ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1

[felra]

josea:

My wife,a s many women, is in that danger. We can not play with it…The Church has to make clear in a document that in case of death danger for the woman and when no NFP method works for that woman **the use of ABC is still intrisically evil and can not be considered as a medical solution for the problem. **
Jose

Here you go (note: sometimes the clarity of a statement is only as clear as we want it to be):

“In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being” (Humane Vitae).

“As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing. Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (Casti Connubii).

 

[josea]

felra:

Your (and mine) opinion and redefinition and erroneous conclusions do not matter. What the Church authoritatively teaches is what matters and your (mine) assent or not. You cannot make an “intrinsic evil” into a pre-moral/amoral/non-moral act. Intrinsic evil is *by its nature evil. *The intent or function of an act does not remove the nature of an act. So yes, this still applies: “an evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself . . . one may not do evil that good may result from it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1755-1756).

My God!.. Mutilation is intrinsic evil. Medical amputation is not!!
Can you see the difference?
ABC as preventive medical amputation might neither be.

 

[fix]

josea:

My God!.. Mutilation is intrinsic evil. Medical amputation is not!!
Can you see the difference?
ABC as preventive medical amputation might neither be.

Some medical acts are intrinsically evil. Just because we place the word medical in a sentence does not give it some special power that allows us to defy Christ.

Contraception, within the conjugal act, is intrinsically evil. It may never be done for any reason. The Church has spoken.

 

[josea]

fix:

Some medical acts are intrinsically evil. Just because we place the word medical in a sentence does not give it some special power that allows us to defy Christ.

Contraception, within the conjugal act, is intrinsically evil. It may never be done for any reason. The Church has spoken.

Here we go.

If preventive amputation of an organ is licit why should not be also licit the preventiv amputation of the reproductive organs or function?
See? the medical word is not there any more.
Please, think about it, be a bit more serious and give me some no so presumputose answers.
I am not dfying Christ or the Church, I love both. I am just asking a moral question.
Jose

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

josea:

And you are totally wrong: a complete sterilization does the job, or the combination of several ABC methods.

if by removing the female reproductive organs…then yes…but tying tubes…then no…many women have still gotten pregnant after that. and a combination of abc methods??? still not 100%…any doctor can tell you that. ok…so you use a condom, the pill, speradice, a sponge…she could still get pregnant…and if it is still possible that she got pregnant (yes small chance), then their is a LOT bigger chance that she aborted her baby by using the pill (since that is one way that a pill works (by causing abortions)). so are you willing to kill your kids…just because their is a “threat” to your wife? because if you are using the pill (and a few other contraceptives) that is exactly what you are doing, killing your children.

and you have ignored one HUGE thing…you ignore the will of God. Last time I checked God is the only one who can create life. so if your wife gets pregnant…then God willed it. and if he wants her to take her life because of the pregnancy…he willed that too. Yes there is a difference between being careful and not with her life…but you have to look to God as well. What if God is willing her to have a child and you are not listening? What if your child will discover the cure for her disease???

josea:

The Church needs to go to the specific case and make it clear.

No it does not. God has laws…he gave them to the Church. with your reasoning…we should start examining all the 10 commandments for loop holes that the church needs to invent.
The church has made it clear…DON’T DO IT! The church as said theraputic…true…cause if ABC is the only way that your wife could live comfortably…then let her use ABC, but then you will have to abstain from sex…or abort your babies one by one.

josea:

The Church has the problem, not me, because it allows different interpretation of this issue among different people.

wow…“the Church has the problem”…is that a quote from martin luther, or judas, or an agnostic??? actually the Church has no problems with doctrine…is is infallable and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. and it does not allow different interpretation…as everyone has been telling you in this post…there is one interpretation.

and your wife using ABC cause she may be raped and that would endanger her life…wow…paranoia has set in. with that reasoning, you should never drive a car, fly a plane, walk outside, eat meat, smoke, even be married. The chances of her being killed in a car accident are wayyyy more than through sex…and I bet if you looked at statistics her being raped has about the same chance as you murdering her. If you are worried…give her a gun or mace…

You are in my prayers. I am happy you are talking about this. That is obviously your conscience calling out. I know it is super hard…but that is the gift that God gave her and you. Maybe God called her to a chaste life? and you too?

