This is not a zero-sum game of one sin is better than another so choose the lesser sin. We should never choose sin deliberately, especially after consideration, to do so is likely a mortal sin and destroys the spiritual life of the person.
There is always a choice, God’s grace is always sufficient to not sin. We can control ourselves, it isn’t impossible.
There are no mitigating factors or excuses, we all have just the grace we need even for the most challenging of situations.
Contraceptive attitudes are just as bad as the actual object. That is a consideration which you have left out. Read Humanae Vitae for more details. The Contraceptive mentality is removing the possibility of human life in the heart, so no, it is not open to life. It is not a full gift of self when you use contraception, and is a self-fishness, rather than self-giving.
In no circumstances can it be permitted. Looking for ways to sin is working with the devil.
It would be morally acceptable in this situation considering Pope Pius XII’s words
"Pope Pius XII’s list from his “Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives” in 1951:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”
Pope Pius XII gives us these four reasons:
Social “indicator” reasons"
Perhaps this article will help everyone who is discerning this question
Forced prostitution, a very grave evil, but another topic, and at least not 100% of the cases of rape.
Likewise, they are not all forced to have abortion of necessity, which is another grave evil.
I wouldn’t think they would care for their welfare, or HIV, but again, another topic and not pertinent to your conclusion.
She begs for a condom because she thinks this is the only way to prevent evils of HIV, Abortion, etc. You have to say that she could escape, do something to get out of that situation, so that would prevent the situation where she is raped.
But none of these things are necessarily always the case, especially not for those who are not prostitutes.
The Church has condemned condom use both inside and outside of marriage, and rape is no different. Intentionally supporting condom use is cooperation in evil. The Church has clearly said that contraceptive use is a sin, period. It does not say “in the case of rape it isn’t a sin, because it’s already an evil situation and the woman has good intentions”
EWTN cites the CCC
What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on the morality of condom use in the case of rape? Is it morally licit for the victim being raped to suggest the aggressor use a condom to prevent her from contracting an STD and from becoming pregnant by the aggressor’s sperm which she does not consent to being penetrated with? I don’t want personal opinion, I want to know what is the official moral stance of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraception , in any circumstance, is a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
You totally missed my point, I agreed that she can defend herself, but not with the intent to kill him, just disable him enough to protect herself. Of course she can’t come back and kill him, that would be premeditated murder.
Cite Church teaching on whether she can use a condom, that was my point. Another point is that you won’t find Church teaching on approving condoms for specific purposes, because it has already said no circumstances justify its use. This would make its use universally a sin.
It doesn’t mandate personal interpretations either. The teaching of Bishops and the Magisterium are very clear, it isn’t limited to married couples. Those who use condoms before marriage are also sinning. This is because the prohibition on contraceptive use in the sexual act is universal.
Cite a Church document, not your personal opinion that we should take it as you mean. Simple.
Otherwise, you have nothing but your opinion, nomatter how much brain power and reason you put into it.
I’m sure an educated man such as yourself understands that the exact language typically used to promote a sexual encounter probably isn’t suitable for a public forum. It would be either lurid or silly when deprived of context.
Again, I’m sure you know this.
I’m sure that week-to-ten-days that most NFP practitioners abstain from sex must be very taxing for some. And I’m glad your wife makes it an option for you two. Many women aren’t sufficiently “regular”.
But to the actual point being made - how do you justify the claim of being “ordered toward procreation” when you very deliberately abstain from “sleeping” with your wife during times where procreation is more likely for that very reason?
It just sounds like NFP practitioners are trying to deliberately avoid something they verbally claim to be oriented toward. In most situations, that’s seemingly a fairly obvious contradiction.
Additionally, do you feel as though NFP is acceptable as a perpetual practice or is it meant to practiced temporarily?
How so? I was repeating and lampooning what had been said, so they are the ones in the wrong. Neutralize doesn’t mean kill, and addressing the rapist as if he were a dearly beloved who would respect your wishes is ridiculous. But as some have mentioned, they could be your “honey” a boyfriend or even husband.
Explain yourself about crossing the line… you mean I am wrong to summarize and ridicule another’s outlandish position? If so I’m glad you’re not the mod.
It is taxing, at least at first when you have lustful habits, which must be and should be overcome in any marriage, because it will make you unhappy
The billings method doesn’t necessarily rely on regularity, it just depends on her knowing her body and the signs it gives. My wife is not regular at all, yet we are 100% accurate.
Not having sex is just not having sex. Eating your breakfast isn’t inherently non-procreative, just as not having sex is not necessarily contraceptive. Neither is the attitude, the attitude is about self-control and restraining lustful desires for a higher purpose. Contraception is about giving into oneself and giving into lust.
Though wisely and humbly admitting and foreseeing that I or my husband are not always 100% in control…and having a box handy for those rare times, given the very great risks involved with a single loss of full control, would seem a different matter.
I do not condone the procedures in the article I posted, I was merely musing on one aspect of it, the injustice of the rape, but did not conclude any treatment is licit or morally justified. I thought I made it clear I was not taking a positive position on it. Anyhow, although I think they were trying to be careful, they failed to come into line with Church teaching.