Need advice, situation with wife

[ProdglArchitect]

Hello everyone. I am looking for advice on what to tell my wife.

A bit of back-story; she is not Catholic, and has been using the birth control pill since before we were married. This is partially due to medial reasons (which is why she used before we were married), but she also uses it contraceptively. This last month, she does not recall having her period, and it has become about two weeks late now. We have done two tests, the most recent of which was last night, and they have both come back negative (not pregnant). She is wanting to start taking her pill again, and I’m trying to decide if I should ask her to abstain for longer; just in case the tests were wrong. I guess my question was, having had two negative tests, do you think it’s “safe” for her to start taking them again?

 

[1ke]

I presume what you are concerned about is that if she begins taking her pills and is pregnant she will have a spontaneous abortion. You should consult a doctor, as this is really more of a medical question, bu I think this is highly unlikely. She is not taking massive doses, just regular doses. And if she is pregnant, it is several weeks along already.

I’m sure you are already aware of the Church’s teaching on contracepting spouses (Vademecum for Confessors) so when the inevitable happens and someone comes on here and says you should not be having intercourse with your wife, rest easy that the Church does not in fact teach this.

IMHO, you do not have a moral problem if she restarts her pills.

 

[Emese]

I agree with previous post. I think you should advise your wife to see a doctor before restarting the pill or if she needs to restart the pill.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thanks for the advice, I think I’ll do that… hopefully she’ll listen >_> If not, we are fairly certain she’s not pregnant… the potential just bothers me…

Thank you again for the advice, it is greatly appreciated.

 

[Abu]

From American Life League:
Birth Control Pills for Medical Reasons
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - By Paul L. Hayes, M.D.
Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.
all.org/article/index/id/MjQ4NQ

 

[1ke]

From American Life League:
Birth Control Pills for Medical Reasons
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - By Paul L. Hayes, M.D.
Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Dr Hayes is a doctor, not a moral theologian, and not the Church. He is, simply, wrong on the moral aspect of this.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.”

Yes, contraception is immoral. Taking a hormonal pill for medical reasons is not contraception. The term is “lawful theraputic means” and is directly addressed in Humanae Vitae as morally permissible.

This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.

Nope, completely inaccurate.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Dr Hayes is a doctor, not a moral theologian, and not the Church. He is, simply, wrong on the moral aspect of this.

Yes, contraception is immoral. Taking a hormonal pill for medical reasons is not contraception. The term is “lawful theraputic means” and is directly addressed in Humanae Vitae as morally permissible.

Nope, completely inaccurate.

1ke, your assertions on these questions are presented as if they were definitive and authoritative, yet without a theological argument. Why should the OP believe your emphatic assertions?

Dr. Hayes of the American Life League is a medical doctor, and he is asserting based on his medical expertise that birth control pills have an abortifacient effect. So the moral question concerns both contraception and abortion.

Pope John Paul II taught: “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13)

As for your assertion that contraception is wrong, and yet justified by a medical reason, this claim contradicts two Church teachings:

First, contraception is not merely wrong, it is intrinsically evil. Every intrinsically evil act is immoral due to an evil moral object. (Veritatis Splendor n. 78 and following)

Second, every intrinsically evil act is immoral regardless of intention or circumstances. There are three fonts (sources) of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. An act with an evil moral object cannot be justified by a good intention, nor by dire circumstances, for all three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

Every intrinsically evil act is deliberately chosen (intentionally chosen), but the reason or purpose for choosing that act is the font of intention. No intention or reason or purpose for choosing an act, can justify an act with an evil moral object.

Pope John Paul II: “a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed” (VS 78)

Pope Pius XI: “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54)

Contraception is intrinsically against nature, so it cannot be justified by a grave reason.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC 2399)

So the legitimate intention (reason or purpose) to treat a medical disorder does not justify the choice to use abortifacient contraception and to continue having sexual relations.

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

Pope John Paul II: “In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture… If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Therefore, a medical purpose or a therapeutic reason cannot justify the use of contraception. The wife may take a contraceptive pill to treat a medical condition, if she refrains from sexual relations; in such a case, the pill is not contraceptive or abortive. But if she chooses to do both, take the pill and engage in sexual relations, she sins, at least objectively. The intention to treat a medical disorder does not justify the use of contraception.

Pope Paul VI: “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.” (HV 15.)

This refers to a therapeutic procedure such as a hysterectomy, which renders the woman infertile. Such a procedure is not intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible.

