www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ethics Question-Emergency Contraception

AMDG

Alex, I am sicerely sorry for this third post that offended you, but I really don't see how I was talking down to anybody. I think you perceive me in a certain way and it colors your view of my posts.

I think you are incorrect if you think that the Church's moral teaching is somehow less binding than the Church's teaching on articles of Faith.

I also don't understand why you are coming at me with such hostility. Maybe the stuff I said about Ukraine was wrong, but I admitted that that might be the case.

I have never tried to offend anyone here, or be hostile in any way. The only "controversy" (not the Filioque thing a couple months ago, which was meant to be humorous) in which I've been involved here was the HUGE controversy on homosexuality that occured while you were gone.

In that controversy, I sought to present to Tradition of the Church as contained in Scripture, the Magisterium, and the writings of the orthodox Fathers.

If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong, instead of getting offended and nasty.

I have always respected your erudition as far superior to my own, and looked forward to your return to the forum. I don't know how I got on your bad side.

Sadly,
LatinTrad

Dear Trad Lat,

I apologise - I'm only teasing!

You mentioned that stuff about frustration. I thought about it and decided you were right - and then decided to take MINE out on you!

Don't you RC's have a penitential theology about victim souls, offering oneself up for punishment etc.?

I'm just putting that to the test here!

And I NEVER said what you are saying I said, I say . . .

I'm just introducing a qualitative difference between heresy as a matter involving faith and morality that involves disorder.

I think that if a person preached that abortion was O.K. for Catholics, that would be a heresy.

But the person who commits an abortion is no heretic, but is excommunicated as such.

Matters of faith and morals need to be submitted to by Catholics.

That is why my gentle castigation of you (I can't get at you with a whip ).

It seems in some instances you feel that Vatican II is something that happened to other people in the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry to upset you.

I must confess that knowing that I caused you upset does give me a surge of energy right about know

Yes, I know, I need help.

Next time I'll refer you to Diak and see how you hold up under that Eastern gauntlet!

(Am I going to get into trouble again?)

sinful Alex

Latin Trad,

You state:
"With all due respect for both Sbdcn Lance and Fr Dcn John, one must adhere to judgments of the Magisterium with "religious submission of mind & will" (LG) and conform one's actions to the Magisterium's judgment. Thus, even if you want to argue that the Magisterial teaching here has not been promulgated with infallible force, you could not justify acting in a manner contrary to the Church."

I did not suggest otherwise. As clerics our duty is to teach what the the Church teaches.

The problem is how can the Church approve of EC if it cannot be determined when fertilization occurs. Deacon John proposes that the Church could, based on scienc and theology, possibly change its position and state that life starts at implantation rather than fertilization making sense of the allowance of EC. If it does not than EC could not possibly be allowed, because it would be an abortion.

I think that relying on purely physical factors like fertilization or implantation is wrong. We are brought again to ensoulment. When does it happen? Honestly, we don't have a good answer. Again what do we make of zygotes that split or reunite? Or the millions of zygotes that for natural reasons aren't implanted and are lossed?

Again I think the Church is wise for siding with caution and demanding life be respected even in the most difficult cases of rape and incest. Our position is certainly more consistent than what ones finds in the Orthodox Church. I post from the OCA's website and ask for comments:

"The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

As to abortion, the Church very clearly and absolutely condemns it as an act of murder in every case. If a woman is with child, she must allow it to be born. In regard to all of the very difficult cases, such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count on the mercy of God. it must be very clear as well that abortion employed for human comfort or to stop what a contraceptive method failed to prevent, is strictly considered by the canon laws of the Church to be a crime equal to murder."

I seem to be terribly late coming back to this thread today but I can't let something go past me

LatinTrad said But isn't that exactly what Joe and I were both saying ?

OH and BTW what does CDF stand for - remember I am across this little puddle and sometimes Abbreviations are not the same in this enlightened country.

Still - for those NC Folk Like me

Happy Feast of the Assumption everyone

( And I err referred to it [ the Feast that is] to my my Parish Priest as the Dormition - hmm - he has said nothing yet - but........)

Anhelyna

Anhelyna,

CDF refers to the Congregation on the Doctrine of Faith, in earlier times known as the Holy Office. It is headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

We NC BC's refer the feast as "Dormition," how did you err? However, there is an GO parish in Scottsdale that is dedicated to the Assumption.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

I think the point that our brother, Fr Dcn John the physician is making is this: EC cannot with "accuracy" work to prevent conception by slowing ovulation or incapacitating sperm, but it does work to prevent implantation. To me, he is calling into question the fact sheet on EC from the USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) website which I had posted earlier in this thread. As a physician by profession, Fr Dcn John is trying to make sense of the directive.

