German Catholics allow morning-after pill in rape cases
#41
As usual, the Bishops are living in a fantasy world in which a doctor can prescribe a pill which is a "morning after contraceptive" which is not primarily an abortifacient.

That thing does not exist.

So, what the Bishops allow is impossible.  It actually perpetuates an evil lie, that hormonal contraception is not abortifacient.  This lie is particularly the one that Protestants tell themselves in order that they may use the pill.  I'm under no illusion that he Catholics who use the pill care very much. 

So, get it straight everyone:

If such a magical pill existed as the one described in the German Bishops' instruction actually existed, then we could have a debate about it.  It does not.  Therefore there is no debate to have about the morality of chemically defending an egg against an aggressor's sperm.  That's not what is being done here.  This is a mega-dose of hormones that screws up the endometrium and prevents implantation.  I'm sure some of the German prelates involved know this, worse off they are for it.  Some of them, doubtless, are as ignorant of such worldly concerns as most bishops are.
Reply
#42
(02-23-2013, 03:03 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: Neither Dignitas Personae nor Humanae Vitae are theological treatises nor do they expressly concern rape. With all due respect to the dignity of his office, Fr. Fehlner is not a systematic or authoritative theologian and so I think his position is unqualified in spite of his good intentions. Lovonorgestral is almost certainly not an abortifacient if administered before the luteinizing hormone surge preceding ovulation as I argued earlier. If you object to my conclusions, please attack my faulty arguments specifically. I will be greatly obliged to you if I am proven wrong.

Now I'm thoroughly confused. Only theological treatises are morally binding? So when I am serving at the Holy Sacrifice, I am free to ignore the decrees of the SRC, as they are not theological treatises? If this premise is false, then Humanae Vitae's condemnation of artificial contraception should still apply. Please actually explain why I am wrong. You say it is not an abortifacient (which the Pontifical Academy for Life said it is), yet I have never found any Magisterial document stating that chemical contraceptives are okay. So whether it is abortifacient or not is a moot point unless you can provide proof that the Depositum Fidei allows for chemical contraception.

(02-23-2013, 04:43 PM)moneil Wrote: So, if an immoral and unnatural intercourse has occurred (unless someone wants to argue that rape is normatively provided for under the natural law), and if medical science derived from our God given intellect can provide a means to prevent an illegitimate pregnancy (another issue the Church has addressed with some seriousness, because at one time bastards were barred from Holy Orders), as long as that means is not abortifactant, I don’t believe it is so “cut and dried” of an issue.  In any event I leave the answer to the magisterium of the Church, not random laity (including myself) on the internet.

Well, if an unmarried couple has consensual extramarital sex, it is always an immoral and unnatural intercourse. The resulting pregnancy would always be illegitimate. Therefore it is permissible to use artificial contraception, so long as it is taken before the egg is fertilized. Birth control and fornication for all!

Relativist rubbish.

:tiphat:


Can anyone show any morally-binding Magisterial document that actually says birth control is permissible? I have shown several documents of the Holy See stating that it is sinful. No one has demonstrated anything to the contrary, yet I am the one being attacked for upholding what the Church has always (i.e. not just the post-V2 novelties) taught.

Oh, and by the way, I am no "conservative." I loathe conservatives and Conservatism.
Reply
#43
I don't think some fishies have the semantical chops for this one.
Reply
#44
I found this and it says the USCCB allows for it as well. Frankly, I can't see the equivalency to knocking the block off of some guy raping a woman and this pill. What I see in the pill is second degree murder with depraved indifference.

It's like a young couple breaks down on a country road in a blizzard and walks to the farmhouse for shelter. When they get there the farmer answers and says no go away, and the couple die in a snow bank during the night. The farmer thinks he didn't directly murder them, but by not allowing them shelter he allows them to die.

