Catholic Online Forum

Two Catholic hospitals in Cologne declined to give emergency contraceptives to a rape victim. The archbishopric in Cologne has now changed its mind - and has also shown an impressive capacity for contraceptive nuance.

That the Catholic Church intends unequivocally to protect conceived life is nothing new. What has changed is how Cologne Cardinal Joachim Meisner approaches the "morning-after" pill.

Through his spokesman Christoph Heckley, the Cardinal issued a personal explanation on Thursday (31.01.2013) which read: "If, after a rape, a supplement is used with the intend of preventing fertilization, that is in my view justifiable." Heckley reiterated once again, however, that everything which is abortive in nature is not allowed.

Cardinal Meisner's change of heart is the result of consultations with specialists. He now understands that certain forms of the "morning-after" pill prevent conception and are not technically abortive. This suggests that the Cologne church leader previously believed that all kinds of pills which could be taken by a woman after intercourse prevented an already fertilized egg cell from implanting in the uterus.

There had been a long-standing general Christian prohibition on contraception and abortion, with such Church Fathers as Clement of Alexandria and Saint Augustine condemning the practices... Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Casti connubii (On Christian Marriage) in 1930, reaffirming the Catholic Church's belief in various traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, including the prohibition of artificial birth control even within marriage. Casti Connubii is against contraception and supportive of natural family planning.

To Pope Paul VI, as with of all his predecessors, marital relations are much more than a union of two people. They constitute a union of the loving couple with a loving God, in which the two persons create a new person materially, while God completes the creation by adding the soul. For this reason, Paul VI teaches in the first sentence of Humanae Vitae, that the transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator.[8] This is divine partnership, so Paul VI does not allow for arbitrary human decisions, which may limit divine providence. The Pope does not paint an overly romantic picture of marriage: Marital relations are a source of great joy, but also of difficulties and hardships.[8] The question of human procreation, exceeds in the view of Paul VI specific disciplines such as biology, psychology, demography or sociology.[9] According to Paul VI, married love takes its origin from God, who "is love", and from this basic dignity, he defines his position:

Love is total — that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.

The encyclical opens with an assertion of the competency of the magisterium of the Catholic Church to decide questions of morality. It then goes on to observe that circumstances often dictate that married couples should limit the number of children, and that the sexual act between husband and wife is still worthy even if it can be foreseen not to result in procreation. Nevertheless, it is held that the sexual act must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life", and the "direct interruption of the generative process already begun" is unlawful.

Every action specifically intended to prevent procreation is forbidden, except in medically necessary circumstances. Therapeutic means necessary to cure diseases are exempted, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result, but only if infertility is not directly intended.[11] This includes both chemical and barrier methods of contraception.[citation needed] All these are held to directly contradict the "moral order which was established by God". Abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, is absolutely forbidden, as is sterilization, even if temporary. Therapeutic means which induce infertility are allowed (e.g., hysterectomy), if they are not specifically intended to cause infertility (e.g., the uterus is cancerous, so the preservation of life is intended). Natural family planning methods (abstaining from intercourse during certain parts of the menstrual cycle) are allowed, since they take advantage of "a faculty provided by nature."

The acceptance of artificial methods of birth control is then claimed to result in several negative consequences, among them a "general lowering of moral standards" resulting from sex without consequences, and the danger that men may reduce women "to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of [their] own desires"; finally, abuse of power by public authorities, and a false sense of autonomy.

An update!

Again, what would make a drug morally permissible to use in the case of rape would be if it prevents fertilization but does not prevent implantation if fertilization were to occur. Since this drug prevents implantation, it is not morally permissible to use. And the bishop has stated so.

This morning, a headline blazed across many Catholic computer screens stating German bishops’ decision to allow the ‘morning-after pill’ in rape cases. The article quoted Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg as saying that the ‘morning-after pill’ could be used “as long as this has a prophylactic and not an abortive effect.” The outrage among faithful Catholics that such an announcement generates is understandable, as the bishops’ decision not only continues to create a market for the ‘morning-after pill’ but, more notably, dances a line between preventing pregnancy and killing a baby.

What might surprise many Catholics is that the new position of the German bishops has been the position of the USCCB since at least 2009. In the USCCB’s document, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, section 36 states:



The ‘morning-after pill,’ as well as other contraceptives, can prevent ovulation and fertilization and are very often marketed as such, yet function primarily as an abortifacient, causing a chemical abortion. This is commonly understood, especially within the pro-life movement, and what goes largely unnoticed are implications of the phrasing, “act as an abortifacient.” The word “act” applies to behavior, while “is” speaks of the essence of the thing. If the ‘morning-after pill’ “is” an abortifacient, then it causes abortions whenever it is used, but if it “acts” as an abortifacient, then it can only be considered so when it actually causes an abortion.

Joe, how so?

If the Church teaches that contraceptive acts are wrong, why is it legitimate in cases of rape to use EC (emergency contraception) medications?


If EC is administered as a prophylactic against a rapist’s sperm, then the object of the act is not to render one’s freely chosen intercourse sterile (i.e., is not, morally speaking, a contraceptive act), but to prevent the completion of an unjust act of sexual aggression. The attacker’s sperm is an extension of the attacker himself. Just as it would be legitimate for a woman to defend herself against him by attacking his person... so too she has the right to prevent... the completion of his act of aggression

Second question: Do EC medications sometimes act as abortifacients?


Although neither the German bishops' statement nor the U.S. bishops’ directives explicitly states it, both imply that before EC would be licit to administer health-care workers should have moral certitude that the treatment will not act as an abortifacient.

The question then to be settled is whether or not EC medications sometimes act as abortifacients, and, if so, under what conditions?

It is important to see that the answer to this question, although having moral implications, is not itself a moral question. It is a scientific question. Apparently, the German bishops, after considering evidence they took to be credible, concluded that at least some EC meds do not act as abortifacients