S
Seatuck
Guest
Thanks for those. I could not get those despite searching numerous phrases.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can a married couple use ABC in good conscience if the end is a moral positive good?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
New_Yorker
Guest
That paragraph of HV (par. 15) indicates that therapeutic means (medication, for instance) may be used, even if impedes procreation. However, the intent cannot be to impede procreation. The question is whether one can have conjugal relations when the procreative means is impaired. Since the act would be rendered non-procreative, it would not be permitted.
Look at the prior paragraph of HV regarding intent:
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. . . . it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
This demonstrates that for whatever reason, you cannot engage in an act which contradicts the moral order - contraceptive sex, rape, adultery, homosexual acts, etc. The fact that you benefitting your marriage, or you have a marriage that is procreative, does not excuse any contracepted sex.
The pill is not sinful if used therapeutically. However, contracepted sex is always sinful, because it renders procreation impossible.
Look at the prior paragraph of HV regarding intent:
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. . . . it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
This demonstrates that for whatever reason, you cannot engage in an act which contradicts the moral order - contraceptive sex, rape, adultery, homosexual acts, etc. The fact that you benefitting your marriage, or you have a marriage that is procreative, does not excuse any contracepted sex.
The pill is not sinful if used therapeutically. However, contracepted sex is always sinful, because it renders procreation impossible.
S
Seatuck
Guest
So why do you think Father Serpa is saying that the couple is permitted to engage in the marital act? Do you think it might have something to do with the principal of double effect?That paragraph of HV (par. 15) indicates that therapeutic means (medication, for instance) may be used, even if impedes procreation. However, the intent cannot be to impede procreation. The question is whether one can have conjugal relations when the procreative means is impaired. Since the act would be rendered non-procreative, it would not be permitted.
Look at the prior paragraph of HV regarding intent:
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. . . . it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
This demonstrates that for whatever reason, you cannot engage in an act which contradicts the moral order - contraceptive sex, rape, adultery, homosexual acts, etc. The fact that you benefitting your marriage, or you have a marriage that is procreative, does not excuse any contracepted sex.
The pill is not sinful if used therapeutically. However, contracepted sex is always sinful, because it renders procreation impossible.
Do you think a couple where the woman or man gets sterilized has to abstain from the marital act? It will always be contracepted sex. So after confession even will they have to abstain? Why or why not?
F
fix
Guest
That is not what it says. That is your erroneous conclusion.That paragraph of HV (par. 15) indicates that therapeutic means (medication, for instance) may be used, even if impedes procreation. However, the intent cannot be to impede procreation. The question is whether one can have conjugal relations when the procreative means is impaired. Since the act would be rendered non-procreative, it would not be permitted.
Look at the prior paragraph of HV regarding intent:
That says, clearly, a good end is never justified by an evil means. It does not say anything about double effect.Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. . . . it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
That much is true.This demonstrates that for whatever reason, you cannot engage in an act which contradicts the moral order - contraceptive sex, rape, adultery, homosexual acts, etc. The fact that you benefitting your marriage, or you have a marriage that is procreative, does not excuse any contracepted sex.
Correct.The pill is not sinful if used therapeutically.
True, but the case you bring up is not the sin of contraception.However, contracepted sex is always sinful, because it renders procreation impossible.
Do you think a women who has a cancerous uterous removed would never be able to licitly engage in the marital embrace?
N
New_Yorker
Guest
She would be allowed to engage in sexual relations. Let’s analyze the principle of the double effect. A good act (medicine - removing the uterus) has a good effect (removing cancer) and a bad effect (disallowing reproduction). The good outweighs the bad, so the act is permissible - removing the uterus. This says NOTHING about whether or not sex is permissible after the operation. It only permits the act in question - removal of the uterus - to occur.Do you think a women who has a cancerous uterous removed would never be able to licitly engage in the marital embrace?
Same w/the birth control pill - which is inherently contraceptive by virtue of its name and process. It can assist in removing a cyst, and the good action outweighs the TEMPORARY sterilization.
So, the double effect allows these acts, but does not pertain to sexual relations. HV par. 15 speaks to these therapeutic means.
I’m not a physician, but if anyone is on the birth control pill other than to relieve a temporary condition, contact an NFP physician or the Couple to Couple League (CCLI). The pill should be temporary, if at all necessary.
