Birth Control and Period

[Ron_Conte]

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

The following is n. 15 from Humanae Vitae on the vatican.va website:

1. 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)
   vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

The term word intention (intended, intentionally) can refer to either the first font (intention or purpose or reason for choosing the act) or the second font (the moral object of the intentionally chosen act). The moral object is always directly related to the intentionally chosen act. So the phrase ‘directly intended’ refers to the second font, to the intentionally chosen act that is inherently directed at its moral object. And the phrase ‘for any reason whatsoever’ refers to the first font, the reason for choosing the act. The reason of treating a medical disorder does not justify an intentionally chosen act that is directed at deprivation of life of the prenatal, or deprivation of the procreative meaning.

 

[Dr_Paul]

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

Precisely. The object or end that hormonal treatments are inherently directed toward is the alteration of chemical signaling through the estrogen receptor. The action itself is not INTRINSICALLY evil. By itself, it is morally neutral. If the moral object of an act is evil, then the act is ALWAYS immoral regardless of the circumstances.

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.

You are contradicting your own argument. You are using consequences as a criteria for permissibility rather than the object of the action. In treating a woman with synthetic estrogens for a legitimate illness (such as polycystic ovarian syndrome), the object of the treatment (the diseased ovary) is the same whether or not the woman is sexually active or has had a hysterectomy.

BTW, the term “contraception” by definition requires intent to prevent fertility. The Church is very clear that contraception is always evil. Reduction of fertility as an unintended effect of hormonal therapy is not,strictly speaking, contraception.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The following is n. 15 from Humanae Vitae on the vatican.va website:

1. 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)
   vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

The term word intention (intended, intentionally) can refer to either the first font (intention or purpose or reason for choosing the act) or the second font (the moral object of the intentionally chosen act). The moral object is always directly related to the intentionally chosen act. So the phrase ‘directly intended’ refers to the second font, to the intentionally chosen act that is inherently directed at its moral object. And the phrase ‘for any reason whatsoever’ refers to the first font, the reason for choosing the act. The reason of treating a medical disorder does not justify an intentionally chosen act that is directed at deprivation of life of the prenatal, or deprivation of the procreative meaning.

The intentionally chosen act, the correction of a medical defect (the nature of this defect is not specified here) is NOT necessarily directed toward the deprivation of life or the deprivation of procreative meaning. If it is DIRECTED toward this end, then it is immoral. However, if it is DIRECTED toward the curing of illness, then it is permissible even if the result impedes procreation. This would include the correction of ovarian dysfunction.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The moral object is the end in terms of morality toward which the act is inherently directed.

But you have misunderstood the moral object as if it were the object in terms of physical effects or medical effects, not morality.

The intention is the intended end, the reason for choosing the act; this has no effect on the moral object.

When the term intention or deliberate is used with reference to the moral object, the meaning is that the act is intentionally chosen or deliberately chosen.

But you have misunderstood intrinsic evil as if it were determined by the intended end.

The term directed refers to the very nature of the act itself, to its inherent ordering toward an end in terms of morality. The act itself is intentionally chosen, but the will cannot choose to direct the same act toward one moral object or another. The only choice that effects the moral object is the choice of one type of act or another.

You have misunderstood the term directed, as if it referred to intention rather than to the intrinsic ordering of the act itself.

You have not properly understood each of the three fonts and how they apply to the evaluation of knowingly chosen acts.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Ron,

I do very much appreciate the time and effort that you have made in your posts.

As I have read and re-read several times what you have written I am not entirely sure that you understand my point of contention or that I fully understand what you are saying about the morality of the topic of this thread.

To clarify, I believe that we are discussing whether the administration of medications that are marketed as oral contraceptives or birth control pills are intrinsically evil and whether they can ever be used in medical therapy related to the original poster’s question about irregular periods.

For simplicity, I will refer to these medications as OCPs, though this is misleading since contraception is only one possible use of these medications.

The first question is primary, because if this act is indeed intrinsically evil, then there is no need to discuss whether their use for treatment of irregular periods is immoral.

It seems to me that you are indeed arguing that taking oral contraceptive pills is intrinsically evil. If I am incorrect in your assertion, please let me know.

Intrinsic evils are those acts that by their very nature are evil, or using your language are inherently directed toward immorality. I argue that OCPs are not intrinsically evil because the object or end of the act of giving these medications by itself is neither moral or immoral. The morality of altering of ovarian function depends upon external factors.

