Can a married couple use ABC in good conscience if the end is a moral positive good?

[setter]

Is it true that a married couple can use ABC in good conscience, but NEVER to prevent conception for selfish reasons, i.e., the use of ABC must have as it’s end a moral positive good?

 

[Seatuck]

Is it true that a married couple can use ABC in good conscience, but NEVER to prevent conception for selfish reasons, i.e., the use of ABC must have as it’s end a moral positive good?

Not really sure what you are getting at. The only way that ABC can be used by a married woman is if it is part of a hormonal treatment plan for a reproductive medical disease that she has.

Artificial Contraception is instrinsically evil and damages the marital act.

So if you are saying that the couple can use ABC if they have a “grave” reason to postpone pregnancy then no they may not. They may only use NFP.

 

[graceandglory]

Artificial Contraception is instrinsically evil and damages the marital act.

So if you are saying that the couple can use ABC if they have a “grave” reason to postpone pregnancy then no they may not. They may only use NFP.

Which means, for some couples, the only moral choice is to abstain.

 

[1ke]

Is it true that a married couple can use ABC in good conscience, but NEVER to prevent conception for selfish reasons, i.e., the use of ABC must have as it’s end a moral positive good?

Um, no, it is not true.

One may never do evil. Contraception is intrinsically disordered, meaning it is ALWAYS a grave moral evil.

 

[setter]

Thank you all …I was seeking clarification of what someone had told me and I am not that versed in theological terms.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s also good to ask what “good conscience” means. There’s a difference between “good conscience” and “properly formed” conscience.

If a couple really doesn’t understand the teaching on ABC or has been misinformed, they do not share the same culpability as a couple who has a clear understanding of the teaching and chooses to reject it, hypothetically speaking.

Granted, it’s difficult to imagine a Catholic couple under such circumstances, but the same act committed by a protestant couple can be morally different than that by a Catholic couple, which speaks to the definition of “properly formed”.

 

[New_Yorker]

Is it true that a married couple can use ABC in good conscience, but NEVER to prevent conception for selfish reasons, i.e., the use of ABC must have as it’s end a moral positive good?

Contraception is gravely disordered. Not only must marriage be open to procreation, but each and every conjugal act must be open to procreation. According to Humanae Vitae:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

According to the Catechism:

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

Contraception is always wrong and intrinsically evil. No good purpose or aim or intention can change this. If a woman is on the birth control pill for health reasons, she must abstain from sexual relations.

 

[Jeanne_dArc]

Contraception is always wrong and intrinsically evil. No good purpose or aim or intention can change this. If a woman is on the birth control pill for health reasons, she must abstain from sexual relations.

The “sin of contraception” is always evil and wrong. However if a woman is put on birth control pills by her doctor to treat a medical condition, for example ovarian cysts or extremely heavy periods it is not the “sin of contraception.” As long as her aim is JUST to treat a medical condition and NOT to avoid conceiving. However it is not acceptable if a married couple is using birth control to prevent pregnancy even if the reason is good, for example if pregnancy might be dangerous for the woman, this would still be the “sin of contraception.”

So if a woman is taking birth control pills to treat a medical problem, like say ovarian cysts, and is not taking them to avoid having children, it would be morally allowed for her to have relations with her husband. This is the teaching of Catholic theologians and the Church.

Thyroid medicine can make it highly unlikely for a woman to conceive, however as long as she is only taking it to treat thyroid problems it is fine for her to have relations with her husband. (Just as long as the couple is not using the medicine so as to avoid children, then they would be guilty of the sin of contraception.)

 

[Scottgun]

100% correct on using them not for contraception but for treatment. HOWEVER, many doctors just go with the pill when there may be other non-fertility altering options available. Ask ccli.org or maybe the Paul VI Institute about those.

 

[Jeanne_dArc]

100% correct on using them not for contraception but for treatment. HOWEVER, many doctors just go with the pill when there may be other non-fertility altering options available. Ask ccli.org or maybe the Paul VI Institute about those.

Great point, I just wanted to clear-up some confusion, so I stuck with just the basics. I personally think in many (not all) cases that the birth control pill is over-prescribed.

 

[New_Yorker]

I think if you read the paragraph of Humanae Vitae and the Catechism which states that "‘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." you’ll come to the opposite conclusion.

The phrase “intrinsically evil” means something that does not depend upon intent or circumstance. Contracepted sex, especially with the pill, is abortofacient - so it can cause an abortion because an egg can be fertilized but not implanted in the uterus. This is an evil result from an evil act - and a result that no one can prevent from happening if they have sex while a woman is on the pill.

