Birth Control and Period

[HNA444]

Sorry , I know this has probably already been discussed on the threads, but I was curious because I have a friend in a situation. She hasn’t had a regular period in a year, and her doctor is now putting her on birth control for 3 months (which she says is not long). in my opinion , I think going on birth control would not be good for your health or ovaries , but as in sinful, is it a sin to go on birth control for this reason? And, if anyone knows, I’m wondering what exactly the birth control does that makes it seem that it regulates the period ? Thank you!

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry , I know this has probably already been discussed on the threads, but I was curious because I have a friend in a situation. She hasn’t had a regular period in a year, and her doctor is now putting her on birth control for 3 months (which she says is not long). in my opinion , I think going on birth control would not be good for your health or ovaries , but as in sinful, is it a sin to go on birth control for this reason? And, if anyone knows, I’m wondering what exactly the birth control does that makes it seem that it regulates the period ? Thank you!

I would direct you to the the Paul VI Institute…popepaulvi.com/

If she is married …and thus sexually active…I would be concerned about the abortive effects…and even if not…there are a number of adverse health effects…

 

[Rence]

Sorry , I know this has probably already been discussed on the threads, but I was curious because I have a friend in a situation. She hasn’t had a regular period in a year, and her doctor is now putting her on birth control for 3 months (which she says is not long). in my opinion , I think going on birth control would not be good for your health or ovaries , but as in sinful, is it a sin to go on birth control for this reason? And, if anyone knows, I’m wondering what exactly the birth control does that makes it seem that it regulates the period ? Thank you!

No, it is not sinful, according to Humanae Vitae, to go on birth control to treat medical conditions. The sin, according to the Church, is when you go on birth control to avoid pregnancies.

We’re not allowed to give medical advise on this forum, but there there are well known side effects for taking the Pill, such as risk for blood clots, pulmonary embolism and stroke with long term use.

Sometimes birth control pills helps alleviate a lot of the problems that women have like profuse bleeding (some need transfusions) during periods, debilitating periods, ovarian cysts, fibroid tumors, endometriosis, ect. I have a friend that tried several medical interventions for years (including a few surgeries) to alleviate her suffering from endometriosis, before she finally went on birth control, which really helped her.

I do know of some people who went on ABCs for a few months. For some of them, the problem was resolved, for others, the problems came back.

Some people try here: popepaulvi.com/
for alternative treatments, but I don’t know anything about them, how they work, how much they cost, if there are doctors in your area from this institution, etc. From what I understand, you have to either go there, or find a doctor in your area which can limit their availability. But you won’t know until you try.

 

[Bookcat]

naprotechnology.com/links.htm

 

[Dr_Paul]

Perhaps I can add a little more information about why “birth control pills” can be helpful in treating irregular periods. I put this treatment in quotes since it seems to me to be more appropriate to refer to the treatment as cyclic estrogen/progesterone when one really is not intending to use these medications for birth control. That is an unintended side effect of the treatment.

The most common indication for using hormonal treatment of irregular periods is polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Normally, during a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle, the production of estrogen and progesterone is well regulated, with estrogen leading first to a build up in the uterine lining and maturation of a single egg from the ovary. Progesterone is produced after the egg is released leading the blood vessels in the uterus to become organized. When progesterone levels fall, the uterine lining is released and menses ensues. In PCOS there is abnormal regulation of the ovaries leading them to secrete more androgens (hormones that can cause hair growth and acne). Treatment with estrogens and progestins (what is contained in birth control pills) will allow the estrogen and progesterone levels to be regulated.

I am often frustrated that doctors are more focused on treating the symptoms rather than establishing the underlying cause and treating that. For PCOS, drugs such as metformin can be very effective in correcting the underlying problem of insulin resistance. There are other reasons for irregular periods that require other treatments.

With any treatment, there are always risks and benefits that need to be considered. This includes consideration of abortive potential. One needs to weight all of this in coming to the right decision on therapy. When estrogen and progesterone are used to treat legitimate medical disorders (fertility is NOT a disorder), their use is not sinful.

Hope this helps.

