Abortifacient contraceptives

[crazzeto]

crazzeto,

Can you explain what you mean by the above a bit more?

thanks,
VC

From the catechism of the Catholic Church:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2399.htm

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

If you want a fuller and deeper understanding of why this is true, I suggest studying Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the Theology of the Body, a book which I hear is highly recommended is Theology of the Body for Beginners 2nd Edition

If you check google books, you can find some online books regarding the Theology of the Body as well. God bless,

 

[Verbum_Caro]

crazzeto,

thanks for the reply. What I was wondering is about the pill itself (as a pill) being intrinsically evil? Did you mean that?

VC

 

[crazzeto]

crazzeto,

thanks for the reply. What I was wondering is about the pill itself (as a pill) being intrinsically evil? Did you mean that?

VC

“The Pill” used in my posting refers to the hormornal contraceptive pill.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I am wondering about a situation where a woman uses the pill for a non-contraceptive purpose, and who also doesn’t engage in intercourse. Would you say taking the pill would be intrinsically evil?

Thanks
VC

 

[crazzeto]

I am wondering about a situation where a woman uses the pill for a non-contraceptive purpose, and who also doesn’t engage in intercourse. Would you say taking the pill would be intrinsically evil?

Thanks
VC

Even this type of usage is not encouraged… Basically intrinsically evil means just that. I’ve heard the recommendation from many quarters that if possible, a woman should seek out a pro-life NFP only physician (the church has a list I think, I’ve seen where you can look it up but I lost the link) to have her condition evaluated. This type of doctor is not very likely to mask the symptoms with a birth control pill, rather try to find the root cause, or failing that find a morally acceptable means of treating the symptoms.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Even this type of usage is not encouraged… Basically intrinsically evil means just that. I’ve heard the recommendation from many quarters that if possible, a woman should seek out a pro-life NFP only physician (the church has a list I think, I’ve seen where you can look it up but I lost the link) to have her condition evaluated. This type of doctor is not very likely to mask the symptoms with a birth control pill, rather try to find the root cause, or failing that find a morally acceptable means of treating the symptoms.

crazzeto,

Leaving aside it’s usefulness or cost/benefit analysis or any other prudential considerations, do you mean to say that a single woman who is prescribed and takes the “birth-control pill” for non-birth control related reasons, and who is not sexually active, commits an intrinsically evil act?

VC

 

[crazzeto]

crazzeto,

Leaving aside it’s usefulness or cost/benefit analysis or any other prudential considerations, do you mean to say that a single woman who is prescribed and takes the “birth-control pill” for non-birth control related reasons, and who is not sexually active, commits an intrinsically evil act?

VC

That is my best understanding of the situation, certainly though I’m only a layman so I would exhort you to dig into this further your self. all I can say is if I was a woman I would be more inclided to seek out that NFP only doctor.

 

[rpp]

If you are not Catholic, then you cannot be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Ah, yeah. I see your point. Thank you. I realize now he was not referring the whether or not an action was sinful, but rather the point you made.

 

[rpp]

crazzeto,

Leaving aside it’s usefulness or cost/benefit analysis or any other prudential considerations, do you mean to say that a single woman who is prescribed and takes the “birth-control pill” for non-birth control related reasons, and who is not sexually active, commits an intrinsically evil act?

VC

That is my best understanding of the situation, certainly though I’m only a layman so I would exhort you to dig into this further your self. all I can say is if I was a woman I would be more inclided to seek out that NFP only doctor.

My understanding is the “the pill” is not intrinsically evil because it can legitimately be used to treat certain medical disorders provided the intent is not to contracept. Therefore, crazzeto’s assertion that a chaste single woman can be prescribed birth control pill to treat some medical disorder is perfectly fine. I will concede that it becomes more tricky if she is married or is sexually active. This particular topic has been explored in tremendous detail on countless threads on this site.

The conclusion is that the key is intent.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

crazzeto’s assertion that a chaste single woman can be prescribed birth control pill to treat some medical disorder is perfectly fine.

rpp,

That wasn’t crazzeto’s assertion. He asserted that taking the pill was intrinsically evil, and thus asserted the opposite of the above – namely, that it wasn’t fine for a chaste single woman to take the pill for a medical disorder.

At least that is how I read it.

