Contraception OK?

[renee1258]

The difference though is the side effect is her shutting down her complete sense of sexuality, not just preventing pregnancy. You can’t compare the Pill to asprin. Asprin doesn’t shut down your circulatory system, and and we say it prevented a heart attack. Asprin improves that system, the Pill doesn’t improve reproductivity or sexuality.

Imagine if men took a Pill but they couldn’t be sexual? That is the Pill is too women, they may physically engage in sex, but they are never sexual. It is a common joke, that one of the way the Pill prevents pregnancy is to prevent sex with lack of sexual desire and water retention, never being able to achieve hieghten sexual pleasure. I could go on and on about how women whine and moan about their sex lives… but if you tell them NFP they proclaim they could go a week without sex.

 

[Dismas2004]

Mercygate;

Yes the teaching that takeing contraception for contraceptive puroses is evil and is binding on all. HV just restated the known infalliable teaching.

 

[mercygate]

Dismas2004:

Mercygate;

Yes the teaching that takeing contraception for contraceptive puroses is evil and is binding on all. HV just restated the known infalliable teaching.

:angel1:

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I want to address the encyclical question first. I agrre with most of what everyone is “trying” to say, but not with what is being said. I think that has been a failure here in understanding. Encyclicals are not binding on the faithful. Plain and simple. See your Bishop, look up the facts in the catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc…

I have. see my, as of yet, unanswered reply to your here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=220436&postcount=22

Papal encyclicals are binding, as they are an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, which according to *Lumen Gentium, *requires our religious submission of intellect and will. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[LabChick]

renee1258:

Why exactly would a woman want to “control” her cycles? There is a difference in thinking, my sexuality is a normal occurance as a part of my biology. Nothing is wrong with with ovulating and menstraution, it is healthy and normal. As women we should take pride in this, rather hating ourselves to think it is sin that needs medical attention.

For most women, menstration is a normal, healthy part of life. Even for those 20% of menstrating females with heavier-than-normal flows, it’s more of an inconvenience than a health concern. For these women who want more regulated cycles, I’d recommend taking Vitamin A supplements, increasing bioflavonoid intake, and avoiding aspirin.

However, for some women, what is normal is not healthy. The hormone levels of these women are naturally out of whack. Some have menorrhagia to such an extreme that their lives are in danger. I’ve seen patients who have had cycles with heavy bleeding that last 14 days, naturally, beginning at the age of 12 or 13. Some had menstrual cramps so severe that they missed days or weeks of school and/or work. They felt chronically fatigued. Some developed iron-deficiency anemia, while others already were anemic.

Is this normal? No. Is it healthy? Definately not.

I do think that birth control pills are prescribed too often for conditions that could be treated in another way. But to say there is no medical reason to use BCP is not only incorrect, but incredibly callous to the women who are affected by anemia and other conditions induced by menorrhagia.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the other question, Vincent is correct here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=217622&postcount=3
Howeer, Pope Paul VI is not saying it is OK to use the pill. He is saying only what he is saying. He is affirming the legitimacy of the principle of double effect in Catholic moral theology.

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 4:
trosch.org/phi/dbl-efft.htm

A rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad, and the other good.

Conditions. Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act.

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   ]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   ]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. **Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.

1. 
   The Church has not ruled that taking the pill is intrinsically evil. So simply taking the pill is not a violation of condition #1 above. For instance, one who completely abstains from sexual relations can take the pill without risk of abortion.
   
   However, per #4 above, the benefit of taking the pill (good effect) must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the other harmful risks of taking the pill (bad effect).

 

[felra]

Dismas2004:

I’m a little confused… What’s the Church’s position on this and where do I find the naswers in the documents of the Church?

Below are some Church documents and helpful resources to answer your questions.