 

[manualman]

Consider this analogy. A car is supposed to have a functional battery to power the starter motor when you want to start the engine. What if your car kept getting dead batteries and your mechanic tried to sell you a plug-in device used to power the starter motor externally every time you wanted to start the car? Crazy! What is needed is to figure out why the battery keeps dying and FIX it!

When a woman is healthy, her body makes her own hormones at various stages of the cycle that prompt the changes that lead to periods. Search around for a doctor interested in first trying to correct what is wrong rather than right away resign you to dependency on outside stimulii.

 

[Ponyguy]

I’m no physician, and also not a female… but personally, I would let the physician know my personal religious and moral convictions and objections, then let the physician do his job and contrive an expedient treatment compatible with those principles.

 

[Gloria1]

I agree with Ponyguy. If there is any other way then avoid going on a birth control but in a situation where there is no other choice, allow the physician to do his job. If you decide to go on a birth control (all by yourself) then that is a different story but in a situation where the physician is the one putting you on a birth control, you have no choice and that is not a sin in my opinion.

 

[PatriceA]

Consider this analogy. A car is supposed to have a functional battery to power the starter motor when you want to start the engine. What if your car kept getting dead batteries and your mechanic tried to sell you a plug-in device used to power the starter motor externally every time you wanted to start the car? Crazy! What is needed is to figure out why the battery keeps dying and FIX it!

When a woman is healthy, her body makes her own hormones at various stages of the cycle that prompt the changes that lead to periods. Search around for a doctor interested in first trying to correct what is wrong rather than right away resign you to dependency on outside stimulii.

Absolutely agree. Make sure your friend has a doctor that has thorougly pursued all the angles of the situation. Birth Control is too often a simple fix for many doctors.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The deliberate use of birth control (artificial contraception) by a woman who is sexually active deprives the marital act of the procreative meaning, and so is intrinsically evil.

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).

Intrinsically evil acts, such as contraception and abortion, are not justified by any intention, or purpose, or circumstance whatsoever.

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.)

Moreover, the use of abortifacient contraception is a type of direct abortion, which is also intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The passage from Humanae Vitae 15 regarding therapeutic procedures must be understood in the context of the whole of the Church’s teaching on ethics. The Magisterium clearly and definitively teaches that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. Only a therapeutic procedure, such as a hysterectomy, which is not intrinsically evil can be justified by that passage.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Sorry , I know this has probably already been discussed on the threads, but I was curious because I have a friend in a situation. She hasn’t had a regular period in a year, and her doctor is now putting her on birth control for 3 months (which she says is not long). in my opinion , I think going on birth control would not be good for your health or ovaries , but as in sinful, is it a sin to go on birth control for this reason? And, if anyone knows, I’m wondering what exactly the birth control does that makes it seem that it regulates the period ? Thank you!

Another thing - the pill is good at masking symptoms - not curing them.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The passage from Humanae Vitae 15 regarding therapeutic procedures must be understood in the context of the whole of the Church’s teaching on ethics. The Magisterium clearly and definitively teaches that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. Only a therapeutic procedure, such as a hysterectomy, which is not intrinsically evil can be justified by that passage.

What is the basis for the assertion that the use of the hormone estrogen (or synthetic compounds that mimic the action of estrogen) is INTRINSICALLY evil?

 

[Ron_Conte]

What is the basis for the assertion that the use of the hormone estrogen (or synthetic compounds that mimic the action of estrogen) is INTRINSICALLY evil?

If a woman both takes a chemical contraceptive and is sexually active, then the contraceptive deprives the marital act of the procreative meaning. If she is not sexually active, there is no such deprivation. The deprivation of the procreative meaning from the marital act makes the moral object evil, and the act intrinsically evil.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (HV, n. 11)

The marital act must always be inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning (as well as the unitive meaning) in order to be moral. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because it deprives the marital act of the procreative meaning.

“Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” (HV, n. 14)

Pontifical Council for the Family: “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.” (Vademecum [Go with me] for Confessors concerning some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 2-4.)

Any intentionally chosen act, that is, any deliberate act, which is inherently directed at depriving sexual relations of the procreative meaning, is intrinsically evil. The purpose for which the act is chosen cannot change the inherent disorder of a deliberately chosen contraceptive act.

