Dear Claire:

Yes, this is confusing. The issue is not about the intrinsic evil of contraception. It is the official teaching of the Church that contraception is an intrinsic evil. The context of that, however, is in a normal situation between a man and a woman who deliberately wish to avoid pregnancy. The case of rape and incest is not a normal situation but an act of violence perpetrated upon the woman or girl. As such the suggestion is that the Principle of Double-Effect may apply in such cases.

To my knowledge no Pope has spoken to this issue. Because rape and incest are profoundly abnormal to the context to which the teaching on contraception was made, other principles may apply.

The Church does specifically teach on the Double-Effect of the death of a baby as an unintended, but certainly known result of surgery in an Ectopic pregnancy. The principle of Double-Effect is also applied in the unintended, but necessary killing of a intruder who is trying to kill a person or his family. There are situations in which Double-effect apply.

The standards of Double-Effect are strict. Whether or not they apply to the case methods to prevent conception in a woman raped is not really for me to say. I see the argument and think that double-effect may apply, but the Church will probably speak on this eventually.

What is sure is that methods that have a abortifacient effect are not to be used. And, at least theoretically, a women must be tested to be sure she is not pregnant already or has ovulated or about to. Whether or not there is a test that is sufficient to guarantee that is a real question.

Until there is a definitive ruling on this, there can be debate. The imprimatur on the Bioethics quotes I gave mean that the proposed ethical standards do not violate Church teaching. It does not mean, however, that the bishop who gave the imprimatur agrees with the conclusions asserted, nor does it mean that we have to agree with them.

As for the language "never acceptable" and the great quote you gave from Pope John Paul II, that language again does not mean that there might be some exception possible in moral theology, especially since the legislator of that probably was not thinking about cases of rape an incest.

There is another principle taught by the Church called the Principle of Equity. This principle says that exceptions can be made to a ruling in certain limited and strictly defined situations. This principle is based on the fact that when a legislation is made the legislator cannot possible think of every possible case to which it might apply.

I would suggest that the teaching on contraception was made with the normal situations in mind and not the extraordinary cases of rape and incest.

The evidence of that is that the Church has not specifically ruled on this issue, and bishops have officially stated that the exception to contraception (under strict criteria) does not violate Church teaching.

Thus, for now the conclusions detailed in Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings, by Kevin D. O'Rourke and Philip Boyle, with an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of St. Louis (Auxiliary Bishop Michael Sheridan, at the time, now the Bishop of Colorado Springs), do not violate Church teaching:

2. Since the sperm in the case of rape is the result of unjust aggression, steps may be taken to prevent conception.

3. Any medical procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is abortive, is never permissible. (my emphasis)

Hygienic procedures, including vaginal douching, are morally permitted since that are not abortifacient in effect.

4. A pregnancy test is essential to determine existence of pregnancy:

a. If the pregnancy test is positive, no antiovulant drugs may be used.

b. If the pregnancy test is negative, it is essential that hospital personnel question the patient to ascertain the time of ovulation within the menstrual cycle.

c. If the patient has just ovulated, an antiovulant drug may be not be administered. The use of a contraceptive steroid is permissible only to prevent ovulation.

This does not mean that a particular woman must accept any medical procedure to prevent conception. She may choose to accept whatever happens. That is okay. This teaching only gives the woman the option, under a strict criteria, if she chooses.

The real issue here is whether or not there is a medical procedure that does not have an abortive effect. The morning-after pill, for example, cannot be taken since it can effect an abortion.

Perhaps the only thing that can be done is what is mentioned in the second paragraph of point "3"above: "Hygienic procedures, including vaginal douching, are morally permitted since that are not in effect."

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

P.S. Bishop Sheridan, by the way, is orthodox on the issue of contraception. See his article in the Bishop's Voice. Again, in this article you will notice that the context is contraception as a violation of the purpose of marriage, and not situations such as rape.