Another Contraception Thread - serious health concern

[Bookcat]

could be a “lesser evil.”"

As always - take great care with such “news reports” things can often get misconstrued. With time things get clarified -especially such “news” reports.

And note - something being a “lesser evil” does not make it a good.

It remains an evil and can remain yes a grave evil.

Murdering one person is a lesser evil than murdering a group of 100. Contraception is a lesser evil than abortion. Consenting to thoughts of murder without doing so is a lesser evil than actual murder.

 

[Joe_5859]

Please don’t change your mind about joining the Catholic Church because of your opinion on birth control. Please listen to your priests regarding this matter. It is nonsense to think that strangers on a forum have more authority than a priest.

Though that is generally true and a good rule of thumb, it is not absolute that every priest is going to be correct over every random stranger on the internet on every occasion. If you peruse the anecdotes of people on the forum, you will hear that people have received conflicting and contradictory advice from different priests on this issue. If one priest says it’s a mortal sin and one priest says it’s not, they can’t both be right. So where do we go? We look at what the Magisterium of the Church says. And that is what most posters here are doing. If you look at Humana Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teaching on the morality of using artificial contraception is laid out there for all to see.

 

[Bookcat]

Though that is generally true and a good rule of thumb, it is not absolute that every priest is going to be correct over every random stranger on the internet on every occasion. If you peruse the anecdotes of people on the forum, you will hear that people have received conflicting and contradictory advice from different priests on this issue. If one priest says it’s a mortal sin and one priest says it’s not, they can’t both be right. So where do we go? We look at what the Magisterium of the Church says. And that is what most posters here are doing. If you look at Humana Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teaching on the morality of using artificial contraception is laid out there for all to see.

Right.

And as the Official Guide issued by the Church for Confessors notes:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of
contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally
rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive
and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital
chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life
(the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal
self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the
transmission of human life (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4)”

 

[mknepple]

I’m compelled to comment. I am no theologian and cannot speak with any authority about this teaching. I can only relate personal instances of either people I have known and their situations, or my own experience. 1) I knew a couple who had 4 children, were very poor, the wife suffered from agoraphobia (severe enough to require the doctors/dentist to make house calls for any necessary treatment). Her husband was employed but because of her condition, he handled all outside-the-house duties involving maintenance of their family. She baby-sat for extra income. They lived in a small 2-bedroom home but were managing, and she was receiving treatment (via phone) for her anxiety issues. The prospect of another child caused serious concern because of her illness. Having 4 children in close succession may or may not have caused/contributed to her anxiety issues—I don’t know. They consulted their priest who gave them permission for the husband to have a vasectomy. 2) Another couple we know had fertility problems and so adopted their first child. As often happens, the wife conceived shortly after the adoption, suffered complications from delivery, but mother and baby survived. They later adopted another child and, again, the wife became pregnant shortly thereafter. This delivery resulted in the wife’s doctor advising that further pregnancies should be avoided at all costs as the mother’s life would be in serious jeopardy. The wife was well-aware of the church’s teaching (a secular Carmelite) but rather than risk leaving her children without a mother, she opted to have a tubal ligation. 3) My doctor prescribed a particular drug for me. This drug caused severe birth defects should I become pregnant while taking it. Fortunately, the treatment course was limited, a matter of months, and not to be taken indefinitely. My husband and I had used NFP faithfully (incidentally, I’m a huge fan of it) but the threat of potentially conceiving a child during this treatment caused us to consult our priest. Our priest told us that sterilization was an option for us. As it was explained, we had two sons already and were open to children, that this was a circumstance apart from the intention of the teaching. In our case because the treatment was temporary, we chose to abstain from each other totally during the treatment’s duration—the potential consequences were too severe to risk. There appears to be a “range” of opinion regarding this issue, and priests are inclined to differ depending on the nuances of the situation.

