IS Contraception allowed in extreme situations?

[thistle]

Just check any handbook on moral theology. Like the one by Fr.Heribert Jone. He states that if a woman is the victim of rape or deception, there is no sin in dispelling the seminal fluids, provided that it is done before conception. Because in this case the semen is the equivalent to an unjust agressor. I checked the book at home but I cannot find any link to provide,sorry.

You are being evasive again. Please refer us to an OFFICIAL Church document which allows contraception in cases of rape (either prior to or immediately after).
Please note that a handbook on moral theology is NOT an official Church document.

 

[eelpis]

You are being evasive again. Please refer us to an OFFICIAL Church document which allows contraception in cases of rape (either prior to or immediately after).
Please note that a handbook on moral theology is NOT an official Church document.

I know that it’s not an official document but it was used extensively in the Church prior to Vatican II, it has the Imprimatur, and the Nihil Obstat (that means that nothing in it is in opposition to official Church teachings.)

 

[Seatuck]

You are being evasive again. Please refer us to an OFFICIAL Church document which allows contraception in cases of rape (either prior to or immediately after).
Please note that a handbook on moral theology is NOT an official Church document.

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

 

[itsjustdave1988]

To those that have responded that my priest lied to me, I have spoken with him and this is deffinately not the case! One condition that I have causes me to bleed excessively during menses - yes I have looked for alternatives to using the pill, but none have worked and this is the most reliable way to keep me from having to get transfusions without having to have a surgery that could cost me my ability to reproduce at all. Because of the fact that I need to take birth control in order to control bleeding, it is allowed. The fact that a secondary effect of the birth control is that it prevents pregnancy is something that is a secondary effect. If you look you will see that if the desired effect is not actually intended to be that I not get pregnant but that it keep my bleeding in check you will see this is allowable. And I don’t appreciate having you call my priest a liar when he spoke with the bishop about it and got agreement.

Your priest is correct. However, we don’t call this “birth control” but hormone treatment. Reason being, contraception is neither intended as a means nor an end. This is an application of the ethical principle of double-effect, and is certainly morally licit according to Catholic moral theology.

Nonetheless, what you described in your last post is significantly different than what you described in this post #25 .

In post #25, you implied that you INTEND to contracept, that is, you are taking hormone treatments not only for medical reasons, but also to avoid conception. If this is indeed the case, then the conditions for licit use of the principle of double effect DOES NOT APPLY.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).

 

[ryecroft]

*Totally different scenario than in your previous post. In your previous post you presented a need to prevent pregnancy which might be life threatening which is never allowed.Contraception is never allowed. Medical treatment is. Using hormonal preparations that are also used for contraception are allowed under the medical treatment paragraph when the usage is to treat a persistant condition not to prevent pregnancy. Having issues with bleeding etc when not pregnant is a possible reason to use a hormonal preparation that is also used as a contraceptive. So the fault is in your description. You say non abortive contraceptive but you ertainly wouldn’t get a medical benefit by the use a condom in your case. When you say contraception we think you mean artificial actions to prevent a pregnancy which is immoral.

BTW , most likely your health would be better served by extensive testing and prescriptions for precise hormonal treatment rather than a one size fits all mass produced hormonal treatment. I’d look into an NFP only doctor to get better medical care.*

---

I really apologize if I gave an incomplete, incorrect discription - that was not my intention. I am just astounded that it’s o.k. for me to take birth control pills because it wil keep me from bleeding out. I am shocked that it’s o.k. in this situation but not o.k. if I only had the situation of likely death if I was to become pregnant without the bleeding problem! I say this because even without the bleeding problem, if I am to get pregnant, my kidneys cannot handle working for more than one person and I would very likely die, infact I have almost died from this. Truly, I’m thrilled for all of you that use NFP and have it work, regardless of which type you use, but please understand that there are people for who it does NOT work, myself included. Also, I suppose I should have added this is with my first post, but it seems that I should have included that I have dealt with Catholic Doctors that deal with NFP - and they could NOT figure out a way for NFP to work for me. Believe me, I wish NFP did! But even before I got kidney disease, I could NOT get NFP to work for me - I wound up getting pregnant twice and we tried following it - going as far as getting an ovulation predictor-not to mention doing temps and checking mucus - I have been to an NFP doctor that wanted me to “try” another type of NFP to see if it would work. We did and were pregnant less than three months later - that “try” could have killed me.
Back to the point of this - I really have a very hard time believing that the church would rather have my husband and I choose bewtween being able to be with my husband and a likelyhood of getting pregnant (as I have 6 times) and having to make a choice between possibly having both of us dying or ending the pregnancy. ( In my case, dialysis can only do so much.) My husband has told me when we’ve discussed this that he can not imagine Christ wanting us to have to make that kind of choice - nor can I.

