Is contraception ever right?

[seeking_light]

After being politely dressed down in another thread for not compleatly understanding the doctrinal side to the anti contraceptive stance in catholacism i have taken their advice to open up this question.

previoucly

All hormonal contraceptives, including the pill, injectables, implantables as well as IUD’s embedded with a hormonal contraceptive have three mechanisms of actions, (You can read this in any OB-GYNE textbook):

1. prevents ovulation
2. thickens cervical mucus (thereby impeding transport of sperm)
3. thins out the endometrial lining (making it inhospitable for implantation of a blastocyst, which is, in human embryology textbooks is cited to happen at day 51/2 to 6 of new human life, fertilization being the start of day one-> start of human life counted from this point).

given that this meens that all contraceptive were abortificant in one way or annother my understanding was that the main reason for objecting to contraception was on the basis of the sanctity of life .

now recently my docter informed me that there was a new contraceptive implant that did non of the above it mearly stimulates premature ovulation wich meens the eggs havent matured to the point of being fertile . if the eggs have matured enough (and there is a 3% chance of this) then they will be fertalised implant and grow the same as if there had been no contraceptive in the first place .

now my docter is not the sort of person that pushes contraceptive onto everyone (it was she that put me in contact with NFP) and im not saying that this new implant should be seen as an alternative to NFP. BUT in cases where it would be medicaly dangorouce to get pregnant and the partner was not willing to abide by NFP would this implant be acceptable? given that it causes no loss of life there fore dosnt violate the sanctity of life and where you have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of a child the church says you should save the mother as the child is an inocent. (the preist didnt say why the childs innocence meen his mothers life is more valuble ) is there any doctrinal isue with this implant?

the sanctity of life and allways being open to children from god were the only two reasons given to me during catchecism for avoiding contraception . we were also told that sex was part of the marital dues (give unto thy husband …) but that we are charged that children should be limited to what we could bring up in health and love of christ . i was led to beleive that this was the reasoning behind NFP giving your spousal dues but in a way that ment that you can regulate the reciving of children in order to best bring them up in health and love of christ. on the same arguments a contraception that dosent have abortive affects and still has a decent chance of pregnancy (given that NFP has a protective rate of 98%) would be ok surely? Or was there a big chunk missed out during my catchecism on this issue?

 

[converting2024]

Stimulating the ovulation of premature eggs is still contraception. You are messing with the body God gave you in order to not have children. Your doctor is wrong in telling you that this is not contraception and any priest will tell you the same. NFP involves observing the cycles of your body to determine when you are least likely to become pregnant, not implanting a device into your body. I will pray that you make the right choice.

 

[Rence]

Seeking Light, the Church forbids all artificial forms of birth control because according to the teachings of the Church, if it’s artificial in any form it takes away from the ‘unitive properties’ of the marital embrace, which is required by the Church. There are two requirements of the marital embrace, as taught by the Church: 1) the unitive properties and 2) the procreative properties. We are taught by the Church that there has to be both properties present.

The reason why NFP is the only birth control/birth regulation allowed by the Church is because it’s not artificial and falls within the guidelines of not taking away the ‘unitive propery’ because there is no ‘artificial’ barrier (both chemical and physical barriers are taught by the Church to remove the ‘unitive property’) and it’s still procreative — as many will tell you.

The only reason why contraception would ever be right is if it’s taken for medical reasons, and not for contraception. For example, the pill is allowed to be taken if it is used for therapy for other medical reasons, such as unmanageable pain and/or bleeding, etc.

I hope that helps.

 

[seeking_light]

Thanks for clearing that up. converting2024 thanks for your prayers dont worry i wasnt considering it my self i find NFP is quite liberating. The reson the doc (shes not a catholic so she definatly wouldt have known about the unitive thing) and i got talking in the first place is that i know of a few in my parish that are risking a lot medicaly because thier partners dont like NFP. Is it common knowledge that the church oks contraception for medical reasons ? If so it doesnt make sence that these women are putting their lives at risk. Or does the medical reason not count if if its the contraceptive part that is doing the protecting? im probably talking in circles but bare with me .

taking Rences example of the pill. the woman on the pill to stop bleeding is ok and the contraceptive action of the pill is a side effect. but if a women took the pill because trying to carry any future pregnancies into the 2nd trimester would result in fatal hemoraging, is she ok? in this case she is using the pill specificaly for the contraceptive effect but only because of this medical problem if her life wasnt in danger then she wouldnt be on the pill.

