Wróbel, Józef2024-03-202024-03-202013Roczniki Teologii Moralnej, 2013, T. 5(60), s. 139-155.2081-1810http://theo-logos.pl/xmlui/handle/123456789/14394Summary translated by / Autor tłumaczenia streszczenia: Elżbieta Kłos.Not infrequently marital life in its manifestations is far from its ideal. Mutual love and respect are repressed by egoism, individualism, and also by immoral demands concerning the sphere of intimate life. Such situations become a source of conflict of conscience of the person enforced to immoral intercourse. This paper focuses on two situations: 1) enforcement in the spousal intimate life and 2) defense against the results of rape on the one hand by a contraceptive (but not abortive) pill, and on the other by the „day after” pill (in the context of the discussion initiated by cardinal Joachim Meisner’s resolution in this question). Drawing on the teaching of the Church's Magisterium the author indicates a possibility to accept immoral intercourse (made infertile) in the case when a spousal is enforced, but regards acceptance of anal intercourse as unnatural for both parties. In the case of rape, the author indicates that it is morally permissible for the woman to defend herself by using a contraceptive pill (which is not abortive). At the same time he excludes the „day after” pill for reasons of its specific action.plAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Polandhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/katolicka etyka seksualnaetyka seksualnaetykamoralnośćgwałtantykoncepcjapigułka „dzień po”wymuszenieofiaryprawa człowiekaCatholic sexual ethicssexual ethicsethicsmoralityrapecontraception„day after” pillimpositionvictimshuman rightsArticle