BC and Humanae Vitae 15

[st_felicity]

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

I don’t think this means that one can take hormonal BC to deal with medical issues.

1. hormonal BC, in some cases, is not an impediment to procreation, it is abortifacient.

2. hormonal BC does not “cure”–it alleviates some symptoms.

I think, rather, this is referring to such therapeutic interventions such as necessary hysterectomies and the like.

I am concerned that this paragraph is being used to justify and rationalize the use of birth control by Catholics.

Thoughts?

 

[rowermath]

Well, there are other medical reasons for being on birth control other than having had a hysterectomy.

Just a question…are you a medical professional? Is this your well informed medical opinion?

I do see your point. But I’m not sure I can agree with you whole heartedly. I completely agree that birth control and abortion are morally wrong, however there are cases which do warrant patients to be on birth control for non contraceptive reasons. And in these cases, is is her responsibility to not use it as such.

 

[st_felicity]

Well, there are other medical reasons for being on birth control other than having had a hysterectomy.

You misunderstand. I said that I think Humanae Vitae is referring to radical medical interventions–“cures” it says–not simple “treatment” of an ailment. Hormonal treatment being given to a woman with a hysterectomy would be a non-issue, there would be no potential for the loss of conceived life in that instance.

Just a question…are you a medical professional? Is this your well informed medical opinion?

Why the hostile tone?

I do see your point. But I’m not sure I can agree with you whole heartedly. I completely agree that birth control and abortion are morally wrong, however there are cases which do warrant patients to be on birth control for non contraceptive reasons. And in these cases, is is her responsibility to not use it as such.

Certainly–but I have seen on these forums people saying that BC is fine with the Catholic Church if it’s taken for a medical reason other than contraception, and I think that position is a liberal reading of what paragraph 15 says. Hormonal BC does not “cure”–it can alleviate symptoms, but that is not a “cure.” The wording is very precise, so I think the reading of the text should be also.

Secondly, of course it is the individual’s responsibility, but as human beings with sin warped natures, we often find ways to rationalize that which is not pleasing to God. Unless we are confronted with the reality of the teaching of the Church, it is often very easy to ignore that which we should not.

 

[Pug]

How is hysterectomy a genuine cure? A real cure would be to fix the reproductive system so it is no longer malfunctioning. Ripping half of it out doesn’t cure the reproductive system (or cure cancer, either, not in the real sense).

I do think that if someone has an ailment that the pill helps, but they wouldn’t take the pill to treat it except that they want to be able to take contraception in a sort of run about the end type move, well, that sounds like they *are *taking it for contraception.

 

[katillac1]

I’m confused, I’ve been taking hormonal birth control pills for about five years now. I started them in high school because I had painful hormonal acne, irregular and very heavy periods and cramps so bad that I would lie there in agony with pain killers and a heating pad not being able to do anything until they let up. I am also Catholic and am aware of the views the Church has on BC. Am I sinning because I use it for medical purposes? When I get married does this mean I have to go off them and return to the symptoms mentioned above every month?

The posts above indicated that this use of the pills was innappropriate.

 

[Pug]

I’m confused, I’ve been taking hormonal birth control pills for about five years now. I started them in high school because I had painful hormonal acne, irregular and very heavy periods and cramps so bad that I would lie there in agony with pain killers and a heating pad not being able to do anything until they let up. I am also Catholic and am aware of the views the Church has on BC. Am I sinning because I use it for medical purposes? When I get married does this mean I have to go off them and return to the symptoms mentioned above every month?

The posts above indicated that this use of the pills was innappropriate.

The Ask An Apologist threads are a good place to find answers to a personally significant question like this. Not that I am trying to duck yours , just that you probably want to take the word of the professional for it, not mine. Also, your could ask your priest. Please click on this link. I found the answer for you in the AAA threads. The context is a woman with PCOS, which you didn’t say you have, but the “pill” is relevant to that situation, too.

It can be hard to find an answer to your exact question on the open boards. Two different people will quote the same document and come up with three answers. Well, not always, but sometimes!

You have not been sinning, okay?

 

[fix]

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I don’t think this means that one can take hormonal BC to deal with medical issues.

1. hormonal BC, in some cases, is not an impediment to procreation, it is abortifacient.

2. hormonal BC does not “cure”–it alleviates some symptoms.

I think, rather, this is referring to such therapeutic interventions such as necessary hysterectomies and the like.

I am concerned that this paragraph is being used to justify and rationalize the use of birth control by Catholics.

Thoughts?

Do you think the translation of the word cure is as specific as you claim?

 

[katillac1]

Thanks for your help I’ll check that out!