The Catechism is clear - “every action” which “as an end or a means” (i.e. a means to some other end) is “intrinsically evil.” A woman on the birth control pill (for whatever reason) cannot have contracepted sex because she has rendered procreation impossible - which is a misuse of the sexual organs, and an intrinsically evil act regardless of motive - and she may be causing an abortion of a fertilized egg.

Humanae Vitae, as I cited above, is also clear about “each and every marital [or conjugal] act” being intrinsically related to “the procreation of human life.”

If you are familiar with these documents, and the Church teachings, I do not see how contracepted sex is ever justified. Like any other intrinsically evil act - rape, murder, theft - it is not justified, nor is it justifiable.

 

[Seatuck]

I think if you read the paragraph of Humanae Vitae and the Catechism which states that "‘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." you’ll come to the opposite conclusion.

The phrase “intrinsically evil” means something that does not depend upon intent or circumstance. Contracepted sex, especially with the pill, is abortofacient - so it can cause an abortion because an egg can be fertilized but not implanted in the uterus. This is an evil result from an evil act - and a result that no one can prevent from happening if they have sex while a woman is on the pill.

The Catechism is clear - “every action” which “as an end or a means” (i.e. a means to some other end) is “intrinsically evil.” A woman on the birth control pill (for whatever reason) cannot have contracepted sex because she has rendered procreation impossible - which is a misuse of the sexual organs, and an intrinsically evil act regardless of motive - and she may be causing an abortion of a fertilized egg.

Humanae Vitae, as I cited above, is also clear about “each and every marital [or conjugal] act” being intrinsically related to “the procreation of human life.”

If you are familiar with these documents, and the Church teachings, I do not see how contracepted sex is ever justified. Like any other intrinsically evil act - rape, murder, theft - it is not justified, nor is it justifiable.

New Yorker,

The church has not declared firmly that a woman who is taking the pill for medical reasons must abstain from conjugal relations. If you think it has then please provide the teaching.

At this point we have moral theologians expressing opinions on both side of the issue. On one hand we have those who do insist that she must on the other hand we have those who allow for the congugal relations to continue based on the principal of double effect. In that the sexual relationship can continue for the good of the marriage and that the chance of abortion is an allowable risk in this case. The woman should do her best to take precautions such as taking the pill as prescribed to avoid possible ovulation. I believe I have seen this advice given from the National Bioethics Committee.
As far as I can see there are two issues-One is the contraceptive sex aspect. A woman who must take hormones such as the pill is no more culpable of the sin of contraception than one who must have a hysterectomy due to a medical issue. Then there is the knowledge that hormonal birth control can be an abortifacient. A woman should do her best to take precautions for that.

You will also find moral teachers taking a middle road. The woman should take the hormones correctly and she can do her best to determine if ovulation has occurred This can be done with an attempt at NFP or an ovulation indicator. If it has she should abstain , if it hasn’t she may have conjugal relations.

We actually have some moral theologians say that HV does not give permission for the pill to begin with as it is not a CURE for a disease. If you stop the pill the majority of the time the problem is there as it usually acts as a mask of symptoms. So they would say that the pill as treatment does not qualify for that exemption in HV.

In conclusion , this is one area where we need some firmer guidance before we make declarations as have been made.

 

[Seatuck]

Great point, I just wanted to clear-up some confusion, so I stuck with just the basics. I personally think in many (not all) cases that the birth control pill is over-prescribed.

At this point in my understanding of the situation I tend to agree. However not all women have the knowledge or the access for better treatment. Hope the church gets busy on that front.

 

[New_Yorker]

In that the sexual relationship can continue for the good of the marriage and that the chance of abortion is an allowable risk in this case.

That quote pretty much says it all. If you think that contracepted sex is not intrinsically evil, you probably don’t think that abortion is intrinsically evil, and you would permit both under these circumstances. I think the Church teachings are pretty firm and understandable on this topic, though you can always find some theologians who disagree.

Bottom Line: Contracepted sex - Never.
Allowable risk of abortion from birth control pill - Zero.

 

[Seatuck]

That quote pretty much says it all. If you think that contracepted sex is not intrinsically evil, you probably don’t think that abortion is intrinsically evil, and you would permit both under these circumstances. I think the Church teachings are pretty firm and understandable on this topic, though you can always find some theologians who disagree.

Bottom Line: Contracepted sex - Never.
Allowable risk of abortion from birth control pill - Zero.

The intent is important here. In the case of a woman who has to take the pill she is not intending contraception. She is no more intending contraception as a woman who had cancer and was surgically sterilized. In the case of the latter woman. All marital relations she has will be contracepted sex. Are you saying she
must abstain for life?

