Abortifacient contraceptives

[Ron_Conte]

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.

This idea that you are presenting was considered and rejected by Veritatis Splendor, n. 75-77.

“77. In order to offer rational criteria for a right moral decision, the theories mentioned above take account of the intention and consequences of human action. Certainly there is need to take into account both the intention — as Jesus forcefully insisted in clear disagreement with the scribes and Pharisees, who prescribed in great detail certain outward practices without paying attention to the heart (cf. Mk 7:20-21; Mt 15:19) — and the goods obtained and the evils avoided as a result of a particular act. Responsibility demands as much. But the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour is “according to its species”, or “in itself”, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

Each and every knowingly chosen act has three fonts of morality. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral. Intention and circumstances are not sufficient for judging the morality of any act.

“human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.”

 

[davidv]

This idea that you are presenting was considered and rejected by Veritatis Splendor, n. 75-77.

“77. In order to offer rational criteria for a right moral decision, the theories mentioned above take account of the intention and consequences of human action. Certainly there is need to take into account both the intention — as Jesus forcefully insisted in clear disagreement with the scribes and Pharisees, who prescribed in great detail certain outward practices without paying attention to the heart (cf. Mk 7:20-21; Mt 15:19) — and the goods obtained and the evils avoided as a result of a particular act. Responsibility demands as much. But the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour is “according to its species”, or “in itself”, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

Each and every knowingly chosen act has three fonts of morality. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral. Intention and circumstances are not sufficient for judging the morality of any act.

“human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.”

Please demostrate how taking a hormone pill is anything other than a morally neutral object. The quote above does not demonstrate anything relevant to this question.

 

[rpp]

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.

?Yes, you are right. I misinterpreted your post. My apologies. Another member pointed this out and I made this post in response to it.

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

I am sincerely sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[rpp]

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.

While I understand and agree with the words of your post, it is important to also determine whether something is is always morally evil. In the context of my post, the critical parts you edited out of what I posted, I explained why “the pill” is not intrinsically", that is in all cases and at all times, evil. To repeat the key point is that it has a legitimate medical application that has nothing to do with contraception. If the intent of taking to pill is to treat a medical condition (single, chaste woman) then there is no problem. As I also stated in my post, if se is married or sexually active, it becomes a more complex moral problem.

Here is another example. Most people would claim that condoms are an intrinsically evil object as their sole purpose is for contraception. I agreed with this until I read a story. During WWII the throughout the landing in the Pacific and during the landings on D-Day at Normandy, Allied soldiers put condoms over the front of the barrels of their guns to prevent sand and water from getting down the barrel and fouling their weapons. As that was a just war and the solders were fighting for a just cause, this was not an immoral use of condoms. However, I will be quick to point out that I cannot think of another use that might even remotely be moral.

I only say this to caution peole into claiming that an object is intrinsically immoral.

 

[Ron_Conte]

While I understand and agree with the words of your post, it is important to also determine whether something is is always morally evil. In the context of my post, the critical parts you edited out of what I posted, I explained why “the pill” is not intrinsically", that is in all cases and at all times, evil. To repeat the key point is that it has a legitimate medical application that has nothing to do with contraception. If the intent of taking to pill is to treat a medical condition (single, chaste woman) then there is no problem. As I also stated in my post, if se is married or sexually active, it becomes a more complex moral problem.

Here is another example. Most people would claim that condoms are an intrinsically evil object as their sole purpose is for contraception. I agreed with this until I read a story. During WWII the throughout the landing in the Pacific and during the landings on D-Day at Normandy, Allied soldiers put condoms over the front of the barrels of their guns to prevent sand and water from getting down the barrel and fouling their weapons. As that was a just war and the solders were fighting for a just cause, this was not an immoral use of condoms. However, I will be quick to point out that I cannot think of another use that might even remotely be moral.

I only say this to caution peole into claiming that an object is intrinsically immoral.

It is true that a tangible item is not morally good or evil. Moral good and moral evil refers to acts. So intrinsic evil refers to an act, a knowing choice.

I think the main problem in all these discussions on various intrinsically evil acts is that people do not understand what a moral object is. The moral object is the end (the proximate end) toward which the act itself is inherently ordered; it is an end in terms of morality.

The deliberate choice to both take an abortifacient contraceptive AND have sexual relations is intrinsically evil because, by deliberate choice, the sexual acts are deprived of the procreative meaning, regardless of intention. If you deliberately choose an inherently disordered type (species) of act, the intended end cannot change the moral object. The act remains inherently disordered.

This is particularly grave in the case of abortifacient contraceptives, since the chosen act is both the grave sin of contraception and the grave sin of abortion. The good of continuing to have marital relations is far outweighed by these two evils.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The deliberate choice to both take an-] abortifacient/-] contraceptive AND have sexual relations is intrinsically evil because, by deliberate choice, the sexual acts are deprived of the procreative meaning

(I redact “abortifacient” in order to simplify the question)

Which act is intrinsically evil? Taking the contraceptive pill? Or having sexual relations after taking the contraceptive pill?

