guest Aluigi]

wow.. so wait, i guess they're saying that because the rape sex was wrong in the first place, to prevent conception from it would not be wrong because the sex never should have occured. it is only morally irreversable once conception has formed a new life. i had never heard or thought of that before, does that make sense? is that right?

[Theoketos]

qfnol31 get props for lettting me use his computer.

Yes this is line with Humanae Vitae.

This is the priniciaple of Double Effect...

...that is the point would not be contraception but preventing the immanent consequences of sin, which is the first effect.

Thus removing the sperm from inside the women would not be a sin.

However killing the Child would be at any stages, which the document stated.

Also Inside of marriage contraception unties the unitve from the procreative aspect, but here there is not the unitive aspect, those no necessary procreative apect.

At the same time it sounds qwerty to me.

[popestpiusx]

Absolutely not. This is complete B.S. Double effect does not apply because it can never involve an act that is intrinsically evil, such as contraception. An evil can be tolerated, but the act itself cannot be evil.
This is why, in the classic case, you can remove a cancerous ovary or uterus, even if it may result in the death of a child in the womb. The intended act is the removal of a disease. The evil tolerated is the death of the child. The act of removing a cancerous organ is morally neutral. In the case mentioned on the USCCB site the intended act is itself contraceptive and as such, is morally evil. The contraceptive act is not an evil being tolerated, but is intentionally done.

Second, I don't know of any purely contraceptive methods that can be used after the fact.

This needs to be sent to Rome.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Contraception is a barrier that separates the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality. Since in the case of rape there is no unitive aspect (the woman doesn't desire it), contraception becomes a moot point. For example, if a woman is married and her husband is wearing a condom and she still has sex with him, she is culpable for the usage of contraception. However, if a rapist wears a condom, she is in no way culpable for the usage of contraception. The woman does not desire the unitive aspect of the act and is not culpable for the act taking place, so she can reject the procreative aspect (or really the potential for procreation) too if the rapist doesn't wear a condom. However, if procreation takes place (which doesn't occur until conception), she cannot abort the baby or commit an action for the express purpose of aborting the baby.

This is just my interpretation of what the statement says. We have to remember that there is a unitive and procreative aspect to sexuality and separating the two through contraception is the sin.

Edited October 8, 2004 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 8 2004, 12:39 AM'] Second, I don't know of any purely contraceptive methods that can be used after the fact. [/quote]
There are a few. Mainly they interfere with ovulation and keep it from occuring. If ovulation has occured, some drugs can interfere with sperm fertilizing the egg. It must be noted that any drug administered NOT interfere with the implantation or growth of an embryo if conception has already taken place.

Mainly, it's a concern over the four-fold effect of the drug. The fourth point is the one they have a problem with. Effects 1-3 do not interfere with a fertilized egg and therefore are not abortafacient.

In fact, the Catechism nowhere issues a statement that contraception is always evil like it does with direct abortion (CCC 2271). In fact, contraception is only mentioned twice in the CCC (2370, 2399) both times in the context of birth regulation in a unitive relationship.

[Theoketos]

SPSPX I appreciate your concern, but I have three or maybe two questions.

Why is contraception intrinsically evil?

Where in Church teaching does it state this?

(Sub question)Could the Churches teaching on contraception imply between married people?

Really, what is the most loving thing to do?

At the point the child is concieved; it must be loved, and has a right to life. So after conception, contraception is really just abortion, which is wrong.

But before that, a child of rape has a rough life ahead them. I think that it would not be a good thing if a mother conceived a child out of rape.

However, if contraception, in this sense, is intrinsically evil, the end would not justify the means.

But I think there are two senses of the word contraception.

Next

What makes marriage? [b]Consent[/b]

Out side of consent, it is a whole nother ball game. The unitive must necessarily be a part of the procreative. If one is intrinsically lacking, then the other must also be.


In the case of marriage the unitive necessarily is always there because of consent given in marriage, thus the procreative aspect of the conjugal act is necessarily part of the act. Without both present, the act is not an act of love.

Here, I am thinking of consensual extra marital, using contraception would be a double sin, as the consent would make the couple culpable for their openness to life, even though there is not the total commitment necessary for a truly unitize act. Here I would say that Contraception is still an evil, for it is encouraging a sterile orgasm and the use of a person as object.

Ah, there it is, [i]the use of the person as a object [/i]. This is the principle that makes contraception wrong in consensual sex, marital or other wise (in the case of other wise it would of coarse be a further use of the person as an object)...

However when a woman is raped, there is no chance that it was consenual in any way, thus lacking the unitive aspect, which would necessitate the procreative, then it really would not be contraception, in the proper sense.

Therefore, if not unitive, then not necessarily procreative.

