Contraception and health issues

[Miss_Primrose]

Ok, so I have been thinking and reading and so far I have not come across an answer to this question, so I would love some advice or views.

Is Contraception sinful if the person using it has a medical condition, for example HIV?

I am thinking Condoms but I suppose any kind that creates a barrier between man and woman rather than an internal kind such as the Pill.

I am also thinking manly of people within marriage who for whatever reason has a medical condition diagnosed either before or during the marriage, maybe of no vault of there own.

Because of the possibility of spreading such a condition, would they have to not have sex if they still had to abide by the no contraception rules? Surely that’s not possible or fair for the married couple in question?

I would like to add that this is curiosity and not a personal issue, I just wondered weather it was acknowledged that this could be a problem for some people and weather there was a solution.

Thank you.

 

[1ke]

Is Contraception sinful if the person using it has a medical condition, for example HIV?

Contraception is always gravely immoral. A person with HIV would be called to continence.

I am also thinking manly of people within marriage who for whatever reason has a medical condition diagnosed either before or during the marriage, maybe of no vault of there own.

Whether someone has a condition before marriage or comes down with one after, contraception is always wrong.

Because of the possibility of spreading such a condition, would they have to not have sex if they still had to abide by the no contraception rules? Surely that’s not possible or fair for the married couple in question?

Correct. In such a situation the couple would be called to discern abstinence.

Life’s not fair, Primrose.

I would like to add that this is curiosity and not a personal issue, I just wondered weather it was acknowledged that this could be a problem for some people and weather there was a solution.

The solution would be to sacrifice for the sake of the person’s health or of their spouse’s health. Committing a grave sin against the sixth commandment is never an option.

 

[jediliz]

I read somewhere that birth control pills actually makes it more possible for HIV to be transferred as they do something to the lining of the uterus. I think it was about women in Nigeria possibly.

I would recommend abstinence for someone with HIV.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ok, so I have been thinking and reading and so far I have not come across an answer to this question, so I would love some advice or views.

Is Contraception sinful if the person using it has a medical condition, for example HIV?

I am thinking Condoms but I suppose any kind that creates a barrier between man and woman rather than an internal kind such as the Pill.

I am also thinking manly of people within marriage who for whatever reason has a medical condition diagnosed either before or during the marriage, maybe of no vault of there own.

Because of the possibility of spreading such a condition, would they have to not have sex if they still had to abide by the no contraception rules? Surely that’s not possible or fair for the married couple in question?

I would like to add that this is curiosity and not a personal issue, I just wondered weather it was acknowledged that this could be a problem for some people and weather there was a solution.

Thank you.

You say you have been thinking and reading about this. The answer to this question is readily available. It is in the CCC. It is ALL over these forums, and it is the subject of a lot of discussion so you should be able to find the answer.

The Catholic and Holy position is that ABC is always always wrong. Trust me when I tell you that the Church, and God himself knows about medical conditions, and that never changes something immoral.

 

[dailey]

Ok, so I have been thinking and reading and so far I have not come across an answer to this question, so I would love some advice or views.

Is Contraception sinful if the person using it has a medical condition, for example HIV?

I am thinking Condoms but I suppose any kind that creates a barrier between man and woman rather than an internal kind such as the Pill.

I am also thinking manly of people within marriage who for whatever reason has a medical condition diagnosed either before or during the marriage, maybe of no vault of there own.

Because of the possibility of spreading such a condition, would they have to not have sex if they still had to abide by the no contraception rules? Surely that’s not possible or fair for the married couple in question?

I would like to add that this is curiosity and not a personal issue, I just wondered weather it was acknowledged that this could be a problem for some people and weather there was a solution.

Thank you.

The only time the church allows contraceptives, like the pill for example, is if it is for medical reasons.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The only time the church allows contraceptives, like the pill for example, is if it is for medical reasons.

Uh. With the disclaimer. Not to be used as a contraceptive. Right?

A person could take the “pill” for medical reasons as that drug might help with the medical problem. But the person cannot take the “pill” as a contraception for “medical reasons”

You have to be clear here.

The OP asked if CONTRACEPTION can be used for medical reasons. The answer is NO!

