Is ABC ever permissable

[Tomdstone]

Non-abortifacient contraception is barrier methods - not prescription drugs. And that’s what I said.

Do you believe that all prescription contraceptive drugs are abortifacient? I know that some are, but I did not know that all of them are.

 

[Steveabrous]

presenting extreme financial difficulties for the family.

So 16 is the magic number? 15 they can handle, but 16 that will put them in the poor house?

You know that Monty Python skit were the Catholic family has 1 more child and they have to sell them all to scientific experiments was a Joke. It’s not a real scenario either.

 

[Corki]

Here is a possible double effect scenario:

1. The wife uses ABC which is a mortal sin and therefore is harmful morally.
2. The wife does not use ABC, but gives in to the demands of her husband and has more children, thus ruining her health and presenting extreme financial difficulties for the family.

You don’t understand the principle of double effect.

All three conditions must be met:

1. The first condition is that the act be morally good or at worst morally neutral.
2. The desired end must be undeniably a moral good.
3. The bad second effect must be unintended even if forseeable,

In your scenario

1. the act is morally wrong
2. the end (preserving the mother’s health or keeping the family from financial ruin) is a good
3. the second effect (preventing pregnancy) is both intended and forseeable.

So, in your example, only one out of three conditions is met. The principle of double effect does not apply.

 

[Steveabrous]

Why are you responding to a hypothetical situation, if you do not accept the hypothetical nature of the moral question in the first place?

Because I believe these tactics must be shown for what they are. As I stated earlier we have been silent and have allowed the secularist to frame the debate for 40 years and look were it got us.

 

[Tomdstone]

So 16 is the magic number? 15 they can handle, but 16 that will put them in the poor house?

You know that Monty Python skit were the Catholic family has 1 more child and they have to sell them all to scientific experiments was a Joke. It’s not a real scenario either.

I am not familiar with Monty Python. And it is no joke for a family to support 15 children. Fortunately in the case I saw, the older girls were helping out, as well as the father. But I suspect it is not all that easy to raise a large family today. For one thing, colleges are extremely expensive. Will a Catholic college take in all 15 family members, one by one, with no tuition or fees?

 

[Corki]

Do you believe that all prescription contraceptive drugs are abortifacient? I know that some are, but I did not know that all of them are.

As of today, there are NO hormonal contraceptives that are not abortifacient. It’s not a belief, it’s a clinical fact. Just read the patient insert of any package of birth control pills. One of the documented effects is to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum - the very definition of abortifacient.

 

[Tomdstone]

You don’t understand the principle of double effect.

All three conditions must be met:

1. The first condition is that the act be morally good or at worst morally neutral.
2. The desired end must be undeniably a moral good.
3. The bad second effect must be unintended even if forseeable,

In your scenario

1. the act is morally wrong
2. the end (preserving the mother’s health or keeping the family from financial ruin) is a good
3. the second effect (preventing pregnancy) is both intended and forseeable.

So, in your example, only one out of three conditions is met. The principle of double effect does not apply.

ABC is morally wrong according to the RCC. However, other Churches, such as the EO Church allow exceptions. Why would the RCC want to unite with the EOC if they persist in teachings which are morally wrong, unless, perhaps there were some flexibility?

 

[Steveabrous]

Will a Catholic college take in all 15 family members, one by one, with no tuition or fees?

I can tell you that when you follow God’s will he will provide. I have 5 children two of which went to Catholic school and my parish paid the tuition since I could not afford it. So yes the church does step up and help.

 

[JRKH]

James I believe this is a very spiritually mature peice of advice. Esp the bit about separating out private and public Forums.

My only reservation is that you give the impression that a Priest somehow has the authority to say that a human act that is determined to be contraceptive is permissable with his permission and ongoing evaluation of the situation. This would be incorrect. Not even God can say that something intrinsically evil is somehow not intrinsically evil. He can of course forgive.

What I understand you to be really suggesting is that in cases of confusion and great anxiety (such as these) a priest may objectively determine that a person may not have full knowledge or freedom of will and that, given these unique set of circumstances, this person cannot be reasonably assumed to be sinning mortally.

There is also a world of difference between:
(a) a priest actively counselling someone not to keep using ABC and
(b) the same priest NOT actively counselling someone else not to keep using ABC .

Well said…

In truth I wasn’t trying to suggest that (or anything too specific) but I can see where it might have been read that way.

Peace
James

 

[maryjk]

She would not have the problem of having more children.

But she would still be married to a jerk. (Yes, a jerk. Someone that refuses to abstain, even if it endangers their partner’s life, is a jerk. Actually, he is worse than a jerk, but jerk works for now.)

Here is a possible double effect scenario:

1. The wife uses ABC which is a mortal sin and therefore is harmful morally.
2. The wife does not use ABC, but gives in to the demands of her husband and has more children, thus ruining her health and presenting extreme financial difficulties for the family.