An intrinsically evil act is directly ordered toward an evil proximate end (its object). The deliberate or intentional choice of such a disordered act is always objectively a sin. So the term “directly intended” refers to an intrinsically evil act. Thus a therapeutic means is moral, despite some bad consequences, but only if the chosen act is not intrinsically evil.

This moral analysis becomes even more clear when we consider that the continued use of abortifacient contraceptives by a sexually-active couple is likely to cause one or more abortions. How could anyone claim that Pope Paul VI was justifying chemical abortions for therapeutic reasons?! The Church does not even permit abortion to save the life of the mother, so of course She does not permit the use of abortifacients for a medical purpose.

 

[nodito]

Pope Paul VI: “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.” (HV 15.)

This refers to a therapeutic procedure such as a hysterectomy, which renders the woman infertile. Such a procedure is not intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible.

An intrinsically evil act is directly ordered toward an evil proximate end (its object). The deliberate or intentional choice of such a disordered act is always objectively a sin. So the term “directly intended” refers to an intrinsically evil act. Thus a therapeutic means is moral, despite some bad consequences, but only if the chosen act is not intrinsically evil.

The hysterectomy procedure is morally good or neutral when used to treat an illness; but so too is taking a medication intended to cure or treat a disorder or disease. You cannot call one medical procedure (hysterectomy) moral while claiming that another (taking a hormone or medication) is immoral if they both have the same intention. Taking a medicine to treat an illness is not intrinsically evil, which you agree with because you’ve said single women can do so licitly. If it were intrinsically evil, no one could take these medications.

Regardless, the OP is not contracepting, does not desire or intend to contracept, and is not required to abstain from relations with his wife if he is trying to help his wife desist in her desire to contracept (though not necessarily stop taking a licit medication) and if there are proportionally grave reasons to continue marital relations.

 

[1ke]

As for your assertion that contraception is wrong, and yet justified by a medical reason, this claim contradicts two Church teachings

I am not justifying “contraception for medical reasons”. I clearly stated contraception is immoral. Taking a medication–lawful theraputic means-- is not contraception.

First, contraception is not merely wrong, it is intrinsically evil. Every intrinsically evil act is immoral due to an evil moral object. (Veritatis Splendor n. 78 and following)

Yep.

Second, every intrinsically evil act is immoral regardless of intention or circumstances. There are three fonts (sources) of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. An act with an evil moral object cannot be justified by a good intention, nor by dire circumstances, for all three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

Yep.

vEvery intrinsically evil act is deliberately chosen (intentionally chosen), but the reason or purpose for choosing that act is the font of intention. No intention or reason or purpose for choosing an act, can justify an act with an evil moral object.

Yep. Choosing to contracept is wrong.

Taking medication prescribed by your doctor that has a side effect of sterility is not contraception.

Contraception is intrinsically against nature, so it cannot be justified by a grave reason.

Nor did I assert it could be. But we are not talking about contraception. We are talking about medication for a disease or defect of the reproductive organs.

So the legitimate intention (reason or purpose) to treat a medical disorder does not justify the choice to use abortifacient contraception and to continue having sexual relations.

Wrong. One does have recourse to theraputic treatments even if they have a side effect.

Stop calling contraception what is NOT contraception.

Therefore, a medical purpose or a therapeutic reason cannot justify the use of contraception.

It is NOT contraception to take a medication to treat an illness. The medicine may have a side effect, but it is NOT contraception.

The wife may take a contraceptive pill to treat a medical condition, if she refrains from sexual relations

The Church does NOT require this.

intention to treat a medical disorder does not justify the use of contraception.

The fact that you cannot recognize the difference between medicine and contraception does not change the fact that it is NOT contraception.

Pope Paul VI: “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.” (HV 15.)

Correct. taking a medication is not immoral.

This refers to a therapeutic procedure such as a hysterectomy, which renders the woman infertile. Such a procedure is not intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible.

You claim what the Church does not, that it is talking about a specific procedure. No, any treatment aimed at treating a diseased state of the body is a theraputic procedure.

a therapeutic means is moral, despite some bad consequences, but only if the chosen act is not intrinsically evil.

Taking hormones to treat an endocrine problem is not intrinsically evil.

This moral analysis becomes even more clear when we consider that the continued use of abortifacient contraceptives by a sexually-active couple is likely to cause one or more abortions. How could anyone claim that Pope Paul VI was justifying chemical abortions for therapeutic reasons?! The Church does not even permit abortion to save the life of the mother, so of course She does not permit the use of abortifacients for a medical purpose.

