Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pumped4Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But even using a morning after pill in case of rape is licit for a Catholic, provided it is known where she is in her cycle, so that it would prevent ovulation rather than cause abortion. Contraception is intrinsically evil, but in cases of rape, which is also intrinsically evil, it is permitted.
 
EvelynEVF said:
But even using a morning after pill in case of rape is licit for a Catholic, provided it is known where she is in her cycle, so that it would prevent ovulation rather than cause abortion. Contraception is intrinsically evil, but in cases of rape, which is also intrinsically evil, it is permitted.
Click to expand...
The Truth About the “Morning After Pill”
morningafterpill.org/catholic-teaching.html

Head of Pontifical Academy for Life Reconfirms Morning After Pill Cannot be Used Even in Cases of Rape
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022906.html

Pope Tells Pharmacists Not to Dispense Drugs to Inhibit Implantation; Implications for Plan B at Catholic Hospitals
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102902.html

Human Life International President: “Plan A: Keep ‘Plan B’ Out of Catholic Hospitals”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100502.html

U.S. Catholic Health Association Giving Flawed Advice on Morning After Pill to Catholic Hospitals
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100406.html

Bishops Conferences Admit to Approving Abortifacient Drugs for Rape at Catholic Hospitals
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050407.html
 
I have talked to numerous Priests about this. It is acceptable to use the “Pill” for medical reasons. The intent of going on the medication can not in any way be to prevent pregnancy. People get confused when you say birth control because the pill is widely and mainly used for that, but it has other uses too. You can take the pill so long as it is NOT to prevent pregnancy and it is ONLY to help with a medical issue. I was faced with this same issue when I use to be on the pill to help with severe menstual problems. My doctor wanted to put me on the pill so I spoke with numerous priests and that is the answer they gave me. The thing is, I already have 3 children, all under the age of 3. Twins who are 2 years old almost, and 4 1/2 month old. I had to really examine my conscious about if my intentions were pure. I came to the conclusion they might not be. There are other alternatives, healthy ones at that. The World Health Organizations recently released a statement putting the pill in the same catagorey as plutonium and asbestos, cancer causing reagents. Some birth control pills abort all of the time, ALL birth control pills abort some of the time. I would not want to answer at the end of my life for a conceived child being flushed out because of some physical problem I had. There are ALWAYS other alternatives to using the pill for a medical reason. You just have to do a lot of research and try different things. The pill long term use will cause more harm to your body than good. It is permissible for health reasons, but if there is any inclination that the person is using it to prevent pregnancy than it is intrinsicly evil.
 
petras52 said:
Many years ago I remember reading an article about nuns who were given artificial birth control pills…they were living in a third world country where rape and other violence were running rampant for a while…if this article was in fact true, would that use also be intrinsically evil in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, evil can never be used to fight evil or to achieve a good end.
 
EvelynEVF said:
But even using a morning after pill in case of rape is licit for a Catholic, provided it is known where she is in her cycle, so that it would prevent ovulation rather than cause abortion. Contraception is intrinsically evil, but in cases of rape, which is also intrinsically evil, it is permitted.
Click to expand...
This is not true, I am sorry you have been misinformed, a woman is never allowed to use a morning after pill even in cases of rape, no matter what.
 
Roxygirl1488 said:
I have talked to numerous Priests about this. It is acceptable to use the “Pill” for medical reasons. The intent of going on the medication can not in any way be to prevent pregnancy. People get confused when you say birth control because the pill is widely and mainly used for that, but it has other uses too. You can take the pill so long as it is NOT to prevent pregnancy and it is ONLY to help with a medical issue. …
Click to expand...
Yes, but the OP did not mention using ABC to treat a medical condition. Instead, this was specifically asked:
Pumped4Christ said:
If someone has a rare genetic heart problem that has a 50% chance to be passed on, would it be acceptable to take birth control? This genetic trait is dominant and potentially life threatening.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the links. I read all of them, except three of the lifesitenews ones which are dead.
Your links support exactly what I am saying–that if a woman knows where she is in her cycle, the morning after pill could delay ovulation and not risk abortion.

