Really. How many traumatised Catholic women are in a state to make any sort of a truly calm, free choice after such an event. I suggest most would be happy to go along with a chemically abortive solution too if a professional suggested it was a good idea and glossed over the details. Would you ask too many questions?
While I understand your point, it’s a red herring. The morality of the hospital treatment is not connected with how “with it” the woman was at the time. It remain a perfectly moral choice for a rationally thinking, calm woman.
You’ve switched topics - you’re now concerned with abortion (albeit indirect), not ceasing a rape (or what you previously objected to as “contraception”).
??? And all nephews have uncles
I thought I was crystal clear in explaining why the Church’s proscription on contraception is not addressing measures to prevent progress of a rape. My additional example is simply another example (but there is no need to respond to it).
Did your priest say to follow your conscience with regard to a variety of health problems or just something like this?
No, we generally trust Bishops to teach truth.
They both fall under preventing life, under Humanae Vitae, but anyhow.
I think the Catholic Nun who is the Congo, doing work in a dangerous surrounding should make it her mission to get protection of the non-contraceptive type for her and her community. She should hire security or fortify her living area somehow. If she is in an occasion to a sin, namely rape, not on her own part but of certain aggressors, then she should solve that problem with more creative solutions.
Contraceptives seem the last option and actually pretty fatalistic or deterministic, like it is fated. Doesn’t sound very Catholic to me. They could also remove themselves from the situation, remove the chance that they would be raped altogether, and work to recruit men missionaries do their work instead.
Contraceptives in that scenario sounds like they were asking for trouble, or at least open to it.
When you’ve responded to the question put to you perhaps we can go off on your new example. However I observe you have always evaded doing so in the past so not holding my breath
Haha you should have seen Blackfriar on another thread about a Bishop talking about whether it was permissible to lie in certain circumstances. He taught no, it wasn’t and Blackfriar thought it was okay to, but he won’t call it lying, he’ll call it mental reservation. He doesn’t hold all Bishops in the same regard.
The only birth control acceptable is NFP.
No. Contraception is not any form of killing or murder.
Being raped is not to sin. Wearing a chastity belt is not to sin. Asking the would-be rapist to wear a condom (while not consenting to sex) is not to sin. Etc.
What?? The nuns were asking for trouble? By continuing to minister? Yikes.
Being raped is not a sin, but putting yourself in a situation where it is pretty certain you will be, when you don’t have to, that is imprudent. Asking the rapist to wear a condom? Isn’t that like consent to rape, aren’t they supposed to fight the rape as much as possible, wear a condom could pass for consent in some circumstances.
It is a form of preventing life, but not killing.
They could have gotten better security, or done a million other things if it was that bad that they thought they would be raped for sure. They could have recruited others to minister or minister elsewhere. Did they have to be there absolutely? I don’t think so.
All this rests on a hypothetical, were these nuns even real? We don’t even know.
Hmmn you missed your own tautology .
No - it’s foreseeing what is unpreventable. Do you think an 80 lb nun can physically resist/prevent?
It is what it is. Making up descriptions is not helpful.
This seems irrelevant to passing a view on the morality of what they actually did.
Who said she is 80 lbs, are we just all in hypothetical land here? Because this can go either way. Hypothetically, she could take a nearby weapon and defend herself legitimately. Unpreventable is hardly the word I would use, because we don’t even have a concrete situation to look at.
Making up wrong or inexact descriptions are not helpful, however, clear and exact meanings are very helpful. “It is what it is” is probably one of the most meaningless phrases in the English language. If something is other than what it is, it wouldn’t be what it is, duh.
If we don’t know if they actually existed they can’t have actually done anything, and we can’t actually pass any view on it, because it didn’t happen.
Tim - if you want to take the view that, once started, the progress of a rape is not to be impeded, I’ll leave you to that view.
No. What I’m trying to say is that your post quoted below seemed to be implying that an objectively evil act (contraception) is okay because the the ability for it to be voluntary was reduced by the passions.
This kind of statement could tempt someone in this situation to sin or to decide that because it’s too difficult that God would understand if they used contraception. It is never ok to use contraception even if the culpability of sin may be diminished due to arousal of the passions. First, one should do what they can to not to allow their passions to run away in the first place and attempt to subordinate them to reason and the will.
Culpability is for God to decide, and it’s an after the event thing. “I’m in a weakened state right now, so it’s ok to go ahead and do this wrong thing” - is utterly flawed.
I don’t take that view, I say pick up something and defend yourself or do everything in your power to neutralize your aggressor, not, honey could you put on the condom?