 

[JulianN]

Please tell us which posts state someone said your priest was a liar (which you have said twice in your post). I don’t recollect anyone calling the priest a liar. I said he was wrong. That is very different from being a liar.
I would expect you to apologise to all those you have maligned with your accusations.

Perhaps she is referring to this post?

“I am sorry that your priest lied to you. I hope it was out of ignornace on his part, for his sake.”

(Sorry, I can’t figure out how to do the multiple quotes in one post yet.)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

*…*I am just astounded that it’s o.k. for me to take birth control pills because it wil keep me from bleeding out…

Such astonishment may be due to lack of understanding of the principles that govern ethics as formulated and applied by ethicists in determining the moral licitness of human acts. Even secular ethicists describe the licitness of human acts such acts have a “double-effect,” so long as the conditions for double effect apply.

I recommend a deeper study of Catholic moral theology to better understand the distinction between “tolerating” evil and “intending” evil. Properly understood, this is not so astonishing after all.

Paul VI: “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 (cf. Rom 3:8)” (Humanae Vitae, 14)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

*…*Back to the point of this - I really have a very hard time believing that the church would rather have my husband and I choose bewtween being able to be with my husband and a likelyhood of getting pregnant (as I have 6 times) and having to make a choice between possibly having both of us dying or ending the pregnancy…he can not imagine Christ wanting us to have to make that kind of choice - nor can I.

The implication is that there is not another choice. There is. You don’t have to have sex at all. Christ, in fact, promoted this choice, so I don’t have to imagine that he would reject this option. I understand that in this “sex worshipping” world we live in, it is hard to imagine making such a choice. However, there are many couples faced with far worse medical problems than yours that have no other choice. Contrary to popular belief, you will not die if you don’t have sex.

Furthermore, it would be a grave mistake to think there is no risk of death by choosing to using birth control. You are ALREADY making the choice of a “a likelihood of getting pregnant” everytime you have sex, whether you are on the pill or not.

For instance, a friend of my daughter just got pregnant using “the pill,” and her reaction was as if such a thing was impossible. It is absurd to think that “the pill” will eliminate the risk of getting pregnant. For instance, studies show that about 60% of all women who seek an abortion do so BECAUSE their use of artificial birth control FAILED. Women become pregnant using artificial birth control all the time, and it has led to millions of innocent human beings being killed in abortion. Such is the tragic effect of misplaced faith in “the pill.”

Should couples be choosing to have sex if they are not prepared for the “likelihood of getting pregnant” or cannot handle the consequences of sex? When taking such risks, they should understand that the Church is not “making” them choose such risk of pregnancy (and perhaps death).

A more prudent choice may be to find other ways to express affection other than conjugal acts which may turn out to have deadly consequences.

 

[ryecroft]

The implication is that there is not another choice. There is. You don’t have to have sex at all. Christ, in fact, promoted this choice, so I don’t have to imagine that he would reject this option. I understand that in this “sex worshipping” world we live in, it is hard to imagine making such a choice. However, there are many couples faced with far worse medical problems than yours that have no other choice. Contrary to popular belief, you will not die if you don’t have sex.

Furthermore, it would be a grave mistake to think there is no risk of death by choosing to using birth control. You are ALREADY making the choice of a “a likelihood of getting pregnant” everytime you have sex, whether you are on the pill or not.

