Marriage discernment, a conversion and the Pill

[YinYangMom]

Listener:

Some of the people on this forum seem to be more Catholic than the Pope. It is fine to use “The Pill” for medical reasons. See the Humane Vitae encyclical. You don’t have to abstain if you’re married. You can back up what I have told you by looking in the Ask and Apologist section of this forum.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756&highlight=medical

 

[maendem]

Listener:

Some of the people on this forum seem to be more Catholic than the Pope. It is fine to use “The Pill” for medical reasons. See the Humane Vitae encyclical. You don’t have to abstain if you’re married. You can back up what I have told you by looking in the Ask and Apologist section of this forum.

Listener is right, of course. Surmising that I might be one of those who came across “more Catholic than the Pope,” I simply offer the advice on NFP having encountered many couples who are seeking a practical means to keep their intentions and spiritual life in check while on the Pill for medical reasons. But it does seem to me that the Church’s teaching is clear: taking the Pill for medical reasons is morally acceptable and any abortion that may result from such is considered an unintended miscarriage, not a moral evil. Some couples wish to take means to avoid even these miscarriages, which is where NFP can help.

 

[montanaman]

maendem:

Listener is right, of course. Surmising that I might be one of those who came across “more Catholic than the Pope,” I simply offer the advice on NFP having encountered many couples who are seeking a practical means to keep their intentions and spiritual life in check while on the Pill for medical reasons. But it does seem to me that the Church’s teaching is clear: taking the Pill for medical reasons is morally acceptable and any abortion that may result from such is considered an unintended miscarriage, not a moral evil. Some couples wish to take means to avoid even these miscarriages, which is where NFP can help.

Wow. A finer line I’ve never seen. Seems like there would be more reports of abuse than there are. Just like annulments are handed out willy-nilly (although, I realize those with legitimate reasons to get an annulment who have difficulty receiving one would dispute that) I’m surprised that more people aren’t taking doctor’s notes to their bishops so they can contracept.

Then again, someone so disposed to the contraceptive mentality probably won’t bother with the middle man…

Anyway, this is a huge relief. The more I pray for discernment, the more I get that “forever feeling.” Last night I attended RCIA for the second week in a row with her. She’s loving the quick access to her vexing questions. I’M loving the systematic review of what I already believe–everything I’ve learned is in the form of thousands of post-it notes all over my desk. RCIA is helping me to tidy up my brain.

(On another note, I just wanted to say thanks for all the advice. Also, I realize that the vast majority of my posts have to do with relationship issues. Since I’m fairly certain about the Faith and my ability to defend it, having a long history of doing so, I tend to post questions relating to the truly great Mysteries of life–the relations between the sexes. I’ve found that explaining transubstantiation is FAR easier to explain than how to have a successful relationship…)

 

[Madia]

Have you tried talking to a pro-life doctor in your area? You can seach one more soul for one:
omsoul.com/

It seems the best solution would be to get her off of abc and onto another form of treatment. That seems like it would be the best solution for everyone involved. However, it might take some work to find a pro-life doctor in your area. Just don’t get discouraged and continue to seek someone who can help you. Also, please post your question about her on the EWTN message board under the “Pro-Life” section.

But it does seem to me that the Church’s teaching is clear: taking the Pill for medical reasons is morally acceptable and any abortion that may result from such is considered an unintended miscarriage, not a moral evil.

I actually wrote a letter to the National Catholic Bioethics Center last week seeking information about this subject. The Church’s teaching is not clear on the subject. If anyone wants I can post most of it that shows my replies to those who object that it is ok to engage in marital relations while on abortifacients.

 

[maendem]

Madia:

I actually wrote a letter to the National Catholic Bioethics Center last week seeking information about this subject. The Church’s teaching is not clear on the subject. If anyone wants I can post most of it that shows my replies to those who object that it is ok to engage in marital relations while on abortifacients.

Madia - I’m interested in your objections; not to refute them, but to understand Church teaching better. Perhaps to my post above I should have added “grave medical reasons.” Frivolous “medical” use of the Pill, such as to treat adolescent acne, would certainly not apply. It is my understanding that abortion, by definition, is something *intentional and willed. *Thus I found valid Fr. Sherpa’s (Ask Apologist) reply that the effects of abortifacient contraceptives, when used for grave medical reasons, can be tolerated as unintended miscarriages.

But I’m willing to be found wrong, especially on the grounds that one can, through NFP, avoid such abortions/miscarriages.

