tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post5726402029268738230..comments2024-01-22T01:52:37.473-06:00Comments on RENEGADE TRADS: The Arithmetic of the PillA Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-90537972406659409082011-01-18T12:06:29.664-06:002011-01-18T12:06:29.664-06:00I'm definitely NOT saying that deliberately ca...I'm definitely NOT saying that deliberately causing infertility can ever be a valid motive for taking the Pill or that the desire to not conceive (even in cases of potentially dangerous pregnancy) justifies the mutilation. What I am saying is that by the Church's own actions, the Pill's mutilation/sterilization seems to be treated much less gravely, in itself, than something like a hysterectomy (if only because the Pill's is temporary and reversible).<br /><br />If merely treating acne or regulating menses is considered a proportionate medical need justifying the mutilation of the Pill...I have to wonder if that mutilation IN ITSELF amounts to mortal sin, or whether it is merely a minor/venial mutilation in itself (separate from the question of intent).<br /><br />Now, very probably the Church would conclude that the INTENT of preventing conception for the sake of sex without consequences is itself a mortally sinful and lustful intent (even if the mutilation used to accomplish it were, in se, minor.) So, for example, they might argue that a woman merely randomly taking the Pill (for no good reason) is merely committing a venial sin of mutilation, but that if she is doing it specifically for a positively BAD reason (ie, having deliberately sterile sex) then the act becomes mortal due to mortally sinful intent.<br /><br />Still, these are distinctions that should be made rather than lumping it all under the one header "contraception"...which leads to a lot of intellectual confusion (and makes our argument look weaker). There may be different degrees of gravity involved between, say, taking the Pill on the one hand, and a hysterectomy on the other. Certainly, to me, the former seems the lesser evil (if only because of its reversible nature).A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-52040245002409723212011-01-18T12:02:24.315-06:002011-01-18T12:02:24.315-06:00I have discussed before the difference between con...I have discussed before the difference between contraception on the one hand, and sterilization on the other. Contraception involves actually preventing the depositing of semen and is a sin only if it is actually prevented (ie, merely putting a condom on isn't a sin, the sin is if you ejaculate in it). It does not count as valid consummation for marriage, etc; contraceptive sex is equivalent to impotence rather than mere infertility.<br /><br />Whereas sterilization involves inducing infertility and the sin is in the very act of mutilation itself, whether sex follows or not (ie, a man who has a vasectomy isn't required, on the one hand, to get it reversed...but, on the other hand, the act of mutilation is in-itself the sin whether he actually has sex afterward or not). The sex following an act of sterilization, however, is not necessarily sinful (whereas contraception always is).<br /><br />Sterilization, however, like all bodily mutilations, is not exactly an absolute evil; it may be justified for a proportionate cause for the good of the whole body. Having a hysterectomy for no good reason (or, even worse, to become infertile for the sake of barren sex) would not be allowed. But if necessary to cure cancer, it would be.<br /><br />The Pill seems to fall under this category of sterilization. It does not prevent the valid depositing of semen. A woman on the Pill is in the exact same state as an infertile woman (or any woman most weeks out of the month), so the sex is still, presumably, the reproductive TYPE of act, structurally speaking, as long as semen is still deposited. The sin must be in the mutilation itself, not the sex.<br /><br />However, my thought goes, while contraception either happens or it doesn't, and is always a mortal sin...mutilation, on the other hand, admits of degrees (and can be justified for proportionate cause). It's clear that most sterilizing mutilations (hysterectomy, vasectomy, tube-tying, etc) are grave mutilations and thus are only justified by a grave medical need (cancer, etc).<br /><br />The Pill's mutilation (though still definitely a mutilation) seems different, though, inasmuch as its mutilation is TEMPORARY, reversible, and non-invasive (and, as I said in this post, cumulative in its effect; when exactly has a woman "crossed the line"? After taking only one Pill? Two? A month's worth?)<br /><br />Furthermore, even the Church seems to treat the Pill's effects as less grave. I don't think our bioethics would ever allow a woman to get a hysterectomy merely to cure acne. That simply wouldn't be considered a proportionate need to justify the gravity of a hysterectomy. Yet we DO let women take the Pill to cure acne, I believe, as well as to regulate menses, etc. This implies that, as a mutilation, it is much less grave.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-41371181257625400702010-11-26T12:27:25.593-06:002010-11-26T12:27:25.593-06:00Oh, I'd probably agree. There are just some in...Oh, I'd probably agree. There are just some interesting questions there from the theoretical moral theology perspective.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-82699784619553800872010-11-25T22:42:26.566-06:002010-11-25T22:42:26.566-06:00"Hey, this looks like a good cobblestone. Be..."Hey, this looks like a good cobblestone. Better keep it handy for those bawdy women."<br /><br />In all seriousness, many women (more than you would suspect) take the Pill for the regulation of menses and as a hormonal supplement. Do some women use this as a pretext to contracept? Honestly, I could care less. That's their business.<br /><br />A friend of mine had an abortion. I tried to dissuade her from the act. She nevertheless went ahead with it. I helped her afterwards. Never did I say something like, "YOU ARE DAMNED!1!11!1!" or similar. I just sat with her and listened to what she had to say.<br /><br />We men should keep our noses out of women's business. Yes, if a friend is contemplating abortion, by all means try to dissuade her from murdering her child. Yet if a woman is taking the Pill or had an abortion, etc. the response is not to shun or speculate on women's lives. Time to get off the pelvic issues track.sortacatholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-21797247246795490452010-11-24T13:39:34.313-06:002010-11-24T13:39:34.313-06:00Well, I don't know if it would have a point, b...Well, I don't know if it would have a point, but not everything has to have a specific intention to be moral. <br /><br />My point was just...taking the Pill on one isolated day (in the middle of the infertile period especially) wouldn't "do" anything, really, so is it a sin?<br /><br />Furthermore, it seems that you need to take it for some time to "complete" sterilization, so what exactly is it before that line is crossed? Only a venial sin? Any sin at all?<br /><br />I think this is something moral theologians could explore more. Is it really a separate sin every time she takes her pill? Or is it more cumulative somehow depending on how much is needed to complete the process of sterilization in a given month, etc?A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-48929256939110233652010-11-24T11:03:38.705-06:002010-11-24T11:03:38.705-06:00It would seem that confessing something akin to, &...It would seem that confessing something akin to, "I have been using birth control pills (contraceptively, of course) for X days/months/years..." would be sufficient. It would be akin to confessing something habitual in which frequency would be a more accurate and humane way of expressing it. <br /><br />I would not limit the birth control pills effect to the actual complete act of sterilization. It would seem that aside from some other possible medicinal non-contraceptive use, what would be the point of taking it at all, even if it was only once? Thus, even if sterilization has not taken place, it would seem a mortal sin still possibly took place (assuming the three conditions).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286578491636129500noreply@blogger.com