Anyways;


[url][http://truthandcharity.net/german-bishop...lan-b//url]

tim
 
Reply
#45
(02-23-2013, 02:30 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: In traditional canon law, not every conception was construed as a good in toto. The defect of birth, for example, was an impediment to the reception of holy orders. Now defect is synonymous with privation and all privation is of some good, which is evil.

That rule was not a comment on the dignity of those men as children of God, as you seem to be implying. It was more a comment on the undesirability of extra-marital sex.

I am, of course, separating intercourse from conception as two separate processes, though of course the first causes the second. The concept of an illegitimate conception strikes me as very bizarre; I've always seen each conception as a sort of mini-miracle.

(02-23-2013, 04:43 PM)moneil Wrote: permissible to utilize recent medical knowledge and procedures to prevent an unnatural and immoral pregnancy from occurring. . .  Perhaps Terri Schiavo’s life should have been “left in God’s hands” rather than reliance on rather recent and modern mechanical technology only available in the most advanced countries to people with funds?

. . .if medical science derived from our God given intellect can provide a means to prevent an illegitimate pregnancy. . .

1. Are we then supposed to be happy that contraceptives were invented? Is everything humans have made good because it was made with their God-given abilities?

2. I've never heard a pregnancy be called unnatural and immoral.

3. The Church does teach that no one is forced to use "extraordinary means" to save his life. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the debate is whether nourishing a human body intravenously is extraordinary means or not; clearly, to feed someone is not an extraordinary means of keeping him alive, but the technology used in Schiavo's case may be said to be an extraordinary means. I'm not sure a Catholic has to have the first opinion. But in any case, this is not very relevant to the issue at hand, because pregnancy is not a disease.
Reply
#46
(02-23-2013, 05:26 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: As usual, the Bishops are living in a fantasy world in which a doctor can prescribe a pill which is a "morning after contraceptive" which is not primarily an abortifacient.

That thing does not exist.



If such a magical pill existed as the one described in the German Bishops' instruction actually existed, then we could have a debate about it.  It does not.  Therefore there is no debate to have about the morality of chemically defending an egg against an aggressor's sperm.  That's not what is being done here.  This is a mega-dose of hormones that screws up the endometrium and prevents implantation.  I'm sure some of the German prelates involved know this, worse off they are for it.  Some of them, doubtless, are as ignorant of such worldly concerns as most bishops are.

As with another poster, I’m wondering if you read the original citation, which specifically states:
Quote:"Medical and pharmaceutical methods that induce the death of an embryo may still not be used."  That means there is no change to the Catholic Church's ban on the so-called abortion pill based on the drug mifepristone or RU-486, and marketed as Mifegyne or Mifeprex.

So, the Bishops have specifically forbidden the use of the product you speak of.

Are you a physician or otherwise a medical professional?  Do you have any credentials or professional background to authoritatively instruct us on these matters?

I am not a physician, but I have worked professionally for 40 years with dairy and beef cow fertility.  While the focus of my work has been to get cows pregnant and to keep them pregnant, I do know that there are a number of protocols and situations that prevent a female from ovulating, that prevent an ovulated ovum from being fertilized (i.e. there is no conception), or that prevent spermatozoa from capacitating in the female (a necessary precursor to their being able to penetrate an ovum).  I would not be surprised if such protocols are available for the human species, given all the advances in medical science in recent decades (for good and evil).

Setting aside momentarily for the sake of a particular point the propriety of the Bishops’ position, they were rather specific that any medical intervention MUST be non abortifactant.  Given my background in reproductive physiology (granted it is species specific, but the general process is identical), I think I could reasonably assume with some probability of certitude that there may exist medical therapies that are not abortifactant.  In the absence of medical consul in this regard (one might presume the bishops had the good sense to consult trusted Catholic physicians, but I don’t know that they did), from someone actually qualified to address the issue, I am bound to stand by understanding at the moment.