 

[manualman]

But Ron, the subject here is not primarily contraception. It is the use of external hormone treatments to correct a malfunction in a woman’s mentrual cycle. If the desired effect is the correction of the bodily malfunction when other means have been exhausted (see my post above) and the bodily malfunction has serious consequences I believe this would fall under “double effect.”

If the patient does not desire the contraceptive effect, but needs those hormones to correct a hormone imbalance that other treatments have not been able to correct (something yet to be verified in this case) then the contraceptive side effect of the therapy is not sinful. But part of the double effect requirement is that you attempt to find other solutions that do not have the undesired side effect and cannot find any.

 

[Dr_Paul]

If a woman both takes a chemical contraceptive and is sexually active, then the contraceptive deprives the marital act of the procreative meaning. If she is not sexually active, there is no such deprivation. The deprivation of the procreative meaning from the marital act makes the moral object evil, and the act intrinsically evil.

If the evilness of taking a hormone (AKA contraceptive) is dependent upon the circumstances in which it is used (i.e. whether a woman taking the medication is sexually active or not), then it is not intrinsically evil. There are no circumstances where actions such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery are not evil. They are evil by their very nature (i.e. intrinsically evil).

 

[Ron_Conte]

But Ron, the subject here is not primarily contraception. It is the use of external hormone treatments to correct a malfunction in a woman’s mentrual cycle. If the desired effect is the correction of the bodily malfunction when other means have been exhausted (see my post above) and the bodily malfunction has serious consequences I believe this would fall under “double effect.”

If the patient does not desire the contraceptive effect, but needs those hormones to correct a hormone imbalance that other treatments have not been able to correct (something yet to be verified in this case) then the contraceptive side effect of the therapy is not sinful. But part of the double effect requirement is that you attempt to find other solutions that do not have the undesired side effect and cannot find any.

There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances.

The desired effect is the intended end of the act.
The moral object determines whether or not an act is intrinsically evil.
Intention and circumstances can never justify an intrinsically evil act.
The principle of double effect can never justify an intrinsically evil act.

If the patient does not desire the contraceptive effect, but desires health, then health is the intended end. But a good intended end cannot justify an intrinsically evil means. Moreover, the patient is able to use the drug and to refrain from sexual relations, so that good end can be obtained without the sin of contraception.

Contraception is not a side effect; when a sexually active women uses an abortifacient contraceptive, the type of act that she has chosen is inherently immoral, not only as contraception, but also as abortion.

Furthermore, when we evaluate the circumstances of the use of abortifacient contraception, the bad consequence that successive prenatals are killed by the abortifacient outweighs the good of being able to continue to have marital relations.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If the evilness of taking a hormone (AKA contraceptive) is dependent upon the circumstances in which it is used (i.e. whether a woman taking the medication is sexually active or not), then it is not intrinsically evil. There are no circumstances where actions such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery are not evil. They are evil by their very nature (i.e. intrinsically evil).

The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil. See the quotes in my previous post.

Any factor that seems like a circumstance, but which pertains to the moral object, is not a circumstance, in the third font, but is part of the very nature of the act. Whether or not a woman who takes the contraceptive pill is sexually active determines the moral object, determines whether or not her choice deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil. See the quotes in my previous post.

Any factor that seems like a circumstance, but which pertains to the moral object, is not a circumstance, in the third font, but is part of the very nature of the act. Whether or not a woman who takes the contraceptive pill is sexually active determines the moral object, determines whether or not her choice deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

I do very much appreciate your comments, but it is very important to clarify what is meant by an intrinsically evil act.

Ron, please help me out here. I don’t see anywhere in the evidence you presented in your earlier post where the church teaches that using hormonal treatments for the purpose of treating legitimate medical illness is intrinsically evil (I stress that fertility is NOT an illness). In CCC #2399 what is being taught is that a couple’s legitimate intention to delay or refrain from conceiving a child does not justify illicit means to accomplish this. Examples included are contraception and direct sterilization. By your own acknowledgment, having a hysterectomy for treatment of a legitimate medical illness is not intrinsically evil despite the fact that this does in fact result in sterilization. As manualman correctly said, this is an example of the principle of the double effect.