 

[Bookcat]

Our priest told us that sterilization was an option for us. As it was explained, we had two sons already and were open to children, that this was a circumstance apart from the intention of the teaching. In our case because the treatment was temporary, we chose to abstain from each other totally during the treatment’s duration—the potential consequences were too severe to risk. There appears to be a “range” of opinion regarding this issue, and priests are inclined to differ depending on the nuances of the situation.

I am very sorry to hear this - your Priest mislead you seriously.

Such is never an option and he should never have counseled someone to do something that is gravely evil as if it were ok. That is a very serious thing that he did.

(As you noted the way to go would be NFP or abstinence-- you choose well!).

The ends do not justify the means.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a good summary:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Catechism:

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/p3s2c2a6.htm#2399

1756 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.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#II

Again I am very sorry that the Priest mislead you -you went to him seeking advice and how to live the Teachings of the Church - how to follow Christ in this difficulty and he gave you a very very wrong answer. I am very sorry this happened. I give him the benefit of the doubt -perhaps he was mislead by some professor in the 1970’s who has since been canned …but the advice was seriously wrong - sorry he was not able to fulfill his role as a moral guide there.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If in a particular case abortion is not justified, then neither is abortifacient contraception.

Sometimes the use of mere contraception is indirect and moral, as in cases of rape (cited by the Pope). However, abortion is not justified, even in severe cases, such as rape or a danger to the life of the mother. Therefore, in those cases, abortifacient contraception is also not justified. Abortifacient contraception is a type of abortion as well as a type of contraception.

 

[Slime13]

Not just in this thread, but on this entire forum, I find the lack of respect for priests and the Pope disturbing.

 

[Bookcat]

Not just in this thread, but on this entire forum, I find the lack of respect for priests and the Pope disturbing.

I usually see great respect for both - especially for the Pope (unless it is from anti-catholics or those who reject Church Teachings).

 

[Kelfa28]

Not just in this thread, but on this entire forum, I find the lack of respect for priests and the Pope disturbing.

Take what you will from these forums.

It is of the opinion of many posters that I’m sinning because I’ve opted to use the pill to treat a medical condition and still continue an intimate relationship with my husband.

I’ve been told outright that I can’t be intimate with my husband by regular posters who have no qualifications to do so…they aren’t doctors or priests but they still will tell people, like me, what to do.

I truly believe that a great number of posters on this site think they are the pope and their holier-then-thou attitude is truly astounding.

 

[Usige]

Not just in this thread, but on this entire forum, I find the lack of respect for priests and the Pope disturbing.

By that do you mean a lack of respect for the opinions of clergy when they are in opposition to established teaching?

Catholics have a hierachy of authority to teaching. When a priest, bishop or pope speaks it must always be judged against existing religious teaching. There are things that have been explicitly defined as part of the deposit of the faith and others that make up the deposit of faith implicitly through historical connections. At the lowest level are theological opinions.

The teaching against contraception would be part of the deposit of faith through consistent historical teaching of the Church. That means it is a de fide tenenda belief and requires a religious submission of will.

Since it is part of the deposit of faith it is not something up for individual interpretation be any single member of the clergy. Both laity and clergy are required to accept the teaching. To teach contrary to the magisterium is very serious. Through our baptism, the laity have a duty to uphold the teachings of Christ’s Church. If this means correcting someone when a member of the clergy erroneously teaches against the Church, then that is what we are called to do. Our duty is to uphold the truth and in some cases the laity are better positioned to do that then some members of the clergy. That is not disrespect, but living out our commission to proclaim the Gospel without fear.

 

[Rau]

That’s heart-breaking. Would you say current practicing Catholics that use contraception (NOT NFP) should not remain in the Catholic Church?

Current Catholics sinners (ie. all of us) should try to understand our weaknesses, and pray to overcome them.

 

[Rau]

…ABOARD THE PAPAL FLIGHT FROM MEXICO - With physicians across Central and South American urging women to postpone pregnancy because of the Zika virus that causes birth defects, Pope Francis said using contraceptives could be a “lesser evil.”…

The Pope knows full well that:

1. we **may not *****choose ***any evil at all as either a means or an end.
2. The Church teaches (irreformably) that using a contraceptive in marriage to avoid conceiving a child is immoral.

