Do women need access to contraceptives?

[jasonmccarley]

I’m a non-catholic christian who is strongly considering joining the church. Recently I came across this video in which Melinda Gates(wife of Bill Gates) talks about her reasoning for pledging over 560 million dollars to help provide women with contraception. In it she says ‘I’m a Catholic, but women need access to contraceptives’.

I know this is a controversial subject within the catholic community. But I’m curious as to how this forum might respond to her reasoning, and where this forum believes that the future of the Catholic church is headed with this issue.

How do you feel about her pledge? And does her position take her out of communion with the Catholic church, and if so what does that mean for her soul?

What impact if any do you think this will have on the Catholic church worldwide and how the rest of the world views it?

Here is a link to the video I mention above.
Melinda Gates pledges $560 million for contraception

Again I would like to say that I myself am still a non-Catholic christian and not as of yet decided where I stand on this, although I will say that I am leaning toward the Church’s position.

Do women need access to contraceptives?

 

[1ke]

Contraception is intrinsically evil, and no, women do not “need” it.

I’m really not sure what you are asking, because what Melinda Gates (or Nancy Pelosi or anyone else) thinks or puts out a video about is not going to change Church teaching.

It is very sad that MG claims to be a Catholic while directly participating in evil actions. The Gateses also support population control and abortion agendas, so we must pray for them.

 

[R_C]

I’m a non-catholic christian who is strongly considering joining the church.

Again I would like to say that I myself am still a non-Catholic christian and not as of yet decided where I stand on this, although I will say that I am leaning toward the Church’s position.

Do women need access to contraceptives?

You may begin with the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (link). Note that this was written in 1968, and today we see many of these consequences which the Holy Father foresaw…

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

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

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.

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

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective?

As Christian, you are already incorporated into the Church, the mystical body of Christ. I hope that you may soon join the Catholic church and receive the beloved in the Holy Eucharist and the countless blessings of the Sacraments, especially Reconciliation.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

I’m a non-catholic christian who is strongly considering joining the church. Recently I came across this video in which Melinda Gates(wife of Bill Gates) talks about her reasoning for pledging over 560 million dollars to help provide women with contraception. In it she says ‘I’m a Catholic, but women need access to contraceptives’.

I know this is a controversial subject within the catholic community. But I’m curious as to how this forum might respond to her reasoning, and where this forum believes that the future of the Catholic church is headed with this issue.

1. How do you feel about her pledge? And does her position take her out of communion with the Catholic church, and if so what does that mean for her soul?
2. What impact if any do you think this will have on the Catholic church worldwide and how the rest of the world views it?

Here is a link to the video I mention above.
Melinda Gates pledges $560 million for contraception

Again I would like to say that I myself am still a non-Catholic christian and not as of yet decided where I stand on this, although I will say that I am leaning toward the Church’s position.

1. Do women need access to contraceptives?

1. Her pledge does take her out of communion with the Church and she will go to hell if she doesn’t change and go to confession.
2. I’m afraid she will take a bunch of people to hell with her.
3. Women need to live according to the laws of the Church which excludes contraceptives.

 

[asia53]

Do women need access to contraceptives?

There are some women who take contraceptives for medical conditions–not related to birth control. It is prescribed, when nothing else alleviates their medical problems. This is not contrary to Church teaching. There are some women, who do need access to contraceptives, however, not for birth control purposes.

 

[SonCatcher]

There are some women who take contraceptives for medical conditions–not related to birth control. It is prescribed, when nothing else alleviates their medical problems. This is not contrary to Church teaching. There are some women, who do need access to contraceptives, however, not for birth control purposes.

For those cases, the correct term is “hormonal therapy”, not “contraceptive” since they are not used for contraceptive purposes.

 

[L_piperatus]

Hi Jason,

the early undivided Church of the first millennium strongly condemned various forms of contraception including condoms, potions (medications that one would drink), intravaginal drugs and devices, sterilization surgery, coitus interruptus, oral coitus, and anal coitus. If you google “Early Church Fathers and contraception”, you will find a wealth of information. The Church unequivocally condemned all forms of contraception during its first 1000 years. After the Catholic - Eastern Orthodox “Great Schism” of 1054, and after the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, all branches of Christianity continued to condemn contraception until 1930.

In 1930, the Church of England changed its stance and allowed contraception. Other Protestant denominations followed during the 20th century, and finally during the 1970s-1980s even the Eastern Orthodox changed their stance and started allowing contraception (non-abortive methods, condoms etc) and surgical sterilization.