The second act makes the first act intrinsically evil? Or the second act combines with the first act to create a new species of act?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

(I redact “abortifacient” in order to simplify the question)

Which act is intrinsically evil? Taking the contraceptive pill? Or having sexual relations after taking the contraceptive pill?

The second act makes the first act intrinsically evil? Or the second act combines with the first act to create a new species of act?

VC

Good questions.

1. Suppose that you loan me a valuable item. It is sitting in my garage. Then at some point in time, I decide that I will not return it. This latest act is theft, however, it depends on the prior act of borrowing the item (which in this case I did at first intending to return it). So the two acts were both necessary to the offense. The first act was moral. The second act was intrinsically evil, but could not have occurred without the first act.
2. Or suppose that I ask to borrow the same item, but I am lying when I say that I will return it; my intention is theft and the moral object of the chosen act is also theft. Then when you ask for it back, I refuse to return it. Both acts have the moral object of depriving an owner of his goods (theft), so both acts are intrinsically evil.
3. When a woman takes a contraceptive pill (not as a treatment for a disorder), and then she has contracepted sexual relations, both acts are sinful. The taking of the pill is inherently directed at depriving sexual relations of the procreative meaning. The inherent moral meaning of the chosen act has this moral object because there is no medical issue being treated by the medication.

Similarly, the same ‘medication’ used to cause a chemical abortion (methotrexate) is also used in chemotherapy to treat cancer. But if the woman is pregnant and does not have cancer, taking the ‘medication’ has the moral object of killing the prenatal.

1. When a woman takes a contraceptive pill as a treatment for a disorder, but then also chooses to have sexual relations, this is like example #1 above (when the first act is moral, but the second act, predicated on the first, is evil). She is deliberately choosing to take a contraceptive pill and deliberately choosing to have sexual relations. She could morally do only the first act. But she deliberately chooses both acts. So the second act (contracepted sex) is immoral. She deliberately continues to take the pill and to have sexual relations. She could stop taking the pill and be fertile. She could take the pill and not have relations.

The sexual act is contracepted by means of a deliberate act, even though that deliberate act has a different intended end. Abortion as a means or as an end is still intrinsically evil. Contraception as a means or as an end is still intrinsically evil.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Good answers, and hopefully I will continue to ask good questions.

1. Suppose that you loan me a valuable item. It is sitting in my garage. Then at some point in time, I decide that I will not return it. This latest act is theft, however, it depends on the prior act of borrowing the item (which in this case I did at first intending to return it). So the two acts were both necessary to the offense. The first act was moral. The second act was intrinsically evil, but could not have occurred without the first act.

1. When a woman takes a contraceptive pill as a treatment for a disorder, but then also chooses to have sexual relations, this is like example #1 above (when the first act is moral, but the second act, predicated on the first, is evil). She is deliberately choosing to take a contraceptive pill and deliberately choosing to have sexual relations. She could morally do only the first act. But she deliberately chooses both acts. So the second act (contracepted sex) is immoral. She deliberately continues to take the pill and to have sexual relations. She could stop taking the pill and be fertile. She could take the pill and not have relations.

Is there a difference inherent in the two examples in that in the first example the second act comprises theft because the goal is to thieve (I here assume the language “I decide I will not return it” to mean “I decide to steal it”) but the second act in the second example doesn’t address what the goal of the second act is?

To clarify the question: is there a difference because in the first example the person wants to thieve and in the second example the person may or may not want to get pregnant?

To further clarify: wouldn’t we have to come up with an example that, unlike borrowing becoming theft, the second act is doing something good in itself which now happens to be evil because of the situation?

VC

 

[davidv]

?Yes, you are right. I misinterpreted your post. My apologies. Another member pointed this out and I made this post in response to it.

I am sincerely sorry for misunderstanding you.

Apology accepted. Your question may have helped me restate my point better.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Summary of the Poll results:

Out of 28 respondents, 21 said that the use of abortifacient contraception is direct abortion, which is 75%. And 18 out of 28 said that the use of abortifacient contraception falls under the Canon of excommunication for a procured completed abortion.

These results are interesting because, from the discussion that accompanied the poll, it seemed as if most persons do not believe that abortifacient contraception is direct abortion. It shows that what seems like a majority opinion, is sometimes not.

Of course, the majority opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

bumping my questions:

To clarify the question: is there a difference because in the first example the person wants to thieve and in the second example the person may or may not want to get pregnant?

To further clarify: wouldn’t we have to come up with an example that, unlike borrowing becoming theft, the second act is doing something good in itself which now happens to be evil because of the situation?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

Is there a difference inherent in the two examples in that in the first example the second act comprises theft because the goal is to thieve (I here assume the language “I decide I will not return it” to mean “I decide to steal it”) but the second act in the second example doesn’t address what the goal of the second act is?

Again, you are confusing the intention with the moral object.

First font, intention, is described in various magisterial sources as:

the intention for which the choice was made
the subjective goal
why we do the act
the intention of the subject who acts
the purpose for which the subject performs the act
the end in view

The goal does not determine if the act is intrinsically evil.
The moral object determines if the act is intrinsically evil.