(02-23-2013, 05:36 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Well, if an unmarried couple has consensual extramarital sex, it is always an immoral and unnatural intercourse. The resulting pregnancy would always be illegitimate. Therefore it is permissible to use artificial contraception, so long as it is taken before the egg is fertilized. Birth control and fornication for all!

I NEVER implied that.  Once one is in a situation of this type of mortal sin I don’t think having the act open to procreation makes it less mortal, nor the use of contraception makes it more mortal.  Mortal sin is mortal sin.  Would you argue that fornicators who don’t contracept would experience a less severe level of hades than those who do?

(02-23-2013, 05:36 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Can anyone show any morally-binding Magisterial document that actually says birth control is permissible? I have shown several documents of the Holy See stating that it is sinful. No one has demonstrated anything to the contrary, yet I am the one being attacked for upholding what the Church has always (i.e. not just the post-V2 novelties) taught.

No one is arguing that birth control is permissible.  But, when the Church has taught in this regard it has always been in the context of natural intercourse and of two persons choosing to exercise their sexual faculties for personal self gratification, or even mutual gratification, while not being open to God’s plan for the procreation of new life.  I don’t believe you can show documents from the Holy See or Scripture that rape is an aspect of God’s plan for the procreation of new life.  When new life results from such a tragic and wrong event we are bound to defend that innocent life (and by extension to give the mother all the support and care she needs). 

What I am wondering, as there is to my knowledge no explicit magisterial pronouncement on this aspect (as the Church’s general teachings here are not dealing with the subject of rape), if after a rape there exist non abortifactant means to prevent a pregnancy, I could conceive of that being permissible.  God desires new life to be conceived in the environment of sacramental marriage, not rape.  As for the argument of “let God decide…” (which some have made, I’m not attributing this to you); well that is a lot like saying God wanted the rape to happen because He didn’t strike the rapist down.

I respect the sincerity of your position but I sincerely you may be viewing the Church’s traditional teachings too narrowly in this context.  I’m not presuming your position here, but for example, some laity today condemn Venerable Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives as promoting illicit birth control, but the magisterium has spoken otherwise.

Let me give some examples, just to explain how I’m looking at it.  I was born in 1951.  I grew up when people, especially late middle aged men, use to just drop dead from heart attacks.  A common expression and understanding was “well it was their time to go in God’s wisdom”.  Today because of medical technology which detects early signs of cardiovascular disorders, artificial heart valves, bypass surgery, heart stints, pacemakers, defibrillators, and so on, far fewer just drop dead from heat attacks, and those with cardiovascular disease live much longer.  Are we artificially thwarting God’s will here?

The Fifth Commandment is pretty straight forward: “Thou Shalt Not Kill” Deuteronomy 5:17 (and Our Lord extends this to include anger in St. Matthew’s Gospel, as do many pre VII manuals for the examination of conscience).  Yet the Church has always provided for exceptions: just war, self defense, capital punishment of criminals, at one time the burning of heretics, and in the case of anger, a “righteous anger in the face of evil” is permitted.

So, while it is our appointed lot in life to die, the Church allows us to use medical knowledge to delay the time of our particular judgment.  While ALL humans are created in the image and likeness of God and ALL human life is sacred, the Church allows the use of lethal force in certain circumstances.  I don’t believe these are cases of “Relativist rubbish”.  Based on these and other precedents I can conceive that it might be morally permissible to prevent a pregnancy resulting from rape, if it can be done in a non abortifacant manner.  I am certainly not arguing against or trying to weaken the Church’s long standing position on artificial contraception, but I also don’t feel it is “more absolute” than the Fifth Commandment, to which so many moral exceptions are made.

In any event it is a question for the magisterium to decide.


Quote:Oh, and by the way, I am no "conservative." I loathe conservatives and Conservatism.


