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

[BiologyBrain]

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?

There is a HUGE difference between a surgically (or menopausally) sterile woman continuing marital relations vs an ABC using woman continuing marital relations.

1. Surgical sterility (or menopause) is a treatment for a disease - like cancer. Therefore, the unintended effect is that the woman no longer has eggs/womb/etc. ABC is a ‘band-aid’ for disease that also causes early chemical abortions.
2. If the surgically sterile (menopausal) woman has marital relations there are no eggs to be fertilized. No new life can happen - therefore no new life can be killed. However, the couple did not intend this as the end of the means of curing her of her disease. It was a consequence. They are still fully capable of having procreative sex even tho they are infertile b/c the intention of their marital embrace is not to avoid procreation.
3. Using ABC does not guarantee ovulation will not occur. If ovulation occurs & marital relations occur there is an egg that can get fertilized. This fertilized egg is new life, but one of the actions of ABC (in general according to the FDA, package inserts, & other medical sources) is to make the lining of the womb hostile to the fertilized egg (new life) causing its death. This is an early chemical abortion - even if its unintended.
4. ABC use b/c it can lead to early chemical abortions is always wrong b/c abortion is always wrong (in the CCC). Even if its an unintended effect, ABC is known to cause these early abortions. Therefore, if a woman has to take ABC she should abstain from marital relations to eliminate/prevent any unintended abortions from taking place.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I have heard good priests and theologians give varied opinions.

When I was given a prescription for the pill for bleeding, I didn’t fill it for months because i wasn’t sure what to do and what was licit.

During that time frame I was nursing, i did not want to wean. I was having 15 day cycles with just a few days in between and couldn’t figure out how to chart my fertility.

Our priest said that we could use the Pill to control the bleeding, and I took it for less than a year. We didn’t abstain.

Now, why can’t these irregular bleeding episodes be treated in a way that’s ethical to our faith? My doctor at the time didn’t offer any alternatives…and now I realize that I shouldn’t be taking the Pill for physical reasons (heart problem).

I feel that women are being over prescribed the Pill, and very few doctors are looking for other treatments. Can’t we have better treatment for our problems?

I can’t imagine men being given a Pill to cure something…that causes weight gain, moodiness, lack of libido, possible heart and circulatory problems and cause them to lose a baby.

 

[New_Yorker]

:

I feel that women are being over prescribed the Pill, and very few doctors are looking for other treatments. Can’t we have better treatment for our problems?

If you can find an NFP doctor, you’ll get the best treatment. Unfortunately, some priests are sometimes not so helpful because, in my experience, “sex” is a difficult issue for them. And remember that the pill may be prescribed responsibly (though it is currently over-prescribed). The thorny question is, “What are your moral obligations if you are legitimately prescribed ABC?”

 

[BiologyBrain]

What if the women has a genetic disease that renders her more likely to miscarry? Must she abstain?

The woman must do everything in her power/knowledge to protect the sanctity of life within her. She & her husband may engage in the marital embrace. God designed her body this way, even though we see it as defective. For you to imply that a woman who miscarries (whether due to genetic disease or unknown reasons - like me) should abstain is ridiculous and insulting/offensive to anyone who lives w/ this reality. There is always a chance that God will grant a reprieve in this case b/c it is ultimately God’s decision/plan. When ABC (for whatever reason) is used, God is taken out of the equation. That’s why ABC is intrinsically evil - regardless of intent.

 

[fix]

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.

This is talking about cases where the couple wants to limit births, not about treating medical problems.

 

[fix]

The woman must do everything in her power/knowledge to protect the sanctity of life within her. She & her husband may engage in the marital embrace. God designed her body this way, even though we see it as defective. For you to imply that a woman who miscarries (whether due to genetic disease or unknown reasons - like me) should abstain is ridiculous and insulting/offensive to anyone who lives w/ this reality. There is always a chance that God will grant a reprieve in this case b/c it is ultimately God’s decision/plan. When ABC (for whatever reason) is used, God is taken out of the equation. That’s why ABC is intrinsically evil - regardless of intent.