From a Catholic standpoint, it cannot be that the Early Church Fathers were wrong. From a Catholic standpoint, contraception and sterilization have always been evil, and will always be evil. The Catholic Church will stand by its teachings and 2000 years of unchanged understanding. It’s unfortunate that our Protestant and Eastern Orthodox (as well as Oriental Orthodox - Armenian) brethren cracked under the pressure of the prevailing secular culture, but we believe we have been protected by the Holy Spirit from this error, and will be protected until the end of time.

 

[jbarbaretta]

1. Her pledge does take her out of communion with the Church and she will go to hell if she doesn’t change and go to confession.
2. I’m afraid she will take a bunch of people to hell with her.
3. Women need to live according to the laws of the Church which excludes contraceptives.

To understand the Church’s beliefs and teachings, a great reference to use is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is perfectly in line with the Church’s teachings and has plenty of references to biblical sources as well as various Church documents.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2272) states that:

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

As most contraceptives are abortofacients, they can cause an abortion. So, Melinda Gates actions are objectively grave, but the Church does not take a stand on the state of a person’s soul. That is God’s to judge. So, I disagree with the premise of 1. I think she is in danger, but only God knows if she has met all three criteria for it to be mortal.

1. 
   *]Grave Matter (assist in abortion)
   *]Full Knowledge as to the gravity of the action
   *]Free consent to the action
   
   The point of an excommunication is not to condemn but to correct - to make a person aware that what they are doing is grave – and, hopefully, bring them back in communion with the Church.
   

   2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

   As you can see from this paragraph. Once a Church teaching is established, it is unchangeable. The teaching on abortion was decided before the year 100AD, and remains the same today.
   
   As to the Church’s stance on contraceptives, the CCC teaches:
   

   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

   So, the Church’s stance is that contraception is wrong and that won’t change as well.

 

[jbarbaretta]

Hi Jason,

the early undivided Church of the first millennium strongly condemned various forms of contraception including condoms, potions (medications that one would drink), intravaginal drugs and devices, sterilization surgery, coitus interruptus, oral coitus, and anal coitus. If you google “Early Church Fathers and contraception”, you will find a wealth of information. The Church unequivocally condemned all forms of contraception during its first 1000 years. After the Catholic - Eastern Orthodox “Great Schism” of 1054, and after the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, all branches of Christianity continued to condemn contraception until 1930.

In 1930, the Church of England changed its stance and allowed contraception. Other Protestant denominations followed during the 20th century, and finally during the 1970s-1980s even the Eastern Orthodox changed their stance and started allowing contraception (non-abortive methods, condoms etc) and surgical sterilization.

From a Catholic standpoint, it cannot be that the Early Church Fathers were wrong. From a Catholic standpoint, contraception and sterilization have always been evil, and will always be evil. The Catholic Church will stand by its teachings and 2000 years of unchanged understanding. It’s unfortunate that our Protestant and Eastern Orthodox (as well as Oriental Orthodox - Armenian) brethren cracked under the pressure of the prevailing secular culture, but we believe we have been protected by the Holy Spirit from this error, and will be protected until the end of time.

Great explanation!!

 

[asia53]

For those cases, the correct term is “hormonal therapy”, not “contraceptive” since they are not used for contraceptive purposes.

Actually, it’s Hormonal Contraceptive Therapy, alleviating certain medical conditions related to females is a side effect. Hormonal therapy is a nickname for Hormonal Replacement Therapy.

They are not the same thing.

 

[daisybee]

Hi Jason,
Praying for you on your journey…

Have you had a chance to read anything by Christopher West yet (christopherwest.com/)??) If not, I highly recommend his writings, especially Theology of the Body for Beginners. It’s a pretty easy read, but thorough. He explains that both men and women need and long for unions that are free, totally self-donative, faithful and fruitful, and what kinds of things undermine and interfere with union, including contraception. Better, he explains how they are undermined by such things.

In addition, some of his CDs or talks may be available for sale on Amazon or youtube–google around. Also, there may be theology of the body talks in your area. Again, check around.

It really does help to have a read of a book like that, and take a little time to study the nuances and arguments.

Another excellent, excellent resource is Janet’s Smith (janetesmith.org) talk “Contraception: Why Not?” I’m not sure if this is the full talk here, but it’s probably at least an excerpt (again, google a bit): catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/03/05/contraception-why-not-janet-smith-mp3s-audio/

May God bless you on your journey!

 

[R_C]

In 1930, the Church of England changed its stance and allowed contraception. Other Protestant denominations followed during the 20th century, and finally during the 1970s-1980s even the Eastern Orthodox changed their stance and started allowing contraception (non-abortive methods, condoms etc) and surgical sterilization.

From a Catholic standpoint, it cannot be that the Early Church Fathers were wrong. From a Catholic standpoint, contraception and sterilization have always been evil, and will always be evil. The Catholic Church will stand by its teachings and 2000 years of unchanged understanding. It’s unfortunate that our Protestant and Eastern Orthodox (as well as Oriental Orthodox - Armenian) brethren cracked under the pressure of the prevailing secular culture, but we believe we have been protected by the Holy Spirit from this error, and will be protected until the end of time.

Unless I am wrong, the Catholic church has stated through the papal bull Apostolicae Curae that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. So it is no surprise that being detached from the Magisterium and from the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit which He grants to His Church, they have introduced such changes, with all the evil they carry with them.

Let us spend always a prayer for unborn children.

 

[cargau]

I’m a non-catholic christian who is strongly considering joining the church. Recently I came across this video in which Melinda Gates(wife of Bill Gates) talks about her reasoning for pledging over 560 million dollars to help provide women with contraception. In it she says ‘I’m a Catholic, but women need access to contraceptives’.

I know this is a controversial subject within the catholic community. But I’m curious as to how this forum might respond to her reasoning, and where this forum believes that the future of the Catholic church is headed with this issue.

How do you feel about her pledge? And does her position take her out of communion with the Catholic church, and if so what does that mean for her soul?

What impact if any do you think this will have on the Catholic church worldwide and how the rest of the world views it?

Here is a link to the video I mention above.
Melinda Gates pledges $560 million for contraception

Again I would like to say that I myself am still a non-Catholic christian and not as of yet decided where I stand on this, although I will say that I am leaning toward the Church’s position.

Do women need access to contraceptives?

To do what? Live, certainly not. Contraceptives are not life and death type medications. To gain equality with men? Some (maybe even Ms Gates) see it this way. I would ask one simple question…Why would anyone seek to achieve a moral end using an unnatural process. I don’t think anyone would argue that contraception subverts the natural purpose and intent of the marital embrace. One might conclude that the unnatural or counter natural purpose of contraception would render the goal of female equality somewhat dubious.

The purpose of ABC, I would maintain, however, is really not so much about equality but about immorality without consequences. When we lose sight of the value and dignity of human life, we open ourselves to a myriad of consequences.

On balance, women should have the same rights, privileges and opportunities as any man does. The manner in which society seeks to acheive this noble goal is very important. Claiming a victory by using any means possible (even unnatural ones) may end up backfiring and costing our women much more than they bargained for.

 

[Blacksword]

1. Her pledge does take her out of communion with the Church and she will go to hell if she doesn’t change and go to confession.
2. I’m afraid she will take a bunch of people to hell with her.
3. Women need to live according to the laws of the Church which excludes contraceptives.

Wow, just wow…excuse me, but do you think it’s really your call as to the state of her soul, or anyone else’s, for that matter? The fact of the matter is there are plenty of women who do need contraceptives like the pill for real medical reasons having nothing to do with contraception, for real health needs. I doubt, as one poster made the largely mere intellectual distinction between “hormone therapy” and “contraceptives” that Gates, or most regular people too, would bother with drawing with so fine a brush as to distinguish between the two.

Your comment I find offensive, it is presumptuous and judgmental in the extreme. I urge you and others here with similar thoughts to let God do the ultimate judging; it’s His job, thanks!

 

[edwest2]

I’m a non-catholic christian who is strongly considering joining the church. Recently I came across this video in which Melinda Gates(wife of Bill Gates) talks about her reasoning for pledging over 560 million dollars to help provide women with contraception. In it she says ‘I’m a Catholic, but women need access to contraceptives’.

I know this is a controversial subject within the catholic community. But I’m curious as to how this forum might respond to her reasoning, and where this forum believes that the future of the Catholic church is headed with this issue.

How do you feel about her pledge? And does her position take her out of communion with the Catholic church, and if so what does that mean for her soul?

What impact if any do you think this will have on the Catholic church worldwide and how the rest of the world views it?

Here is a link to the video I mention above.
Melinda Gates pledges $560 million for contraception

Again I would like to say that I myself am still a non-Catholic christian and not as of yet decided where I stand on this, although I will say that I am leaning toward the Church’s position.

Do women need access to contraceptives?

The clear answer is no. A medicine is designed to treat or heal some bodily injury or problem caused from allergies all the way up to genetically caused conditions and cancers. Contraceptives do not fall into the healing category. Their primary purpose is to inhibit the natural function of the average healthy human being. Alternatives are available for people who are having trouble conceiving, suffer from cysts or menstrual problems.

naprotechnology.com/

Pope Paul VI had an encyclical published in 1968 titled Humanae Vitae. At the same time, The Sexual (without love) Revolution was starting. Without going into great detail, the Pope reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching about artificial contraception. The Church received a serious rebuke from dissidents inside and outside the Church. Unfortunately, some priests were led to believe that the Church might change its mind about ABC in the future, and told their parishioners that it was a personal conscience decision to use or not to use ABC.

There is one, simple no cost way to avoid STDs 100%, and that is to get engaged, get both of you tested, and get married. Contraceptives, once again, inhibit normal bodily functions. That’s it.

Finally, there is a no cost way to avoid pregnancy, it’s called self-control. We, you and I, decide when we want to have sex but there’s no money in that. So, as a people, we were told: "You can’t do it. You can’t control yourselves. You need to buy, buy, buy, pills, rings, spermicidal foam, the morning after pill, and condoms, etc.

Here’s a brief introduction to Natural Family Planning and the reasons the Church promotes it:

diocesefwsb.org/diocesan-offices/family-life-office/family-planning/

Peace,
Ed

 

[asia53]

The clear answer is no. A medicine is designed to treat or heal some bodily injury or problem caused from allergies all the way up to genetically caused conditions and cancers. Contraceptives do not fall into the healing category. Their primary purpose is to inhibit the natural function of the average healthy human being. Alternatives are available for people who are having trouble conceiving, suffer from cysts or menstrual problems.

One problem–Naprotechnology isn’t covered by all insurance companies. My own insurance provider doesn’ t cover it. So your emphatic “no”, doesn’t work for everyone. We all know the costs of medical treatments.

Contraceptives are a medicine, a very evil one, but still a medicine. Not all medicines heal, as you stated. For example: Tamoxifen-drug used to interrupt the natural process of the hormone estrogen , preventing breast cancer. By your description, not a healing drug, either.

 

[Allegra]

Wow, just wow…excuse me, but do you think it’s really your call as to the state of her soul, or anyone else’s, for that matter? The fact of the matter is there are plenty of women who do need contraceptives like the pill for real medical reasons having nothing to do with contraception, for real health needs. I doubt, as one poster made the largely mere intellectual distinction between “hormone therapy” and “contraceptives” that Gates, or most regular people too, would bother with drawing with so fine a brush as to distinguish between the two.

Your comment I find offensive, it is presumptuous and judgmental in the extreme. I urge you and others here with similar thoughts to let God do the ultimate judging; it’s His job, thanks!

While it is true that those chemicals can be used for theraputic purposes, there can be absolutely no doubt that Melinda Gates is referring to the use of them for contraceptive purposes only. I wouldn’t let semantics get in the way, given the fact that the Gates’ have always had a loud public voice in favor of population control and abortion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am of the opinion that neither the whole U.S., nor the globe, is prepared to accept that all contraceptives (of all kinds) are “intrinsically evil.” I think it is foolish to try to legislate, domestically, or internationally, based on beliefs held by a minority. However, I also maintain the following:

(a) Contraception – other than what is deemed medically to be necessary to address other health conditions-- does not constitute essential health care, by a universal definition of that. For the overwhelming majority of people, reducing births is optional (as far as health care is concerned, not economics), even though widespread.

(b) Even decisions & treatments which most doctors would call “good ideas,” or “prudent” (such as using sunscreen) should not be considered essential if they are not essential. (As opposed to a topical solution or Rx to treat an infection which otherwise will not heal on its own, or may spread or cause other problems.)

(c) By no means should anything non-essential be included in any health insurance plan, including anything mandated by any gov’t. I don’t want to pay for other people’s optional (non-preventative, non-follow-up) medical decisions, nor do I want them paying for mine. There is far too much waste in insurance and in gov’t already. Also, such divisions help us to develop virtue in choosing what we can do without (both Catholics and non-believers).

It is getting so that a minor skin blemish is considered “essential” to be removed by laser, as opposed to something so disfiguring (such as caused by an accident) that it is an impediment to a person interviewing for a job or performing a high-visibility job, for example.

 

[daisybee]

I think it is foolish to try to legislate, domestically, or internationally, based on beliefs held by a minority.

Hi,
I’m curious what you are referring to being legislated? (Are you referring to conscience protection?)

Also, regarding “beliefs held by a minority”–which beliefs held by which minority?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi,
I’m curious what you are referring to being legislated? (Are you referring to conscience protection?)

I mean that “mandating” contraception (explicitly, not hormonal regulation), such as the ACA, etc., is an abuse of the term “health care.”

Also, regarding “beliefs held by a minority”–which beliefs held by which minority?

That all forms of contraception (including barrier methods) are “intrinsically evil.”