Listen my personal feeling is that a woman on the pill should abstain . That is the side I fall on. But the church does not officially say so no matter how you’d like to say so on the matter of a woman who must take the pill for therapeutic reasons.

I know that Father Serpa has told women on the air that they may continue conjugal relations if they have been prescribed the pill and I’m sure I’ve seen it in Ask an Apologist. I know I’ve heard and read the opposite from Fr. Hogan and in Christopher West’s book.

 

[Seatuck]

New Yorker,

when you say abstain do you mean for like 10 days or so during what might be a fertile time or do you mean until she no longer takes the pill?

 

[Sure]

That quote pretty much says it all. If you think that contracepted sex is not intrinsically evil, you probably don’t think that abortion is intrinsically evil, and you would permit both under these circumstances. I think the Church teachings are pretty firm and understandable on this topic, though you can always find some theologians who disagree.

Bottom Line: Contracepted sex - Never.
Allowable risk of abortion from birth control pill - Zero.

These might be helpful:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

As long as the hormonal pill is taken to provide remedy to medical issue, it’s use is moral and a couple is not obligated to abstain from relations even if a miscarriage may occur.

You could re-word your phrases as:

Taking pills to contracept: Never
Taking pills for a medical reason knowing that they will have a contraceptive effect: Sometimes
Allowable risk for unintended (not unforeseen) abortion: Depends on the situation

 

[New_Yorker]

The intent is important here. . . .Are you saying she
must abstain for life?

Sometimes intent is important. Sometime’s it’s not. Certain acts are bad in and of themselves and “intent” does not make them any less sinful. My intent does not matter if I am committing an act of adultery, rape, prostitution, thievery, etc. These are bad in and of themselves, as is abortion.

Note the following from Humanae Vitae: This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of* the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. *

This is why contraception is always wrong and “each and every conjugal act” must be free of contraception - it separates the unitive from the procreative function. God established that connection and mankind cannot separate it. When you have contracepted sex - sex that makes procreation impossible because of an artificial means - that is sinful, in and of itself, b/c you are separating the unitive meaning from the procreative meaning. This is not permissible according to HV and the Catechism, to name a few basic documents. In addition, the pill can be abortofacient. Abortion is murder, which is also intrinsically evil, regardless of one’s “intent” to have sexual relations.

Why would a woman be on the birth control pill for an extended period of time? If you’re in that situation, consult an NFP only physician immediately. All the NFP physicians I know state that there can be some exceptional SHORT TERM circumstances for which the pill may be a treatment. Under those conditions, I believe it’s clear from the teachings of the Magisterium that you must abstain - abstain as long as you are on the pill.

I hope this clarifies my position (which I believe is the Church’s position).

 

[fix]

Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. 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)…

HV

The act of contraception is intrinsically wrong that is true but the encyclical states clearly, as above, such medical practices are not the act of contraception.

 

[Seatuck]

Sometimes intent is important. Sometime’s it’s not. Certain acts are bad in and of themselves and “intent” does not make them any less sinful. My intent does not matter if I am committing an act of adultery, rape, prostitution, thievery, etc. These are bad in and of themselves, as is abortion.

Note the following from Humanae Vitae: This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of* the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. *

This is why contraception is always wrong and “each and every conjugal act” must be free of contraception - it separates the unitive from the procreative function. God established that connection and mankind cannot separate it. When you have contracepted sex - sex that makes procreation impossible because of an artificial means - that is sinful, in and of itself, b/c you are separating the unitive meaning from the procreative meaning. This is not permissible according to HV and the Catechism, to name a few basic documents. In addition, the pill can be abortofacient. Abortion is murder, which is also intrinsically evil, regardless of one’s “intent” to have sexual relations.

Why would a woman be on the birth control pill for an extended period of time? If you’re in that situation, consult an NFP only physician immediately. All the NFP physicians I know state that there can be some exceptional SHORT TERM circumstances for which the pill may be a treatment. Under those conditions, I believe it’s clear from the teachings of the Magisterium that you must abstain - abstain as long as you are on the pill.

I hope this clarifies my position (which I believe is the Church’s position).

Guess Father Serpa is wrong . Perhaps you should tell him.

You should also know that not every woman has easy acess to a NFP only Dr. I know several woman who have been prescribed the pill by NFP only Dr’s as a medical treatment.I’m an RN. The Catholic RN Association I know deals with this all the time. It’s not this cut and dry situation like we hear about on Catholic Radio.