In CCC#1756 I don’t see hormone treatment in the examples given for intrinsically evil acts.

Humanae vitae speaks about deliberate contraception. Note that deliberate is highlighted. It is not discussing legitimate treatments that produce as an undesired side effect changes in fertility.

You are correct that in applying the principle of the double effect one can never use an intrinsically evil action to bring about a good result. However, I continue to challenge your assertion that hormonal treatments are INTRINSICALLY evil. When used for the purpose of contraception, they are indeed evil. However, there are legitimate uses for these medications. In a situation where a married woman who has the potential to ovulate needs to take these hormonal treatments for a serious medical condition it is appropriate to discuss the potential abortifacient effect and refraining from sexual activity is the best way to prevent this from happening. This is not applicable if one is using these medications in a situation where the woman is already infertile (for example with premature ovarian failure, someone who has previously had a hysterectomy, postmenopausal women, etc).

The reason why sexual activity while taking some hormone treatments is problematic is not that the treatment itself becomes evil, it is because it is much more difficult to have proportionality between the undesired consequence of the action and the intended good effect.

 

[Dr_Paul]

See also #15 in Humanae vitae

1. The Church, moreover, does allow the use of medical treatment necessary for curing diseases of the body although this treatment may thwart one’s ability to procreate. Such treatment is permissible even if the reduction of fertility is foreseen, as long as the infertility is not directly intended for any reason whatsoever. 19

 

[Ron_Conte]

The moral object determines whether or not an act is intrinsically evil. The moral object is the end in terms of morality toward which the act is inherently directed. It is not the intended end or the purpose for which the act was chosen.

I did not say that hormonal treatments (by which you mean the same hormones used in abortifacient contraceptives) are intrinsically evil. An act is intrinsically evil if it has an evil moral object. The description of ‘hormonal treatments’ does not contain enough information to determine the moral object. A woman who is not sexually active, or who is infertile due to old age, injury, previous hysterectomy (to treat a medical disorder) can use an abortifacient contraceptive only if and when this medication would not be abortive or contraceptive.

Some ‘hormonal treatments’ are intrinsically evil, because they deprive the sexual act of the procreative meaning and/or deprive the prenatal of life. Other hormonal treatments are moral.

The principle of double effect never justifies an intrinsically evil act:
Ascension Health on the principle of double effect
ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81rinciple-of-double-effect&Itemid=171

You will not find a magisterial document giving blanket approval or condemnation for ‘hormonal treatments’ because the moral object is not clear from that general term. There are documents that condemn all contraception in any form, and all direct abortion in any form, whether as an end or as a means.

The intention to contracept, i.e. deliberate contraception, is in the first font of morality (the intended end or purpose for which the act was chosen). Whether or not a deliberately chosen (intentionally chosen) act is contraception or abortion depends on the moral object, not the intention. Choosing direct abortion with the intention of saving the life of the mother is still intrinsically evil, even though the prenatal’s death is not deliberately intended, because the deliberately chosen act is inherently ordered toward the death of the prenatal.

Whether or not the abortion or the contraception is intended or desired does not determine if it is an effect in the third font (consequences) or the moral object. Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered regardless of the intentions or desires of the person deliberately choosing that act.

When a ‘hormonal treatment’ deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning OR deprives an innocent prenatal of life, then that treatment is abortive or contraceptive. When such a treatment does not abortive or contraceptive, then it may be moral.

Whenever a magisterial document uses a term such as deliberate or intentional, we must distinguish which font is being referred to. The deliberate intention can never make an intrinsically evil act moral. For example, direct abortion to save the life of the mother is never moral. The intention is to save the life of the mother, but the deliberately chosen act itself (the intentionally chosen act) is inherently directed at the deprivation of life of the prenatal.

Veritatis Splendor makes it very clear that the intention or purpose for which the act is chosen cannot change the moral object.

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.)

See this document from the USCCB committee on doctrine:**
The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures**
usccb.org/doctrine/publications.shtml