Vademecum for a Confessors does not even prohibit relations even when there is a contracepting spouse setting aside the medical side of things. It say only:

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.

 

[1ke]

The hysterectomy procedure is morally good or neutral when used to treat an illness.

right, and a hysterctomy can also be done as a direct sterilization, which is intrinsically evil,

So, it is not the medical procedure itself that is intrinsically evil,

 

[Rau]

1ke, I note your comment that taking therapeutic drugs is ok, even if there is a side effect, eg. Risk of chemical abortion. Is there a requirement to weigh up the risks to child versus severity of medical treatment? Eg. The pill can be prescribed for mild acne.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The hysterectomy procedure is morally good or neutral when used to treat an illness; but so too is taking a medication intended to cure or treat a disorder or disease. You cannot call one medical procedure (hysterectomy) moral while claiming that another (taking a hormone or medication) is immoral if they both have the same intention. Taking a medicine to treat an illness is not intrinsically evil, which you agree with because you’ve said single women can do so licitly. If it were intrinsically evil, no one could take these medications.

Regardless, the OP is not contracepting, does not desire or intend to contracept, and is not required to abstain from relations with his wife if he is trying to help his wife desist in her desire to contracept (though not necessarily stop taking a licit medication) and if there are proportionally grave reasons to continue marital relations.

An intrinsically evil act is defined by its moral object, not by its intended end (the reason or purpose or desire for choosing the act). So repeated assertions by several posters that this situation does not constitute contraception is contrary to the way that intrinsically evil acts are defined. They are not defined by the desire or intention or reason or purpose of the act, but by the moral object.

Proportionately grave reasons cannot justify an intrinsically evil act. But even if we consider only the proportionality of the consequences of the act, the use of abortifacients and the decision to be sexually active at the same time has the consequence of killing innocent prenatals. There is no sufficiently grave reason for having marital relations that would outweigh that consideration.

The hysterectomy that treats a serious medical disorder is not intrinsically evil because the deliberately chosen act itself is not ordered toward an abortive or contraceptive end.

The use of a contraceptive pill could be analogous to the hysterectomy, if the spouses decide not to have sexual relations. In that case, the chosen act is not inherently evil because it is not inherently abortive or contraceptive. So there is a way to treat the disorder without the sin of contraception or abortion.

But the choice to use an abortifacient and have relations is inherently disordered; the moral object is evil, because this choice is ordered toward an abortive and contraceptive end. It is not a side effect since the couple could refrain from relations and still obtain the desired therapeutic end.

Moreover, abortion does result from abortifacient contraception, no matter what the intention or reason or purpose. Some prenatals are actually aborted by this choice. The intention to treat a medical condition does not prevent the deaths of prenatals from abortifacient contraception.

Those persons who argue that a wife can morally use abortifacient contraception and choose to continue having marital relations are arguing that the deaths of these prenatals are moral – even though these deaths can be avoided by either refraining from taking the abortifacient or by refraining from marital relations while on that pill.

If abortifacient contraception is justified for a medical purpose, how many women could make this claim, that their use of contraception has some type of medical justification?

If abortifacient contraception is justified for a medical purpose, then is ordinary contraception (e.g. barrier method) justified for the medical purpose of preventing disease transmission?

The end result of this line of reasoning is to give approval to contraception and abortifacients for a wide range of reasons. But this would be contrary to the teaching of the Church that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or purpose or circumstances.

Simply labeling a particular use of abortifacient contraception as NOT contraceptive or NOT abortive does not change the moral nature of the act. It is a merely rhetorical justification for a grave sin.

 

[1ke]

Is there a requirement to weigh up the risks to child versus severity of medical treatment?

Yes.

 

[nodito]

But the choice to use an abortifacient and have relations is inherently disordered; the moral object is evil, because this choice is ordered toward an abortive and contraceptive end. It is not a side effect since the couple could refrain from relations and still obtain the desired therapeutic end.

Could not the same be said for the woman who chose the therapeutic hysterectomy? According to your logic, the woman with no uterus must also abstain because she obtains the desired therapeutic end by having the procedure but it becomes contraceptive as soon as she has marital relations.

 

[Abu]

nodito #14
Could not the same be said for the woman who chose the therapeutic hysterectomy? According to your logic, the woman with no uterus must also abstain because she obtains the desired therapeutic end by having the procedure but it becomes contraceptive as soon as she has marital relations.