Though I think there’s another distinction to be made, in the uterus example, procreation is simply not possible for a medical reason. However, w/the pill, a woman can still ovulate, and an abortion can occur b/c the pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. At the very least, one must abstain during the possibly fertile period. However, I still think the safer and better course is to abstain during the entire time that the woman is on the pill. No one is forced to have sex (at least not in the facts of this discussion).
There are theologians and priests on both sides of this issue, so the fact that Priest X or Theologian X takes one side does not dispose of the issue.
Abortion is murder. Shouldn’t this give someone grave pause regarding sexual relations while on the birth control pill? Abstain, abstain, abstain.
F
fix
Guest
OK, then you agree that indirect sterilization does not make marital relations illicit.She would be allowed to engage in sexual relations.
Yes.Let’s analyze the principle of the double effect. A good act (medicine - removing the uterus) has a good effect (removing cancer) and a bad effect (disallowing reproduction). The good outweighs the bad, so the act is permissible - removing the uterus.
First, you already agreed that relations would be licit. How did you reason that? Secondly, Why would it matter that the procreative powers were altered if they would never be used again?This says NOTHING about whether or not sex is permissible after the operation. It only permits the act in question - removal of the uterus - to occur.
My point being that indirect sterilization, temporary or permanent, does not disallow marital relations.
The pill is not evil. Only actions can be evil.Same w/the birth control pill - which is inherently contraceptive by virtue of its name and process.
Ok…It can assist in removing a cyst, and the good action outweighs the TEMPORARY sterilization.
Yes, it speaks to the fact medical therapy is licit even if an unintended consequence is sterility. How do you then reason the statement means now that one is sterile one must refrain from relations? It is saying you are sterile through no fault of your own therefore you are not guilty of contraception.So, the double effect allows these acts, but does not pertain to sexual relations. HV par. 15 speaks to these therapeutic means.
That too is debatable, but not pertinent to this discussion.I’m not a physician, but if anyone is on the birth control pill other than to relieve a temporary condition, contact an NFP physician or the Couple to Couple League (CCLI). The pill should be temporary, if at all necessary.
Do you have evidence the Church teaches one must abstain?Though I think there’s another distinction to be made, in the uterus example, procreation is simply not possible for a medical reason. However, w/the pill, a woman can still ovulate, and an abortion can occur b/c the pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. At the very least, one must abstain during the possibly fertile period.
That would be a good act if one chooses so, but I see no evidence the Church asks anyone of that in these cases. If you have proof I will change my view.However, I still think the safer and better course is to abstain during the entire time that the woman is on the pill. No one is forced to have sex (at least not in the facts of this discussion).
Meaning it is a matter of free opinion.There are theologians and priests on both sides of this issue, so the fact that Priest X or Theologian X takes one side does not dispose of the issue.
Direct abortion is murder, yes.Abortion is murder.
No, that is placing a burden and attempting to bind when the Church has not bound.Shouldn’t this give someone grave pause regarding sexual relations while on the birth control pill? Abstain, abstain, abstain.
N
New_Yorker
Guest
Relations can be licit in uterus example b/c, among other reasons, there is no chance of an abortion. The double effect applies to whether or not the medical action should be taken. After that occurs, we’re left w/the question about sexual relations, which is NOT governed by the principle of the double effect.
I agree that sterilization for other, better reasons does not require abstention, especially permanent sterilization, as in the removal of a uterus. The risk of murdering a preborn child requires abstention.
Contrary to your assertion a “thing” can be evil. An earthquake that kills is evil. However, it is not a “moral” evil unless it is willed by a human being.
CCLI and NFP are very pertinent to this discussion as they are crucial resources for women who have these issues.
You may call it a matter of “free opinion,” but there is only one right answer. Unfortunately, the Church is not unified on this issue, but it’s way too easy to just accept the authority of the person who gives you the answer you want. I think the Church’s teachings mandate the outcome here, even though there is no direct answer in any encyclical. This is the case for a large majority of ethical decisions.
I agree that sterilization for other, better reasons does not require abstention, especially permanent sterilization, as in the removal of a uterus. The risk of murdering a preborn child requires abstention.
Contrary to your assertion a “thing” can be evil. An earthquake that kills is evil. However, it is not a “moral” evil unless it is willed by a human being.
