Are there exception to the use of contraception for medical issues?

[Mannyfit75]

Depends upon what you mean. Within the context of deliberately engaging in conjugal acts, one cannot ever intend to contracept. In other words, for those deliberately engaging in conjugal acts, contraception can never intentionally be a means, nor an end.

My answer was already answered. If you read the previous response I made.

 

[Syele]

Calm down and read what I wrote. THey are not condoning abortion at all. THey are saying that to PREVENT CONCEPTION in a rape, that it is ok.

The controversy, of whether the morning after pill actually does prevent conception rather than abort is not relevant to this particular discussion.

I’m not saying i buy the fact that it doesn’t abort…I don’t know… I’m just saying what was said by the bishops

I looked up an article about what the Connecticut bishops said. I believe they messed up. lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07092807.html

I am still angry, not at you, just the Bishops who would approve such a thing. It is impossible to know if they are preventing or aborting a child in that situation, so soon after a rape. They should think before they speak.

But I will drop it rather than derail Manny’s thread even more.

 

[Harsalter]

Contraception or abortion for any reason including the health of the mother is wrong and a sin. What makes the health or life of the mother any more important than the childs? Nothing as it isn’t.

Now I also agree with Dave’s #18 post above which may make the conception issue more gray. But contraception cannot be used as the goal to not conceive as dave said. But abortion is never gray!

But the Bishops in Connecticut are wrong. The Vatican said as much in the same article.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Contraception or abortion for any reason including the health of the mother is wrong and a sin. What makes the health or life of the mother any more important than the childs? Nothing as it isn’t.

Let’s not discussion abortion or the statement the bishops made in Conn.

Second, my answer is already answered. I feel that we can close this thread.

At the beginning of this thread. I presumed hormonial drugs to treat ailment was a “type of contraception.” Base on the response, the treatment itself is not. Because the drugs is intended to treat an illness. It isn’t a contraception.

Catholics who use hormonal therapy for certain physical ailments can received Holy Communion. There are Catholics who use hormonal therapy for their ailment, and they can rightly received Holy Communion.

This issue was already answered.

Moderators, if you are reading this, this thread can be close. Thank you for participating.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… whether the morning after pill actually does prevent conception rather than abort is not relevant to this particular discussion.

I disagree. The USCCB states that something like the pill can be used only “If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already.” (see my last post)

 

[igeary]

It makes perfect sense. It doesn’t always require prior planning. We’re not talking about the “pill” or condoms. We are talking about the controversial “morning after pill”.

If there is no conception taken place yet, this pill can be used after a rape to prevent one from happening. The Bishops just dealt with this in Connecticut.

The morning after pill IS abortive. You have no way of knowing the next morning whether or not conception has already occurred.

 

[agapewolf]

The morning after pill IS abortive. You have no way of knowing the next morning whether or not conception has already occurred.

THat is not the discussion at hand. That isn’t the point of this conversation. No need to argue with me on this, this has nothing to do with the morality of the discussion. It was merely an example. If you READ MY POST I say that I don’t completely buy the fact that its innocent. Seeing as how none of us can verify our medical degrees here, getting into the science of it, its pointless to disucss it anyway.

It is a philosophical discussion…spermicide after the fact, a hypothetical “non-abortive morning after pill” whether it exists or not is merely the example used to make a DIFFERENT POINT.

Mannyfit, I’m glad you had your question answered, but please don’t be upset with the fact that there were other points made…you yourself were asking if there were any exceptions…mutliple times.

The point did indeed need to be made, becuase there were assertions that there were no exceptions. That is the point I was bringing up. Let’s not get lost in an unncessary argument.

 

[igeary]

The point did indeed need to be made, becuase there were assertions that there were no exceptions.

And it was made.

I read the thread, but quoted the wrong person. No offense, please!

People have made all sorts of comments not directly related to the original post, and I am entitled to make a valid point.

Thank you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit, I’m glad you had your question answered, but please don’t be upset with the fact that there were other points made…you yourself were asking if there were any exceptions…mutliple times.

I’m not upset.

 

[fix]

Here 's the exception: A woman is raped, she may use a contraceptive to prevent conception…but only to prevent, not to abort (there is debate whehter this is possible to do after the fact).

I would argue that is not the act of contraception. Contraception presupposes a conjugal act, that is consentual. Rape is not consentual. Medicine used to prevent ovulation post rape is not a contraceptive act.

