What happened to "Is Contraception a sin outside of marriage" thread?


#1

Is anyone else having trouble finding this thread - I was in the middle of a post and something went wrong (I may have the title slightly wrong)…

I get the following message when I access the page from my stored PC link:
…you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
The page may have been pulled from the public forum due to a serious breach of forum rules.
Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page.

.

If its been pulled thats a real shame, it was a very informative discussion.
What sort of reason would require pulling the whole topic if that was indeed the case?
(Some debate was robust but nothing too impolite compared to some topics that still exist!)


#2

LOL…

Yeah, that means the thread was pulled. :shrug:


#3

Was one or another side of the debate winning?


#4

What is the policy, or practice, that governs whether the thread will simply be locked or have the more draconian action of deletion?


#5

I speculate that a Moderator formed a view the thread may be breaching forum rules. What rules you say? Well, I can only speculate. Perhaps the references to the Congo nuns are thought to be denigrating to the Religious/Clergy? I don’t know.

I support the Moderators in performing their role. I do feel that their failure to post meaningful explanations of their actions is “unfortunate”.


#6

It deserved to be pulled.


#7

Because why, specifically?


#8

I was just looking for it too because I found this over on Ask An Apologist:

Someone asked:

contraception graver than abortion?

And the reply, given today, was from Fr. Charles Grondin.

He said

"We can surmise from how the Church approaches those two issues that contraception is not more grave than abortion.

In a situation where a woman has been raped and conception has occurred the Church, while condemning the horrific evil of rape, asserts that the innocent human life cannot be terminated through abortion.

In a situation where a woman has been raped and conception has not occurred the Church does permit the use of non-abortive contraceptives.

If abortion and contraception were even considered equally grave then they would have to be morally treated the same in the situation above."

So, yeah, I wanted to post this on that thread, but I found it disappeared…

What interested me was that Fr Grondin doesn’t make the distinction that Rau had been making about contraceptive medicine used as self defense versus the sin of contraception… in fact it seems Fr. Grondin just lumps it together - like I had been doing originally…


#9

I wanted to hear more from Rau, if I remember correctly he did not think condomised sex was even a mutual unitive sexual act (marital or not). I believe it is unitive to some degree if consensual.

I was aware of the point you were going to make. However rape is not a “marital act” (ie unitive consensual sex) and therefore not part of the definition of the “contraceptive act” proposed by the Church.

I suppose the same might hold for the Congo Nuns… they were not anticipating thwarting of a “marital act” (even if we define this to include all couples) but only rape.

It would seem more “christian” if moderators simply closed a thread or removed it but left a note saying why.
Then we would know if our continuing this topic is legit or not.


#10

Not exactly. There is a huge difference between the type of medications used in the case of rape. One prevents ovulation, thus giving the sperm no egg to join for conception. This is licit in the Church. The other medication is one that acts as an abortifactant, which is illicit.


#11

The good Fr gave a brief answer to the question put. Evidently, the action he describes is permitted exactly because it is Not the moral act we call “contraception”.


#12

It would be courteous and sensible to do as you say.


#13

Wearing a condom, sodomy and such acts do not qualify as an act which can consummate a marriage. These things are illicit without consideration of contraception.


#14

Agreed. Wasn’t that the thread where a lot of people were questioning my motives rather harshly? Maybe that’s why it closed?


#15

There are many threads where motives are questioned so I doubt it was that.


#16

I would probably agree that use of a condom probably wouldn’t consummate a marriage. Ultimately though the reason would probably be much the same as why contraception is wrong, but not because it’s a contraceptive act.
Have you any reason to believe condomistic sex is any less unitive than use of the Pill? And why would either completely visited the u it I’ve purpose anyway?


#17

That’s not particularly debatable is it?..consummation requires an act “per se apt for procreation”. That rules out, I believe, all acts in which contraception was used.

Ultimately though the reason would probably be much the same as why contraception is wrong, but not because it’s a contraceptive act.

An act of sodomy is wrong because it (arguably) is neither unitive nor procreative (just as a handshake is neither) - it is simply a misuse of the sexual faculty. This is true of homosexual acts too. The latter is clearly not the moral act of contraception, and the former (sodomy) is not that either in my view (because there is no unitive aspect from which the procreative is being separated).

Have you any reason to believe condomistic sex is any less unitive than use of the Pill?

Quite a new vocabulary you’re working up there: condomized, condomistic, etc. :slight_smile: I believe having sex while on the Pill also does not meet the criteria for consummation of a marriage. Contraception deprives an act of sexual intercourse of its procreative meaning - separating it from the unitive - so that suggests that contracepted sex (eg. the Pill in marriage for sake of simplicity) is unitive (and marital), but not procreative. Of course, ‘forced’ sex also violates the unitive dimension.