Are you  liberal then  ???
Reply
#47
Rape is immoral. So is fornication. In both cases contraception is still contraception. I remain unconvinced that contraception is ever the right choice.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#48
(02-23-2013, 09:03 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Rape is immoral. So is fornication. In both cases contraception is still contraception. I remain unconvinced that contraception is ever the right choice.
Girl in South Africa is abducted (country chosen arbitrarily because of its high rate of AIDS and rape). Does she sin if she begs her rapist to use a condom?
Reply
#49
(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote: So, the Bishops have specifically forbidden the use of the product you speak of.

Are you a physician or otherwise a medical professional?  Do you have any credentials or professional background to authoritatively instruct us on these matters?

I am not a physician, but I have worked professionally for 40 years with dairy and beef cow fertility.  While the focus of my work has been to get cows pregnant and to keep them pregnant, I do know that there are a number of protocols and situations that prevent a female from ovulating, that prevent an ovulated ovum from being fertilized (i.e. there is no conception), or that prevent spermatozoa from capacitating in the female (a necessary precursor to their being able to penetrate an ovum).  I would not be surprised if such protocols are available for the human species, given all the advances in medical science in recent decades (for good and evil).

Setting aside momentarily for the sake of a particular point the propriety of the Bishops’ position, they were rather specific that any medical intervention MUST be non abortifactant.  Given my background in reproductive physiology (granted it is species specific, but the general process is identical), I think I could reasonably assume with some probability of certitude that there may exist medical therapies that are not abortifactant.  In the absence of medical consul in this regard (one might presume the bishops had the good sense to consult trusted Catholic physicians, but I don’t know that they did), from someone actually qualified to address the issue, I am bound to stand by understanding at the moment.

I have not anywhere attempted to instruct others on biology. I am interested in the Faith, not the science. As I said, I am confused. When and where has the Magisterium ever said that contraception can be acceptable? Again, as I said, I don't care about whether the pills in question are abortifacient or not. I don't care what name they bear. All I care about is that they are contraceptive. They are chemical birth control, which violates the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. I want to know how a contraceptive can ever be anything other than intrinsically evil as Humanae Vitae says.

(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote:
(02-23-2013, 05:36 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Well, if an unmarried couple has consensual extramarital sex, it is always an immoral and unnatural intercourse. The resulting pregnancy would always be illegitimate. Therefore it is permissible to use artificial contraception, so long as it is taken before the egg is fertilized. Birth control and fornication for all!

I NEVER implied that.  Once one is in a situation of this type of mortal sin I don’t think having the act open to procreation makes it less mortal, nor the use of contraception makes it more mortal.  Mortal sin is mortal sin.  Would you argue that fornicators who don’t contracept would experience a less severe level of hades than those who do?

When we make a valid, sacramental Confession, we must confess all mortal sins in kind and number. In the case I described, both of the people would be required to confess to the mortal sin of fornication, and also to the mortal sin of contraception. If they only confessed to the mortal sin of fornication, the sacramental absolution would be invalid (assuming contraception was not simply forgotten, in spite of intent to confess it, during the confession), and all subsequent confessions would be invalid until they confessed to both the unconfessed contraception and the mortal sin of sacrilege for intentionally omitting a known mortal sin in confession.

It doesn't make the first sin "more mortal," rather, it is an additional mortal sin.

In the hypothetical case of a woman having been the victim of rape using contraception, the use of a contraceptive is still sinful (unless someone can find a morally-binding Magisterial document proving otherwise), though we can probably assume that the culpability is much less due to the devastating distress she is in, but that is a matter for God to decide, not man. But just because a sin is "less bad" doesn't mean it is not still a sin.

(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote: What I am wondering, as there is to my knowledge no explicit magisterial pronouncement on this aspect (as the Church’s general teachings here are not dealing with the subject of rape), if after a rape there exist non abortifactant means to prevent a pregnancy, I could conceive of that being permissible.  God desires new life to be conceived in the environment of sacramental marriage, not rape.  As for the argument of “let God decide…” (which some have made, I’m not attributing this to you); well that is a lot like saying God wanted the rape to happen because He didn’t strike the rapist down.

