Contraception OK?

[Dismas2004]

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.158 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:159 ***

---

***Thus the innate ***language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

 

[Dismas2004]

And thus my point, This is not being taken for contraceptive purposes. That is the foundation for “the pill’s” immorality. The pill itself is not evil, as an object. If used as the CCC says then yes it is. However, if the medicine is used for something else, i.e. the prevention of cancer then it is not a “contraceptive” per se. Although I prefer Ecum. Counc. documents, and other official chruch documents like the CCC, even the “proof text” used in this forum HV states as much

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. (19)

That’s as plain and simple as it gets. No one is looking for a loop hole, however it does seem as if some are trying to “froce” the issue that the medicine int he pill is evil itself and there are no circumstances in which it would be morally sound to use. The issue of gravity in this debate is “the pill” itself and it’s use. That is the grey area I refer to. If it is used for contraceptive purpose, then it is not a grey matter, but a black(sinful) one, if however it is used not for contraceptive purpose, then it is a white(morally sound) issue. To try to categorize people, (and their actions) into black and white groups is both illogical (as JP II has made His personal theme during His Papacy) and quite simply contrary to the Gospel. We have generalized rules and criteria in Moral Theology to guide us, but they must be applied to each individual and situation on a personal level, albeit some of the results, if not most will be the same. The current trend in Moral Theology and a good one per Dr. Ted Sri, Fr. Miller, O.S.B. etc. is to get away from the “guidelines” and “rules” of Moral theology and get back to the virtue based understanding with a focus on the relationship between the person, community and God. May He continue to Bless and Keep us all, as we remain obediant to His Word, and follow His Word.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dismas2004:

What I mean is just what I said, that the word in HG translated CONSENT in one english translation is also translated RESPECT in another. Since I don’t have a copy of the latin nor a latin dictionary at work, I can only offer this up to you. In other words, the other translation would say something like “what is expounded in encyclical leters…demand respect.”

The Vatican’s English translation of Humani Generis says “Encyclical letters … demand consent” (HG, 20). Yet you said that “Encyclicals are not binding on the laity.” In what way are they not binding? Can you disagree or dissent with them? Can you disregard or disobey them?

You are the one who asked “What is the authority of encyclicals?” The answer as it appears from Vatican sources is that Encylicals are indeed binding in such a way that it demands “something” of Catholics. That “something” the Vatican English translation calls “consent.” Yet, you claimed otherwise, and I’m curious as to why? What authority tells you or I or any other Catholic that encyclicals are not binding on the laity as you have asserted? What part of canon law, what excerpt from the Catechism, what papal or councilar decree? Or were you just giving us your opinion?

The Constitution on the Church and the Code of Canon Law tells us that Catholics are bound to give their religious submission (religiosum obsequium) of mind and willto any doctrine of the Roman Pontiff, even if not a formal dogma (which requires “assent of faith” as distinct from “religious submission”).

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium :

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (LG, 25)

Code of Canon Law

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Do you assert that religiosum obsequium of mind and will is compatible with dissent or disagreement?

 

[Dismas2004]

See my last reply with HV, the rest of your argument I’ve aleady answered.

 

[gnosys]

I don’t expect many people here to agree with me, and I’m aware this flies in the face of current Church teaching, but I believe that rampant population growth in large parts of the developing world is a major cause of environmental degradation and massive human suffering, and that unwanted pregnancies are helping to perpetuate a cycle of poverty in America and elsewhere. Therefore, I think more widespread use of safe, reliable contraceptive technologies is to be vigorously encouraged. I don’t see any intrinsic moral issue at all – certainly not in the case of a true contraceptive, which actually prevents conception.

I do understand (even if I do not share) opposition to technologies which could be considered to cause abortion of a fertilized ovum. I don’t think a single cell, or even a small group of cells, is a human being in any sense of the word, but if you believe that a soul is present from the moment of conception… well, I certainly can’t prove you wrong.

I share the distaste registered here for the idea of looking for legalistic technicalities which would allow you to do what you want to do, even though it’s forbidden.

However, I find it far more distasteful when people adopt a tone of self-righteous certainty and vicious condemnation to make sweeping, absolute declarations about right and wrong, and what other people should do and think. (I think the most absurd idea voiced here was that contraception was just plain evil and didn’t merit further discussion.)