For instance, a friend of my daughter just got pregnant using “the pill,” and her reaction was as if such a thing was impossible. It is absurd to think that “the pill” will eliminate the risk of getting pregnant. For instance, studies show that about 60% of all women who seek an abortion do so BECAUSE their use of artificial birth control FAILED. Women become pregnant using artificial birth control all the time, and it has led to millions of innocent human beings being killed in abortion. Such is the tragic effect of misplaced faith in “the pill.”

Should couples be choosing to have sex if they are not prepared for the “likelihood of getting pregnant” or cannot handle the consequences of sex? When taking such risks, they should understand that the Church is not “making” them choose such risk of pregnancy (and perhaps death).

A more prudent choice may be to find other ways to express affection other than conjugal acts which may turn out to have
deadly consequences.

Thank you for that somewhat sarcastic sounding first paragraph about “you will not die if you do not have sex” - I’m sure that everyone is quite aware of that -
studies show that when used correctly that the pill is 97-99% effective - I honestly believe that the reason so many people wind up pregnant on the pill and other types of birth control often do so because it is not used correctly - but I have been thinking on it and you are right, it isn’t completely effective, so I spoke with my GYN and she said that the best thing I could do would be to have a merena IUC put in along with the pill or patch. (they’re not sure that just the IUC - the progesterone will keep the bleeding at bay)- so thank you, I feel like now I will be more protected - although yes, you’re right, not completely.
My OB GYN is Catholic and I was concerned about the talk about the IUC being an abortifacient and my doctor said there were no studies she saw that deffinately showed that the mirena was an abortifacient. I really do want to follow the Lord as best I can - and I really do wish that NFP worked for us, but it doesn’t and I know so many people that have studied NFP, gone by it religiously (no pun intended) and still wound up getting pregnant.

I just feel like the Church is saying that possibly getting pregnant is a more acceptable risk if I’m on NFP than if i’m on the pill or have and IUD/IUC in. I understand that with NFP there is a view that God is in charge of deciding whether or not the couple can become pregnant - but with all the people you’ve heard about that have gotten pregnant while on the pill, it seems like God doesn’t have any problem making that decision - which makes me come around again and wonder about the problem there seems to be with “artificial birth control”-it seems like if God wants someone to become pregnant it’s going to happen whether or not the person is using chemical methods of birth control, NFP a condom or even pulling out

And the more I’ve read and looked on here, the more I’ve found that many other of the “methods” that I would normally use to show my husband “affection” - the one’s that he enjoys generally need to end with actual sex in order for the Church to approve. Although my husband is to the point of beginning to believe (as am I) that we may need Christ in our marriage but we sure don’t need the Church in bed with us -

.

 

[kage_ar]

God is everywhere. In a sacramental marriage, there are three of you in the marriage -

Please, find a good holy Priest, call Catholic Answers Live and speak to Fr. Serpa.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…we sure don’t need the Church in bed with us.

The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). When you contend against the Church, you contend against the truth.

 

[jfhh]

If any of you dobut that the pill can be used for medical reasons, allow me to take from Humanae Vitae:​

When taken as necessary for therapeutic reasons, use of “the pill” is not immoral. Humanae Vitae states, “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” (HV 15).

This would appear then to say that it is morally licit for the OP to follow whatever her doctor’s advice may be. It seems clear that the OP is not “motivated” by a desire to avoid children; she clearly has no “motive whatsoever” to avoid children. Unless the word “motive” there means something very unusual compared to what we understand it to mean in English, it seems pretty clear cut.

 

[Seatuck]

This would appear then to say that it is morally licit for the OP to follow whatever her doctor’s advice may be. It seems clear that the OP is not “motivated” by a desire to avoid children; she clearly has no “motive whatsoever” to avoid children. Unless the word “motive” there means something very unusual compared to what we understand it to mean in English, it seems pretty clear cut.

No. The pill may be taken as a treatment to an active physical ailment. Such as uncontrolled menstural bleeding or one of several disorders that sometimes arise. The OP didn’t describe one. She described a situation that arises during pregnancy. We cannot take a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy which would then avoid a physical ailment. We may use NFP under that condition. NFP doctors will usually find alternative treatments for those conditions . The pill has many side effects and is know to mask problems and create comlications in women.