If you can integrate or rationalise these facts with what the Pope said, we may yet be able to decipher his intended meaning.

A wild speculation - perhaps the Pope believes that to widely call upon persons to not use contraception to avoid a Zika baby would be an action that itself would do more harm than good - consequently, we (the Church) choose to “tolerate” the evil of contraception. This does not however mean that persons using Contraception do not do wrong.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Pope knows full well that:

1. we **may not *****choose ***any evil at all as either a means or an end.
2. The Church teaches (irreformably) that using a contraceptive in marriage to avoid conceiving a child is immoral.

I don’t think the Pope (and many moral theologians) does know the above full well Rau.

As Aquinas says, never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.
(a) we may choose physical evils as a means (cf Janet Smith)
(b) I think the Pope is saying that the Zika case is not an “act of contraception” though obviously a contraceptive is used. It is in fact an act of protecting the child. In this case the means of protection is rather drastic - avoiding pregnancy in the sexual act.

In other words, this sort of “avoiding pregnancy” (like the Congo Nuns) is a “physical evil” (unlike abortion which is always a moral evil) and not a “moral evil” (contracepting as a means). One may choose a physical evil if it is the lesser evil (the greater being a zita baby).

Its a pretty subtle distinction but that seems to be the call he is making!

 

[Rau]

I don’t think the Pope (and many moral theologians) does know the above full well Rau.

As Aquinas says, never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.
(a) we may choose physical evils as a means (cf Janet Smith)
(b) I think the Pope is saying that the Zika case is not an “act of contraception” though obviously a contraceptive is used. It is in fact an act of protecting the child. In this case the means of protection is rather drastic - avoiding pregnancy in the sexual act.

In other words, this sort of “avoiding pregnancy” (like the Congo Nuns) is a “physical evil” (unlike abortion which is always a moral evil) and not a “moral evil” (contracepting as a means). One may choose a physical evil if it is the lesser evil (the greater being a zita baby).

Its a pretty subtle distinction but that seems to be the call he is making!

I understand the difference between physical and moral evil, but, just as used in HV14, I would think it understood that evil (without qualification) means moral evil. It is widely understood that we may break down a door (physical evil) to save a person’s life, or cut off an arm to save the person, but equally clear that we may not kill an innocent (moral evil) to save 5 innocents. And we may not thwart the nature of conjugal relations (moral evil) to avoid a Zika baby. There are other licit means to that good end.

So, no, Blue, condoms and pills to avoid a pregnancy is not a physical evil, but a moral evil. Please read Janet’s article and you’ll see she said exactly that! Here is a quote for you:

“The PCLE does not justify a woman using contraception to prevent a pregnancy because she fears the child may suffer some harm during the pregnancy. Here a woman is choosing to do something immoral to prevent harm. This choice violates the fundamental principle that we must never do **moral evil **to achieve good. She would be intending to thwart the purpose and meaning of the sexual act in order to protect any child conceived from harm, but she is doing harm—to the marital act and her marital relationship—by using contraception to prevent a pregnancy.”

 

[Bookcat]

ncbcenter.org/resources/the-ncbc-responds-to-the-zika-virus

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand the difference between physical and moral evil

Thanks for informing us of that…but back to the the actual topic.

You wrote:
“The Pope knows full well that we may not choose any evil at all as either a means or an end.”

First up by all means speak for yourself, but I don’t think you have any more insight into what the Pope “knows full well” than Elvis Presley.

And if we had to guess from his interview it would surely be the opposite of your statement above. You are mistaken because your assertion above is somewhat loose.

There are indeed some evils that may be chosen indirectly as a means. They are called “physical evils.”

And this seems to be just what Pope Francis is saying when he says “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil”. How can any fair person interpret that as anything else?