Of course God doesn't want sin to happen, but He allows it. If He is omnipotent as we believe, He could have destroyed Satan at the moment of the fall of the angels, but He permits the demons to run amok on earth still today -- even (especially?) in the Vatican.

Why does He ever allow us to face distressing situations? We have to trust that some good can come from even the worst situation if we continue to obey His commandments.

(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote: Let me give some examples, just to explain how I’m looking at it.  I was born in 1951.  I grew up when people, especially late middle aged men, use to just drop dead from heart attacks.  A common expression and understanding was “well it was their time to go in God’s wisdom”.  Today because of medical technology which detects early signs of cardiovascular disorders, artificial heart valves, bypass surgery, heart stints, pacemakers, defibrillators, and so on, far fewer just drop dead from heat attacks, and those with cardiovascular disease live much longer.  Are we artificially thwarting God’s will here?

This example is not apt, because it is the exact opposite situation. One preserves life, the other prevents life.

(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote: The Fifth Commandment is pretty straight forward: “Thou Shalt Not Kill” Deuteronomy 5:17 (and Our Lord extends this to include anger in St. Matthew’s Gospel, as do many pre VII manuals for the examination of conscience).  Yet the Church has always provided for exceptions: just war, self defense, capital punishment of criminals, at one time the burning of heretics, and in the case of anger, a “righteous anger in the face of evil” is permitted.

So, while it is our appointed lot in life to die, the Church allows us to use medical knowledge to delay the time of our particular judgment.  While ALL humans are created in the image and likeness of God and ALL human life is sacred, the Church allows the use of lethal force in certain circumstances.  I don’t believe these are cases of “Relativist rubbish”.  Based on these and other precedents I can conceive that it might be morally permissible to prevent a pregnancy resulting from rape, if it can be done in a non abortifacant manner.  I am certainly not arguing against or trying to weaken the Church’s long standing position on artificial contraception, but I also don’t feel it is “more absolute” than the Fifth Commandment, to which so many moral exceptions are made.

I do not know Ancient Hebrew, but back in high school I had a Jewish friend who studied the language, and his parents were both fluent in Hebrew. They always pointed out to me that the original Hebrew text of the Fifth Commandment does not actually translate to "Thou shalt not kill," but "Thou shalt not murder." As stated, I do not know Ancient Hebrew, so I can't say for sure if this is correct or not, but if it is, that explains why we can have just war, self-defense, and capital punishment without violating Divine Law.

(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote: In any event it is a question for the magisterium to decide.
Agreed.

(02-23-2013, 08:09 PM)moneil Wrote:
Quote:Oh, and by the way, I am no "conservative." I loathe conservatives and Conservatism.


Are you  liberal then  ???

Oh my, no. There are more political ideas out there than liberal and conservative after all, and more economic systems than capitalism and socialism!


In all honesty, I'm starting to see where you're coming from, with the angle that the Magisterial teachings have assumed that consensual sexual relations are taking place. I still disagree with the conclusion you (and others) are coming to -- that non-abortifacient contraception in cases of rape can therefore be permissible -- but I finally understand how you came to that decision, and that if your conclusion violates Church teaching, it is because the teaching is unclear, not because of disobedience.
Reply
#50
(02-23-2013, 09:19 PM)St. Drogo Wrote:
(02-23-2013, 09:03 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Rape is immoral. So is fornication. In both cases contraception is still contraception. I remain unconvinced that contraception is ever the right choice.
Girl in South Africa is abducted (country chosen arbitrarily because of its high rate of AIDS and rape). Does she sin if she begs her rapist to use a condom?

In all respect and gentleness, this is not the question for a follower of Christ. Maria Goretti died for her purity. That is the role model, not begging for condoms.  No, most certainly not. I respectfully do not understand how the bishops could come to such conclusions. To my mind it doesn't make any sense.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)