**Natural Family Planning Resources
**compiled by Sara Fox Peterson
For additional information, visit Sara’s monthly Catholic NFP Perspectives Column

Catholic Church Teaching

Catechism of The Catholic Church: The Love of Husband & Wife

Humanae Vitae (On The Regulation of Birth) www.vatican.va/holy_fathe…ae_en.html

Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage) www.vatican.va/holy_fathe…ii_en.html

Familiaris Consortio (On The Role of The Christian Family in The Modern World www.vatican.va/holy_fathe…io_en.html

Recommended Reading

---

Christopher West
Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching
Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul Ii’s "Gospel of the Body

Kimberly Hahn
Life-Giving Love : Embracing God’s Beautiful Design for Marriage

Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla)
Love and Responsibility
Theology of the Body

Lawler, Boyle and May
Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, & Defense

 

[Dismas2004]

Thank you all for the discussion so far. A couple of thoughts.

First - itsjustdave1988 - "
Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master):

The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of æcumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or æcumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. **They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth. **
A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY (THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPÆDIC DICTIONARY)
Edited By Donald Attwater
New York, The Macmillan Company, 1962.
(Copyright 1958, Third Edition)
Library of Congress catalog card number: 58-5797

Often we want to just accept blindly things of faith. That’s great to an extent. What if we had a Bishop that supported Slavery and wrote about it? We have, in the South a long time ago. Even Religious down south had slaves. Back tot he point though, Just because it’s an encyclical doesn’t mean 1)that it must be read by the faithful, and 2)that it is binding in all it’s contents. That is the point I’m trying to make and it appears that some are anxious to prove me wrong. All it’s contents is pretty extreme. What about parts of the encyclical that doesn’t pertain to faith and morals? Then by your own analysis, that part would not be binding - hence the blanket statement, that all encyclicals are not binding, but some of the teaching contained within are. We are called to lvie our Faith, the Bishops are called to read and preach the writings of the Pope, i.e. encyclicals, to us.

Back to the original point however and this is the heart of the matter - Where in Ecumenical Documents can I find the theology to this questions one way or the other. Does anyone know?

renee1258 - Comparing Asprin to the pill is not far fetched. Please look at the forest and not the tree. The issue was whether using an artifical means (asprin or the pill) to help improve the health of another person (headache relief or the prevention of cancer) is moral or not. If you don’t like Asprin as an anology, then how about Chemothereapy, that also shuts down human systems, like the pill does. Also, you said that the pill does not improve reproductivity or sexuallity. I beg to differ, on a side note - if the woman has a very good chance of developing cancer if not on the pill(which of course increase the risks for other types which doesn’t run in the family) then her repoductivity and sexuality are moot.

Once again, Let us be charitable and assume that this woman is trying to fulfill the Law of Christ with a sincere heart. The issue is not whether or not she can find a loop hole to take contraception for contraceptive purposes. The issue is whether taking a medicine, the pill, to prevent cancer in morally wrong. According to HV 15 it is not, but like I have stated earlier, I’m looking for Ecum. Counc. documents.

 

[Princess_Abby]

Hi, Dismas.

I am from Kansas originally and have many good friends who either were or are still at Benedictine College as both students and professors.

Perhaps you can take some of these concerns and bring them to Fr. Meinrad Miller. He is the chaplain, as you know, I am sure, and such a devout and holy man. Maybe he could spiritually direct you on some of these very serious questions you have; I have known him for over ten years and have much faith in him!

Just a suggestion,
Abby

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dismas2004,

Just because it’s an encyclical doesn’t mean 1)that it must be read by the faithful, and 2)that it is binding in all it’s contents.

It doesn’t have to be read, but episcopal teachings, verbal or written, especially those promulgated in papal encyclicals are binding until abrogated by the Roman Pontiff.

The pope says via the DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church: “the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” (Lumen Gentium, 25). The pope trumps your opinion, or anything else you may find in a dictionary.

You’ve shown no proof to the contrary but only reasserted your position over again. This is contrary to official teachings of the Catholic Church, which I’ve posted in the link again provided below.