 

[jfhh]

The pill may be taken as a treatment to an active physical ailment. …The pill has many side effects and is know to mask problems and create comlications in women.

Addressing this issue, and not the OP, I would say even if what you seem to suggest here is true, it may be wiser to just follow your doctors advice and take it since frankly thinking too much about may lead you to the conclusion you seem to be suggesting (that NFP would work better) and then you may be tempted to choose the pill without a good faith reason, and be culpable for a sin or what you think is a sin – either way be culpable in terms of your conscience. I know this sounds counterintuitive, but look at it this way. We are called to avoid temptation and IMO more than being called to avoid what is objectively wrong, are called to keep our heart as pure as possible. By not seeking out information which might unnecessarily disturb our conscience or give us the temptation scenario I gave, you protect yourself from temptation and your heart.

Something ALONG these lines is why I avoid reading the book Living High and Letting Die which argues from what I understand that apart from our basic needs, everything else should be donated to charities and that not doing so is as evil as letting someone die on the street instead of being a Good Samaritan. It’s also why I avoid reading the book called IIRC, Dominance, written by a conservative who as I understand it points out animal cruelty and argues that humans should not eat animals and that if we knew how cruely animals were treated, we would not eat meat. I believe there’s more to the book than that as well. See if I read that book Dominance, I may be faced with a moral test I may not pass. Likewise if I read the book Living High and Letting Die. And likewise for some people if they read too many medical articles or internet opinions about risks/benefits of NFP versus contraception for therapeutic purposes.

I wish the OP would have just followed the doctor’s advice and trusted him. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches we should trust people like that, not just priests. I don’t think there’s any strict obligation to NECESSARILY go out of one’s way to determine every nook and cranny of every moral situation. If that were so, we’d be frozen in time literally unable to act and constantly investigating before acting.

 

[Debra_C]

I would caution anyone in such a situation against trusting her life to artificial birth control. I myself have concieved while on the pill, which is why I chose not to take the risk in continuing to treat my own endometriosis this way. My OB wanted me to take pill packs back to back so that I would go as long as 4 months between cycles. This means that a contraceptive failure might not be immediately discovered, placing a baby at high risk for birth defects. I couldn’t live with that. And I don’t think I could live with trusting it to prevent pregnancy if my life would be endangered by a pregnancy either. Doctors don’t always remember to tell you which meds, foods, etc. may reduce the pill’s effectiveness and so on. It isn’t foolproof, plain and simple.

I really think anyone in this situation should look at other resources and get a second (or even third) opinion. There is too much at stake here.

 

[jfhh]

I really think anyone in this situation should look at other resources and get a second (or even third) opinion. There is too much at stake here.

I agree, make sure you get the best possible professional medical advice.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… By not seeking out information which might unnecessarily disturb our conscience …

In other words, it isn’t “truth” that sets us free, but remaining ignorant? I can’t disagree more.

… See if I read that book Dominance, I may be faced with a moral test I may not pass. Likewise if I read the book Living High and Letting Die…

The same could be said about reading the Bible, no? Are you really claiming that it is better to remain ignorant, to “know not what we do” than to have our conscience enlightened by the light of truth?

I wish the OP would have just followed the doctor’s advice and trusted him.

Well, perhaps the Holy Spirit prompts us to do otherwise.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches we should trust people like that, not just priests. I don’t think there’s any strict obligation to NECESSARILY go out of one’s way to determine every nook and cranny of every moral situation.

St. Thomas does not suggest we should remain ignorant about things we are obliged according to our state, to know. If one is married, they have an obligation to know what is morally licit according to the doctrine of the Church, concerning contraception.

Her question was this:

…in extreme cases like this, the allowance to contracept was allowed?

The answer is no. The relevant Church documents are:

Pius XI, Casti Connubii
Pius XII, Address to Midwives
Paul VI, Humanae Vitae
John Paul II, Veritas Splendor

**%between%
**