The lifewithchrist article says that the Pope tells pharmacists not to dispense drugs that could inhibit implantation The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life says it cannot be used because it can “eliminate the embryo” and that if there is any possibility that it could cause abortion, then it must not be used.

The bishops’ document states that a woman has a right to defend herself against conception in case of rape. One thing that stood out, where the Pontifical Academy of Life’s position was being articulated on the “morningafterpill.org” site, was that obviously they are trying to avoid abortion, but. . .** “above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state of fertility.”**

Yikes! I know exactly and opportunely my current state of fertility, pretty much every day, because I use NFP.

The other lifesitenews link specifically speaks to testing for fertility and pregnancy before giving plan B and states that without both tests, it would be wrong, but with both tests, the woman is able to defend herself without risking the life of an unborn child.

So, no, just giving it any woman who comes in to report a rape is not moral. The articles you cited are quite clear that the problem is with the drug as an abortifacient, which cannot be dismissed because “women don’t know when they are fertile.” I do not know if testing is easily available in every hospital, even after hours, but even the PAL restricts itself to discussing abortive effects.

I see one professor quoted as saying that a woman can’t defend herself against conception, but that’s it. Everybody else is talking about the abortive effect.

I do see one mention that if a woman is within hours of ovulation, that a MAP may not be able to stop ovulation, and if she does conceive, it may then have an abortive effect. So there is a window of time prior to ovulation where it is not safe to use this drug. That was news to me, and I’m glad to have the information.
 
Oooh, replying to myself. How tacky! But here is an Ask the Apologist answer to the question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354747

And from the USCCB directives:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19

usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml
 
EvelynEVF said:
Oooh, replying to myself. How tacky! But here is an Ask the Apologist answer to the question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354747

…
Click to expand...
Here is the actual Q&A at the CAF link you provided above:
Is the morning-after pill permitted?
Click to expand...
Some Catholic theologians allow use of the morning-after pill in the event of rape. The Vatican says it may never be used. Can you please explain this fundamental difference?
Click to expand...
To the extent that some Catholic theologians allow for the possibility of using “emergency contraception” in the event of rape, they allow for it only when it has been determined that the woman has not ovulated. If there is a possibility that ovulation has occurred and that fertilization is now possible, no orthodox Catholic theologian would allow for “emergency contraception” because it would act abortifaciently by preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum.
Click to expand...
Some “Catholic theologians” say that the morning after pill may be used. The Vatican says it may never be used. To me, that means there is nothing to discern here. I accept that until the Vatican says using it is not intrinsically evil, then using it is intrinsically evil.
 
We are veering way off the OP, so this will be my last post, but I do want to note that it isn’t just “some Catholic theologians.” The USCCB statement makes it clear that there is room for use of hormone therapy to delay/derail ovulation.

I think the question the PAL is answering, is “Can I use the morning-after pill? It is advertised as preventing pregnancy by delaying ovulation and messing up the sperm, so is it a legitimate ‘treatment’ in case of rape?” and the PAL is saying, “No, the advertising isn’t true-- it works primarily by preventing implantation, so it’s the same as a very early abortion and isn’t ever acceptable.”

The USCCB comes along a little bit later and says, “Yes, that’s the primary mechanism, which is awful and not okay and never acceptable for a Catholic, but now we know a bit more-- if very carefully timed to be used before ovulation could possibly have occurred, then a woman can dodge the abortive effects and prevent ovulation, which is a licit way of preventing pregnancy in the case of rape.”

So I’m going with the bishops. I think we have room to legitimately disagree here. It would be nice to see further (name removed by moderator)ut from the PAL which acknowledges the timing issue.

(FTR, were I to be raped and know that I was fertile and had a couple days before I ovulated, I would use the hormone therapy. Were I on my peak day, when a) I would be most likely to conceive, but b)would be within hours of ovulation and therefore out of the safe window, I would not use the hormone therapy. It is always my desire to be obedient to the Church.)
 