The dictionary you quoted is:

1. not magisterial, so has no value as proof against magisterial statements that contradict you, such as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pius IX’s Quanta Cura, and Pius XII’s Humanis Generis.
2. says nothing of the obligation of the faithful to submit to the non-infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium. It is only addressing infallible teachings, either solemnly pronounced or taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It says nothing of non-infallible doctrines which still require our religious assent according to canon law.

Just cuz it’s non-infallible, doesn’t mean it is not binding. If you have a doubt of law, you send a dubium to the Roman Pontiff. He sends a responsum ad dubium. We are obligated to sumit to his teaching, even when they are not infallible. See Hebrews 13:17.

Pope Pius IX

we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how** opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.**

(Pius IX, Encyclical *Quanta Cura *(1864), Denzinger 1698)

Do you have actual authoritative support for your claim? As in a quote from a pope, a paragraph from the Constitution of the Church, Canon law, a line from the Catechism? Because what I posted here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=220436&postcount=22 … is authoritative for Catholics, whereas your dictionary and your opinion … not so much.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dismas2004,

What you’ve quoted here:

**They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth. **

… pertains to whether teachings of the ordinary magisterium are to be considered infallible or not. Whether they are infallible or not is irrelevant as to whether they are binding or not. The Church clearly states that “**what is expounded in Encyclical Letters … demand consent.” **(Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis)

 

[CatholicMatthew]

LabChick:

Do you know this from experience?

This is from experience, medical opinions given to me (various sources available) and proffessional training.

LabChick:

Are you a medical doctor?

No, but that is not necessary to make a determination. What is necessary is a well-formed conscience in union with Rome.

LabChick:

Have you successfully used NFP to control your menstraul cycles or prevent endometrial cancer?

There are many issues you are bringing up here that need to be addressed. They fall into the categories of medical, pastoral and theological.

Since, I am a man I have not used NFP to control my menstrual cycles. NFP is not something that is used to control cycles. NFP is used to interpret the way cycles function and determining relative fertility and infertility at particular points in the cycle.

However, I have worked with many women (along with my wife) to help women get a good direction to understand how their body is working and directed them to a good NFP only doctor when a deeper medical problem is indicated. Many women can use nutrition, a night light or a supplement to help “normalize” their cycle or “regularize” it. Oddities in length are not necessarily a concern.

If deeper issues are a concern a doctor familiar with chart interpretation can run tests to determine the actual problem and work to fix that particular problem. CCL and Creighton have very good resources. If you would like links are contact information I would be more than happy to provide them. The Creighton method has put out a phenomonal medical text on NaPro technology that is very good at dealing with cycle issues.

As far as the pill is concerned, you are correct in that it is ok to use it for a theraputic purpose, given certain conditions. Since, the fact that all forms of chemical birth control operate (some forms use some methods more than others) under a triple mechanism that includes abortus conceptus (abortion) a woman using this method should not be sexually active. My earlier refrence to the vadecum clearly states this point.

My further problem with using the pill is that it does not solve a problem. It covers up the underlying problem by creating an artificial cycle, not an actual cycle. I have seen nothing that it “cures”. Further, the increased risks of breast cancer and other problems (through artificial hormones) would seem to contraindicate its usage for “cancer (endometrial) prevention” when the aggregate risk for this is smaller than the aggregate risk of breast cancer increase for a woman using the pill. Further, to avoid the abortifacient potential for a married woman three options become present to avoid endometrial problems:

1.) Pregnancy and extended Lactational Amenoreha through ecological breastfeeding are excellent tools.

2.) There is a medication that places a woman in the state of menopause through medical intervention. This has a contraceptive effect (double effect, as we are treating endometrial or other problems that we have not been able to treat in any other way and it is life threatening) but has no abortifacient potential

3.) the third and permanent solution that is undertaken under the same principle as number two, but with great sadness is a hysterectomy.