 

[Rau]

…First up by all means speak for yourself, but I don’t think you have any more insight into what the Pope “knows full well” than Elvis Presley.

And if we had to guess from his interview it would surely be the opposite of your statement above. You are mistaken because your assertion above is somewhat loose.

There are indeed some evils that may be chosen indirectly as a means. They are called “physical evils.”

Loose maybe, but conventional. As in the following (HV14), Paul VI uses evil as I used it. I feel in good company.

*… it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it.*The same way the Catechism & St T Aquinas used the word “evil” (unqualified):

*1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.*But to avoid any more confusion - let’s all agree that *physical *evils - like knocking down a door, or removing a tooth (not torture!!) - can be used as means…

And let us also note that since the Pope’s airborne remarks, no one has provided any theological reasoning whatsoever to support the ideas that “use of contraception in marriage” to avoid conceiving a Sika baby could be considered merely a physical evil (noting previous irreformable teaching declares it to be a moral evil!) We only have speculation that maybe that is what the Pope meant. In light of existing doctrine, a forthcoming encyclical to that end will be something to behold!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Loose maybe, but conventional. As in the following (HV14), Paul VI uses evil as I used it. I feel in good company.

*… it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it.*The same way the Catechism & St T Aquinas used the word “evil” (unqualified):

*1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.*But to avoid any more confusion - let’s all agree that *physical *evils - like knocking down a door, or removing a tooth (not torture!!) - can be used as means…

And let us also note that since the Pope’s airborne remarks, no one has provided any theological reasoning whatsoever to support the ideas that “use of contraception in marriage” to avoid conceiving a Sika baby could be considered merely a physical evil (noting previous irreformable teaching declares it to be a moral evil!) We only have speculation that maybe that is what the Pope meant. In light of existing doctrine, a forthcoming encyclical to that end will be something to behold!

Of course Rau - we are only speculating what Pope Francis may have meant.

While we are all perplexed about the complete theology that connects his seemingly unconnected statements…I am morally certain he is indeed distinguishing between “avoiding pregnancy” (a physical evil capable of being the object of an indirect intention) and “contracepting” (directly willing a moral evil whether it be a means or an end).

If he is not saying this then I see no other basis for Pope Francis reaching the conclusion he does - at least not terms of traditional moral theology.

I am of course presuming his final conclusion is correct.
Given he hasn’t yet retracted and the Vatican is not explaining it away (on the contrary Fr Lombardo clarified he did mean condoms) then such a presumption (whether right or wrong) seems warranted by the loyal faithful for the moment.

 

[Rau]

Of course Rau - we are only speculating what Pope Francis may have meant.

While we are all perplexed about the complete theology that connects his seemingly unconnected statements…I am morally certain he is indeed distinguishing between “avoiding pregnancy” (a physical evil capable of being the object of an indirect intention) and “contracepting” (directly willing a moral evil whether it be a means or an end).

If he is not saying this then I see no other basis for Pope Francis reaching the conclusion he does - at least not terms of traditional moral theology.

I am of course presuming his final conclusion is correct.
Given he hasn’t yet retracted and the Vatican is not explaining it away (on the contrary Fr Lombardo clarified he did mean condoms) then such a presumption (whether right or wrong) seems warranted by the loyal faithful for the moment.

A married couple can licitly “avoid pregnancy” by spending more time at the movies. But by using contraception? Not on the basis of current doctrine. We’ll need to wait a while to find out what the heck he has in mind.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A married couple can licitly “avoid pregnancy” by spending more time at the movies. But by using contraception? Not on the basis of current doctrine. We’ll need to wait a while to find out what the heck he has in mind.

Rau why not try to speak to people from your own fallible point of view rather than Gods point of view (which a lone is guaranteed objective) - you will find people more amenable to your point of view if you speak as the fallible persons we all are (except maybe the Pope ).

Perhaps it would be more healthy to say,
“A married couple can licitly “avoid pregnancy” … But by using contraception? I believe not on the basis of current doctrine.”