If, EC cannot prevent or slow ovulation, nor incapacitate sperm, there is a problem with the directive. But here is the dilemna in my opinion: Should the female rape victim continue to be victimised by having to endure a pregnancy, which is not the result of a loving encounter with her husband? Can a pregnancy resulting from a rape really be "a gift" from God? I think the question is this, "Can this EC treatment to prevent implantation be a legitimate defense in the case of rape?" If yes, why? If not, why not?

JM

To all:

Here is a 'primer' on the topic (if you didn't already know):

On Fertilization - the beginning of new life:
http://www.femalehealthmadesimple.com/FileFiveFinal.html

- - -

On Implantation:
http://www.femalehealthmadesimple.com/FileSixFinal.html

"An interesting fact is that fertilization does not occur in the womb , but at the opening of the tube near the ovary. That sperms swim all the way from the vagina, through the womb and upstream through the fallopian tubes.

After fertilization the fertilized egg cell is slowly sucked through the fallopian tubes into the cavity of the womb. It only arrives in the womb about five days after conception. The egg than attaches itself to the endometrium ( the lining on the inside of the womb.)."

- - -

Lance,

By simply relying on the 'implantation' theory, there is no need to include the role of the father's seed. He is out of the picture because 'life' is solely dependant on the mother's willingness to provide a hospitable environment for that life. Your ease at fluffing off biological specifics is part of that slipery slope. Identity of a person, used by medical and the police, is being based on more and more on DNA and such. A person's unique genetic make-up begins at fertilization, not implantation.

The 'morning after pill' is a steroid, which may disrupt the endometrium enough so implantation does not occur. It prevents life from finding a home to be nurtured even after fertilization has occured five to six days earlier.

One becomes 'pregnant' at fertilization. Can you state unequivocally that the fertilized egg is not life? that it is a dead, unliving entity though it has all the genetic code it will ever need to be a unique individual/person until its death?

Please read Biology 101:

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/biology.htm

A mother's uterus adds NO-thing to the identity of that new life. She can only nurture it, which is no different from breast-feeding a newborn. That newborn, however 'dependent' on its mother's milk/food, is still a separate person/life having its own identity.

The 'implantation' theory is defrinitely a crack in Humanae Vitae and the first step down the slippery slope. It is an innovation.

Here is an interesting website that is related to the topic's issue:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_10.asp

I hope it can stimulate more debate since this question is becoming center-stage with the Catholic bishops' statement.

Here is a blurb regarding semantics:

- - -

But isn�t "conception" different from "fertilization?"

Ever since its discovery 150 years ago, both words were used to mean the union of sperm and ovum. In the 1960s the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American College of OB & GYN agreed to attempt to redefine "conception" to mean implantation. "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." E. Hughes, ed., "OB & GYN Terminology," Philadelphia: F. A. Davis,1972

This made it possible to call an intrauterine device a "contraceptive" even though it was an abortifacient (see chapter 29).

But in 1982, lengthy hearings in the U.S. Senate and the two-volume report of the Human Life Bill defined "conception" and used it exclusively to mean the time of union of sperm and ovum. "Human Life Bill," U.S. Senate Common Judiciary, Subcommittee of Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, S-158, April-June 1982, Serial No. J-97-16

This "American" semantic distortion is not accepted in many other nations where "conception," "fertilization," and "fecundation" are all used interchangeably.

- - -

Here is an interesting webpage regarding the pill:

http://www.pfli.org/brauer_sellingthepill.html

It states that:

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has decreed that pregnancy begins with implantation. [5] It is confusing to read the current literature in this field, because many of the authors also utilize the word conception synonymously with implantation. Abortion, to this group, is the interruption of pregnancy (after implantation). Quite a number of newer medical dictionaries, bowing to this usage, now allow two definitions of conception: 1] the formation of a viable zygote, and 2] the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst. The word contraceptive is therefore applied to any drug or device that prevents pregnancy- all the way up to the time of implantation. The Ob-Gyn Association's understanding of the term differs from that of the general public."

[Footnote 5: "Hughes, E. C., Ed, Committee on Terminology, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Obstetric-Gynecologic Terminology. F. A. Davis Company, Philadelphia, 1972."]

- - -

From http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/chemical.html

"Although most people think of conception as the joining of egg and sperm to form new life, in some circles the word "conception" has an alternate meaning--the implantation of the embryo into the uterus.[2]"

[Footnote 2: "The FDA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology now define 'conception' to mean implantation instead of fertilization. Under this definition, all hormonal methods and IUDs would be contraceptive. JC Willke, Abortion: Questions and Answers, Revised 1990 Ed., Hayes Publishing Company Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1990, p. 42-43."]

- - -

From Priests for Life:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=72

Fr. Frank writes:

"... efforts have been made over the years to use the word "conception" to refer not to the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, but rather to the implantation of the blastocyst (the newly developing human at about a week after fertilization) into the uterine wall. Hence one reads in OB & GYN Terminology, "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization" (E. Hughes, ed., Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1972).