I am sorry you are confused and misusing my words. Contraception is intrinsically evil. Use of medication to treat medical problems is not intrinsically evil.

 

[fix]

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.

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.).

Yes, if you are contracepting as a means you would have a point, but that is not the case. The couple is not contracepting as a means. The couple is treating a medical problem.

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.

Abstaining is fine. I just do not see how you may bind where the Church has not?

 

[kage_ar]

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)

One interesting thing about this. the wording is very clear “to CURE bodily diseases”. I cannot for the life of me think of one single thing that the BC Pill cures. It masks symptoms, it does not cure anything.

 

[fix]

Is the word cure to be understood as meaning only that the problem is totally gone forever? That would make most of medicine illegitimate.

 

[New_Yorker]

“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."

This is talking about cases where the couple wants to limit births, not about treating medical problems.

Look at the clarity and expansiveness of the language. It is not limited. An evil act (contracepted sex, as defined so by HV and the Catechism) does not become acceptable “even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” So, the fact that the contraception is prescribed to promote the individual’s welfare, or a greater welfare, can never justify contracepted sexual intercourse.

You asked for the authority, and I have provided it.

 

[New_Yorker]

Yes, if you are contracepting as a means you would have a point, but that is not the case. The couple is not contracepting as a means. The couple is treating a medical problem.

This is not correct. Contracepting as an end would be contracepting for the sake of having contracepted sex. We all agree this is wrong. Contracepting as a “means” would be contracepting for ANOTHER reason - for instance, as a medical treatment. Contraception would be a means to a cure. However, sexual relations are STILL condemned, squarely, even when contraception is legitimately prescribed as a MEANS.

These are binding teachings.

 

[kage_ar]

Is the word cure to be understood as meaning only that the problem is totally gone forever?

As the doucment was authored and translated by someone smarter than me, I would think had they meant “treat” they would have used “treat”. They chose the word “cure” for a reason, and the word “cure” has specific meaning.

That would make most of medicine illegitimate.

Not sure what you mean by this, most of medicine? This is sepcific to using contraceptives.

 

[fix]

This is not correct. Contracepting as an end would be contracepting for the sake of having contracepted sex. We all agree this is wrong. Contracepting as a “means” would be contracepting for ANOTHER reason - for instance, as a medical treatment. Contraception would be a means to a cure. However, sexual relations are STILL condemned, squarely, even when contraception is legitimately prescribed as a MEANS.

These are binding teachings.

No, this is inaccurate. Contraception is always wrong. Some person taking a medication to treat a bodily is not contracepting.

Contracepting as a “means” to space children is wrong. No one is talking about contraception as means. We are talking about treating a medical pathology that may have an effect of temporary sterility.

Note that the section on HV states what it does about medical uses after the part referring to the act of contraception as an intent, means, or end.

Why do you think it mentions that such use is licit? Would it be necessary to mention it if they intended it to be used only by single women or celibate married women?

 

[fix]

As the doucment was authored and translated by someone smarter than me, I would think had they meant “treat” they would have used “treat”. They chose the word “cure” for a reason, and the word “cure” has specific meaning.

A cure may be permanent or temporary. It may be a process.

Not sure what you mean by this, most of medicine? This is sepcific to using contraceptives.

I was referring to use of the word cure. If we are claiming a certain medication does not cure a particular ailment that would mean most methods used in medicine do not cure.

I guess my point is the word cure in this context does not necessarily mean it must permanently, immediately, and totally remove the condition.

 

[New_Yorker]

No, this is inaccurate. Contraception is always wrong. Some person taking a medication to treat a bodily is not contracepting.

Contracepting as a “means” to space children is wrong. No one is talking about contraception as means. We are talking about treating a medical pathology that may have an effect of temporary sterility.

Note that the section on HV states what it does about medical uses after the part referring to the act of contraception as an intent, means, or end.

Why do you think it mentions that such use is licit? Would it be necessary to mention it if they intended it to be used only by single women or celibate married women?