Contraception is a separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the act. There is no unitive aspect to rape to start with.

 

[Dale_M]

Using a drug to treat an ailment is not contracepting, even if the drug has an effect of making a person sterile. Radiation to treat cancer does make a person sterile, but that is not its primary purpose. This is not contraception, it’s cancer treatment.

Would this reasoning also allow the use of condoms so that a husband or wife did not pass HIV onto their spouse?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Would this reasoning also allow the use of condoms so that a husband or wife did not pass HIV onto their spouse?

No, because the neither the “means” nor the “ends” can be evil.

Furthermore, condoms don’t actually prevent transmission of HIV, but merely mitigate the risk. If one accepts that condoms are perhaps 90% effective in mitigating the risk, then statistically speaking, after 10 times you still have passed HIV to your spouse. That’s like playing Russian roulette with a 10-bullet pistol loaded with one bullet. Sure, its safer than having 10 bullets, but it only takes one bullet to kill you. The “greater good” is clearly to not play Russian roulette.

Additionally, in the case of condoms used in conjugal sex with one’s spouse, the means is “intrinsically evil.” In applying the principle of double effect, at least condition one, two, and three of the necessary conditions fail. Given that condom use may only be at most 90% effective in mitigating HIV transmission, then one might also conclude condition four fails.

The **principles of double effect **has four conditions–all four must be met:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).
   St. Thomas Aquinas asserted, “the lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen” (Summa Theologica, suppl, 47, 2). In the case of a spouse with HIV, they are not faced with only the choice between two evils. The have another choice which is a good, that is, complete continence (ie. abstain from all sexual relations). This is 100% guaranteed to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and thus is a greater good than the instrinsically evil act of using a condom during conjugal sex.
   
   Applying the principles of double effect to hormone treatment to treat illness is a different situation. For example, if a person is completely continent (i.e. abstains from sexual relation), but is takes hormone treatments (like “the pill”) to treat, for example, excessive menstral bleeding, is she contracepting? No, because she isn’t even having sex. Mere treatment with hormones is not contraception. Hormone treatment cannot abort a child if one is completely continent.

 

[whatevergirl]

No, because the neither the “means” nor the “ends” can be evil.

Furthermore, condoms don’t actually prevent transmission of HIV, but merely mitigate the risk. If one accepts that condoms are perhaps 90% effective in mitigating the risk, then statistically speaking, after 10 times you still have passed HIV to your spouse. That’s like playing Russian roulette with a 10-bullet pistol loaded with one bullet. Sure, its safer than having 10 bullets, but it only takes one bullet to kill you. The “greater good” is clearly to not play Russian roulette.

Additionally, in the case of condoms used in conjugal sex with one’s spouse, the means is “intrinsically evil.” In applying the principle of double effect, at least condition one, two, and three of the necessary conditions fail. Given that condom use may only be at most 90% effective in mitigating HIV transmission, then one might also conclude condition four fails.

The **principles of double effect **has four conditions–all four must be met:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).
   St. Thomas Aquinas asserted, “the lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen” (Summa Theologica, suppl, 47, 2). In the case of a spouse with HIV, they are not faced with only the choice between two evils. The have another choice which is a good, that is, complete continence (ie. abstain from all sexual relations). This is 100% guaranteed to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and thus is a greater good than the instrinsically evil act of using a condom during conjugal sex.
   
   Applying the principles of double effect to hormone treatment to treat illness is a different situation. For example, if a person is completely continent (i.e. abstains from sexual relation), but is takes hormone treatments (like “the pill”) to treat, for example, excessive menstral bleeding, is she contracepting? No, because she isn’t even having sex. Mere treatment with hormones is not contraception. Hormone treatment cannot abort a child if one is completely continent.

1. 
   I have never read such a thorough explanation…I appreciate you taking the time to explain this, as I was a little hazy on this situation. Good job!

 

[doglover]

Is there a medical exception for medical uses for contraception, that use primarily for the serious medicial conditions? What medical condition would be consider acceptible?

Dr. Thomas Hilgers has studied the causes of women’s health problems and has discovered how to heal/treat women’s gynecological and infertility concerns WITHOUT using the birth control pill. The pill is prescribed to deal with symptoms. Healing the underlying health problem is an entirely different matter.

