A few weeks ago (or was that days or months?) on this blog, there was discussion about the issue of using contraceptive chemicals to prevent conception after rape.

Now, one prolific commenter on Being Frank (who will remain unnamed) was adamant that the Catholic Church DOESN’T teach that contraception is intrinsically evil. This same poster was also adamant that using contraceptives to prevent conception after rape was perfectly acceptable.

Now to be fair to the aforementioned poster, he is basing his arguments on some very low level statements that were issued by the US bishops, so his ideas are not really new.

Anyhow, I have been doing a bit of research on this issue, because I do not subscribe to the same ideas as our prolific poster, and I do not actually believe that Catholic teaching supports his assertions either.

Firstly, on the issue of whether contraception is intrinsically evil or not…

In his 1993 encyclical The Splendor of Truth Pope John Paul II teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil (quoting Pope Paul VI, who had already taught that contraception IS intrinsically evil in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae):

“With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: ‘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 (cf.Rom.3:8) – 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.’”

- Splendour of Truth, Paragraph 80

But wait, there’s more!

In March 1997 the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.

That document states the following:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreforrmable.”

Then there is this

In the October 10, 1983 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul II was quoted:

“Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful, as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.”

In my research I discovered that some very highly qualified Catholic theologians completely disagree with the position that contraception can be used to prevent conception after rape.

Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner is one such theologian.

He is a Doctor of Sacred Theology, and has been teaching theology in Franciscan universities and seminaries in the US and Italy for forty years. He was also the North American Superior for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in the United States from 1996 to 2002.

He states the following…

“Prevention of procreation is intrinsically evil prior to and independently of any good end which might be achieved thereby, such as avoiding further violence at the hands of a rapist

“The woman may certainly resist and should resist to the limit permitted by divine law any sexual assault. But she may not do this by using a means which is intrinsically evil, in this case considering the conception of a child an act of violence justifying the use of contraception.”

Just to make sure that there is no confusion about what he is stating, he then says this…

“The ‘emergency’ consists in the need, not to prevent conception, but to prevent forced intercourse’, “Should this not be possible the resulting conception of a child, like every conception, in itself is a blessing, not an evil to be prevented even by the use of chemical contraceptives which have so far all been shown also to “contracept” via abortion.”

Father Fehlner then asks the most obvious question of all:

“[If contraception is considered permissible for avoiding contraception due to rape] why, then, on such grounds, should contraception be intrinsically evil for married couples, should they [also] happen to have a sufficiently urgent reason to use these means to avoid contraception?”

Now before the aforementioned poster replies with: “ah, but the Church has permitted rape victims to wash the rapist’s semen from their body, and that’s just another form of contraception”, let me respond with this statement from Father Fehlner:

“One might object that the Church has permitted a woman who has been raped to seek a remedy to her violation through what theologians term the lotio or flushing, by which the rapist’s seed is washed from her body.

It is one thing to resist forced intercourse it is another thing to change the nature of the intercourse. In the Church’s view, since neither party has a right to the marriage act and since the woman did not consent, the man has effectively spilled his seed. The sin is his. The woman who has been so violated may continue to resist that violation by rejecting the insemination through the lotio. However, it does not follow that she would be justified to deliberately render herself infertile in order to avoid conception. That would simply be contraception, which is intrinsically evil.

The end of both the lotio and “emergency contraception” may be the same, but the means are quite different.”

Let me finish by quoting Father Fehlner again, because I think that he has sums this issue up with clarity:

“Once the use of contraception is legitimized, even if only for exceptional cases, the distinction between natural and unnatural sins breaks down, and so does the distinction between marital and pre-marital sex, between heterosexual and homosexual relations. Not procreation, but pleasure or taste or convenience or personal need constitute grounds for deciding what is and is not licit morally.

Rape is no more a reason for exceptions than any other emergency. Whatever the occasion, the process of procreation enjoys a natural goodness and immunity, prior to any consideration of the subjective state of those involved in initiating this process.

St. Bonaventure in the 13th century noted that the prohibition of contraception was not a law from which even God could dispense, since it profaned and perverted the noblest perfection of human nature, the capacity of love to the point of procreating another person, a power directly reflecting the goodness of God. Because this is so, the practice of contraception soon induces an addiction to self which is the worst of all addictions and is, without a miracle of grace, impossible to eradicate. This is why the universal practice of contraception can only serve the ends of the prince of this world in seeking to frustrate the redemption of Christ by destroying its beneficiary, the family of Adam.

Ave Maria! “

For those who are interested, you can read Father Fehlner’s full commentary on this issue here:

Part one

Part two