VC

 

[Jermosh]

However the “Pill” is in fact intrinsically evil which puts it in a different class entirly from the rest of those medications. That said, it’s primary puropse and normal usage is not abortion. More over, most people today don’t even comprehend how the pill could possibly cause an abortion, let alone understand that if you’re using it you’re in danger of causing one.

It’s for this reason alone that people aren’t excommunicated for it’s usage.

I agree but have to clarify that it is only intrinsically evil in the case of being used solely as a contraceptive in a marriage bond. Things like the “Pill” cannot be evil or good, its our intent of the use that makes then good or evil.

 

[Jermosh]

I am wondering about a situation where a woman uses the pill for a non-contraceptive purpose, and who also doesn’t engage in intercourse. Would you say taking the pill would be intrinsically evil?

Thanks
VC

Catholic Answers does a good job on this question. Intercourse is allowed in a marriage as well, but they should consult with a priest on this as with anything else on the “line”. Only intent makes something intrinsically evil, Abortion on demand is an intrinsic evil because it was intended, now culpability is another subject.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

 

[crazzeto]

Catholic Answers does a good job on this question. Intercourse is allowed in a marriage as well, but they should consult with a priest on this as with anything else on the “line”. Only intent makes something intrinsically evil, Abortion on demand is an intrinsic evil because it was intended, now culpability is another subject.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

I’m not so sure this is accurate, if you subscribe to this then you nullify the word “intrinsically”.

 

[rpp]

rpp,

That wasn’t crazzeto’s assertion. He asserted that taking the pill was intrinsically evil, and thus asserted the opposite of the above – namely, that it wasn’t fine for a chaste single woman to take the pill for a medical disorder.

At least that is how I read it.

VC

Whoops! Sorry about that. Must be that whole illiteracy thing I have.

 

[davidv]

So, if you are not Catholic, then contraception is not sinful? Hmm… So morality is relative? I thought that it was objective and applied to everyone. Stupid me. I thought what was was sinful for me would be sinful for everyone else.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. Contraception is gravely sinful. Taking contraceptive pills cannot be construed as procuring an abortion, principly because the ones taking them believe they are not pregnant.

The canon defines when excommunication occurs. If one is not Catholic, no excommunication happens. It has nothing to do with defining the gravely sinful nature of contraception.

 

[Jermosh]

I’m not so sure this is accurate, if you subscribe to this then you nullify the word “intrinsically”.

The term intrinsically has terms. The “Pill” used as a primary birth control in a marriage is an intrinsic evil, use the the “Pill” for theraputic uses and not BC is not. Its all about intent. If you intently want to cause an abortion it is always an intrinsic evil, if you intend to save your body from grave harm/death and an abortion is the result, its not an intrinsic evil.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The term intrinsically has terms. The “Pill” used as a primary birth control in a marriage is an intrinsic evil, use the the “Pill” for theraputic uses and not BC is not. Its all about intent. If you intently want to cause an abortion it is always an intrinsic evil, if you intend to save your body from grave harm/death and an abortion is the result, its not an intrinsic evil.

There are three fonts of morality:

1. intention (the purpose or reason for choosing the act)
2. moral object
3. circumstances

Every act that is inherently ordered toward an evil moral object is an intrinsically evil act.

If intention determined moral object, then there would be only two fonts of morality.

If intention determined moral object, then these teachings of the Magisterium would not be true:

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

 

[Bookcat]

CatholicPlanet.com - my work in theology
CatholicPlanet.net - my discussion group for faithful Catholics
Q and A on Marital Sexual Ethics
CPDV - my translation of the Bible from the Latin

Readers please note:

These web pages above are not recommended sources for Catholic sexual ethics…other areas too are of private opinion or are problematic or incorrect from a theological or canonical view.

Instead seek out sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and books for sale from Catholic Answers.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The conclusion is that the key is intent.

A good intention is not sufficient.

A correct choice of actions is also needed, because the morality of a knowingly chosen act depends on its moral object, as well as on intention and circumstances.

So when an act with an evil moral object is chosen for a good intention with good consequences, the act remains intrinsically evil.

 

[davidv]

A good intention is not sufficient.

A correct choice of actions is also needed, because the morality of a knowingly chosen act depends on its moral object, as well as on intention and circumstances.

So when an act with an evil moral object is chosen for a good intention with good consequences, the act remains intrinsically evil.

Taking a hormone pill is morally neutral. So, in this case the intent and circumstance do in fact become the key facts in judging the morality of taking them, and not the morality of the object.