If you are taking a medicine “the pill” to combat a medical problem then the principle of double effect applies and one may take it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

In fact, researchers from the University of Washington studied women in Africa and found that the use of DMPA doubled the transmission rates of HIV. They cited three mechanisms to account for this increase. First, the hormonal contraceptives cause the vaginal lining to thin and develop small tears that increase the exposure to HIV during sex. Secondly, the hormonal contraceptives weaken the immune system and reduce a woman’s ability to repel HIV infection. Finally, women who are HIV positive and take hormonal contraceptives shed more HIV virus, making them more infectious.

cnsnews.com/blog/denise-j-hunnell-md/melinda-gates-false-and-dangerous-solution-poverty

Dr. Timothy Flanigan says oral contraception pills doubles the risk of HIV transmission.

ncregister.com/daily-news/understanding-the-international-effort-of-population-control

Condoms have a failiure rate. Why risk somebody’s health potentially on a condom?

Condoms were recalled in South Africa after claim they were ‘faulty.’

bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16797496

Defective condoms could mean people caught HIV.

 

[dailey]

Ok, so I have been thinking and reading and so far I have not come across an answer to this question, so I would love some advice or views.

Is Contraception sinful if the person using it has a medical condition, for example HIV?

I am thinking Condoms but I suppose any kind that creates a barrier between man and woman rather than an internal kind such as the Pill.

I am also thinking manly of people within marriage who for whatever reason has a medical condition diagnosed either before or during the marriage, maybe of no vault of there own.

Because of the possibility of spreading such a condition, would they have to not have sex if they still had to abide by the no contraception rules? Surely that’s not possible or fair for the married couple in question?

I would like to add that this is curiosity and not a personal issue, I just wondered weather it was acknowledged that this could be a problem for some people and weather there was a solution.

Thank you.

The only time the church allows contraceptives, like the pill for example, is if it is for medical reasons.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The only time the church allows contraceptives, like the pill for example, is if it is for medical reasons.

Did you mean to double post?

Is it your contention that if a potential mother has “medical reasons” to not get pregnant, that she can go on the pill?

 

[kozlosap]

Contraception is always gravely immoral. A person with HIV would be called to continence.

Whether someone has a condition before marriage or comes down with one after, contraception is always wrong.

Correct. In such a situation the couple would be called to discern abstinence.

Life’s not fair, Primrose.

The solution would be to sacrifice for the sake of the person’s health or of their spouse’s health. Committing a grave sin against the sixth commandment is never an option.

Please stop spreading this belief of yours, it is not the stance of the Church. A woman is certainly allowed to use hormonal treatments to help preserve her fertility if she has endometriosis or to lesson the likelihood of ovarian cysts. It is a case of the rule of unintended consequence. The patient is using the medication to stop the endometriosis from spreading like wildfire and at the same time it is contraceptive by nature. Women are already wracked with depression when they are afflicted with a condition that interferes with their fertility and the last thing they need is someone telling them that if they use the medication best suited to help them, then they are engaging in mortal sin. Geeeeeeewizzzzzzz…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Please stop spreading this belief of yours, it is not the stance of the Church. A woman is certainly allowed to use hormonal treatments to help preserve her fertility if she has endometriosis or to lesson the likelihood of ovarian cysts. It is a case of the rule of unintended consequence. The patient is using the medication to stop the endometriosis from spreading like wildfire and at the same time it is contraceptive by nature. Women are already wracked with depression when they are afflicted with a condition that interferes with their fertility and the last thing they need is someone telling them that if they use the medication best suited to help them, then they are engaging in mortal sin. Geeeeeeewizzzzzzz…

1ke is 100 percent correct. “contraception” is never ok. Ever. The church could not be more clear about that. Perhaps you mean something other than contraception? That is ok.

Also, using people being depressed and so therefore do not need to hear something is not a logical argument.

If the purpose of ANYTHING is to CONTRACEPT then it is evil. BUT if something contracepts as an UNINTENDED consequence. Then it can be used.

I never will understand why this is so confusing to some people?

 

[1ke]

Please stop spreading this belief of yours, it is not the stance of the Church.

Everything I wrote is 100% accurate.

A woman is certainly allowed to use hormonal treatments to help preserve her fertility if she has endometriosis or to lesson the likelihood of ovarian cysts.