 

[manualman]

As a confirmation to the previous poster, it should be mentioned that catholic objection to contraception is NOT based on the potential abortifacient effects (thogh those are nasty too), but on the way contraception changes the meaning and impact of sexual intimacy. Otherwise condoms would be morally acceptable. (And they’re not, faulty media reporting aside).

The primary reason the Church denounces contraception is that it changes an act ordered towards mutual self-giving into one of mutual taking. At least a little, it changes what sex IS, and not in a good way.

 

[Newbie2]

Seeking Light, the Church forbids all artificial forms of birth control because according to the teachings of the Church, if it’s artificial in any form it takes away from the ‘unitive properties’ of the marital embrace, which is required by the Church. There are two requirements of the marital embrace, as taught by the Church: 1) the unitive properties and 2) the procreative properties. We are taught by the Church that there has to be both properties present.

The reason why NFP is the only birth control/birth regulation allowed by the Church is because it’s not artificial and falls within the guidelines of not taking away the ‘unitive propery’ because there is no ‘artificial’ barrier (both chemical and physical barriers are taught by the Church to remove the ‘unitive property’) and it’s still procreative — as many will tell you.

The only reason why contraception would ever be right is if it’s taken for medical reasons, and not for contraception. For example, the pill is allowed to be taken if it is used for therapy for other medical reasons, such as unmanageable pain and/or bleeding, etc.

I hope that helps.

And then it wouldn’t be contraception.

I guess what I’m getting at is the intent to contracept is an important consideration here.

 

[Rence]

Is it common knowledge that the church oks contraception for medical reasons ? If so it doesnt make sence that these women are putting their lives at risk. Or does the medical reason not count if if its the contraceptive part that is doing the protecting? im probably talking in circles but bare with me .

taking Rences example of the pill. the woman on the pill to stop bleeding is ok and the contraceptive action of the pill is a side effect. but if a women took the pill because trying to carry any future pregnancies into the 2nd trimester would result in fatal hemoraging, is she ok? in this case she is using the pill specificaly for the contraceptive effect but only because of this medical problem if her life wasnt in danger then she wouldnt be on the pill.

It should be common knowledge that the Church allows artificial birth control/hormone therapy for medical reasons such as unmanageable bleeding, unmanageable pain, other medical reasons. But the Church does not allow artificial birth control for the primary reason of avoiding conception. In other words, if a woman is in danger of fatal hemorrhaging during the second trimester, the Church’s teachings forbid artificial birth control and teaches that the woman should either abstain during her fertile times, or abstain altogether.

When a woman is taking hormone therapy to control profuse bleeding, or unmanageable pain, the primary indication is bleeding, or pain, or some other malady that the hormone therapy is designed to treat. The intent is to control bleeding, pain or whatever problem the medication is treating. This is allowed because contraception is not the primary goal.

But, in your example of the woman whose life would be in danger if she got pregnant, the primary indication is preventing pregnancy. She would be taking hormone therapy for the primary purpose of preventing pregnancy. So in this case, the Church would not acknowledge the medical need for the hormone therapy because the hormone therapy isn’t treating something, it’s being used to prevent a pregnancy.

 

[seeking_light]

the thing that gets to me about that stance is that it assumes the partner is willing to abstain as well.
where the partner refuses to abstain the woman is left choosing between two evils, use a forbiden contraceptive to ensure protection or hope that she dosent get pregnant during a forced intercourse and when she does have to abort the child as she wont beable to cary it to the point of medical technology enableing it survive outside the woomb.
either way she is sinning .

 

[1ke]

given that this meens that all contraceptive were abortificant in one way or annother my understanding was that the main reason for objecting to contraception was on the basis of the sanctity of life .

This is not the “main reason” or even “a” reason that the Church teaches contraception is intrinsically evil.

This would be an **additional **reason that hormonal contraceptives are immoral. They are both contraceptive AND abortifacient.