For more about Natural Procreative Technology (NaProTechnology) go to:

www.naprotechnology.com

 

[lucy212]

And if you were taking a medication for a chronic condition, say Methotrexate( very common and effective to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and other autoimmune conditions) and that medication is known to absolutely cause birth defects(no maybes,might, it will in most cases,that is, if the child makes it to term, which it probably won’t because the drug also has a known side effect of causing spontaneous abortions (in fact it is used for that purpose in ectopic pregnancies), is contraception allowed, I mean other than the medication itself, which will probably result in spontaneous abortion.
This is not a drug you take for a while, but for years, maybe even the rest of your life-and it’s one of the safer drugs out there, and if you are lucky to find even one that works, keeps the disease under-control, and so you stay alive. …so don’t suggest investigating alternative medications.

I have a real problem with “Never”, when I see God’s Salvation History one long procession of "I will do anything to save you, no matter how far you wander…all it takes is a broken and contrite heart and “I will find you; No, even better, I will be there with you, I’ve had it planned since the beginning” no matter how high or low or far or how long.

Does anyone stop and think real people, investigating Catholicism, looking for “Catholic Answers” read these threads over and wonder if this is the Body of Christ or a religious intellectual gymnastics team.

Is the Church really about the Salvation of Humanity or having the one right answer to every question, with all the right proofs in place, so you always come out right at the bottom line.
I can’t find where a person fits into formulas like double effect, or intent…seems it would be ok to miscarry babies every once in a while (which I have …and you never stop mourning), than break the “never” rule, and risk everything.

I think if it wasn’t a fast ticket to hell, Catholics would have a higher than average suicide rate.
Sorry-just midwinter blues.

But I do get the impression from what I read things I read- if I became Catholic what’s left of my life will be all about crossing every t, dotting every i, and keeping the letter of Canon Law and not stepping out of bounds, if you can even find them;

and I know the importance of Church to Salvation, and it’s not just a “what’s in it for me” deal, but it all seems rather anticlimatic to what started with a Holy Woman the world waited thousands of years to be born, the brightest star in the sky, ever, Angel songs and "Fear not, I bring you good tidings of great joy…
this is not just a question to bait you with a far flung made up scenario. but minus a few details, is very real

 

[FLCathMom]

And if you were taking a medication for a chronic condition, say Methotrexate( very common and effective to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and other autoimmune conditions) and that medication is known to absolutely cause birth defects(no maybes,might, it will in most cases,that is, if the child makes it to term, which it probably won’t because the drug also has a known side effect of causing spontaneous abortions (in fact it is used for that purpose in ectopic pregnancies), is contraception allowed, I mean other than the medication itself, which will probably result in spontaneous abortion.
This is not a drug you take for a while, but for years, maybe even the rest of your life-and it’s one of the safer drugs out there, and if you are lucky to find even one that works, keeps the disease under-control, and so you stay alive. …so don’t suggest investigating alternative medications.

Is a child born with a birth defect not worth having? My mom was born with a birth defect as a result of my grandmother’s taking medication for a very serious condition. I sure am glad she was born!

I have a real problem with “Never”, when I see God’s Salvation History one long procession of "I will do anything to save you, no matter how far you wander…all it takes is a broken and contrite heart and “I will find you; No, even better, I will be there with you, I’ve had it planned since the beginning” no matter how high or low or far or how long.

Yes, God will do anything to save you, but he won’t pretend you haven’t wandered when you have. Can you imagine telling a child it is perfectly safe to play in the middle of the street, or will you bring the child back to play on the grass?

Does anyone stop and think real people, investigating Catholicism, looking for “Catholic Answers” read these threads over and wonder if this is the Body of Christ or a religious intellectual gymnastics team.

Or, they might say, wow, there must really be something real here, if people are willing to go through all that to remain faithful.

and I know the importance of Church to Salvation, and it’s not just a “what’s in it for me” deal, but it all seems rather anticlimatic to what started with a Holy Woman the world waited thousands of years to be born, the brightest star in the sky, ever, Angel songs and "Fear not, I bring you good tidings of great joy…
this is not just a question to bait you with a far flung made up scenario. but minus a few details, is very real

Anticlimactic? We believe there is a prize in heaven beyond all compare for those who persevere. The key is to keep your eye on the prize.