Birth Control to stop pain

[Xantippe]

And yet if you ask three priests to interpret this stuff for you, you may well get three different answers.

I know one traditional, albeit with full diocesan faculties, priest who routinely says that the use of the Marquette NFP method, no matter what the reason, is by definition sinful because the fertility monitor is too accurate and therefore contraceptive.

And we’ve all heard of priests who tell a couple that it’s okay, just go get sterilized because the Church doesn’t mean for things to be so difficult on them.

Right.

When you need a definitive moral theology answer, you don’t go to some random pastor. That’s just like when you have a very specific medical problem, you don’t expect that your family doctor will do your heart surgery or oversee your chemo.

Hence, I recommend consulting with the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

 

[Xantippe]

Hi everyone, been gone for a while but this isn’t the first time I’ve gotten the impression that some Catholics see “birth control” the same way some evangelical Christians see “Demon Rum”, or even how some secular humanists demonize firearms. ** That the fact that a substance/object has been used for immoral reasons, means it is illicit to use them even for moral reasons. Or that somehow, people are obligated to use ABC only as an absolute last resort. **

However, I also realize that some of this antipathy toward “birth control” is a backlash towards those who use “health reasons” to actually approve the use of “birth control” for expressly contraceptive purposes. Even some priests have counseled that it’s OK to use ABC to avoid pregnancy if that would put a “woman’s health at risk”.

**I even recall a number of posts from CAFers proudly proclaiming that they were taking advantage of the “health exception” to use ABC and were happy they didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant. ** That attitude seems to fly in the face of the idea from Humane Vitae that medicinal use of hormones that have contraceptive effects is only licit if “such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever”.

I think that the belief that birth control pills must be a last resort (even if they are the cheapest, most convenient, safest, most fertility-preserving treatment and the mainstream treatment for a particular condition) is unfortunately a thing. It is, sadly, possible to wind up permanently losing one’s fertility to heroic efforts to avoid taking birth control pills to control severe gynecological conditions.

The attitude you describe in your third paragraph is also a thing, but I suspect less common. While yippee-I’m-not-going-to-get-pregnant! is not very edifying, I don’t think a little natural human relief at getting a break (especially in the face of a history of nasty gynecological conditions) is supposed to rule out the therapeutic use of birth control pills. If birth control pills are objectively the best treatment for a condition, they are the best treatment. I would certainly not encourage scrupulosity in that situation, as I’ve seen a multitude of posts on CAF from women suffering debilitating gynecological issues who hesitated to follow their OB/GYN’s advice. If anything, I think scrupulous avoiders of licit treatment outnumber (or at least equal to) the Yippee! crowd on CAF–which is more or less what you would expect. And given the extreme physical damage that medical neglect can cause, I feel less concerned about people “getting away” with something than the human suffering caused by the other extreme.

 

[Xantippe]

More personally, I took 3 or 4 weeks of birth control pills 5 years ago, the first time I’ve ever done so.

The situation was that I had had a late miscarriage (baby died at 13 weeks and I delivered around 15 weeks). Unfortunately, a month or two later, I started bleeding extremely heavily for an extended period of time. By the time I turned to my OB/GYN, I had had an episode where I went to the bathroom early in the morning and collapsed on the way back to bed, because I was so weak. My husband said I was literally green from the blood loss that day.

We went to my doctor and she prescribed a course of birth control pills to stop the bleeding and a heavy program of iron supplementation. I was initially hesitant, but the situation was extremely dire, as are many gynecological problems. I followed my doctor’s advice to the letter (although I got permission to quit the pills early, as they put me into depression), coming slowly out of a state where five minutes of walking would wind me, and in about two more months (at literally the first possible opportunity), I was pregnant with a new baby, who is now 4 years old.

So, I have a lot to thank conventional medicine for. I don’t even want to know what would have happened to me if I hadn’t followed my doctor’s advice.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The attitude you describe in your third paragraph is also a thing, but I suspect less common. While yippee-I’m-not-going-to-get-pregnant! is not very edifying, I don’t think a little natural human relief at getting a break (especially in the face of a history of nasty gynecological conditions) is supposed to rule out the therapeutic use of birth control pills.