BUT in cases where it would be medicaly dangorouce to get pregnant and the partner was not willing to abide by NFP would this implant be acceptable?

No.

Contraception is intrinsically evil.

and where you have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of a child the church says you should save the mother as the child is an inocent. (the preist didnt say why the childs innocence meen his mothers life is more valuble )

The Church does not teach this. I don’t know where you got this.

is there any doctrinal isue with this implant?

Yes.

on the same arguments a contraception that dosent have abortive affects and still has a decent chance of pregnancy (given that NFP has a protective rate of 98%) would be ok surely?

No, this isn’t OK.

Or was there a big chunk missed out during my catchecism on this issue?

Yes, I would say so.

 

[manualman]

the thing that gets to me about that stance is that it assumes the partner is willing to abstain as well. where the partner refuses to abstain the woman is left choosing between two evils, use a forbiden contraceptive to ensure protection or hope that she dosent get pregnant during a forced intercourse and when she does have to abort the child as she wont beable to cary it to the point of medical technology enableing it survive outside the woomb.
either way she is sinning .

If you know such a person, please look around your area for resources to help battered women and offer to help her get OUT of that relationship. As catholics, we take marriage very seriously. But “forced intercourse” is NOT an acceptable part of any relationship. If that is what is going on, get her OUT of it at least until he repents of such a repulsive sin. Marriage is not and can not be construed to be a license to abuse. If the man in a relationship is capable of raping his wife, no condom is going to make that situation any better. Sorry.

 

[Abu]

seeking light
Any Catholic who insists on condomistic intercourse is:

1. Unfaithful to Christ and His Church
2. Unreasonable and unfaithful to their spouse
3. Needs real help in understanding and the meaning of real love.

This is because the doctrine against contraception of any kind is infallible and contained in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae, and is from the earliest days of the Church.

The aggrieved spouse should use every loving means to encourage the wife or husband to have faith in the Lord of the Universe – the time may come when real limitation of children may be responsible, but who knows whether illegitimate limitation may mask the fact that children may be impossible later.

If all efforts prove fruitless, the aggrieved spouse may take solace in the teaching of Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930:
“59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

 

[seeking_light]

If all efforts prove fruitless, the aggrieved spouse may take solace in the teaching of Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930:
“59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

im not quite sure what this meens would someone be kind enough to “translate” this into plain english please.

 

[Abu]

seeking light, post #8
the thing that gets to me about that stance is that it assumes the partner is willing to abstain as well.
where the partner refuses to abstain the woman is left choosing between two evils, use a forbiden contraceptive to ensure protection or hope that she dosent get pregnant during a forced intercourse and when she does have to abort the child as she wont beable to cary it to the point of medical technology enableing it survive outside the woomb.
either way she is sinning .

You claimed that by “choosing between two evils…either way she is sinning.”

Pope Pius XI is teaching that you are wrong:
“when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.”

So that if her spouse insists on using a condom, she does not sin by having intercourse “provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.”

Of course an abortion is always a grave sin.

It is very helpful to use google and to study and/or download relevant Encyclicals so that truth will out.

 

[Newbie2]

seeking light
Any Catholic who insists on condomistic intercourse is:

1. Unfaithful to Christ and His Church
2. Unreasonable and unfaithful to their spouse
3. Needs real help in understanding and the meaning of real love.

This is because the doctrine against contraception of any kind is infallible and contained in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae, and is from the earliest days of the Church.

The aggrieved spouse should use every loving means to encourage the wife or husband to have faith in the Lord of the Universe – the time may come when real limitation of children may be responsible, but who knows whether illegitimate limitation may mask the fact that children may be impossible later.

If all efforts prove fruitless, the aggrieved spouse may take solace in the teaching of Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930:
“59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

“Condomistic”?

Not to be confused with “condomentistic”, which of course refers to the use of condoments on an entree, lol.

It should be reiterated that using a condom in itself is not inherently sinful, it’s the contraceptive use of a condom that is problematic. The condom is a means to an end. If a sterile couple used one just for kicks (maybe they like pink ), it is a moral act.

 

[seeking_light]

Thankyou for the translation abu . and thanks to everyone that has contrabuted to this feed . with exams looming it will be a few months before i have the time to get back to catholic fourums . but thankyou all for your great help.