What is contraception? Back 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"

The fact that the action may have a different means (medical) and it renders procreation impossible does not change it from being contraceptive. It’s either directly contraceptive as an end, or indirectly contraceptive, as a means for another purpose (medical, for instance). As you point out, contracepting as a “means” to space children is wrong. Why? Because it is contraception and whether as a means (spacing out children, medical, etc.) or an end (to prevent conception), it is wrong.

Medical treatment is licit. That’s why HV endorses therapeutic means. But neither HV nor the Catechism state that sex is permissible while the human body is rendered artificially infertile, whether as a MEANS or an END. In fact, they both state the opposite if you look at the language (means/end) and the fact that an evil can never become acceptable by “intent” or “motive” as stated in HV.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not ABC that is sinful, it’s having conjugal relations when one is on ABC that is sinful.

Wrong. Purposefully contracepting is sinful.

The quote from Humanae Vitae is, of course, correct, but does not apply to this question:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. 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.

Medications and treatment which cause infertility are fine, so long as infertility is not the aim. Where does this paragraph state that a woman can engage in contracepted sex during such treatment?

Where does it say that she cannot???

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.

Hello?? Miss the part where it says, “deliberately contraceptive”?

Look at the clarity and expansiveness of the language. It is not limited. An evil act (contracepted sex, as defined so by HV and the Catechism) does not become acceptable “even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” So, the fact that the contraception is prescribed to promote the individual’s welfare, or a greater welfare, can never justify contracepted sexual intercourse.

You asked for the authority, and I have provided it.

No, what you provided is a non sequitur.

This is not correct. Contracepting as an end would be contracepting for the sake of having contracepted sex. We all agree this is wrong. Contracepting as a “means” would be contracepting for ANOTHER reason - for instance, as a medical treatment. Contraception would be a means to a cure. However, sexual relations are STILL condemned, squarely, even when contraception is legitimately prescribed as a MEANS.

These are binding teachings.

Sorry, these are your misinterpretations.

What you’re saying in essence is that the principle of double effect does not apply to the use of medications where the use in not intended for contraception, and this is not so.

 

[New_Yorker]

I was asked to provide support for my position and did so. Those asserting the contrary have not. Moreover, some of those asserting the contrary seem beyond rational dialogue.

So, contracepting is sinful, per se? I know a nun who is contracepting because of menstrual problems. Is that sinful? Of course not. It’s contracepted SEX that is sinful.

Also, it’s unwarranted to take the term “deliberately contraceptive” out of context. The full sentence is:

“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.”

So, it’s referring to SEXUAL INTERCOURSE which is deliberately contraceptive; this would be any sexual intercourse where procreation is rendered impossible, through artificial birth control, REGARDLESS of intent and motive, as set forth in my previous posts.

If anyone has any authority to the contrary, I’m willing to read it.

 

[Holly3278]

Um, no, it is not true.

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

Exactly! Contraception is a grave moral evil! Stay away from contraception!

By the way, did you know (this is directed towards the OP) that all Christian churches opposed the use of contraception up until like 1930?

 

[Newbie2]

I was asked to provide support for my position and did so. Those asserting the contrary have not. Moreover, some of those asserting the contrary seem beyond rational dialogue.

So, contracepting is sinful, per se? I know a nun who is contracepting because of menstrual problems. Is that sinful? Of course not. It’s contracepted SEX that is sinful.

Also, it’s unwarranted to take the term “deliberately contraceptive” out of context. The full sentence is:

“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.”

So, it’s referring to SEXUAL INTERCOURSE which is deliberately contraceptive; this would be any sexual intercourse where procreation is rendered impossible, through artificial birth control, REGARDLESS of intent and motive, as set forth in my previous posts.

If anyone has any authority to the contrary, I’m willing to read it.

Exactly. And sexual intercourse between married partners using medication for other than contraception is not deliberately contraceptive.

Nope, wrong. Intent and motive define “deliberate”.

 

[New_Yorker]

If anyone has arguments based on authority, I’d love to read them, rather than bald assertions about supposed definitions which do not rely upon any documents from Tradition or the Magisterium