Shouldn’t we be guided by love, charity and the humble recognition that none of us knows it all? The most dangerous people in the world are those who are sure that they’re right and everybody else is wrong.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Dismas2004:

And thus my point, This is not being taken for contraceptive purposes. That is the foundation for “the pill’s” immorality. The pill itself is not evil, as an object. If used as the CCC says then yes it is. However, if the medicine is used for something else, i.e. the prevention of cancer then it is not a “contraceptive” per se. Although I prefer Ecum. Counc. documents, and other official chruch documents like the CCC, even the “proof text” used in this forum HV states as much

Dismas,

I have read some of this thread, and think you are balancing your reasoning on the head of a pin. I would argue that using the pill for the prevention of cancer is an elective use, and would fall under the teaching authority not to use the pill as a contraceptive, for it is a use of the pill that begs the medical necessity of “prevention”…like “prevention” of a pregnancy.

The BCP cannot be legally prescribed for preventive use, and was not designed for a preventive drug program. It is designed, in the case of the multi-phasic pill, to stop ovulation, thin the uterine wall lining, and thicken cervical mucus. Those medical actions have, as a side effect some medical efficacy for other problems women have with their fertility systems. Those are the indications that the Pope had in mind when allowing a “medical use” exception for BCP use. Dr. Lorna Cvetlich, an Ob-Gyn in practice for over 25 years, gave a talk here in Kansas City once, and in the talk explained that in the entire time of her practice, she had prescribed the BCP for “medical reasons” only twice. She has an successful practice, and does so by addressing the real reasons for fertility problems, and not covering them up by shutting down a woman’s fertility system via the BCP.

Let me repeat. Using the BCP for it’s so-called cancer prevention benefits is a medical misuse, and does not fall into the ethical practice of medicine. It is a little piece of sophistry to give cover to those who want to use the BCP and claim they are following Church Teaching. Out of curiosity, have you tried this novel theory on Dr. Sri? I think he would be a good resource to bounce this around with…

 

[renee1258]

gnosys:

I don’t expect many people here to agree with me, and I’m aware this flies in the face of current Church teaching, but I believe that rampant population growth in large parts of the developing world is a major cause of environmental degradation and massive human suffering, and that unwanted pregnancies are helping to perpetuate a cycle of poverty in America and elsewhere. Therefore, I think more widespread use of safe, reliable contraceptive technologies is to be vigorously encouraged. I don’t see any intrinsic moral issue at all – certainly not in the case of a true contraceptive, which actually prevents conception.

I do understand (even if I do not share) opposition to technologies which could be considered to cause abortion of a fertilized ovum. I don’t think a single cell, or even a small group of cells, is a human being in any sense of the word, but if you believe that a soul is present from the moment of conception… well, I certainly can’t prove you wrong.

I share the distaste registered here for the idea of looking for legalistic technicalities which would allow you to do what you want to do, even though it’s forbidden.

However, I find it far more distasteful when people adopt a tone of self-righteous certainty and vicious condemnation to make sweeping, absolute declarations about right and wrong, and what other people should do and think. (I think the most absurd idea voiced here was that contraception was just plain evil and didn’t merit further discussion.)

Shouldn’t we be guided by love, charity and the humble recognition that none of us knows it all? The most dangerous people in the world are those who are sure that they’re right and everybody else is wrong.

I’ll be charitable here. We aren’t saying who is right and who is wrong, we are in the search of WHAT is RIGHT.

It is bioligiocal fact, that you become into being at conception. From a strict biological point of view, we are all organisms at certian stages. We come an organism at conception, we become an independent being capable of growth and function. A part of any organism is the need for nurishment. Human organisms need to implant themselves into the lining of the uterus and obtain this. Just like human organisms outside of the womb need to go to the supermaket and buy food to ingest.

There are safe realiable forms of family planning, that are effective such as billings, crieghton, and sympto-thermal. All without side effects, safe and free. But contraceptives are highly marketed to us, in the United States we see children as a constant burden using up resources and ruining our lifestyles instead of seeing them as blessings.

Do we not forget we were all once children?

Do we not realize we were all once just one cell at one point in time?

Do you not realize you are the same being that was created at contraception as you are sitting in front of a computer monitor?

The problem in our country isn’t the unexpectant lives of these children the problem is the adults the created them, that won’t don’t want to take responsibility to love and care for them.

You’re right love and charity is the answer, but I don’t see the love or charity, where you think is it perfectly ok to dispose of human life at it’s most vunerable stage. I have a distaste for people who try to play a guilt trip on people. I know these threads can be upsetting to you, because you are being exposed to the first time the reality of it all.

 

[Sola]

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

Matthew, could you share your source for this statement? Is it something you concluded based on your knowledge, or is there a reference or source as this as official Church teaching?

Thanks.

 

[rschermer2]

Dismas2004:

There are Medical reason to use the pill, to avoid certain kinds of cancers. True, it increases the risk for others, but that is a risk to be weighed by doctors and the patient. But my question is still unanswered: Where in church documents will I find the answers? Encyclicals are not binding ont he laity, so although HV gives insight, they are not authorative.