I agree that some “natural human relief” is only, well, human. But the posts I recall made it very obvious that some people taking ABC for a “health exception” saw it as merely a technical loophole they were happy to take advantage of. One wasn’t even from a woman, it was from a man who hated using NFP and was overjoyed when his wife began to take the Pill for “health reasons”.

If birth control pills are objectively the best treatment for a condition, they are the best treatment. I would certainly not encourage scrupulosity in that situation, as I’ve seen a multitude of posts on CAF from women suffering debilitating gynecological issues who hesitated to follow their OB/GYN’s advice. If anything, I think scrupulous avoiders of licit treatment outnumber (or at least equal to) the Yippee! crowd on CAF–which is more or less what you would expect. And given the extreme physical damage that medical neglect can cause, I feel less concerned about people “getting away” with something than the human suffering caused by the other extreme.

I think this is probably true when it comes to the CAF population. I also find it incongruous when women submit to fertility-ending surgery such as hysterectomy because they find it to be “more Catholic” than using hormonal treatments. (On the other hand, that is the standard Catholic line regarding treatment of ectopic pregnancy, submitting to complete removal of a Fallopian tube, that will end fertility for the unfortunate woman who has had ectopic pregnancy more than once, is the “Catholic” option as opposed to less invasive treatments. Of course that involves the life of a child, but isn’t contraception supposed to be just as sinful as direct abortion? )

As for the horror stories about NaPro providers. Their attitude toward their chosen mode of treatment, ironically, doesn’t strike me as that different than the attitude many other medical providers have toward hormonal treatment. Though certainly not all, and this is likely more an issue that affects the medical profession in general, regardless of their religious beliefs - though medicine is actually a lot LESS patriarchal than, say, 20 years ago.

Perhaps the scarcity of NaPro providers tends to facilitate such an attitude, they know their patients don’t have many other options. Much as rural docs tend to be more patriarchal than urban docs who have more competition.

Though perhaps the “this is obviously the best treatment and if you don’t follow it, you’re a bad patient” attitude isn’t quite as distressing to Catholics as a “this is obviously the best treatment and if you don’t follow it, you’re a bad patient AND a bad Catholic” attitude.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Another comment regarding what you call the “Yippee!” crowd. Yes, some. perhaps most, are merely expressing relief over having a licit way to make and end-run around a moral dilemma.

But some remind me of, say, marijuana users who openly will state that they think that banning marijuana at all is wrong, or even immoral and discriminatory when “alcohol and tobacco are legal and they’re much MORE harmful than weed”. But live somewhere with a “medicinal use exception” and would happily wave their medical marijuana certificate at any cop who questioned why they were smoking a joint. But will admit to using marijuana for more than merely medical purposes.

Unfortunately, many Catholics who do follow the Church “rule” against ABC out of obedience seem to not really understand the reasoning. Hence the many people who question the allowance for NFP as arbitrary and discriminatory because “People use NFP for the same reasons others use ABC”. So, the attitude seems to be “The whole set of rules is arbitrary and illogical anyway. Might as well take advantage of the loophole!”

ETA: Or, to make a more political analogy, they remind me of Donald Trump’s take on taking advantage of a loophole to avoid paying federal income taxes. His explanation basically was that “The whole set of rules is arbitrary and illogical anyway. Might as well take advantage of the loophole!”

 

[Convert_in_99]

I’m not opposed to NaPro, just that it didn’t work for me. And I was made to feel like a failure because it didn’t. “It works 99% of the time, why didn’t it work for you?” Because 99% isn’t 100%?

If it works for someone, awesome! But to act like NaPro is the only thing you need is unfair to those whose problems fall outside their expertise.

Yeah it didn’t work for me either.

 

[StGerardMajella]

When you need a definitive moral theology answer, you don’t go to some random pastor. That’s just like when you have a very specific medical problem, you don’t expect that your family doctor will do your heart surgery or oversee your chemo.

Hence, I recommend consulting with the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

A family doctor will refer to a specialist when appropriate. A priest is no different. The priest can vet the situation, and refer to the appropriate specialist, whether that is a psychologist, counselor, medical doctor, or even an ethics center.