CCLI and NFP are very pertinent to this discussion as they are crucial resources for women who have these issues.
You may call it a matter of “free opinion,” but there is only one right answer. Unfortunately, the Church is not unified on this issue, but it’s way too easy to just accept the authority of the person who gives you the answer you want. I think the Church’s teachings mandate the outcome here, even though there is no direct answer in any encyclical. This is the case for a large majority of ethical decisions.
R
ryecroft
Guest
Because I have kidney disease and also problems with loosing too much blood during my cycle (to the point of needing transfusions at times) as well as ovarian cysts and uterine tumors my husband and I have found that we are indeed allowed to use ABC (artificial birth control) and still have the Church alright with it. This comes under the heading of double effect and I did have pause to worry about the pill and some other methods but not only found that not all hormonal birth control necessarily is an abortifacient and then even if it was Fr. Serpa explained on another thread about this. It’s the best explination I have found and it’s fairly easy to understand. I hope this helps you. Here is the post:
Dear MKMMOM,This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:
The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.
The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Good luck - I know this can be something that pulls at your thoughts. But I am so glad that when I’m well enough, we are able to be together. We did try other methods and went to many different Doctors with regards to the “women’s issues” - but we really want to have children and this way also, when the doctor says we can try all I have to do is stop taking the ABC. Do pray for us - I don’t want to get too old or have any other situations wherewe aren’t able to deliver due to health issues.
God Bless-
Annie aka Ryecroft
p.s. if you want to make sure the post is real, hopefully this link will work so you won’t have to try to find his post by going through all the other posts - thank you Fr. Serpa!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618
S
Spirithound
Guest
I’m curious as to what positive moral good might result from ABC?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?
N
New_Yorker
Guest
Why not abstain? How is intentionally engaging in a physical act that will result in an abortion different from procuring an abortion? Sure, it’s less intrusive, but both are abortions caused by a person exercising his (their) will.
ABC can be used for medical purposes, but shouldn’t one abstain from sex, so as not to cause abortions, during the use of ABC? It’s not ABC that is sinful, it’s having conjugal relations when one is on ABC that is sinful.
ABC can be used for medical purposes, but shouldn’t one abstain from sex, so as not to cause abortions, during the use of ABC? It’s not ABC that is sinful, it’s having conjugal relations when one is on ABC that is sinful.
F
fix
Guest
A thing may be a physical evil, but not a moral evil. Actions can be intrinsically evil as in moral evil. Objects are not morally evil. Pills are not evil. They can be used for evil, to be sure.Contrary to your assertion a “thing” can be evil. An earthquake that kills is evil. However, it is not a “moral” evil unless it is willed by a human being.
F
fix
Guest
One is directly willed and one is not.Why not abstain? How is intentionally engaging in a physical act that will result in an abortion different from procuring an abortion? Sure, it’s less intrusive, but both are abortions caused by a person exercising his (their) will.
But, where does the Church teach as you say?ABC can be used for medical purposes, but shouldn’t one abstain from sex, so as not to cause abortions, during the use of ABC? It’s not ABC that is sinful, it’s having conjugal relations when one is on ABC that is sinful.
N
New_Yorker
Guest
How about this:
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”
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.
“Intrinsically evil.” Strong words. Unitive AND procreative. Any act of contracepted sex is not unitive AND procreative and also renders procreation that was possible (before the contraception) now impossible. Add to that the abortion you could be causing, and the answer seems clear, from the Catechism.
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”
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.
“Intrinsically evil.” Strong words. Unitive AND procreative. Any act of contracepted sex is not unitive AND procreative and also renders procreation that was possible (before the contraception) now impossible. Add to that the abortion you could be causing, and the answer seems clear, from the Catechism.
F
fix
Guest
None of that proves your position or contradicts Fr. Serpa.How about this:
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”
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.
“Intrinsically evil.” Strong words. Unitive AND procreative. Any act of contracepted sex is not unitive AND procreative and also renders procreation that was possible (before the contraception) now impossible. Add to that the abortion you could be causing, and the answer seems clear, from the Catechism.
Contracepted intercourse is willed. Marital embrace, while taking medication to treat a medical problem, is not contraception. The couple do not will contraception or sterility or abortion. And they are not using the medication to alter fertility.
They use the medication that has unintended side effects.