 

[felra]

josea:

If preventive amputation of an organ is licit why should not be also licit** the** preventiv amputation of the reproductive organs or function?
Jose

Can you be more specific regarding the object of** preventative**, i.e., what specific malady requires "the preventiv amputation of the reproductive organs or function"?

 

[fix]

felra:

Can you be more specific regarding the object of** preventative**, i.e., what specific malady requires "the preventiv amputation of the reproductive organs or function"?

A very good question. Has the Church spoken to issues like mastectomies for women who are deemed likely to have breast cancer?

I can’t see how it would be morally licit to alter or remove a healthy organ, or organ system, because there may be a chance it will become diseased.

 

[josea]

fix:

A very good question. Has the Church spoken to issues like mastectomies for women who are deemed likely to have breast cancer?

I can’t see how it would be morally licit to alter or remove a healthy organ, or organ system, because there may be a chance it will become diseased.

Very good!!! Finally somebody got the point!
If the Church allows mastectomies as prevention (prophylaxis) the removal of the reproductive function for the same reason should be allowed.

That is the whole point about it!
Jose

 

[TAS2000]

Jose, I think you are splitting hairs. Amputation or removal of an organ is not done because a statistically improbable something might happen to trigger its need in the future. It is only done when there is a clear problem that will not resolve itself without the intervention. For example, cancer will spread if nothing is done, thus the cancerous area is removed now to prevent it. I have not heard you say that your wife will be in any danger if she does nothing. It sounds very much as if she will be just fine, as long as she doesn’t get pregnant. Your arguement is that involuntary acts like rape could still result in pregnancy, and thus harm for her, (I won’t even consider your comment about being drunk- that would be her fault for not controling herself properly) so you should be allowed to prevent that now with temporary ABC. Morally, the church would have no problem with this, as long as your wife is exercising proper control by not voluntarily having sex while taking the ABC. So if preventing pregnancy 100% is your biggest concern because of your wife’s health issue, then you should be all for this abstinance, because it will protect your wife. But you want to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. You want to prevent pregnancy and still have sex. The only morally licit way to do this is with NFP. As long as your wife would be just fine without sex and without the medical procedure, you have no moral arguement, only a childish plea, “but I don’t want to give up sex, so there has to be some loophole I can use.” Sorry. If self control is beyond you and your wife, I suggest you pray for more. But it sounds like there is no medical danger unless an action (sex) causes one. This doesn’t constitute a medical necessity. I would also suggest that you perhaps have not had proper training in NFP if your wife cannot distinguish her signs. And the arguement about it being medically advised doesn’t work either. Individual doctors may have differing opinions, and many would suggest things that are not morally acceptable, such as abortions. So just because a doctor advised it, doesn’t mean it is necessary, or morally acceptable. The arguement of a possible future rape is inconsequential. It is like saying, “Let’s cut my arm off now, because there is a possibilty I will get robbed in the future and shot in the arm.” You are simply trying to use it as an obscure possibilty to reationalize your insistance that you should be allowed to use ABC.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

josea:

Thanks for your answers.

But there is something that nobody commented about. Why can ABC not be used as a medical treatment called prophylaxis? As I said the reproductive function of a person can be ill and its use could lead to death. Today people are using surgery (mastectomy= surgical removal of a breast) to avoid breast cancer even before it is present when there is a risk. Why can not we do the same with the reproductive organs? The death risk is there independently of if you are married or not, have free or not so free marital relations or if you are raped!

This is indeed a self-defense act as when one needs amputation for medical reasons. **Amputation can also be performed as prophylaxis! **

What is the problem with that?

If the direct intention is to prevent ovulation for the safety of the individual then it would be illicit. You can read on the principle of double effect and see how the conditions are stated. You should be able to easily access it on the web.

The removal for prevention of death (ie cancer) where the intention is not sterilization would be licit.

Pius XII in an allocution to the International Congress of Haematology 12 September 1958:
" The principles applying to sterilization can help in solving a problem many doctors and moralists are pondering today: Is it licit to use pills to preven ovulation, as a remedy for certain exaggerated reactions of the uterus and other organs, though these pills, while preventing ovulation, may also make conception impossible? May a married woman still desire to have relations with her husband, despite this temporary sterility?

