Birth Control but not SA

  • Thread starter Thread starter scc11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scc11

Guest
Hi Guys,
I used contraceptives a couple of times on different occassions at one point but not for birth control. I used it to see if it would help with menstrual problems but I am NOT sexually active. Have I committed a sin. If so, what should I do? I no longer use them because they are not accepted in the church and they do more harm then good.
 
scc11 said:
Hi Guys,
I used contraceptives a couple of times on different occassions at one point but not for birth control. I used it to see if it would help with menstrual problems but I am NOT sexually active. Have I committed a sin. If so, what should I do? I no longer use them because they are not accepted in the church and they do more harm then good.
Click to expand...
No, for health it is acceptable.
 
The use of contraceptives for medical reasons is not a sin, especially if you are not sexually active. What makes it a sin is when you use them to deliberately to stop conception, and when the contraception causes an abortion because it stops an fertilized egg from implanting.

Neither of those scenarios are at play here, so you are fine.

Even if you did use contraception, but you used it for medical purposes, that would be licit in the eyes of the Church. The key is that you are not using them for contraception, but for a medical treatment. It’s the classic double effect.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
No, for health it is acceptable.
Click to expand...
I fully agree - however if one is married AFBC is not an acceptable method of treatment unless the couple is willing to abstain from the matrial embrace for the duration of this particular treatment.
 
jmjconder said:
I fully agree - however if one is married AFBC is not an acceptable method of treatment unless the couple is willing to abstain from the matrial embrace for the duration of this particular treatment.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see some documentation that supports this statement. I’ve been under the impression that “double effect” is at play in this situation, that the unintended consequence of the medication is causing temporary artificial infertility, meaning the couple can renew their marriage covenant during that time.
 
jmjconder said:
I fully agree - however if one is married AFBC is not an acceptable method of treatment unless the couple is willing to abstain from the matrial embrace for the duration of this particular treatment.
Click to expand...
This is not necessarily the case – the Catechism itself states it is licit for couples to use oral contraception for legitimate medical reasons and still enjoy conjugal union.

What is true, I think, is that the medical necessity must be indeed grave: that is, it must be correcting some kind of condition (such as psychiatric problems arising from hormonal imbalances due to menstrual problems), not merely alleviating discomfort.
 
Melchior said:
I’d like to see some documentation that supports this statement. I’ve been under the impression that “double effect” is at play in this situation, that the unintended consequence of the medication is causing temporary artificial infertility, meaning the couple can renew their marriage covenant during that time.
Click to expand...
That is correct. While I would probably err on the side of caution and try to refrain from relations during treatment, the church does not place an obligation to do so.
 
scc11 said:
Hi Guys,
I used contraceptives a couple of times on different occassions at one point but not for birth control. I used it to see if it would help with menstrual problems but I am NOT sexually active. Have I committed a sin. If so, what should I do? I no longer use them because they are not accepted in the church and they do more harm then good.
Click to expand...
please talk to your priest in confession about this because your understanding is not in line with Church teaching, which allows use of contraceptive drugs to treat other medical conditions when they are warranted for that used, and not used to contracept. You are right, there are also many legitimate medical reasons not to use these drugs, and that is a conversation to have with your doctor, but you have not sinned if you take a drug to treat a medical condition, which happens to have contraception as a side effect, but which you are not using for that purpose.
 
scc11 said:
Hi Guys,
I used contraceptives a couple of times on different occassions at one point but not for birth control. I used it to see if it would help with menstrual problems but I am NOT sexually active. Have I committed a sin. If so, what should I do? I no longer use them because they are not accepted in the church and they do more harm then good.
Click to expand...
I do not believe this kind of use would be considered a sin, however I am not a priest.

The way you worded your post, however, I am not sure you were under the advice of a doctor when you did this. Were you? Usually a doctor will prescribe BCPs for a certain period of time, not just a “couple of times on different occasions.” If you have menstrual problems, please continue to seek medical advice. There are other treatments for gynecological problems, you do not have to take birth control.
 
scc11 said:
Hi Guys,
I used contraceptives a couple of times on different occassions at one point but not for birth control. I used it to see if it would help with menstrual problems but I am NOT sexually active. Have I committed a sin. If so, what should I do? I no longer use them because they are not accepted in the church and they do more harm then good.
Click to expand...
No, there was no sin.
 
It needs to be pointed out that any contraceptive is not contraceptive if no intercourse is going on. Therefor, it’s a medication used for a medical purpose.

Best to think of the Church’s prohibition of contracepted sex.
 
When I say “a couple of time” I mean that I was on a particular brand and stopped that for a period of time due to complications… I then went on a different brand to see if it would be any different and come to find out it wasn’t. I am not married, not sexually active, nor have I ever been.
 
scc11 said:
When I say “a couple of time” I mean that I was on a particular brand and stopped that for a period of time due to complications… I then went on a different brand to see if it would be any different and come to find out it wasn’t. I am not married, not sexually active, nor have I ever been.
Click to expand...
Again, were you under the care of a doctor?
 
jmjconder said:
I fully agree - however if one is married AFBC is not an acceptable method of treatment unless the couple is willing to abstain from the matrial embrace for the duration of this particular treatment.
Click to expand...
What?
Where have you seen that?
Or is it a principle of yours?
 
jmjconder said:
I fully agree - however if one is married AFBC is not an acceptable method of treatment unless the couple is willing to abstain from the matrial embrace for the duration of this particular treatment.
Click to expand...
I really hope that’s not true. Giving up such a powerful and special act with the person you love just because you have to take medication for a medical problem is very sad.
 
The church has not declared the chemical formula within the pill to be intrinsically evil! The evil is the intent to intentionally sterilize otherwise fertile sex.

That’s simply not applicable to a single, chaste person. There are no moral issues here.

For medical down sides and side effects of hormonal contraception, see your doctor.
 
Thank you for answering this question! I appreciate the help so much as I am having a similar problem and was hunting through church documents trying to find an answer!

Does anyone know where this information is actually located in church texts so I have some citations to further back this in an argument?
 
Talapadme said:
Thank you for answering this question! I appreciate the help so much as I am having a similar problem and was hunting through church documents trying to find an answer!

Does anyone know where this information is actually located in church texts so I have some citations to further back this in an argument?
Click to expand...
From Humane Vitae
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

"Lawful Therapeutic Means
  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)"
 
Taking tri-cyclen lo, tri-norinyl, yasmin, cyclessa, apri, or etc. for menstrual purposes cannot be considered using ‘birth control.’

However, using such products in conjunction with rendering the marital debt is tantamount to the intention to commit murder.

These “therapeutic means” are known not only to be contraceptive, that is, make fertilization of the ovum more difficult, but also well known to be contragestive to a fertilized ovum, making either the uterus inhabitable/less habitable or by promoting the expulsion of the product of conception. That’s why the “pill” is often called an abortifacient by honest medical professionals.

I know that the original poster said this is not a consideration in her case, but I have read some posters reply something to the effect that they couldn’t see giving up that “special” part of marriage merely on the account of treatment of a disease. Well, okay…if a person is resigned to the murder of children so that he or she doesn’t have to give up that special part of marriage, that makes it all right, right??

– Nicole
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top