Eucharist and contraception

[LittleFlower]

Sorry for the explicit nature of this question. Can a married Catholic practice artificial contraception and still receive the Eucharist? (I am assuming it can be confessed, but if the practice continues then the question arises again.)

It depends. I’ve said and posted this video from Catholic Answers before.

We are usually not responsible for other people’s sin. So if your husband or wife are practicing some form of conception/implantation control, against your wishes or you are fully open to life and they aren’t, you could continue to have spousal relations with them for the sake of the marriage—depending on the exact circumstances. This is a general statement, please actually ask your priest.

Jimmy Akin goes into enough detail in the below video.

What I take issue is that it’s not only the Pill as a medication that can inhibit implantation but other factors like:

• being overweight
• smoking
• certain medication like NSAIDs
• not getting enough exercise
• stress
• unhealthy eating habits

So if Pauline takes the Pill for her migraines, many would consider that a big no-no. But if she chucks back NSAIDs like ibuprofen, that’s better—even though it’s also shown to inhibit implantation.

I would go and argue that if you are using a medication for intended purposes that are not contraceptive in nature, you aren’t engaging in contraception. You are addressing a medical need.

Or else, we could be lining up all the smokers, all the overweight people and say to them
“Change your ways or no Eucharist for you”, because they are actively inhibiting or making implantation difficult. No?

 

[Tatum]

I don’t understand why you are getting upset because I raise the reasonable issue of whether your medical profession definitions serve you well in understanding Catholic Teaching Pup7.

Its fairly clear that the issue is one of a clash of respected cultures. You have one foot in Catholic culture and another in the medical profession it seems.
Yet you don’t seem to realise that there is a cultural clash going on here.
You run with the narrow definitions of your secular profession yet cannot accept that this causes you to misunderstand Catholic teaching and in turn make Catholic statements that in fact materially contradict Church statements.

Noone is asking you to make Catholic statements or use Catholic terminology when advising patients in a secular hospital setting.

But CAF is not such a setting.
You are stating on this Catholic thread that the pill in question above is not abortificaient.
Yet when your definitions of the words you are using are analysed it is clear that you agree that such a pill can inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg.

That, I am afraid to say, means free use of such a pill for this purpose is considered immoral by the Church as it may cause abortion as defined by the Church. Inhibiting implantation of a fertilised egg that would otherwise implant is immoral.

Therefore use of such a pill can not be counselled by a loyal Catholic.
I don’t see any way around this if you agree implantation is inhibited.

 

[Pup7]

I’m not upset. Where have I gotten out of my box here? I’m as cool as a cucumber. I’m not sure if you think I should be, but I’m not. I just disagree, and I think that saying people here can’t understand is wrong to say.

But CAF is not such a setting.

It actually is such a setting. It’s an open forum. I shouldn’t be censored based on the fact this is CAF.

That, I am afraid to say, means free use of such a pill for this purpose is considered by the Church as immoral as it may cause abortion as defined by the Church. Abortion is immoral.

The pill blocks pregnancy, which is why it’s considered immoral, by both stopping ovulation and by potentially inhibiting implantation. Otherwise what you’re saying is if it wasn’t an abortifacient, it would be okay to use. But it blocks pregnancy via artificial means, which is the real crux here, and is actually why it’s immoral.

I don’t see any way around this if you agree implantation is inhibited.

Yep - which means the woman doesn’t become pregnant. If you’re not pregnant, it’s not an abortion. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy is defined as occurring when the egg implants. I should also say that most women have had fertilized eggs that simply don’t implant, and she’s had multiples of those. Getting pregnant actually isn’t easy, ironically enough.

Again, not once have I said OCPs for the purpose of contraception are okay. I’m simply stating that they don’t cause abortions - which is how they have a failure rate, because women can get pregnant while taking them. If they caused abortions, it would be impossible to get pregnant while taking them.

 

[LittleFlower]

Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy is defined as occurring when the egg implants. I should also say that most women have had fertilized eggs that simply don’t implant, and she’s had multiples of those. Getting pregnant actually isn’t easy, ironically enough.

Again, not once have I said OCPs for the purpose of contraception are okay. I’m simply stating that they don’t cause abortions - which is how they have a failure rate, because women can get pregnant while taking them. If they caused abortions, it would be impossible to get pregnant while taking them.

Yep, 100%,

 

[ratio1]

Here is a good definition, as far as I know, of how the Church define’s abortion:
“Abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb.”

What you guys need to tease out is this statement. Pup did not address this. Does pup agree or disagree with this?

 

[Tatum]

Pup7 if you cannot respect your own Catholic culture by using its definitions when arguing/understanding Catholic morality, which may at times contradict definitions of the secular medical world in which you make a living and in which you wish to be respected, then intelligent converse is not possible with you.

The Catholic Church clearly disagrees with the propositions you are putting forward here (hiding behind your personal definitions of “pregnancy” and “abortion”).

If the pill inhibits implantation then use of such a pill cannot be counselled by loyal Catholic medical professionals regardless of how the medical professions spins the definitions.