We have to remember that when using the pill is that it is designed specifically as a contraceptive (that is to say it was designed to cure the so-called problem of fertility–gag me I am wretching) and it always contains the mechanism of abortus conceptus (abortion post conception). There is much mis-information about these topics but you can go straight to the horse’s mouth and find the answers. You can do this alone or I can lead you to them.

Under the mercy,

Matthew

 

[CatholicMatthew]

LabChick:

I do think that birth control pills are prescribed too often for conditions that could be treated in another way.

At least we agree here.

LabChick:

But to say there is no medical reason to use BCP is not only incorrect, but incredibly callous to the women who are affected by anemia and other conditions induced by menorrhagia.

There are other options that are not abortifacients and are designed as a theraputic answer not a contraceptive answer. (This is speaking to direct intention of design and not to double effect).

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Dismas2004:

Things are going in circles here. There are essentially two issues now 1)Is using a medicine that prevents contraception morally acceptable if the medicine is being taken for another purpose, that is to prevent certain kinds of cancer?

Actually, a medicine that prevents contraception would be great. I need a life-time supply for everyone in the world. :dancing:

As for the usage of a pill (generic sense) or other medical procedure that has a contraceptive effect. The intention must not be contraceptive. If it has any chance of being an abortifacient then it must not be used or abstinence must be used. If it increases the risk of cancer greater than what is being prevented then it would be contraindicated for use.

Dismas2004:

1. What is the authority of encyclicals?

It is kind of funny that the root of encyclical means circle (see Dismas2004 statement above).

What is below is the best thing out there explaining the authority of an encyclical and its infallibility specifically. There are four layers of infallibility. Immaculate Conception is a number one (ex cathedra proclamation). Against contraception is a two (historical, with founding, matter of faith and morals, that the magesterium is a competent authority to expound on). Humane Vitae fills these requirements. You can question (out of good conscience) to understand further on these two layers but submission and obedience to these two are necessary to be faithful. In other words, you can strive to understand but if you never understand you must still follow them.

An encyclical is pastoral to a specific concern. Not everything in it is automatically infallible but does require submission as a servant of Christ under the juridstiction of the magesterium (ordinary). However, with certain language (from above) infallible matter can be proclaimed/elevated/reaffirmed.

Hopefully this clears it up a little.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

Hail Mary…

Quote from newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
NewAdvent.org:

As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops. Such letters addressed by a bishop to all his subjects in general are now commonly called pastorals. Amongst Anglicans, however, the name encyclical has recently been revived and applied, in imitation of papal usage, to circular letters issued by the English primates. Thus the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the papal condemnation of Anglican Orders (this condemnation, “Apostolicæ Curæ”, took the form of a Bull) was styled by its authors the Encyclical “Sæpius officio”.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Princess_Abby:

Perhaps you can take some of these concerns and bring them to Fr. Meinrad Miller. He is the chaplain, as you know, I am sure, and such a devout and holy man. Maybe he could spiritually direct you on some of these very serious questions you have; I have known him for over ten years and have much faith in him!

Dismas,
I am from Wichita. You are welcome any time to meet with my wife and I or many of the good priests here in Wichita. Fr. Meinrad would be a good alternative as would Fr. Habiger. I even have his e-mail address at benedictine.

My biggest concern is to get to the heart of the issue and why you ask these questions. We can debate around about something the Church speaks on very clearly. I am also a firm believer in the maxim that “Hard cases make bad law.” That is to say that just because one person may be inconvienced doesn’t mean we should let everyone do it. That one person (in the case of the pill) has to undertake extraordinary requirements unto themself and also forgo other viable options that are designed to be theraputic to the situation, not using something that is a contraceptive be design and is not an abortifacient.