Also, I am sure Rome knows about this. In fact, I am almost sure this teaching comes from the principles of natural law and Humanae Vitae.

Edited October 8, 2004 by Theoketos

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Theo, I assume you mean "a part" instead of "apart."

Good post.

[Theoketos]

thanks and yes

*goes to edit*

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Oct 8 2004, 02:04 AM'] There are a few. Mainly they interfere with ovulation and keep it from occuring. If ovulation has occured, some drugs can interfere with sperm fertilizing the egg. It must be noted that any drug administered NOT interfere with the implantation or growth of an embryo if conception has already taken place.

[/quote]
I know of no drug that stops ovulation/ fertilization without having the side effect of also being an abortifacient should fertilization take place.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Oct 8 2004, 10:03 AM'] Really, what is the most loving thing to do?

At the point the child is concieved; it must be loved, and has a right to life. So after conception, contraception is really just abortion, which is wrong.

But before that, a child of rape has a rough life ahead them. I think that it would not be a good thing if a mother conceived a child out of rape.

[/quote]
This point is irrelevant. There is no way that we can be the judge of what kind of life someone may have, nor can we justify any act of preventing that life based on our speculation. I know a girl who is the product of a rape. I think she have serious issues with anyone who attempted to justify contraception on this basis.

Furthermore, this is the same sort of argument the pro-aborts use to justify aborting the Children concieved during a rape, or anyone else that they deem may "have a rough life ahead of them." I'm not accusing you of those same sympathies. That would be rediculous as you are obviously a good Catholic. I am simply making the point that this is a dangerous argument to use and could easily be used against us.

Your other points are good and I will think about it more before I post a reply to them.

One last thing though, even if in theory you are correct, I still do not know of any drug contraceptive drug that does also act as an abortifacient.

Edited October 8, 2004 by popestpiusx

[CatholicforChrist]

This is outrageous. It makes me sick to see such things written on a Catholic website, the Bishops' website above all. This is a case where they are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Bishops of America are not infallible, Deo Gratias, and this is an example of an error in pastoral judgment and a false use of Double Effect. I agree completely with Popesaintpiusx. I wish people would call out error rather than trying to suppress it. I remember a story about one of the heretics of the early Church (I think it was Nestorius), when he was preaching from the pulpit his heresy (if it was Nestorius, then it would be his condemnation of Theotokos as a title for the Blessed Virgin), the people stood up and yelled "Heretic! Heretic!" If only this were true today...

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 8 2004, 01:39 AM'] Absolutely not. This is complete B.S. Double effect does not apply because it can never involve an act that is intrinsically evil, such as contraception. An evil can be tolerated, but the act itself cannot be evil.

Second, I don't know of any purely contraceptive methods that can be used after the fact.
[/quote]
Actually, this is one type of case that we discussed in Moral Theology and Double Effect where Fr. said that certain measures can be taken to prevent conception if the woman was raped. The only method mentioned as acceptable, however, was to flush the sperm out of the woman, not using actual contraceptives that could cause abortion if she were to conceive.

As to the second, I'm inclined to agree that any purely contraceptive methods (like the morning after pill) are unacceptable. I'm not sure I understand why that article says that they can be... What Theoketos and others have said makes some sense but I'd like to hear whats what from some orthodox Church authority (not that I don't trust you all, I just mean that I want to hear it from an authority other than the US Bishops as well). If one cannot use something which could potentially kill a child should conception occur then any chemical agent to prevent implantation cannot be used as it causes an abortion.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Oct 8 2004, 03:03 PM'] Actually, this is one type of case that we discussed in Moral Theology and Double Effect where Fr. said that certain measures can be taken to prevent conception if the woman was raped. The only method mentioned as acceptable, however, was to flush the sperm out of the woman, not using actual contraceptives that could cause abortion if she were to conceive.

As to the second, I'm inclined to agree that any purely contraceptive methods (like the morning after pill) are unacceptable. I'm not sure I understand why that article says that they can be... What Theoketos and others have said makes some sense but I'd like to hear whats what from some orthodox Church authority (not that I don't trust you all, I just mean that I want to hear it from an authority other than the US Bishops as well). If one cannot use something which could potentially kill a child should conception occur then any chemical agent to prevent implantation cannot be used as it causes an abortion. [/quote]
I'll call a couple theologians that you and I both know and see what they say. It seems that there are two issues here. One, is the principle itself. That is, whether it would be permissable to use some contraceptive (non-abortafacient) to prevent conception after the act had been commited.

Two, is the practical application of the principle. That is, whether or not such a contraceptive device exists.

Again, I don't see how this can be reconciled with Church teaching, even if in principle it is ok (which I don't think it is). I think there are two many things going against it.