HV says:
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)
N
New_Yorker
Guest
Where does the Church teach as you say? And what is the positive moral effect of having sex while a woman is on artificial birth control, which the Catechism expressly condemns?One is directly willed and one is not.
But, where does the Church teach as you say?
N
New_Yorker
Guest
You’ve provided no support for your claim. But look at this quote closely:
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 A MEANS **, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
This applies to EVERY ACTION, not just those w/a direct will. Further, it applies to actions which as an END (to have contracepted sex for its own sake) or as a MEANS (contraception as a means to a cure, but having contracepted sex INdirectly) render procreation impossible.
There are no exceptions. Abstain. Love can be expressed in many ways. There is no requirement to have sex in this situation, especially when has been rendered artifically non-procreative.
What is the good from this contracepted and possible abortive sex?
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 A MEANS **, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
This applies to EVERY ACTION, not just those w/a direct will. Further, it applies to actions which as an END (to have contracepted sex for its own sake) or as a MEANS (contraception as a means to a cure, but having contracepted sex INdirectly) render procreation impossible.
There are no exceptions. Abstain. Love can be expressed in many ways. There is no requirement to have sex in this situation, especially when has been rendered artifically non-procreative.
What is the good from this contracepted and possible abortive sex?
F
fix
Guest
But, the means used are not to suppress fertility. The means used are to treat a medical problem. The quote you mention is talking about contracepted sex that is the notion the couple want to limit births. I agree, contraception is an illicit means even with a good intention, but that is not the case we are talking about here.You’ve provided no support for your claim. But look at this quote closely:
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 A MEANS **, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
This applies to EVERY ACTION, not just those w/a direct will. Further, it applies to actions which as an END (to have contracepted sex for its own sake) or as a MEANS (contraception as a means to a cure, but having contracepted sex INdirectly) render procreation impossible.
There are no exceptions. Abstain. Love can be expressed in many ways. There is no requirement to have sex in this situation, especially when has been rendered artifically non-procreative.
What is the good from this contracepted and possible abortive sex?
Note, again, the document specifically says it is licit to use such medications to treat medical problems.
F
fix
Guest
This is not a correct way to view it. You simply cannot throw away moral theology because you do not like the outcome. Contracepted sex is wrong, always, and so is direct abortion.What is the good from this contracepted and possible abortive sex?
What if the patient was taking some other medication that could cause indirect abortion or suppress fertility? Would you hold it is a sin for the couple to engage in the act? What if the women has a genetic disease that renders her more likely to miscarry? Must she abstain?
N
New_Yorker
Guest
The quote from Humanae Vitae is, of course, correct, but does not apply to this question:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
Look at the prior paragraph in HV:
“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."
I think this paragraph answers the question. Whatever “good” may come from contracepted sex (not the contraception itself) does not outweigh the moral evil of contraception (and abortion, in this case). Such intercourse is “so intrinsically wrong.” One may not engage in evil (contracepted sex) for this unspecified “good.” Placing the good of the marital embrace above the evil of contracepted sex is disordered.
Lawful Therapeutic Means
- 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.
Look at the prior paragraph in HV:
“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."
I think this paragraph answers the question. Whatever “good” may come from contracepted sex (not the contraception itself) does not outweigh the moral evil of contraception (and abortion, in this case). Such intercourse is “so intrinsically wrong.” One may not engage in evil (contracepted sex) for this unspecified “good.” Placing the good of the marital embrace above the evil of contracepted sex is disordered.
N
New_Yorker
Guest
Look to the Natural Law. As long as the sexual organs are being used for their intended purpose, by married spouses, the sexual act is permitted. As you’ve pointed out, miscarriage is an evil, but not a moral evil. There is no moral evil in having natural sex where a miscarriage may occur. You are using your sexual organs in accord with the goodness of God’s plan.What if the women has a genetic disease that renders her more likely to miscarry? Must she abstain?
However, once you contracept (for whatever reason, as an end OR A MEANS), you must abstain because you have artificially (not naturally, as in the example you pose) rendered procreation impossible, regardless of the motives (to cure a disease, etc.).
So, abstain, until the contracepted therapy is complete, and you won’t engage in the evil of contracepted sex, regardless of the intent/motive/purpose, which never saves an act that is intrinsically disordered or evil.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.