What I am wondering, and you do not have to publicly state it (will be held in confidence if in private), is why you are so hung up on this issue. What is the heart problem deep down that makes you want to have the answer be that it is ok to do ________.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[renee1258]

I would concur with Matthew that medical science has not been in step with women’s health due to the Pill. The Pill is the answer to everything to mask the symptoms rather then treat the ailment. The Pill like other forms of artifical birth control are marketed to women. I don’t understand how precription drugs that and only being dispersed by a doctor can be advertised? There is a lot of money to be made, when there are a great number of alternatives.

A book I just ordered is Nutrition, Cycles, and Fertility. In a secular mind set of a woman, her ferility only exists when she chooses to get pregnant, but our fertility is a constant thing from puberty to menapuase. It is just easier to take a Pill, then to change lifestyle.

 

[LabChick]

CatholicMatthew:

My further problem with using the pill is that it does not solve a problem. It covers up the underlying problem by creating an artificial cycle, not an actual cycle. I have seen nothing that it “cures”.

You would be amazed at how many medications do not cure an illness, but rather alleviate symptoms so lymphatic system can do its job. If you’d like some material to read regarding how the immune system works, I can provide them.

Being male, you can’t claim to know what it feels like to bleed for 20 days straight, to have to carry around changes of clothes, to be constantly fatigued as a result and to develop Fe-deficiency anemia. In all cases, the presence of tumors, cysts, or other underlying conditions are ruled out. What are you left with? A natural cycle that is detrimental to a women’s health.

Very rarely is “the Pill” used. However, the same cocktail of hormones are administered, just with a modified efficacy and strength. The usual method of administration is an IM injection once per week. The only time “the Pill” is prescribed to treat menorrhagia is when the patient is belonephobic.

CatholicMatthew:

Further, the increased risks of breast cancer and other problems (through artificial hormones) would seem to contraindicate its usage for “cancer (endometrial) prevention” when the aggregate risk for this is smaller than the aggregate risk of breast cancer increase for a woman using the pill.

The research on that topic is very mixed and it all depends on the age, family history, dosage of hormone, and whether the woman in parous, nulliparous, or nulligravid.

CatholicMatthew:

2.) There is a medication that places a woman in the state of menopause through medical intervention. This has a contraceptive effect (double effect, as we are treating endometrial or other problems that we have not been able to treat in any other way and it is life threatening) but has no abortifacient potential.

I’ve never heard of a medication that induces a menopausal state. Do you have the name?

Or, are you talking about GnRH agonists? I have heard about these being used to treat endometriosis by substantially decreasing the level of female hormones, creating a pseudomenopause. Do some research on this.

CatholicMatthew:

3.) the third and permanent solution that is undertaken under the same principle as number two, but with great sadness is a hysterectomy.

Please tell me you are not saying a hysterectomy is preferred over hormonal treatments…

CatholicMatthew:

There is much mis-information about these topics but you can go straight to the horse’s mouth and find the answers. You can do this alone or I can lead you to them.

And what “horse” would that be?

 

[The_Barrister]

labchick:

Being male, you can’t claim to know what it feels like to bleed for 20 days straight, to have to carry around changes of clothes, to be constantly fatigued as a result and to develop Fe-deficiency anemia. In all cases, the presence of tumors, cysts, or other underlying conditions are ruled out. What are you left with? A natural cycle that is detrimental to a women’s health.

I guess since I’ve never been a murder victim I can’t possibly comment on the crime of murder, either.

No, labchick, you will not shut down the debate with the use of this language. Most of us have been around long enough to know a specious argument when we see it.

 

[renee1258]

Out of the population that does take the Pill for medical reasons, what percentage do bleed for 20 days?

 

[rjmporter]

CatholicMatthew:

However, a wife that is taking the pill (for “medical” reasons) should abstain from marital relations completely to avoid an early abortion caused by the pill and also the high risk of birth defects due to a successful pregnancy.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

If she is using NFP, it would be licit to abstain only during her normal fertile time.