I never had any idea people were this crazy when it comes to birth control. Of course you should use birth control if you are going top pass on a genetic disease or even if you don’t want any more children. It’s a choice. Do you really think Jesus would object to making a choice that is GOOD?
 
Question12345 said:
I never had any idea people were this crazy when it comes to birth control. Of course you should use birth control if you are going top pass on a genetic disease or even if you don’t want any more children. It’s a choice. Do you really think Jesus would object to making a choice that is GOOD?
Click to expand...
The OP is Catholic. Therefore, the OP is bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church (and every other Christian Church too up until the 1930s or so), using contraception is intrinsically evil, so Jesus would certainly object.

By the way, this forum requires that you post charitably. Calling folks crazy in your very first post is not charitable, so you might want to review your posting style.
 
Question12345 said:
I never had any idea people were this crazy when it comes to birth control. Of course you should use birth control if you are going top pass on a genetic disease or even if you don’t want any more children. It’s a choice. Do you really think Jesus would object to making a choice that is GOOD?
Click to expand...
I do not wish to derail the thread, but just for the sake of answering your post and to provoke thought, say a couple does use birth control in an effort to prevent a pregnancy and to try to keep from passing on a genetic disease. Say the birth control fails and a pregnancy is the result. Then what? Would that “choice” and the result still be a “GOOD” one? Would the next possible “choice” be a good one (let the baby be born) or would the idea of abortion then be entertained?

Bottom line, one cannot choose evil even if they think the final outcome will be “good.”

Perhaps a truly good choice if one has a dread genetic disease that they do not wish to pass on is a Josephite marriage with adopted children. Or, perhaps such an individual is called to a single life or a religious vocation.
 
1ke said:
So, do you not understand what instrinsically evil means?
Click to expand...
Fully formed adult conscience. Lucky though, I’m now past the age of having to worry about this particular problem!:eek:
 
Contraception (i.e. a couple wanting consensual sexual relations but not wanting a child and taking an intervention to prevent conception) is not morally licit. The use of birth of control pills may be licit. If a woman has endometriosis, and the only effective therapy to control the diseaes is oral estrogen therapy (birth control pills), and the intention is not to prevent conception, then the use of birth control pills is acceptable (using the principle of double effect, and this is not by definition contraception). In the 1960’s sisters in the Belgian Congo asked permission from the Pope to take birth control pills due to the fact that advancing revolutionary troops were using rape as psychological form of terrorism. The pope related that it was permissible as a form of self defense, and again was not contraception, as the anticipated possible sexual act would not be consensual. So contraception is not permissible, birth control pills may be.
 
1ke said:
There is a difference between birth control (the spacing or planning of children) and contraception.

Controlling, spacing, or avoiding children for a time or indefinitely is not intrinsically immoral and the Church teaches we can certainly do so for just reasons such as those you cite.

Contraception is **not **a **moral **means of doing so. Natural Family Planning or complete abstinence would be moral means to avoid children indefinitely due to a medical condition.
Click to expand...
I agree. You may want to check out the Creighton Model (NaPRO). It’s a method that can be used either to space / avoid children after prayerful consideration of the reasons for doing so, or for achieving pregnancy. By the way, this method is approved by the Church.

I hope this helps and God bless you 🙂
 
Scoobyshme said:
From what I understsand, there are cases where it is acceptable to take the pill, for example, if it is used to treat some medical condition, as long as the purpose is not for birth control. The birth control part would have to be incidental to the case.
Click to expand...
That’s my understanding - a secondary unwanted effect is OK as long as the primary act is not in itself evil, the secondary effect is not the intended effect, and the wrongness of the secondary effect doesn’t outweigh the good of the first effect.

So taking the pill to relieve other ailments is OK as long as there is no intent to use it to prevent conception; recognising that it probably will is not the same as intending it.

(Of course, that only holds for contraceptive pills, not “contraceptive pills” that are actually abortofacients, as they would fail as being an evil act in themselves.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top