:nope:

That isn’t a double effect.

 

[Corki]

ABC is morally wrong according to the RCC. However, other Churches, such as the EO Church allow exceptions. Why would the RCC want to unite with the EOC if they persist in teachings which are morally wrong, unless, perhaps there were some flexibility?

Even the EO chuches consider it a moral wrong. The teaching on economia is that some moral wrongs are tolerated to avoid a greater wrong. In the case of contraception, the teaching I have heard most often (the Orthodox Churches do not agree even between Churches) is that the harm to the marital bond due to extended abstinence is great enough that contraception can be tolerated. It’s still wrong but not sinful if used according to the priest’s counsel.

 

[Tomdstone]

As of today, there are NO hormonal contraceptives that are not abortifacient. It’s not a belief, it’s a clinical fact. Just read the patient insert of any package of birth control pills. One of the documented effects is to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum - the very definition of abortifacient.

Does everyone agree with you, or is this something which is not agreed to by all scientists?
For example:
“An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that “on pill” conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with “off pill” conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norplant.”
" We do not find substantive evidence that hormone contraceptives include an abortifacient mechanism of action."
" It is not the purpose of this paper to promote nor to oppose hormone contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."
aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/

 

[Tomdstone]

But she would still be married to a jerk.

Suppose she did not know that he was a jerk when she married him? Then what?

 

[Corki]

Does everyone agree with you, or is this something which is not agreed to by all scientists?

The companies making the drugs agree with me - that’s why they put it in the patient inserts.

I’ll leave it there in order not to take this thread off topic.

 

[Tomdstone]

The companies making the drugs agree with me - that’s why they put it in the patient inserts.

I’ll leave it there in order not to take this thread off topic.

I think it would be relevant to the topic, because the Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow abortifacient methods of ABC. According to the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians & Gynecologists most hormonal contraceptive drugs are not abortifacient. So your POV is not one that is shared by many scientists and doctors.

 

[Corki]

I think it would be relevant to the topic, because the Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow abortifacient methods of ABC.

That’s not the topic either. The topic is whether a Catholic woman with many children can exercise an exception to the prohibition to artificial contraception. The teachings of the Orthodox are not relevant.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s not the topic either. The topic is whether a Catholic woman with many children can exercise an exception to the prohibition to artificial contraception. The teachings of the Orthodox are not relevant.

I thought that a Pope has said that the Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Roman Catholic Church? Also, according to the missalet, Orthodox Christians are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church? So doesn’t this mean that their teachings are OK? I mean if someone follows the teachings of the EO Church and is allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn’t look like the RCC has any great objections to the teachings of the E. Orthodox Church?

 

[Steveabrous]

Does everyone agree with you, or is this something which is not agreed to by all scientists?
For example:
“An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that “on pill” conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with “off pill” conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norplant.”
" We do not find substantive evidence that hormone contraceptives include an abortifacient mechanism of action."
" It is not the purpose of this paper to promote nor to oppose hormone contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."
aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/

The drug companies all say that they do. But it is a secondary contraceptive effect. The primary effect is that it stops ovulation. But in the event that and egg does ovulate abortifacience is a back up plan.They stopped with the non abortacient pills a while ago because they had hormonal side effects.

 

[Steveabrous]

I thought that a Pope has said that the Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Roman Catholic Church? Also, according to the missalet, Orthodox Christians are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church? So doesn’t this mean that their teachings are OK? I mean if someone follows the teachings of the EO Church and is allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church,

they are allowed to recieve communion because we recognize that thier priests are validly ordained and therefore they have a valid communion. This does not mean that we recognize all their teachings as valid. They are our sister church, yes, but your sister can be wrong right?

it doesn’t look like the RCC has any great objections to the teachings of the E. Orthodox Church?

they are in schism. That is a serious matter. They do not recognize many of the teachings of the Catholic church. Trust me we object. If there was no objection there would be no schism

 

[1ke]

It is not clear because the Roman Catholic Church has been in dialog with the Eastern Orthodox Church which a Pope has called a sister Church of the Roman Catholic Church. And we have a case where a sister Church of the Roman Catholic Church (according to my understanding) would most likely apply economia or leniency in such a case and allow a mother of 15 children to use ABC. Also, again according to my understanding, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not see any difference in ABC or NFP when it is used to prevent children. How then can there be any union between the RCC and the EOC, when one Church insists on the immorality of ABC even in such an extreme case, while the other Church says that it is appropriate for their Church to apply mercy and allow the use of ABC since the lady has her hands full with 15 children.

It certainly is clear. The Truth is the Truth and it cannot change.

To be union, the EO would have to give up their false teachings on such matters. The same way Anglicans who wanted to enter as part of the Ordinariate, but who were divorced/remarried had to resolve their marriage situation first.