What I see you arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong here) is that the moral object or end is the reduction of fertility and that this is inherently immoral. Therefore, any therapy that by its very nature reduces fertility is intrinsically evil.

I understand and fully agree that the moral end does not depend upon the intention of the one who commits the act (specifically here the desire of the physician who prescribes the OCP or patient who seeks treatment)

I would like to say much more about this but I will let you respond first to what I have written here so that the point of discussion remains clear.

 

[New_Yorker]

I think the operative distinction is understanding “contracepted sex.” The hormonal treatment is NOT intrinsically evil. It may be medically wise and necessary. However, if the women has sex during the hormonal treatment, that would constitute contracepted sex.

Medical procedures and treatments which render the body more capable of performing a natural function are acceptable. This is why HV makes an exception for “therapeutic means.” But allowing therapeutic means does not then allow contracepted sex while the body’s fertility is being masked by therapeutic means.

For instance, a hysterectomy is therapeutic means. After that procedure, the women is unable to ever conceive. She is infertile. According to the Natural Law, and Catholic Church, an infertile woman CAN have sexual relations, as long as the infertility was not brought about for this purpose.

But in the example you give, there is no permanent infertility - the woman’s fertility is temporarily masked (by therapeutic means for a different purpose). The medical procedure is not intrinsically evil. It’s good. However, having sex while fertility is temporarily masked is contracepted sex. This is not permissible.

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).

Intent is not a sufficient reason to permit contracepted sex, just as it says in HV.

Of course, based on the natural law and Magisterium, you must distinguish between a couple that is permanently sterilized (NOT for the purpose of birth control), through medication or birth, and one that has fertility temporarily masked through medical treatment (which is allowed). In the first case, sex is permitted b/c the couples are using their sexual organs in the proper fashion where fertility is impossible. The Natural Law permits this because that is the function of sexual organs.

Where the treatment is therapeutic and temporary, that means the body is being contracepted. There is a difference between temporary contraception and sterility. Sterility is a biological condition, not contraception.

With temporary contraception, as permitted by the Natural Law and HV 15, one cannot have recourse to sexual intercourse, NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENT IS.

he opinion of Dr. Anthony Dardano, a pro-life physician (addressing a question on use of birth control pills for a specific medical condition, but we can extrapolate):

The use of the birth control pill as a medical therapeutic agent may be justifiable if certain conditions are met. First and foremost, the primary intent must be a medical therapy for a condition which is treatable by ovulation suppression. Ovarian cysts are a good example of this. By stopping ovulation for a few months, it gives the cysts a chance to regress. Frequently, surgery can thus be avoided and pain relief can be dramatic. However, with the lower dose pills of today, ovulation is not always completely stopped. If pregnancy were to occur it might very well be aborted by the action of the pill.Therefore, if a woman is prescribed a pill for medical reasons, she must refrain from sexual intercourse during the therapy and only then would it be morally acceptable.

See clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/2007sept-oct.pdf .

Another physician, Dr. Paul Hayes, weighs in:

Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.

The rest of his answer at all.org/article.php?id=10162 addresses the medical advisability of using birth control pills for medical reasons. He offers alternatives. It is worth reading.

That which is intrinsically evil remains so, despite “intent.”

Sorry for the length. I hope this helps.

 

[New_Yorker]

And you’ll find the answer quite clear in Humanae Vitae. A woman can take birth control to correct a medical issue, it is not a sin. And she does not have to refrain from sex.

Birth control can be medically necessary

Indeed, birth control can be medically necessary. Everyone agrees. HV states that a woman may resort to therapeutic means.

But where, in HV, does it state that a women, who is taking therapeutic birth control, may have sexual relations?

It doesn’t. Those who think it does are putting too much emphasis on what HV doesn’t say, and ignoring the Natural Law and Teachings, as expressed in this Thread. Not to mention that couples who have sex while a woman is on the pill are sinning through having contracepted sex and risking actual abortions.

That’s murder.

 

[New_Yorker]

It does. HV states:
Observing the Natural Law

MY COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED BELOW IN BOLD

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile.

