Birth Control

[kage_ar]

It’s a legitimate treatment all the same If there is no cure for a particular disorder, treatment shouldn’t be rejected by default due to there not being a cure. It can still be treated and controlled.

If you will read the above quoted papal document, the word used is “cure”. These contraceptive medications are permissible only when they CURE.

 

[Rence]

If you will read the above quoted papal document, the word used is “cure”. These contraceptive medications are permissible only when they CURE.

My family priest said that’s a misinterpretation. He said that medical treatments don’t always cure, and are still allowed. The only time it is not allowed is if the sole purpose is to act as a contraceptive only.

And in addition, sometimes they DO cure the hormonal imbalances. Sometimes you don’t have to take them for very lengthy periods of time. Often they are used for a period of time and stopped. If the ailment is gone,you don’t need to continue taking them. If the symptoms come back, you start taking it again.

You know, you don’t have to take them if you don’t want to. Or if you have found another way to treat your ailments. But others most emphatically can, according to that document.

 

[kage_ar]

My family priest said that’s a misinterpretation.

Other priests interpret it in another way, that is why people of good faith need to discuss this issue with one another.

I cannot see how one could misinterpret “cure” to mean “treatment of symptoms” - maybe some people can. Thing is, it is best to avoid these abortifacient contraceptives, they hurt women more than they help.

 

[Cathhsmom]

What was the option you found in your research? This is of interest to me, since I have so many women in my family.

FSC

I have PCOS w/ Insulin Resistance. So, I got put on Glucaphage ( generic name Metformin).

 

[graceandglory]

The Church teaches that the use of contraception is intrinsically evil. And intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention. A good intention or dire circumstances does not cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.

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.”
Pope John Paul II, 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.”
Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.

Therefore, birth control cannot be used merely because there is a good intention.

The principle of double effect never justifies an intrinsically evil act.

A lot of this is kind of misleading.

A pill in and of itself is not going to send someone to Hell.

The person will be condemned based on what is in their heart. If a woman takes “the pill” (inotherwords, takes** female **hormones) because SHE HAS A BEARD, for example, that is not intrinsically evil.

 

[kage_ar]

A lot of this is kind of misleading.

A pill in and of itself is not going to send someone to Hell.

The person will be condemned based on what is in their heart. If a woman takes “the pill” (inotherwords, takes** female **hormones) because SHE HAS A BEARD, for example, that is not intrinsically evil.

Facial hair is NOT a disease. It can be treated by many things that are not ABC.

 

[graceandglory]

A lot of this is kind of misleading.

A pill in and of itself is not going to send someone to Hell.

The person will be condemned based on what is in their heart. If a woman takes “the pill” (inotherwords, takes** female **hormones) because SHE HAS A BEARD, for example, that is not intrinsically evil.

“The Pill” is a combination of synthetic female hormones that can cure many disorders. It also has the effect of preventing ovulation. Many drugs are like that. The same pill that you take for allergies (marketed as Benadryl) is also sold under a different label, as SOMINEX to help you sleep.

Don’t get me wrong. I HATE “the pill.” I hate it with a vengeance. I wouldn’t suggest it to anyone unless she had a beard or was bleeding profusely.

A person taking “the pill” can still be extremely open to life in their marriage. I know I was. I was in a forced contracepted “marriage” by my protestant ex husband. It grieved my soul the entire time. Ask any of my protestant friends who knew me back then. They were always praying that “God would change my X’s heart.” Well, God blessed me with twins during that time because while I was "being submissive" to my “husband” by taking the pill, I got sick and was on antibiotics. No one told me that would affect the contraception. I conceived my twins on the bcps. While science knows that can happen, I didn’t. God knew my heart at that time and knew I was open to life the whole time.

 

[graceandglory]

Facial hair is NOT a disease. It can be treated by many things that are not ABC.

When it’s on a woman’s face, it is a disorder due to a hormonal imbalance. It is licit to treat it with a prescription.

 

[AndreaAgnes]

Rence, I find myself unequivocally agreeing with you. Thank you for your clarity.

As for the interpretation of “cure”, I would say that the BCP can be called a temporary cure, especially as it can help regulate hormone levels, thereby correcting a problem - even if only for a short time.

