Catholic Nuns in Bosnia being given contraceptives


#1

I saw Frances Kissling make a push for allowing contraception by referencing the fact that the Church allowed nuns in 1992 in Bosnia to use contraceptives because of the high rate of rape.

From the standpoint of morality, Kissling obviously has as much moral authority as does a demon, but this reference is disturbing for 2 reasons:

  1. Why were nuns sent to Bosnia when the incidence of rape was so high as to “necessitate” contraceptive use?

  2. When contraceptives contravene God’s law, why was an exception granted in this case?

Links:
64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oXzLLl7d3rEJ:www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/opeds/091404GodSquad.htm+Catholic+birth+control+bosnia&hl=en

64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nU1YREpZbRwJ:www.laweekly.com/ink/01/15/offbeat.php+Bosnia+nuns+contraception&hl=en


#2

[quote=Mike O]I saw Frances Kissling make a push for allowing contraception by referencing the fact that the Church allowed nuns in 1992 in Bosnia to use contraceptives because of the high rate of rape.

From the standpoint of morality, Kissling obviously has as much moral authority as does a demon, but this reference is disturbing for 2 reasons:

  1. Why were nuns sent to Bosnia when the incidence of rape was so high as to “necessitate” contraceptive use?

  2. When contraceptives contravene God’s law, why was an exception granted in this case?
    [/quote]

What type of contraceptive, a condom? If that were the case I doubt a rapist would be so inclined.

If it were some other type of contraceptive I would offer that if such actions were done it may be licit because it would not be contraception. It would be justified in repelling an unjust aggressor which is not contraception in the moral sense even though the medical world would call it contraception.


#3

I don’t trust the source of that information, nor should you.


#4

I am with Sherlock on this one…it doesn’t sound credible.


#5

Links provided and thread reopened


#6

I will bump this back to the top in hopes of a refutation.

Kissling is of course a caustic public figure, but I recall also having seen this report on the nuns in Bosnia in Robert Blair Kaiser’s report on the papal commission convened by Pope Paul VI before releasing Humanae Vitae. Did this in fact happen?


#7

Just what is meant by “the church”?

I highly doubt that JP2 “authorized” contraceptives to the sisters. I highly doubt that he “authorized” any church department, any cardinal, any bishop, any priest etc. to distribute contraceptives to the sisters.

We all know instances where an individual member of the church, even to cardinals, or even to a Pope acting as a private individual (think Borgia), have done wrong acts. . .but this is not “THE CHURCH” allowing the acts, is it?


#8

catholicsforchoice.org/new/opeds/091404GodSquad.htm
The source for the article is CatholicsForChoice.org, I have found this site is not a reputable source for anything but going straight to hell.

 Peace,

David


#9

[quote=David Puthoff]catholicsforchoice.org/new/opeds/091404GodSquad.htm
The source for the article is CatholicsForChoice.org, I have found this site is not a reputable source for anything but going straight to hell.

 Peace,

David
[/quote]

“Catholics for Choice” Isn’t that an oxymoron :wink:


#10

“Catholics for Choice”, the words taken in a literal sense is not an oxymoron, because Catholics are allowed to make choices about lots of things, eg, what colour socks to wear. But “Catholics for Choice regarding Abortion” is an oxymoron (5th commandment anyone?) I guess that’s why they don’t write out their name like that (-:

Um, back to the original question. Not that I think that that is a reputable source, but even if that did happen, would it actually be wrong? Contraceptives are wrong because they prevent conception. But, for example, let’s say I put on a condom but then don’t have sex, and later take off the condom. That isn’t wrong. So the same for nuns taking contraceptives, if they don’t have sex then it isn’t wrong. And if they get raped, well it’s not like they were planning on getting raped! It’s not their fault that they had sex while using contraception. So then they didn’t do anything wrong.

Of course, this is a pretty ‘technical’ argument, since the whole reason that they were using contracpetion (if it did actually happen) was because they expected that they might get raped. It’s a bit of a ‘loophole’, I wonder if God would be alright with it…

But yea, if the people on that site really do want to push this sotry, then maybe we should concede to them that they are allowed to use contraceptives, just like the nuns did - as long as they don’t have sex while using them. I’m not sure why anyone would want that, but there you go.