The OP did not ask about medical treatment for hormonal or female issues in which sterility is the unintended side effect.

The OP asked if one could CONTRACEPT when one has HIV or another medical condition.

The answer is: no.

Contraception is always a moral evil. That is why it is grave matter against the sixth commandment.

 

[1ke]

The only time the church allows contraceptives, like the pill for example, is if it is for medical reasons.

This is not accurate. Contraception is always immoral, the Church terms it an intrinsic evil.

What would be accurate to say, although not the question asked by the OP, is that one may pursue legitimate medical procedures and medications to treat an illness or condition even if that treatment has a side effect of sterility.

For example: radiation for cancer can make one sterile. It is still moral to take radiation to treat cancer as sterilizing oneself is not the purpose of the radiation nor the intended outcome. It can moral to take female hormones, also found in “the Pill”, to treat a female problem.

All such treatment must meet the four-fold criteria of the Principle of Double Effect in order to proceed.

The OP did not ask about legitimately treating a condition. He asked about contracepting when one has HIV.

 

[dailey]

That’s what I meant say.. I just didn’t go into that much detail.

 

[dailey]

Did you mean to double post?

Is it your contention that if a potential mother has “medical reasons” to not get pregnant, that she can go on the pill?

No and no.

 

[dailey]

This is not accurate. Contraception is always immoral, the Church terms it an intrinsic evil.

What would be accurate to say, although not the question asked by the OP, is that one may pursue legitimate medical procedures and medications to treat an illness or condition even if that treatment has a side effect of sterility.
.

Ahhh, I misread the OP post. . Thought that was what he was asking.

 

[edwest2]

Ok, so I have been thinking and reading and so far I have not come across an answer to this question, so I would love some advice or views.

Is Contraception sinful if the person using it has a medical condition, for example HIV?

I am thinking Condoms but I suppose any kind that creates a barrier between man and woman rather than an internal kind such as the Pill.

I am also thinking manly of people within marriage who for whatever reason has a medical condition diagnosed either before or during the marriage, maybe of no vault of there own.

Because of the possibility of spreading such a condition, would they have to not have sex if they still had to abide by the no contraception rules? Surely that’s not possible or fair for the married couple in question?

I would like to add that this is curiosity and not a personal issue, I just wondered weather it was acknowledged that this could be a problem for some people and weather there was a solution.

Thank you.

Hi,

As far as condoms to prevent HIV infection, the following is from the Centers for Disease Control web site:

“Male condom—Worn by the man, a male condom keeps sperm from getting into a woman’s body. Latex condoms, the most common type, help prevent pregnancy, and HIV and other STDs, as do the newer synthetic condoms. “Natural” or “lambskin” condoms also help prevent pregnancy, but may not provide protection against STDs, including HIV. Typical use failure rate: 18%.”

I personally knew a couple who got married and the wife developed a condition that made it impossible for her to have kids. They stayed married.

I knew another married couple where the husband had genital herpes before they got married. Again, no form of contraception, or combination of types, are 100% foolproof

From the United Stattes Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Is there ever a time “contraceptives” may be used for medical reasons?

"Catholic teaching does not oppose the use of hormonal medications – such as those found in chemical contraceptives – for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent.

"But artificial hormones typically treat only the medical symptoms. They do not correct the underlying disease or condition. They also carry the same physical health risks as hormonal contraceptives.

“Thankfully, with growing advancements in understanding fertility, knowledgeable gynecologists can often prescribe non-contraceptive drugs and recommend safer and healthier treatments to correct underlying problems or eliminate discomfort.”

Do some contraceptives pose health risks?

"Yes. The use and availability of contraceptives is linked to the increased spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. Casual sex, encouraged by widely available contraception, has resulted in about 60 million Americans being infected with one or more sexually-transmitted diseases, many of them incurable and emotionally devastating. The estimated cost of treating these illnesses is now $19 billion a year in the U.S. alone.