 

[Madia]

Madia - I’m interested in your objections; not to refute them, but to understand Church teaching better.

First off, I’m pretty sure there isn’t a definitive Church teaching on this subject. If something is not defined by the Church (such as embyro adoption), it is open for debate. I personally feel that couples should not engage in the marital act while the woman is on medicine that is abortifacient. Here’s most of my letter to the NCBC:

 I am writing your center today in hopes that you can help me with an ethical problem involving abortifacient drugs. I believe that a couple should not engage in marital relations in the following two situations:

1. The wife is willingly using an abortifacient (birth control pill, intra-uterine device, etc.) against the husband’s wishes.
2. The wife is on an abortifacient drug for medical reasons (such as taking methotrexate to treat rheumatoid arthritis).

First I would like to give my responses to some objections that people might use to defend having marital relations in the above situations.

Objection 1: The husband can engage in marital relations with his wife in the first situation provided the three conditions in number 13 of VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE are jointly met:

1. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
   1. 
      *]when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
      *]when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
      *]when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
   Reply to Objection 1: The above section of VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS mentions only “the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.” Since infecund means infertile, this would refer to a spouse who is sinning by contracepting (using a method that prevents conception). Abortifacients do not render the unitive act infecund, they chemically abort the child after the child has been conceived. So the above section only refers to a spouse using a method of birth control that is purely contraceptive, not one that is also or independently abortifacient.
   
   Objection 2: The husband’s cooperation in his spouse’s evil in the first situation would fall into either proximate or remote material cooperation, not formal.
   
   Reply to Objection 2: VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS defines what formal cooperation is in footnote 48 so we should use that definition to see whether or not the husband’s cooperation would be formal:
   
   (48) “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74).
   
   The husband in the first situation would not be sharing in his wife’s immoral intention nor is the marital act by its very nature an act against innocent human life. However, the husband can still be guilty of cooperating formally in evil if engaging in the marital act when the woman is using an abortifacient (the form the marital act takes in a concrete situation) can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life. So, is the marital act when using an abortifacient an act against innocent human life? I feel that it is since the couple would be allowing their child to be placed in an environment (the woman’s uterus) that has become inhospitable (the lining has been irritated/inflamed) to the human embryo implanting due to the abortifacient.

 

[Madia]

Objection 3: Spontaneous abortions happen naturally.

Reply to Objection 3: From THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY IN THE SERVICE OF LIFE;A SUMMIT MEETING OF EXPERTS ON HUMAN LIFE Rome, April 20-22, 1991

“As well as this disinformation, which is at times deliberate, another reality must be denounced today. Especially in the practice of artificial procreation, there is an attempt to justify the loss of embryos by arguing that spontaneous abortions also happen naturally. In this regard, it is necessary to state clearly, before the consciences of researchers, doctors and women, that these two phenomena have a different and opposite moral qualification (cf. Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation, *Donum Vitae, 1987, *Part II, premise).”

This section of the document seems to address people trying to justify the loss of human embryos during the process of in-vitro fertilization by claiming that spontaneous abortions happen naturally. The document states that the “two phenomena have a different and opposite moral qualification”. I feel that spontaneous abortions and chemical abortions are also two different phenomena and that you cannot justify death of human embryos due to chemical abortions by claiming that spontaneous abortions happen naturally.

Objection 4: The couple can engage in marital relations in the second situation as stipulated in #15 of HUMANAE VITAEentitled Lawful Therapeutic Means:

1. On the other hand, 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. (19)

Reply to Objection 4: The above section of HUMANAE VITAE refers to lawful therapeutic means that result in “a foreseeable impediment to procreation.” Again, abortifacients are not “a foreseeable impediment to procreation”, they chemically abort the child after the child has been conceived. So the above section only refers to lawful therapeutic means that render the spouse infertile, not ones that are abortifacient.

Objection 5: The couple could engage in marital relations in the second situation as long as the chemical abortion wasn’t intended. The principle of double effect would apply to such a situation.

Reply to Objection 5: Marital relations in the second situation would not be licit in the second situation since there must be a proportionately grave reason to permit the evil effect for double effect to apply. I feel that the death of child due to a chemical abortion is a far greater evil than abstinence in a marriage.

 

[Madia]

That last statement pretty much sums up my argument against marital relations when there is chance that the child conceived will be chemically aborted. Although the chemical abortion would not be intended if the husband in the first situation or the couple the second situation engaged in the marital act, the possible chemical abortion would still be permitted. I don’t feel that the evil effects of being abstinent in the two situations are nearly equivalent to the evil effect of a child being chemically aborted. Thus I feel that marital relations should not be engaged in in the two above situations.