What's the importance of this? It re-defines pregnancy and abortion. In other words, if pregnancy or conception does not start until implantation, this gives some the excuse to call the killing of a new human life in the first week of its existence "contraception" rather than the name it deserves, "abortion." In law, statistics, and public relations efforts, such a move can mask countless abortions."

- - -

The above article regarding the "single cell" should make us reflect on logic. Can life begin as a multi-cell entity with no recourse to it beginning (fertilizatioin)?

The National Right to Life people (NRLC) is fighting the redefinition of 'conception." Here is a blurb on that:

http://www.euthanasia.com/conc.html

The Human Embryo:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_11.asp

Fetal Development:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.asp

Theologically, what do we mean when we celebrate St. Anne's Conception? What does Joachim have to do with it if life only begins at implantation?

Theologically, what do we mean by the Annunciation? Is this a celebration of Mary's divine conception with the Holy Spirit or the implantation only? We profess that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." What does that conception mean? What does the Holy Spirit have to do with it if life begins at implantation? Who or what was the "source of life," the uterus or the Holy Spirit?

On a more personal note, this issue was a major factor in my life recently. I am currently unemployed. I received a contact from a pharmaceutical rep who was getting a big promotion and who needed a new guy to fill his shoes. The customer base was already there, the territory was in my backyard, the salary/commissions were much higher than I ever made in my previous engineering jobs. The rep knew that I had an MBA and was willing to go into sales if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, his company produced such pills and I would have nothing to do with promoting/selling them. I passed up a lucrative career at my doorstep and I am still unemployed. Such is life (no pun intended).

There would become a wider, bigger lucrative market in selling such pills if the Catholic bishops gave the thumbs up. If it is moral for rape victims, then it is moral for all women. It can successfully open the Pandora's Box that Humanae Vitae has kept shut for several decades.

Deacon John (bisantino) writes:

"Should the female rape victim continue to be victimised by having to endure a pregnancy, which is not the result of a loving encounter with her husband?"

I don't think you meant "husband" if you are talking about a "rape victim." Anyway, this can be another Pandora's Box. How many wives can then decide if they would have to endure a pregnancy if they didn't think their husbands loved them? or that their 'encounter' was less than expected? The judgment is no longer based on conception/fertilization, but on whether love is present. If we have such a difficult time trying to determine/recognize the definition of "conception," how successful do you think we will have in defining the presence of "love?" How do you measure love? How does the love criterion stand up in court? in the medical lab? outside the context of faith and belief? This will muddy what is already a mess.

Is there love present when men impregnate their girlfriends only to cut out of town ignoring their fatherly duties when pregnancies occur? My wife and I were the only ones at our LaMas(sp?) classes where I was the actual daddy. No sooner did the other women get prego that their male partners (or whatever they were at the time of their 'encounter') hit the road. Can we see the longer slippery slope when 'love' is the criterion? A mother says, "I don't love you, therefore I can now terminate your life." or "Your daddy doesn't love you (or me), therefore I will abort you." or "Your daddy and I didn't really love each other while we enjoyed the marital privilege while not being married, therefore we will prevent you from implanting in my womb."

Deacon John Petrus' statement that, "I believe that life most appopriately begins with implantation," has to be challenged.

Joe

Joe,

Just one wee little point - rapists usually don't stop to find out if their target is married. Single women are raped. Married women are raped. And yes, some married women are raped by their husbands.


Sharon

Joe,

I am not fluffing off biological specifics but trying to make sense of them. Yes at fertilization a unique combination of DNA exists. However, until around 14 days after fertilization that cell may twin (or more) and after that it is possible they may recombine. The Church teaches that souls do not split or recombine. So how do we reconcile our teaching about souls with biological evidence. Also, biologists estimate that over 50% of fertilized ovum never get implanted and simply pass out in the menstral cycle. Karl Rahner questioned whether it is reasonable to believe that over 50% of human beings exist and die without our ever knowing it.

I will concede the whole arguement is partly semantical. What does the word conception mean? Should it mean fertilization or implantation? I don't know. I bow to the authority of the Church to decide such matters. But it is unfair, given the above information, to call someone, especially a doctor and deacon, a heretic for trying to make sense of a teaching that is seemingly contradicted by biological evidence.

My arguement is that we should not base a theological teaching on a biological factor alone. The body exists for the soul, not the soul for the body. God alone creates life. We provide the body, God provides the soul. Without the soul, the body is without life. When does God infuse the soul? We do not know for certain, but given the teaching about souls not dividing or recombinig and the biological fact that a fertilized egg may do this, the evidence leans towards implantation.

However, this should have no effect on contraception or abortion. The Church condemns non-abortive birth control as much as possibly abortive and abortive birth control. Abortion teaching would be left unaffected as well.