The reply depends on a person’s intention. If a woman takes these pills, not to prevent conception, but simply on medical advice, as a necessary remedy for a disorder of the uterus or other organs, she is bringing on sterility indirectly, which is licit according to the principle of double effect.

It would , however, be causing sterility directly, which is illicit, if the pills were taken to stop ovulation in order to protect the uterus and other organs from the consequences of a pregnancy which they could not survive.

Some moralists hold that it is allowed to take medication with this end in view, but that is wrong. Equally to be rejected is the opinion of many doctors and moralists that the medication may be used when medical indications are against too short a period between pregnancies or in other cases we shall not go into here. In these instances, the purpose of using the medication is to prevent conception by preventing ovulation; it is, therefore a question of direct sterilization."

If your purpose is direct sterilization then prophlaxis or not…it is a no way, josea.

Also, note that theses words were given before the widely note abortifacient effect of hormonal and other forms of birth control which would raise the bar for the proportional effect clause in double effect.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[felra]

TAS2000:

Jose, I think you are splitting hairs…I have not heard you say that your wife will be in any danger if she does nothing. It sounds very much as if she will be just fine, as long as she doesn’t get pregnant. So if preventing pregnancy 100% is your biggest concern because of your wife’s health issue, then you should be all for this abstinance, because it will protect your wife. But you want to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. You want to prevent pregnancy and still have sex. The only morally licit way to do this is with NFP. As long as your wife would be just fine without sex and without the medical procedure, you have no moral arguement, only a childish plea, “but I don’t want to give up sex, so there has to be some loophole I can use.” Sorry…So just because a doctor advised it, doesn’t mean it is necessary, or morally acceptable…You are simply trying to use it as an obscure possibilty to reationalize your insistance that you should be allowed to use ABC.

I think that this post succinctly captures the bottom line crux in the drawn out deliberations and straw pulling of Josea to find a loophole way out of the difficult marital situation that he finds in. We don’t always get to pick our crosses. Jesus certainly did not offer a loophole option in calling his would be followers to faithful discipleship.

Luke 9: 23-24, “*Then he said to all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it’ *”.

By prayer we can discern “what is the will of God” and obtain the endurance to do it. Jesus teaches us that one enters the kingdom of heaven not by speaking words, but by doing “the will of my Father in heaven.” (CCC 2826).

 

[Ella]

*“and you have ignored one HUGE thing…you ignore the will of God. Last time I checked God is the only one who can create life. so if your wife gets pregnant…then God willed it. and if he wants her to take her life because of the pregnancy…he willed that too. Yes there is a difference between being careful and not with her life…but you have to look to God as well. What if God is willing her to have a child and you are not listening? What if your child will discover the cure for her disease???”

*A thought here - we could use this argument as some sects do and regard every medical condition as ‘God’s Will’ and the appropriate treatment thereof to be prayer and acceptance rather than medical intervention.

It seems that the Church’s position on sex is this (correct me where I am wrong)

Sex is only non-sinful when in the bonds of marriage.
Masturbation is always sinful.
Artificial birth control is always sinful.
Sterilization is always sinful.

Even in marriage, any sexual act that results in orgasm which is not experienced in a manner where pregnancy can occur is a mortal sin. Any other situation, even between married partners, is considered masturbation and thus a mortal sin.

If a woman has painful or excessive periods that are keeping her from holding down a job or other necessary activities, she nonetheless may not take artificial birth control pills to treat it unless she remains celibate.

A woman who has a high risk of death due to being pregnant may not be sterilized. Nor may she have a non-ovarian hysterectomy (only the uterus removed). Abstinence is her only option.
*However *a woman who has a family history of breast cancer, and carries the gene marker for breast cancer, may have her breast(s) removed in anticipation of this cancer, to save her life.
Thus it appears, in the case of reproductive organs, removal of them even if a risk of death is present is not licit whereas removing any other part of the body because death is a risk if they remain is OK.

Have I got it right?

 

[Vincent]

*However *a woman who has a family history of breast cancer, and carries the gene marker for breast cancer, may have her breast(s) removed in anticipation of this cancer, to save her life.

That claim needs to be demonstrated first.