Obviously not, for the removal of a diseased organ enables the body to regain better health – a good purpose.
The marital act is performed with virtue unless the end of the act is deliberately thwarted by the intentional use of withdrawal, chemicals or condoms. Don’t you know that intercourse is perfectly natural in those beyond child-bearing age?

The natural law signifies that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. Similarly if you want a weak heart to function better you use God-given reason to employ aids which have been developed by reason to help that organ do its work better. Unlike the lie of contraception, and like the correct use of NBR, the art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is the work of reasonable people.

Who’s at the Centre of Your Marriage: The Pill or Jesus Christ?
New York City, N.Y., July 1, 1910 (CNA) .- Patrick McCrystal, an Irish pharmacist and pro-life leader, has authored a book on the effect contraception

McCrystal stopped dispensing the contraceptive pill in 1993 because of its abortion-causing effects. Because of this, he lost his job and was unemployed for three years.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/re-center-marriages-from-contraception-to-christ-author-says/

 

[nodito]

Obviously not, for the removal of a diseased organ enables the body to regain better health – a good purpose.
The marital act is performed with virtue unless the end of the act is deliberately thwarted by the intentional use of withdrawal, chemicals or condoms. Don’t you know that intercourse is perfectly natural in those beyond child-bearing age?

The natural law signifies that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. Similarly if you want a weak heart to function better you use God-given reason to employ aids which have been developed by reason to help that organ do its work better. Unlike the lie of contraception, and like the correct use of NBR, the art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is the work of reasonable people.

I agree with all this. Ron Conte is maintaining that someone who has had her uterus removed to treat a medical condition is able to licitly have sex with her husband and that this would not be contraceptive, even though she is rendered sterile by the procedure. I agree. He further argues that a woman taking a medication to treat an endocrine disorder is not able to licitly have sex with her husband because she is rendered sterile by the medication. Here I disagree. I’m arguing that marital intercourse by a woman taking “lawful therapeutic means” for treating a diseased organ is not contracepting when she later engages in intercourse with her husband, because a) taking medication to treat a disorder or diseased organ is not intrinsically evil and b) her intention is not to contracept. Ron Conte has failed to show how one of these women is contracepting while the other is not, except to highlight the abortifacient properties of the medication (a serious concern, for sure, but different from the claim that the act is contraceptive).

 

[ela2]

I usually read through to gain knowledge but this is confusing me terribly!

OP is clearly saying that his wife takes the pill for medical reasons but also uses it contraceptively.

So it is not just for medical reasons. Isn’t it clear then that it is wrong?

 

[nodito]

I usually read through to gain knowledge but this is confusing me terribly!

OP is clearly saying that his wife takes the pill for medical reasons but also uses it contraceptively.

So it is not just for medical reasons. Isn’t it clear then that it is wrong?

It’s confusing because we’re discussing two separate topics in the same thread: 1) Can a person take a hormone to treat a medical condition and continue having marital relations even if the medication also renders the person infertile as a side effect so long as the side effect isn’t intended? and 2) Can a spouse continue marital relations with a contracepting spouse if he objects to the contraception, makes his objection known, and has proprtionally grave reasons? The answer to both questions is yes.

OP’s wife may very well be sinning by desiring and intending the contraceptive effect of her medication, but OP is not prohibited from engaging in marital intimacy with her since he objects to the contraception and seeks to dissuade her from desiring to contracept.

Of course, the OP wasn’t asking about this, the topic just got a bit derailed, as they frequently do here at CAF.

 

[Jessie5000]

Hello everyone. I am looking for advice on what to tell my wife.

A bit of back-story; she is not Catholic, and has been using the birth control pill since before we were married. This is partially due to medial reasons (which is why she used before we were married), but she also uses it contraceptively. This last month, she does not recall having her period, and it has become about two weeks late now. We have done two tests, the most recent of which was last night, and they have both come back negative (not pregnant). She is wanting to start taking her pill again, and I’m trying to decide if I should ask her to abstain for longer; just in case the tests were wrong. I guess my question was, having had two negative tests, do you think it’s “safe” for her to start taking them again?

firstly, she has a medial reason so ignore the rants that will come in response to your post. The church allows for medical circumstances but be prepared for an onslaught of judging attacks as often people here can be rather good at attacking others who they sanctimoniously view as sinful. I apologize for these people in advance knowing there are good and compassionate Catholics too. Secondly, I think you should both consult with a doctor rather than seeking advice from non-healthcare professionals.