“Planned Parenthood and secular sex educators recommend using condoms for protection against STDs. Yet condoms offer almost no protection against the epidemic of incurable viral STDs, such as genital herpes and human papilloma virus (HPV), strains of which cause genital warts and virtually all cases of cervical cancer. Numerous studies have found that typical condom use offers inadequate or little protection against even bacterial STDs, such as Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[LookingForEve]

I have genital warts and I’m looking for a wife who has genital warts. I know that if I use condoms I can help prevent warts from spreading. I wasn’t raised in the church so I don’t believe I should have a chase marriage because I was lied to about sex. I’m not a sex addict but I know it is a beautiful thing between a married man and woman. I have been told by doctors that when the warts are removed it cant be spread. I’ve read contradictions on the internet. Their is a low risk of genital warts leads to cancer. I want kids but the only ways is if my wife has a c section. I believe that I am the exception to the rule about using condoms. What do you think? Please pray before giving me advice.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I never will understand why this is so confusing to some people?

It’s pretty easy to see why it can be confusing…because married couples want to have sex. Married people are called to have sex. It consumates the marriage. So when a medical condition appears, it is easy for an outsider to so “abstain”. It isn’t so easy when you are one of the parties that are told to abstain and that you can’t have sex anymore.

It is a subject that I am very torn about and not sure if the church’s teaching should be so black and white.

Just as a hypothetical, if a woman suffers from eclampsia she could die from getting pregnant. So it is very critical that she doesn’t get pregnant. If the couple were to abstain, it could create a strain on their marriage and possibly lead to adultery and divorce.

I know some will come on here and say well the church teaches this and the church teaches that…and I agree in theory but reality isn’t so black and white. It’s the same reason that you can go to two different priests and one will tell you that you may use contraceptives for medical reasons and another will say you can’t.

Personally right now, I’m struggling with something not so serious but still worrisome. We had a baby three months ago. My wife had to be put onto blood pressure meds after delivery. Pressures never got too high but we did have to go to the ER once b/c of her levels. Anyways, we plan on using NFP but that doesn’t work necessarily until after your cycle is normal again (which my wife’s never has been) and NFP isn’t 100% successful. My wife and I have been having this conversation quite a bit lately and not sure what we are going to do.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s pretty easy to see why it can be confusing…because married couples want to have sex. Married people are called to have sex. It consumates the marriage. So when a medical condition appears, it is easy for an outsider to so “abstain”. It isn’t so easy when you are one of the parties that are told to abstain and that you can’t have sex anymore.

It is a subject that I am very torn about and not sure if the church’s teaching should be so black and white.

Just as a hypothetical, if a woman suffers from eclampsia she could die from getting pregnant. So it is very critical that she doesn’t get pregnant. If the couple were to abstain, it could create a strain on their marriage and possibly lead to adultery and divorce.

I know some will come on here and say well the church teaches this and the church teaches that…and I agree in theory but reality isn’t so black and white. It’s the same reason that you can go to two different priests and one will tell you that you may use contraceptives for medical reasons and another will say you can’t.

Personally right now, I’m struggling with something not so serious but still worrisome. We had a baby three months ago. My wife had to be put onto blood pressure meds after delivery. Pressures never got too high but we did have to go to the ER once b/c of her levels. Anyways, we plan on using NFP but that doesn’t work necessarily until after your cycle is normal again (which my wife’s never has been) and NFP isn’t 100% successful. My wife and I have been having this conversation quite a bit lately and not sure what we are going to do.

I know some will come on here and say well the church teaches this and the church teaches that…and I agree in theory but reality isn’t so black and white.

Then you don’t agree. The Church teaches what she teaches. It IS black and white and the Church most certainly has taken into account situations like yours and worse.

ABC is NEVER ok!!!

How is that still being discussed!!!

For the love of Pete what does God have to say to make it more clearer!

People, there are no situations no loopholes you can find. But people still try?

What if my wife owns a monkey from Africa who can sign the Douay Rheims Version of the Bible and only does so when we have sex when fertile!? But if she conceives the monkey switches to the Koran. How about then can we use ABC to help spread the gospel to all the deaf children who like the monkey at the Zoo?

Can we do it if it is upside down and in space?

What if my wife is actually a cyborg?
What if we use rubber instead of latex and we grow the rubber tree in our backyard? Is that natural enough?

What if president Obama has a gun to my head in my bedroom with my pants around my ankles? what then? Should I just die?

Yes!

Good grief!

How many times must this be addressed.

People in Africa are dying of aids. The Church hates that a single person has to die, but SHE WILL NOT PERMIT EVIL TO TRY TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING HOLY.