 

[Ella]

Originally Posted by Ella
**However *a woman who has a family history of breast cancer, and carries the gene marker for breast cancer, may have her breast(s) removed in anticipation of this cancer, to save her life.

•  	 		 	 	 **That claim needs to be demonstrated first.

**Well, I guess it does need to be demonstrated first, but at what point do you end up with a Pharisaic (spelling?) interpretation of what is right and wrong?

 

[felra]

Ella:

A woman who has a high risk of death due to being pregnant may not be sterilized. Nor may she have a non-ovarian hysterectomy (only the uterus removed). Abstinence is her only option.
*However *a woman who has a family history of breast cancer, and carries the gene marker for breast cancer, may have her breast(s) removed in anticipation of this cancer, to save her life.
Thus it appears, in the case of reproductive organs, removal of them even if a risk of death is present is not licit whereas removing any other part of the body because death is a risk if they remain is OK.

Have I got it right?

No. I concur with **Vincent **that “That claim needs to be demonstrated first”.

I believe the flaw in your argument is that you are not distinguishing the difference between the need for “therapeutic” and “preventative” medicine/measures.

“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic reasons, directly intended *amputations, mutilations, *and *sterilizations *performed on innocent persons are against moral law” (CCC 2297).

I believe that the distinguishing criteria/threshold whether therapeutic medicine/measure needs to be introduced is if the once healthy organ has become pathological/unhealthy in functioning. Even for an organ that has become diseased, removal would have to be established as the necessary “therapeutic” treatment. I have yet to see someone make the case that healthy functioning reproductive organs are in need of therapeutic removal/sterilization in and of itself.

 

[Ella]

*“I believe that the distinguishing criteria/threshold whether therapeutic medicine/measure needs to be introduced is if the once healthy organ has become pathological/unhealthy in functioning. Even for an organ that has become diseased, removal would have to be established as the necessary “therapeutic” treatment. I have yet to see someone make the case that healthy functioning reproductive organs are in need of therapeutic removal/sterilization in and of itself.”

*Interesting. So it could be a sin if I choose to get a mastectomy, the reason for getting the surgery being a very high likelihood of breast cancer. But if I wait until breast cancer is actually present, the mastectomy no longer is a sin; yet my life is put in much more danger (due to metistasis) because I waited for the cancer to be present before I removed the breast(s).
Even though medical research has indicated that a woman has a strong family history of breast cancer, and she has a marker gene that indicates she will get the hereditary disease, she cannot get a pre-cancer mastectomy without committing a mortal sin?

Do I have it right now?

 

[Vincent]

Ella:

Even though medical research has indicated that a woman has a strong family history of breast cancer, and she has a marker gene that indicates she will get the hereditary disease, she cannot get a pre-cancer mastectomy without committing a mortal sin?

Personally, I’m hesitant to say that it* is* a mortal sin, just as I am hesitant to say that it is not a mortal sin. When I say that “that claim needs to be demonstrated,” I think it goes for both sides.

I haven’t seen any good arguments for the ethical removal of pre-cancerous breasts, yet, but that doesn’t mean that the procedure is unethical. Somebody just has to come up with a good argument that demonstrates that it is ethical.

As Felra points out, part of the problem for the pro-removal argument is that the terms “therapeutic” and “prophylactic” are conflated. Are they both the same, or are they not? The definitions must to be clarified.

Arguments from reason, revelation, magisterial teaching, etc. are needed here— and yes, for both sides.

 

[josea]

This is not about contraception or NFP methods. This is about whether or not the definitive or temporal removal of the reproductive organs or reproductive function as preventive medical treatment is licit. The problem is whether or not the principle of totality can be applied here. The Church, following the doctrine of Pius XII, forbids sterilization even if a pregnancy would seriously risk the live of the woman. While the general idea about contraception is clearly stated by the Church, this particular case has not clearly been presented. There is only a couple of addresses from Pius XII in two conferences to scientists and a note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that follows those teaching addressed to catholic hospitals. That is why there is so much confusion and different positions about this issue within the Church.

The confusion is even increased by the fact that the terms and moral actions are all mixed together. Here most people think we are talking about contraception but I am not. I am talking about the use of prophylactic medicine to prevent a life-threatening situation.