 

[LJN21]

I’m confused, I’ve been taking hormonal birth control pills for about five years now. I started them in high school because I had painful hormonal acne, irregular and very heavy periods and cramps so bad that I would lie there in agony with pain killers and a heating pad not being able to do anything until they let up. I am also Catholic and am aware of the views the Church has on BC. Am I sinning because I use it for medical purposes? When I get married does this mean I have to go off them and return to the symptoms mentioned above every month?

The posts above indicated that this use of the pills was innappropriate.

Well your not taking them for birth control but a hormone treatment which is perfectly moral, as long as your not sexually active there is no chance of using them as Birth Control. Your fine

However, lots of doctors do like to proscribe BC pills as a magical fix all for period problems, but they mask the symptoms instead of finding out what the real problem is causing debilitating symptoms. It might be worth finding a good Doctor who can looking in to the problem deeper to see if you can find a treatment for the problem instead of having to take side effect ridden pills forever.

When you get married it is something I would bring up with my priest and talk to him about because of the seriousness of the side effects (ie infertility, spontaneous miscarriage) caused by them. But slickly speaking, hormone therapy is moral, even if it has the side effect of birth control.

 

[manualman]

For the married, I’ll claim incompetence to decide. That’s one for a trained moral theologian answerable to the Church.

On the medical front, I’m also not competent. BUT I have heard many women affirm that their OBGYN was not interested in spending the time to check on the CAUSES of severe periods when a simple pill prescription would adequately make the offending symptoms go away. Is that a cure? Arguable. But if you are a catholic with intentions to eventually marry, it may be worth your while to find an OBGYN now who is interested in catholic objections to the birth control pill so that you have the TIME necessary to diagnose and perhaps find alternative means to treatment BEFORE you get married and have to make a hard choice.

Give thought to heading the crisis off instead of facing it later. There may not be other treatment available. But wouldn’t it be nice if there IS? Why not find out?

 

[st_felicity]

Posts 9 & 10 reflect my understanding. Perhaps I was hasty in being so specific as to imply that hormones are never appropriate–I didn’t mean that. My concern is that the gravity of using some medical treatments seems to be underplayed in the way this particular paragraph is discussed in some posts on this forum and because of that, some might be mislead to think that ANY medical use other than specifically intending contraception justifies use of hormonal BC.

Pug linked to a post in the Ask an Apologist thread that gives a short answer to a question about whether someone taking hormones to treat a disease should abstain from intercourse.

That post succinctly answers the question and quotes HV#15–which in that case is clearly the correct answer. The person asking the apologist is seeking to do what is morally correct–obviously is concerned about what is appropriate, and questions whether abstaining from sex is also appropriate. However, as seen here, that AAA answer is being used as a general answer to the question of using BC for “medical reasons.” (EDIT: This is not to say that Pug intended that as an answer–Pug’s post was clear to give context of the AAA post–some could read that AAA post as a general answer to the BC question.)

That AAA post links to another post that deals with a question concerning abstinence. In THAT linked-to post, there is an explanation concerning “intention”–INTENTION is the heart of the matter.

I think profound “soul-searching” is incumbent upon a person who is considering a decision to medicate with abortifacient hormones.

I think it’s cavalier and not a little reckless to simply look at Humanae Vitae #15, see a post that addresses a different and specific question that says, “When taken as necessary for therapeutic reasons, use of “the pill” is not immoral” and conclude if there is a medical reason, then taking the pill is not immoral. It MAY very well be immoral.

Some people are truly suffering with debilitating illness, and I can see where after deep contemplation and much prayer, someone could morally choose to medicate that way. However, perhaps I am cynical, but I believe that many would read that explanation, forgo considering that there may be benefit in uniting a degree of discomfort and inconvenience with Christ’s cross, and assume that if the doctor says the heavy flow, cramps, and acne can be alleviated by taking hormones, then that is a justified “therapeutic reason.”

A disease like PCOS is different from uncomfortable periods, but the “treatment” may be the same, and both could be generalized as “therapeutic reasons.” One, I think, can be a morally sound decision, the other, …well…I wouldn’t risk possibly offending God on a “technicality.”

 

[Pug]

I think profound “soul-searching” is incumbent upon a person who is considering a decision to medicate with abortifacient hormones.

I concur. I think it would be best for the questioner to talk with their priest, since he can be told the details, the precise diagnosis, etc. I also completely agree that it depends on some factors. The pill has serious side effects, some of which may not be fair for a wife to accept.

It is the same for other cases as well. Some medications that treat disease can cause birth defects, even for a long time after the drug is stopped. Thus, a wife needs to consider what to do. It is not a given that no matter the disease and no matter the risk that a wife can take the treatment willy nilly. I’m not sure why the question only seems to arise on these boards if it involves female hormones. I don’t mean you, st._felicity, not at all. I just mean in general here. I think those cases help make it clear that not all side effects ought to be accepted.