POINT #1
THIS IS A RINGING ENDORSEMENT OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING. COUPLES CAN HAVE RECOURSE TO SEXUAL RELATIONS WHEN THE WOMAN IS INFERTILE

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation —whether as an end or as a means. (16)

POINT #2
HOWEVER, THE COUPLE CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH PREVENTS PROCREATION. THIS PROHIBITS CONTRACEPTION

1. 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)

**SO, MEDICINE THAT CURES DISEASES ARE ACCEPTABLE, EVEN IF THE MEDICINE SHOULD IMPAIR “PROCREATION” (I.E. IF IT MASKS A WOMAN’S FERTILITY). YOU MAY TAKE THE MEDICINE, BUT YOU MAY NOT PROCREATE.

IF ABC IMPAIRS PROCREATION, IT IS CONTRACEPTIVE. SEE POINT #2 - IT IMPAIRS PROCREATION EITHER AS AN END OR A MEANS.

HOWEVER, IF THE WOMAN IS NATURALLY INFERTILE, AND HER FERTILITY IS NOT BEING MASKED OR SUPPRESSED (FOR INSTANCE, INFERTILE PART OF THE CYCLE OR MENOPAUSE), THAT IS NOT CONTRACEPTION. (SEE POINT #1).**

As far as causing abortions by having sex while a woman is on ABC (for other reasons), that is evil and sinful. Whether a pregnancy or miscarriage is unintended or not makes no difference because contracepted sex is evil regardless of intent or circumstances.

The “intention” argument is the same argument that pro-aborts use - the pregnancy was not “intended” so it can be terminated. Intent is not the issue here, and you shouldn’t confuse “will” with intent. They are different. With contracepted sex, a person is willing a sexual act that is prohibited. Intent doesn’t matter because the act is intrinsically evil.

If the intent matters, then you can abort a child borne of rape. But this is not permitted, either.

For the difference between will and intent, see below:

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

 

[New_Yorker]

You are merely a layperson. I accept the statements of a Priest, over your interpretation of HV, and personal opinion and views.

You are a stranger to reason, and blindly supplicate to authority. Do you think that no priests differ with this one priest’s interpretation?

 

[New_Yorker]

I am no stranger to reason. I will not stoop to making personal attacks. And since that is the direction in which you are trying to steer the discussion…

(Supplicate: to ask humbly and earnestly of.)

I supplicate to Christ and his Church. I don’t worship Fr. Serpa, though I have great respect for him.

 

[budgie2]

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!

As far as I know the pill won’t make her ovulate, and it will only abort. It will make her bleed but it won’t make her ovulate so the bleeding is irrelevant. It is a sin to prescribe the pill for absence of period, but she shouldn’t take it if she understands how the pill works. If I’m not ovulating I’d prefer not to have a period full stop as it’s just messy and the pill doesn’t improve fertility. Ask her to see a priest. NFP might also help her understand her fertility.

 

[SandyRingham]

Budgie2, how can you say it is a sin to take birth control for the absence of periods? A woman not menstruating regularly is very serious, the linings of the uterus can build up instead of being evacuated each month. Eventually the excess linings become cancerous. It can be very serious, but as mentioned by others it is important to find out the reason behind this absence of periods. And not just prescribe the pill without trying to cure cause. In some cases the pill is the cure to the cause, but not always, sometimes it only masks the symptoms of a disease. If it is the cure, how is that sinful? With that type of use isn’t it a healing medication, and not a contraceptive?

 

[SandyRingham]

NewYork, I just registered so the terms and conditions that I just agreed to are clear in my mind. One term was that the messages posted must be polite and free of personal attacks. Stating that someone prays to, and worships a priest instead of Jesus is very insulting, I saw no evidence to support your claim, it seems like an attack to me. Sorry, but that is against the board rules. I can see the person’s point of view, most Catholics would take the advise of a clergyman over a stranger on the internet, whom they don’t know. I think it would be best not to act as though you have full knowledge of this person or anyone else on here, none of us do. Please don’t take this the wrong way I am not trying single you out or insult you, but to remind you to refrain from personal attacks. We can question and disagree with each others statements, but we should keep it civil.

Moving on, I’ve read your posts, and how you feel about contraception. How did you form your opinion? You seem very passionate about speaking against contracepted sex and abortion, one cannot fault you for that, it is very noble. Your profile says you are a NFP instructor, what natural methods do you teach/recommend? Which are the most reliable? May I ask if you are male or female? If you are female, are there male NFP instructors? I really look forward to reading your answers and learning more about NFP.