Encyclicals are absolutely authoritative and can also be binding. I believe the HV encyclical is definitely one of the binding ones. Don’t forget, Encyclicals are church documents and and you were given the encyclical that deals directly with your question.

Peace in Christ,
rschermer

 

[johnnyjoe]

Sola:

Matthew, could you share your source for this statement? Is it something you concluded based on your knowledge, or is there a reference or source as this as official Church teaching?

Thanks.

If you are asking about the abortifacient nature of the BCP, it is widely known in the medical community, and is on the warning labels of the multi-phasic pills themselves. The action of a multi-phasic pill includes a thinning of the uterine wall, which prevents a child from implanting. Thus the woman “aborts” the child at her next menses. There is no definitive studies that conclude how often this takes place, but pro-Planned Parenthood sources claim that the number of “silent chemical abortions”, as these deaths are referred to, based on this effect of the BCP are at least equal to the number of surgical abortions…

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Sola:

Matthew, could you share your source for this statement? Is it something you concluded based on your knowledge, or is there a reference or source as this as official Church teaching?

Thanks.

They come from a variety of sources. The Vadecum for confessor off the Vatican website that I mentioned earlier in the thread has the morality of dealing with an abortifacient contraceptive. As for the effects of the pill you can read the insert from the one in question for the abortifacient potential. Also, the pill manufacturers all say you shouldn’t use if you are or could become pregnant. If you read the fine print of the insert they state you should have three complete cycles before trying to achieve pregnancy. If you have concerns about a particular pill I could find the insert (usually on the web) if you would post the name of it.

Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

This is the link to the Vademecum for Confessors:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

In paragraph 13 #2 it states:

1. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;

I am not sure what “proportionally grave reasons” would be. Perhaps Dave or others would care to comment?

Greg

 

[Sola]

CatholicMatthew:

They come from a variety of sources. The Vadecum for confessor off the Vatican website that I mentioned earlier in the thread has the morality of dealing with an abortifacient contraceptive. As for the effects of the pill you can read the insert from the one in question for the abortifacient potential. Also, the pill manufacturers all say you shouldn’t use if you are or could become pregnant. If you read the fine print of the insert they state you should have three complete cycles before trying to achieve pregnancy. If you have concerns about a particular pill I could find the insert (usually on the web) if you would post the name of it.

Matt

Thanks for the response. I can appreciate that you feel passionately about this subject.

I just looked up on the Ask An Apologist forum and Fr. Serpa says that abstinance is not required in cases where the wife is on medically prescribed birth control pills for a disease.

Just thought I would share that with anyone else who may read this thread.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Actually, lets look at a few official quotes. The first is from the vademecum:

1. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

1. 
   *]when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
   *]when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
   *]when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
   1. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.48
   Footnote #48 is the following quote
   
   (48) “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74)
   
   So, I will look at Fr. Serpa’s comment and see what his reasons are for saying what he said (you could provide a link to help me find it) but this official teaching appears to directly contradict it.
   
   Matt

 

[Sola]

Hi CatholicMatthew,

Sorry about not posting links. I just didn’t think of it!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618&highlight=birth+control+pill

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756&highlight=birth+control+pill

The above are two posts, the below link is the search results page that has those two and a few other posts on it not directly related to the abstinance-marital relations question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=270772

I hope these work!

I read that part of of the vademecum (what is a vademecum? I’ve never heard of one before) earlier in the thread and, perhaps it’s because I don’t understand it, but I don’t see where it prohibits sex in the given situation.

13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.

This says that things are tricky (or difficult) if one spouse, for example, the husband, wants to contracept.

In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.

What I think this means is that the cooperation that makes things difficult is cooperation of the wife (who does not want to contracept) which is not a result of the husband physically abusing her or something, but she is freely deciding to cooperate with the husband’s action or desire to contracept.

46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

The cooperation of the wife is ok (or approved?) when three things exist:

1. 
   *]when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
   
   Whe the action of the wife is not already unapproved in itself. I don’t understand what this means.
   
   1. 
      *]when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
      
      When a proportionate reason exists for the wife to go along with the husband.
      
      1. 
         *]when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion
         
         When the wife is trying to help her husband stop contracepting in the long-run.
         
         So, I get confused about halfway through. Help?
         
         P.S. If you think we should take this offline and into email, just let me know.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Sola:

13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.

This says that things are tricky (or difficult) if one spouse, for example, the husband, wants to contracept.

Correct, if one spouse is insistent on contraception and the other is morally opposed to its usage it can provide some contention and mood-killing in the bedroom when he or she reaches for the condom etc in the bedroom.