We could look at other drugs that aren’t cures but are necessary treatments all the same. For example, insulin does not cure diabetes, but I’d be pretty certain there’s a moral obligation for a diabetic to pursue insulin treatment (considered an ordinary means to preserve life given its accessibility and common use).

I’m not saying women are obligated to use the BCP, nor is it a good or ideal treatment in most cases. I’m dead-set against contraception in any form. However, if PCOS or other conditions are interfering with our daily life and obligations (caring for other children, for example), then it’s okay to seek a treatment or temporary cure.

 

[Rence]

Facial hair is NOT a disease. It can be treated by many things that are not ABC.

You’re right, it’s not a disease. Rather, it is a symptom of a hormone imbalance, which is treated with OCs. I don’t know any other treatment for hirutism brought on by a hormone imbalance than to treat with OCs. Now if the symptom is brought on by a problem with the thyroid, then it’s treated as such. But that’s a different diagnosis…

 

[graceandglory]

If you will read the above quoted papal document, the word used is “cure”. These contraceptive medications are permissible only when they CURE.

kage_ar, that is your interpretation. The Church interprets it differently than you do.

 

[kage_ar]

kage_ar, that is your interpretation. The Church interprets it differently than you do.

Please, post a link to a doctrinal official statement that backs up your claim. I am more than willing to admit I am in error when there is official teaching.

 

[graceandglory]

Please, post a link to a doctrinal official statement that backs up your claim. I am more than willing to admit I am in error when there is official teaching.

I can provide you some keys to interpreting Church teaching where the Church isn’t explicit. For one, you are hung up on a word that doesn’t have to do with doctrine, the word “cure.” You are making taking a pill the sin, where the true sin is in the person’s heart. Is the person open to God’s will and open to life or isn’t she? I know what the Church teaches on sin. I can link you to many sources on the differences between mortal sin and venial sin, and taking medicine isn’t either.

 

[DebCat129]

I heard lots of girls go on birth control because their periods are irregular. Is that a sin? I would think it is, but I don’t know and was curious

No woman has regular periods, if they do its because of the pill. To expect your female body to be regular is unnatural. Doctors use the period thing because I think they bought off on the whole contraception lie.

Do you know that girls that use contraception have an extremely higher rate of pregnancy than those that don’t use contraception. Why is that??? Because of the false sense of security… they think they cant get pregnant, and then surprise…they do. Why are we giving our young daughters the pill or any form of birth control. Americas children are over sexualized. Sex should not even be a consideration for teens…I hear people say “oh they are going to do it anyway, so might as well give them birth control” NO, we fail as parents if we don’t teach our children how to respect their sexuality, and their bodies. Theology of the Body, get the book, and read it…share it with your children, teens, and twenty somethings.

wow

 

[Rence]

No woman has regular periods, if they do its because of the pill. To expect your female body to be regular is unnatural. Doctors use the period thing because I think they bought off on the whole contraception lie.

Um, quite a few women have regular periods, and without contraception. There are a few in my family as a matter of fact.

The real truth is, you don’t have to make up extravagant stories to be prescribed birth control pills. Contraceptives are readily available to anyone who wants them. Just because they are abused by many people, doesn’t mean they need to be denied to people who really need them.

If someone is going to go on birth control, they will. They’re as easy to get a hold of as candy. PP gives them away, many pharmacies fill prescriptions for them, doctors have samples of them in their office, there are coupons for them, you can get them online even.

The OP asked if it was a sin to take birth control for the treatment of “irregular” periods. The answer is: yes they can. Birth control can control such symptoms as uncontrollable or very heavy bleeding as well as unmanageable cramps that interfere with daily functioning. Obviously, if the person taking them is lying about their intentions, then they are sinning. If they’re not lying about their intentions, they are not sinning.

 

[kage_ar]

I can provide you some keys to interpreting Church teaching where the Church isn’t explicit. For one, you are hung up on a word that doesn’t have to do with doctrine, the word “cure.” You are making taking a pill the sin, where the true sin is in the person’s heart. Is the person open to God’s will and open to life or isn’t she? I know what the Church teaches on sin. I can link you to many sources on the differences between mortal sin and venial sin, and taking medicine isn’t either.

Good intentions do not make an evil act un-evil.

This is something that is between a woman and her spiritual advisor. We should be very wary about reading more into the documents than is there. The official documents say cure. I would not want to lead someone into sin by shouting “cure does not MEAN cure, you can use it for zits so you look pretty” I tend to think that the Holy Father wrote what he meant. There are many priests who agree, and many who disagree. I will err on the side of the Pope wrote what he meant.

 

[PaulinVA]

Good intentions do not make an evil act un-evil.

This is something that is between a woman and her spiritual advisor. We should be very wary about reading more into the documents than is there. The official documents say cure. I would not want to lead someone into sin by shouting “cure does not MEAN cure, you can use it for zits so you look pretty” I tend to think that the Holy Father wrote what he meant. There are many priests who agree, and many who disagree. I will err on the side of the Pope wrote what he meant.

 

[OraLabora]

Good intentions do not make an evil act un-evil.

This is something that is between a woman and her spiritual advisor. We should be very wary about reading more into the documents than is there. The official documents say cure. I would not want to lead someone into sin by shouting “cure does not MEAN cure, you can use it for zits so you look pretty” I tend to think that the Holy Father wrote what he meant. There are many priests who agree, and many who disagree. I will err on the side of the Pope wrote what he meant.

Well even the word “cure” is open to interpretation. Does it mean being symptom-free? Does it mean being permanently free of the condition? Does it mean that the disease is not present while the therapy is undertaken?

Is therefore a woman expected to only take ABC if the pill permanently cures them of the disease? Or is it permissible if it cures them of debilitating pain but only while the therapy is active, but does not cure them of the underlying condition?

I can see that taking ABC to control trivial conditions like acne or irregular periods is an issue if the person is sexually active, but I wouldn’t expect a woman to have to research and write a PhD dissertation in theology about ABC if she’s taking it to control debilitating pain from endometriosis, fibroids or other causes.

And this does not just apply to women. I have a male friend undergoing chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. The chemotherapy most likely makes him sterile. It is not curative as he has liver and lung metastases. It will only prolong his life by a couple of years.

Does this mean he’s not to enjoy marital relations with his wife because the therapy is not a cure and renders him sterile? I really don’t think that’s the case.

What’s good for the gander, is good for the goose I should think.

 

[New_Yorker]

A lot of this is kind of misleading.

A pill in and of itself is not going to send someone to Hell.

The person will be condemned based on what is in their heart. If a woman takes “the pill” (inotherwords, takes** female **hormones) because SHE HAS A BEARD, for example, that is not intrinsically evil.

The Church does note prohibit the taking of hormones, or even the birth control pill. The Church prohibits contracepted sex. So, the birth control pill is permitted for therapeutic means (HV 15), but one cannot have sexual relations while the pill is being used because:
(1) contracepted sex is intrinsically evil
(2) it could be abortifacient.
(3) it is contrary to the Natural Law, which demands that sexual organs be used procreatively and to unite the spouses.

 

[OraLabora]

The Church does note prohibit the taking of hormones, or even the birth control pill. The Church prohibits contracepted sex. So, the birth control pill is permitted for therapeutic means (HV 15), but one cannot have sexual relations while the pill is being used because:
(1) contracepted sex is intrinsically evil
(2) it could be abortifacient.
(3) it is contrary to the Natural Law, which demands that sexual organs be used procreatively and to unite the spouses.

So then is my friend on chemotherapy, which renders him sterile, no longer allowed to engage in marital relations with his wife? He told me he has, at best, 1-1/2 to 2 years to live. He is still able to enjoy sexual relations with his wife even if he is sterile. It is a great comfort to him.

Are you telling me because his sex is contracepted by his chemo, he can no longer licitly do this?

Do people here hear what they are saying? They are pontificating about split-hair theological interpretations, which they are not, incidentally qualified to make, totally oblivious to the sufferings of others; telling women with hirsutism that their condition is trivial, for instance. Try walking a mile in a hirsute young woman’s shoes before pontificating.

Honestly it is almost disgusting, and almost makes me ashamed to call myself Catholic. It would if I didn’t know a community of loving and orthodox Benedictine monks who are far more compassionate than too many folks I’ve read here.