The Church clearly allows the removal of the reproductive function if there is an actual illness of those organs that create a risk to the woman. It does not allow the removal of reproductive organs if only a risk would come from its use. In our case, and if we attend to the documents mentioned above, the Church does not consider a reproductive organ or the reproductive function ill as long as it is not “switched on”. For the Church the important thing is the sexual act that turn on the reproductive function. Some times, reproduction itself is lethal for the woman and this is a dysfunction or illness of the reproductive function and there is not other medical treatment that the removal or impairment of this function. Yes, you can say that sexual abstention solves the problem but free will that can be exercised it the future should not be considered as the main factor of decision in front of a serious medical problem. The Church should not make the licitud of this medical intervention dependent on the free will of the person in the future. This can not be right. The Church, for instance does not accept the application of the “conflict of values” or the election of the less evil of two because the situation seen as a major evil (or the other value) lies in the future and can not be taken into account in the present situation when the election for contraception takes places. Thus, the Church can not take into account free will in acts that could happen in the future when a woman, with serious medical advice, decides to go to sterilization to prevent a problem she knows now her reproductive apparatus has.

Continues…

 

[josea]

Continuation…

Today people with risk of developing breast cancer are going through preventive amputation of the breast to prevent developing of tumours.

A preventive removal of the reproductive organs would do the same job in our case. I know: the difference is that in the former case no free will is involved and in the later a free sexual act can be the cause of the problem. But this is not medicine, this is anthropology, if you want.

The Church allows the medical amputation of an organ if it is a risk to the rest of the organism. This is the application of the “principle of totality”. Pius XII said that in our case the principle of totality can not be applied because the “problem” for the woman would come from a FREE sexual act. While in the general teaching about contraception the Church is clear and I do not think the Pope is completely right in this particular case. And I am not the only one that so thinks. There are theologians, priest and bishops that think in other terms and are not against the Church and the teaching of the Church about contraception. I simply think this particular aspect there is no a problem with being faithful to the Church:** it is a misunderstanding**.

When a pregnancy would kill a woman is because the reproductive function of that woman is diseased but we could only realize it when a pregnancy is taking place. I think it is reasonable to consider, and medically so it is done, that reproductive apparatus or function as ill and, therefore, could be treated in a preventive manner, but the only preventive way to treat this situation is by temporal or definitive sterilization.

This sterilization should not be considered a “direct sterilization”, it should be considered as a “preventive indirect sterilization”. “Indirect sterilization” because the woman does not want to get her reproductive organs removed to stop having children, this woman would like to have more children and her primary intention is not contraception. This woman does not have a contraceptive mentality. Here the intention it is not the same of that of the woman who does not have any more children and goes through surgery. Here we are not talking about contraception.

The idea that “no bad can be done that good might come from it” does not applied here neither because this “preventive sterilization” can not be “intrinsically evil” according to the principle of totality.

---

As an end note. Did you realize that in times of Pius XII the only natural method was the Ogino’s or the rythms method? You know very well how reliable was this method. And this was the advice of the Church for our woman to follow. Incredible!

Jose

 

[josea]

“I believe that the distinguishing criteria/threshold whether therapeutic medicine/measure needs to be introduced is if the once healthy organ has become pathological/unhealthy in functioning. Even for an organ that has become diseased, removal would have to be established as the necessary “therapeutic” treatment. I have yet to see someone make the case that healthy functioning reproductive organs are in need of therapeutic removal/sterilization in and of itself.”

**Interesting. So it could be a sin if I choose to get a mastectomy, the reason for getting the surgery being a very high likelihood of breast cancer. But if I wait until breast cancer is actually present, the mastectomy no longer is a sin; yet my life is put in much more danger (due to metistasis) because I waited for the cancer to be present before I removed the breast(s).
Even though medical research has indicated that a woman has a strong family history of breast cancer, and she has a marker gene that indicates she will get the hereditary disease, she cannot get a pre-cancer mastectomy without committing a mortal sin?

Do I have it right now?

It is not a sin becuase the risk of cancer is independent of your free will.
In our case, preventive sterilization, is a sin because it is thought free will makes a big role here, what I doubt and I tried to explain before.

By the way, felra, I am not trying to find a way to scape from the doctrine, and not to accept a cross. THis is a forum about Moral theology and I want to understand properly why certain things are allowed and others not.

Regards,
Jose