Sola:

In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.
What I think this means is that the cooperation that makes things difficult is cooperation of the wife (who does not want to contracept) which is not a result of the husband physically abusing her or something, but she is freely deciding to cooperate with the husband’s action or desire to contracept.

The distinction being made is between cooperation and coercion. Coercion is the physical (mental/monetary) violence or threat of the prior violence. Cooperation is going into the act with the knowledge that the other person will use contraceptives.

Sola:

46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

The cooperation of the wife is ok (or approved?) when three things exist:

1. 
   *]when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
   
   When the action of the wife is not already unapproved in itself. I don’t understand what this means.

1. 
   When the action of the spouse, that is against contraception, does nothing to utilize the contraceptive.
   
   
   Sola:
   

   1. 
      *]when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
      
      When a proportionate reason exists for the wife to go along with the husband.

   1. 
      Something along the lines of protecting the marriage and there is no other prudent recourse for the cooperating spouse.
      
      
      Sola:
      

      when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion
      When the wife is trying to help her husband stop contracepting in the long-run.

      The cooperating spouse must be working to bring the contracepting spouse to the truth.
      
      
      Sola:
      

      So, I get confused about halfway through. Help?

      In regards to section 14 that I quoted above, it specifically refers to another question that must be asked and that is the abortifacent potential of the act and it refers to Evangelium Vitae. Here is the paragraph it refers to:
      (48) “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74)
      
      If a man or woman has knowledge that abortus conceptus could occur from the action of the contracepting spouse this would give us sufficent grounds to forgo any participation in the marital act. This is what section 14 refers to.
      
      Under the Mercy,
      
      Matt
      
      Feel free to contact me off forum if you feel that is best or would like to address a particular situation.

 

[johnnyjoe]

CatholicMatthew:

In regards to section 14 that I quoted above, it specifically refers to another question that must be asked and that is the abortifacent potential of the act and it refers to Evangelium Vitae. Here is the paragraph it refers to:
(48) “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74)

If a man or woman has knowledge that abortus conceptus could occur from the action of the contracepting spouse this would give us sufficent grounds to forgo any participation in the marital act. This is what section 14 refers to.

CathMatt

This conclusion is in opposition to the advice that Fr. Sherpa has given on this forum. The real sticky point with the BCP is that there has been no definitive studies done to determine how often this “action”, the “abortifacient action” of the BCP actually works. Some women’s uterine linings are greatly affected, some are not. The linch pin is the phrase the “form it takes in a concrete situation”. I am not sure what I think on this matter, but it is clear that there is no guarantee that an abortion will take place, only a chemical proponant added as an additional “safeguard” to boost the effectiveness rate. This is the most pernicious feature of the BCP - that you never really know what is happening.

Given your interpretation, a man must deny his wife her marital priviledge if she in on the BCP. I am not sure that is the “official” position of the Church.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

The problem is I don’t know if their is an official position in regards to the abortifacent potential. When I counsel people about this I usually point them at Pope Paul VI institute. My problem with the use of the birth control pill is that it doesn’t solve a problem but just temporarily alleviate the symptoms in addition to the other adverse health effects it has.

As to the action of the drug we know that it does operate as an abortifacient but not how often.

Matt

 

[sandiedandie200]

Vincent:

It’s called the principle of double-effect.

This is what Pope Paul VI wrote on that issue:

“[T]he 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.”

(Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 15)

A woman who takes the “Pill” to intend the good effect of treating her serious illness and does not intend the contraceptive effect, but merely tolerates it, is doing nothing wrong. However, if she takes the “Pill” to intend the contraceptive effect, then she’s crossed the line.

O.K. Question? I have a 15 year old daughter who is having alot of problems with her female organs. She’s not and never has been sexually active.She has been to the doctor and she recomended the pill. What does the Church teach about this issue concerning my daughter? Should she take it or not? Please let me know!
sandiedandie2002

 

[mercygate]

sandiedandie200:

O.K. Question? I have a 15 year old daughter who is having alot of problems with her female organs. She’s not and never has been sexually active.She has been to the doctor and she recomended the pill. What does the Church teach about this issue concerning my daughter? Should she take it or not? Please let me know!
sandiedandie2002

Yes, she can do it. I don’t think it’s a great idea in general, but if your daughter suffers anything like mine did at that age (hospitalized 2x for mittelschmerz for which acute appendicitis had to be ruled out, and debilitating pain and exsanguination with her periods), you might find it good. I might not have made the best choice for my daughter but her life turned around once she adjusted to the idea that she wasn’t going to be laid up for two days each month. This was SERIOUS.

Now she’s 22; time to think about getting off the drug but she’s terrified. That, however, is another matter altogether.