If someone argues that it is licit to engage in marital relations in the two situations listed above then what ratio of marital acts to chemical abortions are allowed? Would the good effects of a year’s worth of marital acts be sufficient to permit the evil effect of one chemical abortion? What about a month’s worth? A week? Would the good effects of just one marital act be sufficient good to permit the evil effect of one child being chemically aborted? How can a line even be drawn?

I would appreciate any insights you have on whether or not it would be licit to engage in marital relations in the two situations listed above. While I didn’t mean to answer my own question of whether or not marital relations are licit in the two above situations, I wanted to make my feelings known on the subject. I would also be interested in any Church documents that address the situations. The only one I have found is VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS which addresses the first situation:

1. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.48

(48) “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74).

While the document doesn’t explicitly say that marital relations are forbidden in the first situation, a person may question why they referenced the text in footnote 48 if the Church didn’t consider cooperation in that situation formal cooperation in evil.

 

[Madia]

References:

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/
family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

HUMANAE VITAE:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

IN THE SERVICE OF LIFE:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/pcfintheserviceoflife.htm

The Principle of Double Effect:

all.org/about/decapp01.htm

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=447204&Forums=10&Experts=0&Days=30
&Author=&Keyword=double+effect&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Cooperation in evil:

all.org/about/decapp02.htm

Information on abortifacients:

all.org/issues/bc01.htm

all.org/issues/bc03.htm

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/METHOTRE.TXT

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=443614&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005
&Author=&Keyword=methotrexate&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Forest-Pine]

As I stated in my previous post, it should be given due weight and answered within the marriage (between spouses and God). The church has spoken on this and I linked to many, many threads which point to documents, etc.

The church allows medical treatment with the positive knowledge that it will cause an unintended abortion, for example in the case of chemotherapy for a pregnant cancer patient. While fibroids are not a life and death issue, I know that they do cause extreme and unbearable pain making the person’s quality of life severely diminished. The person has a right (but not a duty) to use medicines available to ease her suffering. While the stakes are not as high in the case of fibroids (pain) as they are with cancer (possible death), the risks also are not as high with the treatment of the fibroids with hormone therapy (possible conception, possible pregnancy, possible abortion) as they are with chemotherapy (sure abortion).

Again, this is something left to the individuals and not something we can blanket statement as right or wrong. An option would be to practice NFP while on hormone therapy (abstaining on the days conception is likely to occur), but it is not a duty.

 

[manualman]

Wow, that’s a lot of scholarship.

I just figure a baby is human being right from the moment of conception. When faced with a decision where one choice results in a decent risk of a human being getting killed while the other course of action results in a few days of sexual abstinance…

Why is this a hard one???

The way the pill works it CAN’T be that hard to arrange dosages so as to funnel the likely breakthrough ovulation to predictable days.

 

[Madia]

The church has spoken on this and I linked to many, many threads which point to documents, etc.

Can you please link Church documents that specifically adress the abortifacient side effects, not the contraceptive side effects? Please see my reply to objections above. From what I’ve found the Church has not issued a definitive statement on engaging in the marital act while a spouse is on abortifacients.

The church allows medical treatment with the positive knowledge that it will cause an unintended abortion, for example in the case of chemotherapy for a pregnant cancer patient.

One difference is that the evil effect (chemical abortions) of medical treatment involving abortifacient medicine can be prevented by not engaging in sexual relations while taking the medicine.

As I stated in my previous post, it should be given due weight and answered within the marriage (between spouses and God).

With situations (such as embryo adoption) not yet addressed by the Church it would be wise for those considering those situations to read both sides of the arguments, talk with a good priest, pray over it and let their consciense guide them.

 

[Forest-Pine]

Madia:

Can you please link Church documents that specifically adress the abortifacient side effects, not the contraceptive side effects? Please see my reply to objections above. From what I’ve found the Church has not issued a definitive statement on engaging in the marital act while a spouse is on abortifacients.

One difference is that the evil effect (chemical abortions) of medical treatment involving abortifacient medicine can be prevented by not engaging in sexual relations while taking the medicine.

That was specifically addressed in one of my previously linked threads. Please see the lengthy response here:

Can Catholics use the abortion pill for medical reasons?

Madia:

With situations (such as embryo adoption) not yet addressed by the Church it would be wise for those considering those situations to read both sides of the arguments, talk with a good priest, pray over it and let their consciense guide them.