#11

But the incidence of rape in that area of Bosnia was so high that in fact a nun very well COULD expect to get raped. Sad but true. As I mentioned, I also seem to recall reading this in Robert Kaiser’s report on the papal commission of 1968, so not just Kissling has noted this. This is sort of like saying someone could ingest a contraceptive pill habitually and never plan to have sexual intercourse, then forget about it and have sex and not be culpable because they “forgot.” I don’t think it works that way.


#12

I would add the devices are not intrinsically evil, the act of contracepting is evil. Rape is not an act of consent, so how would one “contracept” if they did not engage in mutual intercourse?

It does seem far fetched and I would like to see what orthodox moral theologians say about it.


#13

I do NOT know the answer here, but I add this undecided thought…

(Putting the health dangers of the artificial birth control pill (A.B.C.P.) aside for another thread)

Morally artificial birth prevention is wrong in marriage.
Morally artificial birth prevention is wrong outside of marriage.

Why is it also morally wrong outside of marriage?

We know the device is not necessarily intrinsically evil… so thats not why.

Even though fornication is morally wrong, the very act of artificial birth prevention goes against nature, and is wrong in of itself.

If a person were to take a pill specifically to artificially prevent birth would not the very act itself be wrong? Regardless if intercourse ever takes place? Does not some A.B.C.P. allow for conception, but then cause abortion?

Here is a solution I offer (half joking / half serious)… chastity belts…


#14

I’m no expert on either contraception or doctrine, but let me take a stab, because if this is true I would consider it morally defensible.

The Church is against artificial contraception for two reasons:

  1. Many birth control devices are abortafacients.
  2. Artificial contraception demeans the sexual act by removing its miraculous reproductive capabilities and turning it into a carnal mess.

If these pills were not abortafacient (if such a pill exists, I don’t know), then reason one is taken care of. And the act of rape has already so demeaned the sexual act that the introduction of a pill is not really going to have any further deleterious effect on its morality. It would be like dumping a drop of gasoline on a 1,000 acre forest fire. That would take care of reason 2.

If all birth control bills are abortafacient, or if just these particular pills in question were, then this is a troubling question for me.


#15

[quote=fix]It would be justified in repelling an unjust aggressor which is not contraception in the moral sense even though the medical world would call it contraception.
[/quote]

I want to note… and I think most people would agree:
ABCPs do not prevent rape. (A person might argue that they could encourage rape.) Also, nuns having children is not as big of a problem as nuns getting raped.


#16

**It is wrong since the intention is to contracept. Contraception is illicit in all cases. The only exception is if it is a theraputic means to cure a disease (such as chemotherapy), in which the person does not intend to contracept. **

His Holiness Pope Paul VI:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

  1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

  1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

-Humanae Vitae


#17

[quote=frogman80]I want to note… and I think most people would agree:
ABCPs do not prevent rape. (A person might argue that they could encourage rape.) Also, nuns having children is not as big of a problem as nuns getting raped.
[/quote]

I never said they would prevent rape. They would repel an unjust aggressor which would be sperm. That is why “contraceptives” may be used after a rape. Not abortifacients, but contraceptives if conception has not occurred. As contraception is intrinsically evil and may never be done their use after rape is not contraception, but repelling an unjust agreesor.


#18

[quote=Roman_Army]It is wrong since the intention is to contracept. Contraception is illicit in all cases.

That is the point, the intention is not to contracept. Why does the USCCB say such techniques may be used post rape?

[/quote]


#19

[quote=fix]That is the point, the intention is not to contracept. Why does the USCCB say such techniques may be used post rape?

[/quote]

Because they’re wrong. The intention is to contracept if an incident arises. Also, issuing contraceptives to nuns causes scandal. People would start claiming that nuns have contraceptives because they are secretly having sex and that the Church knows it and even issues them contraceptives.


#20

Since there is a possibility that a birth control pill could cause abortion(and the Pill DOES cause abortion in many cases), then a nun should not take it.

I am not a nun, but if I knew that there was a good chance of me getting raped, I would not take a birth control pill.

Any child whose conception is the result of rape has the same right to life as a child conceived by a husband and wife.:slight_smile:

The Pill can cause abortion several DAYS after conception. A baby has a soul even at this early stage!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.