One may ask the question “what are the pre-requisites/characteristics of a unitive sexual act”. That is not crystal clear to me. I read this in a Ron Conte piece: “And in addition to many assertions on the separation of these two meanings (not the absence of both), I should point out to the reader that, in my extensive review of magisterial documents on contraception for my book, I found no magisterial assertion that the unitive meaning was absent in any contracepted sexual acts.” This suggests that contraception does not detract from the unitive (if present).

My sense however is that wearing a condom detracts from the unitive aspect - the two are less “one” than they could be. The unitive meaning is to my mind somewhat ordered to the procreative - and this is why sodomy is not a unitive act.

And why would either completely visited the u it I’ve purpose anyway?

You’ll need to put that one in English for me!!


#18

You are likely right. It depends how strictly that phrase is taken and whether we are to understand it as a moral act or simply an outer description of heterosexual coitus. See below.

An act of sodomy is wrong because it (arguably) is neither unitive nor procreative (just as a handshake is neither) - it is simply a misuse of the sexual faculty. This is true of homosexual acts too.

I am a bit scared to ask what the subtle difference may be :o.

Quite a new vocabulary you’re working up there: condomized, condomistic, etc. :slight_smile:

Its my tablet’s type-ahead feature which mistakes I sometimes miss!
Though I have seen the word used by others!

I believe having sex while on the Pill also does not meet the criteria for consummation of a marriage.

It would be interesting to see if the Rota ever actually pronounced on this.
Some might argue that sending their daughter home without her maidenhood intact is clear evidence of consummation.

Contraception deprives an act of sexual intercourse of its procreative meaning - separating it from the unitive - so that suggests that contracepted sex (eg. the Pill in marriage for sake of simplicity) is unitive (and marital), but not procreative. Of course, ‘forced’ sex also violates the unitive dimension.

I would go along with that also.

One may ask the question “what are the pre-requisites/characteristics of a unitive sexual act”. That is not crystal clear to me. I read this in a Ron Conte piece: “And in addition to many assertions on the separation of these two meanings (not the absence of both), I should point out to the reader that, in my extensive review of magisterial documents on contraception for my book, I found no magisterial assertion that the unitive meaning was absent in any contracepted sexual acts.” This suggests that contraception does not detract from the unitive (if present).

My findings also, though popular lay writers (ie Catholic doctors without strong theological formation) regularly deny this.

My sense however is that wearing a condom detracts from the unitive aspect - the two are less “one” than they could be. The unitive meaning is to my mind somewhat ordered to the procreative - and this is why sodomy is not a unitive act.

Generally agreed, though prob not quite the homosexual bit.
The two ends of marriage while obviously related are different afterall.
And while we may not accept homosexual acts as good, nevertheless the commitment and care over many years together that significant numbers in “civil unions” do effect does suggest a possibility that such acts may be capable of supporting an attenuated expression of unitive intent even if misguided and the impulse is not 100% unrestrained lust.

You’ll need to put that one in English for me!!

Type-ahead at work again!


#19

I can only repeat that I think the words expressed in the Canon Law are very plain:
*…if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh. * I see no wiggle room.

It would be interesting to see if the Rota ever actually pronounced on this.
Some might argue that sending their daughter home without her maidenhood intact is clear evidence of consummation.

Some might - but read again the Canon Law. The Pill seeks to change the ‘meaning’ of the sexual act - it becomes no longer “in itself apt for generation of offspring”. The taking of the pill and the having of sex are not independent acts - they are one (moral/human) act - and it is not apt for generation of offspring - by intention, and by deed.

Generally agreed, though prob not quite the homosexual bit.
The two ends of marriage while obviously related are different afterall.
And while we may not accept homosexual acts as good, nevertheless the commitment and care over many years together that significant numbers in “civil unions” do effect does suggest a possibility that such acts may be capable of supporting an attenuated expression of unitive intent even if misguided and the impulse is not 100% unrestrained lust.

The act which has both unitive & procreative meanings not to be separated is called the “marital act”. The context in which this has the relevant meaning is thus clear. It is not masturbation alone, or with a friend. Nor is it sodomy with a person of either sex. Nor is it rape.

“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” (ccc2352)


#20

in my view, unitive and procreative meanings just don’t have relevance in this context. This is not to denigrate what may be a sincere and committed relationship. But alas, it is not a relationship of the kind that can properly be sexual in any manner whatsoever. So Blue, what is you objective is seeking to ascribe unitive meaning to homosexual sex acts?


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.