And yet if you ask three priests to interpret this stuff for you, you may well get three different answers.

The key adjective is “competent”.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Right.

When you need a definitive moral theology answer, you don’t go to some random pastor. That’s just like when you have a very specific medical problem, you don’t expect that your family doctor will do your heart surgery or oversee your chemo.

Hence, I recommend consulting with the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

I personally have started to ignore the opinions of Catholic apologists who aren’t well educated about bioethics.

 

[DarkLight]

Hi everyone, been gone for a while but this isn’t the first time I’ve gotten the impression that some Catholics see “birth control” the same way some evangelical Christians see “Demon Rum”, or even how some secular humanists demonize firearms. That the fact that a substance/object has been used for immoral reasons, means it is illicit to use them even for moral reasons. Or that somehow, people are obligated to use ABC only as an absolute last resort.

I’ve definitely noticed this - there’s a lot of backlash even on those of use who have nothing to contracept (and thus can’t be using birth control illicitly). There’s a lot of language about birth control being “poison” and “definitely will give you cancer” and whatnot that I’ve found. Realistically, for a lot of women, birth control has fewer risks and side effects than other medications.

 

[Xantippe]

A family doctor will refer to a specialist when appropriate. A priest is no different. The priest can vet the situation, and refer to the appropriate specialist, whether that is a psychologist, counselor, medical doctor, or even an ethics center.

The key adjective is**** “competent”****.

Ah, but how do you know who and isn’t a competent priest without being fairly competent yourself?

A competent priest will do what you mention in the first paragraph and “vet the situation, and refer to the appropriate specialist, whether that is a psychologist, counselor, medical doctor, or even an ethics center”–but a priest who is not competent will just give an answer on the fly–and perhaps cause a great deal of suffering in the process.

So I am very uncomfortable with sending a person to some random parish, when we have the wonderful resource of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, where they do emergency consultations literally around the clock.

ncbcenter.org/about-us/contact-us/

No doubt, the person has pastoral needs, but their medical needs may be very urgent and should not be unnecessarily delayed.

 

[Xantippe]

I think this is probably true when it comes to the CAF population. I also find it incongruous when women submit to fertility-ending surgery such as hysterectomy because they find it to be “more Catholic” than using hormonal treatments. (On the other hand, that is the standard Catholic line regarding treatment of ectopic pregnancy, submitting to complete removal of a Fallopian tube, that will end fertility for the unfortunate woman who has had ectopic pregnancy more than once, is the “Catholic” option as opposed to less invasive treatments. ** Of course that involves the life of a child, but isn’t contraception supposed to be just as sinful as direct abortion? )**

Nope.

 

[Xantippe]

**Unfortunately, many Catholics who do follow the Church “rule” against ABC out of obedience seem to not really understand the reasoning. ** Hence the many people who question the allowance for NFP as arbitrary and discriminatory because “People use NFP for the same reasons others use ABC”. So, the attitude seems to be “The whole set of rules is arbitrary and illogical anyway. Might as well take advantage of the loophole!”

ETA: Or, to make a more political analogy, they remind me of Donald Trump’s take on taking advantage of a loophole to avoid paying federal income taxes. His explanation basically was that “The whole set of rules is arbitrary and illogical anyway. Might as well take advantage of the loophole!”

I would have to agree with the part I bolded.

As to your second paragraph–the loophole is the law. I don’t know about Trump’s particular situation, but it isn’t wrong to simply obey the law. If the lawmakers want people to behave differently, they can make different laws.

 

[CountrySinger]

edwest2;14324029:

No need to argue. From an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Thankfully, with growing advancements in understanding fertility, knowledgeable gynecologists can often prescribe non-contraceptive drugs and recommend safer and healthier treatments to correct underlying problems or eliminate discomfort.” Quote.

‘Discomfort’. Don’t you just love them using that word? Discomfort is having a piece of grit in one’s shoe, or perhaps a mouth ulcer.

It comes nowhere near the type of pain that some women suffer.

They might know pain if someone kicked them somewhere dangly.