Loyal Catholics call the chosen loss of such fertilised eggs, that would have otherwise implanted, by the name “abortion”. Such pills are then accurately described as “abortifiacient” in Church teaching.

We get it that the secular medical profession does not agree.
Yes “contra-implantation” may be a better expression than “abortifacient”.
The choice is still objectively immoral.

 

[Pup7]

What you guys need to tease out is this statement. Pup did not address this. Does pup agree or disagree with this?

It’s the Church’s definition, but it’s not what an abortion clinically is. Since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, it can’t happen prior to implantation.

By that definition, women have had multiple abortions. That’s the main reason that definition is a problem. Why say that when it’s known that eggs get fertilized naturally, and then fail to implant?

 

[Tatum]

By that definition, women have had multiple abortions. That’s the main reason that definition is a problem. Why say that when it’s known that eggs get fertilized naturally, and then fail to implant?

The issue is not one of nature, but one of artifice.
Choosing to take a pill after rape knowing it will inhibit a fertilised egg that would otherwise implant is still a form of abortion. That is immoral.

The only way it can be morally justified is if the chances of the egg already being fertilised are minimal.

Having said all this, clearly the disorder is considerably less grave than post implantation abortion…and graver than direct contraception.

 

[Pup7]

If the pill inhibits implantation then use of such a pill cannot be counselled by loyal Catholic medical professionals regardless of how the medical professions spins the definitions.

You are totally calling my faith into question, and that’s categorically unfair. That’s not spin, for the record, and I resent your saying that because it’s uncalled for. You’re doing it in a veiled manner, but your aspersions are unfair.

The choice is still objectively immoral.

And again, where did I say or have I said it isn’t?

 

[ratio1]

Ok now we’re talking. So you two are talking on different grounds. So the next thing to decide is whether we want to talk about church morality or medical science.
No need to be hostile to each other.

 

[Pup7]

The issue is not one of nature, but one of artifice.
Choosing to take a pill knowing it will inhibit a fertilised egg that would otherwise implant is still a form of abortion. That is immoral.

Once again, where did I say it was morally licit to use contraception?

 

[Pup7]

No need to be hostile to each other.

I’m not sure where I’m being hostile. I’m not questioning Tatum’s faith, his loyalty to the Church, his execution of his job, or what he believes. I’m just stating definitions. However, I believe that’s being done to me in a veiled manner, but I honestly am not bothered by that either.

 

[Pup7]

Choosing to take a pill after rape knowing it will inhibit a fertilised egg that would otherwise implant is still a form of abortion. That is immoral.

The Church actually disagrees with you on that, since fertilization doesn’t happen in the minutes after sex. It takes about 72 hours - which is why after 72 hours, Plan B isn’t given. It won’t work because it can’t cause abortion. I was very careful to get clarification on that point.

 

[LittleFlower]

Again though, it’s not just the Pill that inhibits implantation.

Basically, so many of us would be sinning if we were to look at what inhibits implantation.

 

[Pup7]

Again though, it’s not just the Pill that inhibits implantation.

Basically, so many of us would be sinning if we were to look at what inhibits implantation.

There is a lot of evidence that ibuprofen has more profound effects than was first known. A lot.

 

[LittleFlower]

to block implantation after rape, because conception and therefore the beginning of human life has already occurred.

That’s IF the woman has a fertilised egg. If she takes heavy NSAIDs instead to treat her injuries and they have the same effect, is that a sin?

 

[LittleFlower]

There is a lot of evidence that ibuprofen has more profound effects than was first known. A lot.

I know, many don’t though. They use the Pill as the Devil Incarnate but medical knowledge, as you know, has advanced and continues to. We didn’t know a lot about how women “work” down there, until quite recently.

If someone is overweight, and refuses to get healthy, are they sinning by making implantation difficult?

 

[Tatum]

Pup7 I am simply drawing your attention to contradictions in your expressed views.
You are making statement’s on a Catholic forum that materially contradict Church Teaching.

We all understand how and why you have come to be doing that.
The pill, by your own expressed understanding of the terms, is indeed abortifacient - though you keep saying it isn’t because you refuse to concede the Church’s definition of “abortion”.

There is no need to get upset. Noone is attacking you - only challenging your understanding of Catholic definitions and Catholic teaching.

If you believe I am mistaken in my understanding of the Church’s definition of “abortion” then by all means correct me with a quote from a Catholic authority.

 

[Pup7]

Arwing:

to block implantation after rape, because conception and therefore the beginning of human life has already occurred.

That’s IF the woman has a fertilised egg. If she takes heavy NSAIDs instead to treat her injuries and they have the same effect, is that a sin?

If you’re raped at ten PM and take Plan B at midnight, that egg hasn’t been fertilized yet. So the beginning of human life hasn’t occurred anyway. But yes, there’s some evidence to suggest ibuprofen could have a similar effect.

If someone is overweight, and refuses to get healthy, are they sinning by making implantation difficult?

Also a factor.

 

[Tatum]

The Church actually disagrees with you on that,

Then provide a relevant quote please