Please see the CDF's Declaration on Procured Abortion:
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/df75ab.htm

Below, I post the relevant sections:

"7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine--the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]

13. To this perpetual evidence--perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19]--modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. "The one who will be a man is already one."[20]"

The document does not specifically address cases of rape or incest. However, and the whole point of this discussion in the first place, if the Church allows for emergancy contraception, how can it justify it? The only reasonable answer seems, and I believe this was Deacon John's point, is that the Church be willing to redefine conception as implantation. It would allow for emergency contraception as an act of economy because it would not be killing an unborn life, yet Church teaching on birth control and abortion in ordinary circumstances could remain intact because to interfere with the act of conception or risk harm to the unborn is a gravely sinful act.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

First, what happens naturally is one thing (the same goes for miscarriages); what is purposely induced is another.

Second, it wasn't I who called Deacon (Dr.) John Petrus a heretic. That was Anastasios (please read previous posts). I called to task his statement that life begins at implantation, not fertilization.

Joe

Sharon,

My comment about rapists was in regard to biantino's comment about the husband in conjunction with the issue of rapists, especially those that are mentioned in the recent bishop statement. Yes, rape can occur between anyone. The bishops, I believe, were not writing a statement only on husbands, though they can be included. Just a jot and tittle.

What did you think of the rest of my post? Do you agree? Is my argument against the 'implantation' theory wrong?

Joe

Lance,

I really don't know how the 'soul' generates. The issue is about life, not spiritual matters. Even an atheist can be a biologist.

The argument is getting semantical only because a re-definition of "conception" is a lucrative and legal opportunity. The re-definition of homosexuality as no longer being an abnormal behavior in 1973 and Roe vs. Wade's reliance on a lie can do a lot of damage. Words such as "protoplasmic rubbish," "result of pregnancy," and the like served to reduce the consciouisness of the reality before us. Hitler's media machine used similar less-than-human terms to refer to the Jews in order to justify their termination. A simple semantic alteration can lead to legal protection.

I posted this link earlier in the thread:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeinsight/sept98.htm

Its amazing what happens in only five years.

But you asked for Church teaching. Please read:

"This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: FROM THE TIME THE OVUM IS FERTILIZED, A NEW LIFE IS BEGUN which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already."

The entire text of "Donum Vitae" can be found here:

http://www.catholic-family.org/documents/Donumvitae.htm

- - -

From the "DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION" issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974.

"From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already."

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.catholic-family.org/documents/ProcuredAbortion.htm

- - -

From Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, we read the following:

"60. Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place and to be in a position to act".[57] Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?"."

Part III of the text can be read here:

http://www.catholic-family.org/documents/EV3.htm

- - -

The Pope states, "Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, ..." This is important since it considers your soul issue. It doesn't matter when one is determining life. The Pope doesn't base his argument on the generation of the soul, nor will I.

Going back to my philosophy days, the logic of, "It would never be made human if it were not human already," is quite basic. Life can not generate via implantation, but rather, via fertilization. Its genetic code is received from two separate identities, the egg from its mother and the sperm from its father.

Read the book of Genesis and see how important the notion of 'seed' is. It is intimately tied to the generations (toledoth) of man and the promise.

Joe

Joe,

I know it was Anastasios who called Deacon John a heretic. While you did not call him a heretic, you obviously feel he is in error for holding a position that, as far as I can see, the Church allows because it does not teach a definite moment of ensoulment which is the criteria for personhood, not unique genetic material as is produced at fertilization or the entering of a relationship with the mother as happens at implantation. I am only concenred with how biology can help lead us to theologically sound teaching.

You still have not provided a response to the contradiction between our teaching on souls and what can happen with a fertilizied ovum.

Yes what happens naturally is different from what is induced, but the question still remains is it reasonable to believe that over 50% of human beings come into and out of existence in a few days with no one knowing them.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

What is the teaching on souls? Don't they need to be fed until they are at least seven years old?

The issue is when life begins, not the 'implantation' of souls.

My argument sticks to the topic. If my replies seem to indirectly charge someone of heresy, then that is your reasoning. Petrus provided us with a definition of the beginning of life, not the beginning of souls. I have a right to challenge that proposition. The intention of my reply or your perceived view on heresty-hunting is yours. I quote the above Church documents on the beginning of life (at fertilization, not implantation). Sticking to that argument and definition, I leave it up to you to challenge it.

Joe

Joe, what then happens in the case of genetic twins? How (and when)is it that they come to produce distinct characteristics and individual identities? Your comment sweeps a lot of developmental biology under the rug.

djs,

Are you suggesting that the uterus is responsible? Does genetic code originate from the uterus? I don't follow.

The issue is whether implantation is the beginning of life. I believe my linked sources above is ample reading material to determine the 'mind of the Church.' To speak otherwise is not to speak according to the mind of the Church.

Joe