Fun fact: my induced labour pains were better than my cramps. I was “this is labour? This is what everyone says is so painful? This is NOTHING!” The midwives thought I was crazy. They kept offering pain killers, but I declined. Up until I was wheeled into my c-section, I had only two Tylenol for pain relief.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

As to your second paragraph–the loophole is the law. I don’t know about Trump’s particular situation, but it isn’t wrong to simply obey the law. If the lawmakers want people to behave differently, they can make different laws.

I’m not saying Trump did anything wrong. However, I do find it sad that many Catholics see the Church teachings regarding licit methods of birth regulation, the same way Trump seems to view tax law. As essentially a set of arbitrary rules.

ETA: And BTW (this is in reply to your PM), I do find the actual Church teaching about this to be quite reasonable. As for OCP’s supposedly only “covering up symptoms”, the same is even more so for Oxycontin and other pain medications, yet I don’t recall reading any USCBB statements proclaiming that fact.

One could also argue that blood transfusions don’t actually treat the underlying causes of anemia, but that doesn’t mean blood transfusions are worthless, either.

 

[AClaire11]

They might know pain if someone kicked them somewhere dangly.

Fun fact: my induced labour pains were better than my cramps. I was “this is labour? This is what everyone says is so painful? This is NOTHING!” The midwives thought I was crazy. They kept offering pain killers, but I declined. Up until I was wheeled into my c-section, I had only two Tylenol for pain relief.

Same. If the contractions were all I had to worry about, I wouldn’t have gotten an epidural.

 

[Sarcelle]

I’ve definitely noticed this - there’s a lot of backlash even on those of use who have nothing to contracept (and thus can’t be using birth control illicitly). There’s a lot of language about birth control being “poison” and “definitely will give you cancer” and whatnot that I’ve found. Realistically, for a lot of women, birth control has fewer risks and side effects than other medications.

I’ve noticed that even with single chaste women, hormonal pills taken for therapeutic reasons are still considered by some posters here as a no-no.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’ve noticed that even with single chaste women, hormonal pills taken for therapeutic reasons are still considered by some posters here as a no-no.

There also seems to be a reflexive response to demonize the very existence of “the Pill” as displeasing to God. Some seem to see any use of “the Pill” as illicit because (1) it was originally invented to be used as contraception or (2) people using the medication even for non-contraceptive means are helping drug maker profit from it, and they will use the profits to further market and sell it for contraceptive means, and therefore, are somehow materially cooperating in sinful activity.

However, if people who are arguing that want to be consistent, then they should also oppose anyone taking Oxycontin or similar drugs for legitimate pain relief, because drug makers will use part of the profit to market the drugs for less than licit reasons. Same for medical marijuana.

I also recall being amused when a CAF poster once admitted she was using ABC, and a bunch of people tried to dissuade her by pointing out how toxic OCPs were. But as it turned out, the poster wasn’t even on “the Pill”. She was using a diaphragm and spermicide. Oops!

 

[Xantippe]

I think that where people go wrong is assuming that whatever is harder or more extreme is necessarily the right thing to do or the more deserving of merit, whereas that is not at all the case.

 

[chevalier]

Is it wrong to take birth control to stop pain. I know someone who gets terrible pain when she is on her period, it will last for like a week. It makes her suicidal.

Would it be wrong to use birth control if it helped this condition? Assuming she abstained from sex while she was on it.

It’s no longer birth control when it’s taken for a different purpose than contraceptive. And if that person abstains from sex while taking those pills than the whole issue of those pills’ contraceptive effect is moot.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think that where people go wrong is assuming that whatever is harder or more extreme is necessarily the right thing to do or the more deserving of merit, whereas that is not at all the case.

Very true. I’ve also seen this attitude when it comes to “natural birth” or breast-feeding. Many Christians, even non-Christians, who have no issue with using ABC, get very militant over avoiding “over-medicalization” when it comes to management of pregnancy, childbirth, and caring for infants.

And much as when it comes to ABC, there is some truth behind claims that the “medical establishment” often pushes interventions on mothers and babies that are not always warranted. But that doesn’t mean such interventions are NEVER warranted.