Sometimes an act with an evil moral object is chosen for a good purpose (goal) and with good consequences that outweigh the bad consequences. But even when the fonts of intention and circumstances are good, the act remains inherently immoral.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I will clarify the question.

Two examples were given.The first is a man who borrows a valuable item (let’s say a car) that is held in his garage. Later, the man decides to keep the car. This is called theft.

The second is a woman who takes a hormone pill for treatment of a disorder. Later, the woman decides to engage in (married) intercourse. This is called contraception.
These two examples are said to be analogous to each other.

My question is: In the first example the man later decides to commit thievery, isn’t it clearly the object of his action[sup]1[/sup]?. If he hadn’t borrowed the car previously, wouldn’t he go next door and take it? Does this distinguish this example from the second example? If the woman in the second example wasn’t made sterile by the pill would she sterilize herself and then have intercourse?

Wouldn’t we have to come up with an example where the second act isn’t evil in itself but is made evil because of a prior action? The car example doesn’t seem to fulfill our needs because borrowing the car only makes stealing it easier doesn’t it? It doesn’t seem to make action 2 into stealing because you previously borrowed it, or does it? Isn’t the second example described as making action 2 (sex) into contraception because you previously took a pill?

VC

[sup]1[/sup]This doesn’t seem to be the intention for which the choice was made, the subjective goal, why he stole, the intention of the subject who acts, the purpose for which the subject performs the act, nor the end in view, does it?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The moral object determines the type of act in terms of morality, the moral species of the act. Using abortifacient contraception and engaging in sexual relations is the same type of act, regardless of the intention for using the abortifacient contraception.

If the woman is not sexually active, then taking the pill for a medical purpose is moral, because there is no deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts.

The same cannot be said of a woman who chooses to take the pill, for any reason, and who also chooses to engage in contracepted sexual relations. She could stop taking the pill; she could cease from marital relations. She deliberately chooses to do both.

Similarly, direct abortion for a medical purpose, such as to save the life of the mother, is still intrinsically evil.

But in the case of abortifacient contraception, even if you doubt that the moral object is evil, the continued death of one innocent prenatal after another, even considered solely in the consequences (third font), certainly gravely outweighs the good of being able to continue having sexual relations. So such a use is certainly gravely immoral, under both the second and third fonts of morality.

I really don’t have anything else to say to you on this subject, VC.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Does anyone have a response about whether the two examples are analogous? The reason I ask is because the first example was used to explain why the second example is morally wrong, and the first example looked like the following:
borrowing a thing + stealing that thing = stealing that thing
Is that a proper characterization of the first example? And if so, is it analogous to taking a pill for treatment + engaging in intercourse = contracepting?

If the woman is not sexually active, then taking the pill for a medical purpose is moral, because there is no deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts.

(since she doesn’t engage in sexual acts).

Can anyone explain why a woman who makes herself sterile (through intensive exercise, or through pregnancy) is able to engage in intercourse without this being a deprivation of the procreative meaning of the sexual act?

Or perhaps it is a deprivation of the procreative meaning of the sexual act if you cause yourself to become sterile and then engage in intercourse?

**Is **there a difference? Does choosing to get pregant + intercourse = contraception, or choosing to engage in intensive exercise + intercourse = contraception?

Can anyone answer?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can anyone explain why a woman who makes herself sterile (through intensive exercise, or through pregnancy) is able to engage in intercourse without this being a deprivation of the procreative meaning of the sexual act?

Or perhaps it is a deprivation of the procreative meaning of the sexual act if you cause yourself to become sterile and then engage in intercourse?

**Is **there a difference? Does choosing to get pregant + intercourse = contraception, or choosing to engage in intensive exercise + intercourse = contraception?

Can anyone answer?

I’m still wondering about the above (see my prior post for the whole question in context of this thread).

Can anyone help?

VC

 

[crazzeto]

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.

I don’t always agree with Ron’s very strict and… interesting moral theology, but in this case he’s right on… When something is intrinsically evil that means it is evil with in it’s very nature and thus a sin of some magnitude is always commited when you engage in whatever you’re talking about. In this case, “The Pill” was declared intrinsically evil by the Church, thus one can not avoid some sort of sin when taking “The Pill”.

Your intentions can never change whether or not something is sinful. You can’t argue that no sin was commited when you kill some one accidently as opposed to on purpose, one can only say a very much lesser sin was commited. The same is true here, if a chaste woman takes the intrinsically evil pill for medical purposes, she is still cooperating with something which is evil by it’s very nature, thus sin is involved. Not the same kind of sin as one who takes it for contraceptive reasons and more over one who does so knowing that it is condemed by the Church. But none-the-less, there is sin involved,

In Christ,
Carlo

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Carlo,

I’m not sure I understand your post. You say that a)the pill itself is intrinsically evil and that b)anyone who takes it for any reason commits a sin and c)this includes a chaste, unmarried, non-sexually active woman, and that d) you agree with other posters who have said this.

But, to my knowledge, NO poster has said that it is sinful for an unmarried, chaste, non-sexually active woman to take the pill for therapeutic reasons. This is because the pill itself, as a material object, isn’t (and can’t be) intrinsically evil.

VC