I agree wholeheartedly with you!

 

[Madia]

That was specifically addressed in one of my previously linked threads. Please see the lengthy response here:

Can Catholics use the abortion pill for medical reasons?

I addressed that objection above:

Objection 4: The couple can engage in marital relations in the second situation as stipulated in #15 of HUMANAE VITAEentitled Lawful Therapeutic Means:

1. On the other hand, 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. (19)

Reply to Objection 4: The above section of HUMANAE VITAE refers to lawful therapeutic means that result in “a foreseeable impediment to procreation.” Again, abortifacients are not “a foreseeable impediment to procreation”, they chemically abort the child after the child has been conceived. So the above section only refers to lawful therapeutic means that render the spouse infertile, not ones that are abortifacient.

 

[Forest-Pine]

Madia:

I addressed that objection above:

There is faulty logic in your argument:

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases

The document clearly says that it is not “at all” illicit to use therapeutic means to cure bodily diseases. It further goes on to clarify that this INCLUDES

even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from

The church clearly lays out that the problem is not the therapeutic means, but the intent of the person taking it.

provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

It does not say up to but not surpassing “impediment to procreation.” It says flat out that a person has a right (but not a duty) to use therapeutic means to cure bodily ills. It then further drives home this point with the qualifier that this is true even in controversial circumstances raised. It further clarifies that the real issue is the motive of the couple, as the medicine and treatment themselves are not “at all” illicit.

 

[Madia]

It does not say up to but not surpassing “impediment to procreation.”

It also does not say surpassing “impediment to procreation.” If a sign at the supermarket says buy one get one free can I try to get three free because the sign does not say “up to but not surpassing one free”? Should I assume that I can get three free because the sign obmitted the saying “up to but not surpassing one” free? Or should I just assume the sign meant what the sign specifically said?

Let’s just base our discussion on what the Encylical specifically addressed. The section addresses specifically therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases in which there is a (possibly forseen) impediment to procreation. It does not mention anything about abortifacients which are not an impediment to procreation (conception).

Abortifacients and contraception are two different evils. You can’t lump in abortifacients in the section when they aren’t specifically addressed especially when the Encylical was written at a time when (correct me if I’m wrong but to the best of my knowledge) Pope Paul VI didn’t know the pill was abortifacient.

 

[socalcarmelite]

Did you know that the pill isn’t always the best for fibroids? In some cases, it can make them grow! Does she have endometriosis?

Also, following removal, is the optimal time to conceive, because there is nothing blocking this. Having a baby and then breastfeeding can really help these situations.

I am also in the same situation. Just found out I have another little lump down there. Could take the pill, although it does not work well for my body.

I wish I could get married soon and have a baby, but unfortunately, we are not ready yet.

Good luuck and God Bless!

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Ham1:

Why would sex in your marriage be limited?

If your wife has a legitimate non-contraceptive reason to be on the Pill, you don’t need to abstain from marital relations.

Definitely help her to find a good Christian doctor who may have alternative treatment methods.

Ham1,

Actually , since the Hormonal Contraceptive has a potential to kill an unborn child, when sexual relations are occuring, the formula of double effect that the Church uses to aloow the usage of said treatment would require that what it is treating is at least a life-threatening condition. We have to remember that it isnt just what is intended but also the weight of the positive and the negative weighed. Also to be considered is what other methods that do not have the negative effect are available. Double effect is bigger than “i ain’t doing it for this”.
Also, if the use of the pill is an intended contraceptive effect that will in turn keep the fibroids at bay then it would not be allowed as it is intending the negative effect for a positive side benefit. The mechanism that is utuilized to control this condition is a question for a good medical doctor. In short, if ovulation is the problem and HBCP is the answer to prevent ovulation, then HBCP would be used to intend contraception to keep the fibroids in check.

An example might be: Using a condom to prevent seepage of urine onto pants would be acceptable (in the short term, you really should get that checked out. However, using it to keep fluids from being transmitted during coitus would not be legitimate even if those fluids caused an allergic reaction as that is the contraceptive effect being used in the latter.

The biggest thing here is the risk to human life. The couple to couple league has some great resources on this. The risk to human life can be avoided by abstinence if the pill is truly necessary.

Would you drive when you are on a narcotic with impaired judgement to get a cheeseburger when you have food in the cabinet or a neighbor to go get it for you? That would be irresponsible just like having sex while on the pill.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew