Birth Control

[New_Yorker]

This is incorrect on two counts. First, the Church has not said one must abstain from sex while they are having medical therapy. Secondly, one is not engaging in “contracepted” sex when they have relations while being treated medically. One engages in contracepted sex when one uses the means to contracept to limit children.

This is his medical opinion, not Church teaching.

This is not Church teaching. This is a private opinion.

Sorry, but your position is a bit confused. When the Pope speaks of intrinsically evil acts he is referring to acts that are always evil. That means you may never use medication, devices, techniques, etc, to alter the marital act to limit children. Such acts are always evil.

But, we are not talking about such acts. That is why the magisterium has said, explicitly, that one may use medical therapy even if it alters fertility. Why? Because that is not “contraception”.

Perhaps this can clarify it. Here’s the definition of contraception from the Catechism.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.** In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil**

So, even using the birth control pill, USED AS A MEANS, to treat a disease to makes procreation impossible. That is contraception and, therefore, intrinsically evil. Read the entirety of HV, not just par. 15, and you’ll understand what the Church is railing against and that “each and every marital act” must be open to life.

You are correct that “magisterium has said, explicitly, that one may use medical therapy even if it alters fertility.” That’s using therapeutic means - HV 15. However, the effective is still contraceptive and the couples’ intent can relieve them of the sin of contraception IF they have sexual relations while medication temporarily renders procreation impossible. This is because:

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).

You will find no Church document stating that a couple that is receiving medical treatment that renders procreation impossible may engage in sexual intercourse. That is because there is no such rule. Contracepted sex is evil and impermissible, though medication which renders a woman infertile is permissible.

 

[New_Yorker]

According to Fix: **One engages in contracepted sex when one uses the means to contracept to limit children **

This is plainly wrong. Contraception does NOT depend on the intent and purpose. If it did, it would not be in the “intrinsically evil” category because that which is “intrinsically evil” can never be made good by intent. So, readers, beware of this post and logic because it contains a demonstrably false statement. The Catechism states (as I repeat):

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).

 

[fix]

Perhaps this can clarify it. Here’s the definition of contraception from the Catechism.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.** In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil**

So, even using the birth control pill, USED AS A MEANS, to treat a disease to makes procreation impossible. That is contraception and, therefore, intrinsically evil. Read the entirety of HV, not just par. 15, and you’ll understand what the Church is railing against and that “each and every marital act” must be open to life.

You are correct that “magisterium has said, explicitly, that one may use medical therapy even if it alters fertility.” That’s using therapeutic means - HV 15. However, the effective is still contraceptive and the couples’ intent can relieve them of the sin of contraception IF they have sexual relations while medication temporarily renders procreation impossible. This is because:

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).

You will find no Church document stating that a couple that is receiving medical treatment that renders procreation impossible may engage in sexual intercourse. That is because there is no such rule. Contracepted sex is evil and impermissible, though medication which renders a woman infertile is permissible.

You should read the link I gave from the moral theology expert at EWTN. The physical and moral objects are different in the two situations we are discussing. In fact, he says what I have been saying that it is incorrect to call the act contraceptive or the medicaion used “contraceptives”, as we are talking of a different object in both cases.

In another thread I posted other links invloving this topic. He draws the same picture in that by your reasoning indirect abortion and indirect sterilization would be illicit, yet we know the magisterium has approved of them.

BTW, the means used to treat the medical pathology are not contraceptive. They may have a side effect, but the means are licit medical treatment not the sin of contraception.

 

[fix]

According to Fix: **One engages in contracepted sex when one uses the means to contracept to limit children **

This is plainly wrong. Contraception does NOT depend on the intent and purpose. If it did, it would not be in the “intrinsically evil” category because that which is “intrinsically evil” can never be made good by intent. So, readers, beware of this post and logic because it contains a demonstrably false statement. The Catechism states (as I repeat):

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).

You are going in circles here. We all agree a good intention cannot justify an evil means. The point is the means used to treat the pathology are not evil.

See here too. And this. And again here.

 

[fix]

So, even using the birth control pill, USED AS A MEANS, to treat a disease to makes procreation impossible. That is contraception and, therefore, intrinsically evil.

This is incorrect. In fact, HV says the opposite. You have to reconcile all of HV, not parse out the parts you want and diminish other parts.

There are many drugs that affect fertility that are used to treat many conditions. Treating such pathology is not “contraception”. That is why HV says medical therapy is licit.

 

[New_Yorker]

You should read the link I gave from the moral theology expert at EWTN. The physical and moral objects are different in the two situations we are discussing. In fact, he says what I have been saying that it is incorrect to call the act contraceptive or the medicaion used “contraceptives”, as we are talking of a different object in both cases.

In another thread I posted other links invloving this topic. He draws the same picture in that by your reasoning indirect abortion and indirect sterilization would be illicit, yet we know the magisterium has approved of them.

BTW, the means used to treat the medical pathology are not contraceptive. They may have a side effect, but the means are licit medical treatment not the sin of contraception.

The Catechism, HV, and Pope John Paul II are “by my reasoning?”

The treatment itself is not contraceptive, but the side effects are. Contraceptive effects still constitute contraception, even though the medical treatment is for another reason.

This distinction is very important - (1) treating a medical condition (therapeutic means) vs. (2) contracepted sex. The first is permissible. This is the point of HV 15. The second is not. This is the point of HV as a whole (and other authority).

HV 15 allows therapeutic means. There is nothing in HV that says that a woman on the pill, who is necessarily blocking the possibility of conception, can have sexual relations. Treating a condition and sexual relations while a condition is being treated are two different questions. It’s only by confusing the two and not making this crucial distinction that you can come to the conclusion you seek - that during a time when an otherwise fertile woman has her ability to conceive interrupted through therapeutic means, she may engage in sexual relations.

Such contracepted sex is prohibited. So, indirect abortion and sterilization (i.e. to treat an illness) are permissible. Sex afterward, if the sterilization is permanent, is permissible. But sexual relations while a woman is being contracepted (she has fertility and that fertility is being masked or prevented through medication) is not permissible.

Also, for those of you who (regrettably) support contraceptive sex while a woman is on ABC, consider this:

Suppose you were to engage in a medical treatment that required you to engage in dangerous activity, such that your 10 year old son might die. Would anyone do that? Now, breakthrough ovulation is always possible when one is on ABC. If you engage in sexual activity, you take the risk that your child, in utero, will die. Yet you wouldn’t do the same with your 10 year old. All life is sacred.

It’s no coincidence that the teaching on contraception AND the teaching on abortion both dictate that a woman who is contracepting (regardless of her intent) should not have sex. That’s why HV 14 explicitly states that good “intent” cannot save an otherwise evil act, like contracepted sex.