NFP question and "The pill" for medical reasons question

[Sure]

Wait a tick, Sure. Wouldn’t we have to analyze the situation a bit? Assuming*, arguendo*, that the moral object isn’t evil (again*, arguendo)*, this doesn’t mean one can simply accept any and all evil effects. Wouldn’t you need to look at the intended good effect, need to make sure that the evil effect isn’t intended, and have proportionate reason for allowing the evil effect?

VC

Absolutely. Sorry I wasn’t clear. We would still have to apply the Catholic principles of double effect to evaluate a moral act.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Absolutely. Sorry I wasn’t clear. We would still have to apply the Catholic principles of double effect to evaluate a moral act.

No worries, I knew you had it in mind and just didn’t say it explicitly.

But. . . .

It makes one wonder, doesn’t it? What do you think about the proportionality between the good effects of using a hormone and the bad effect of increasing (substantially?) the death of a new child?

Has anyone analyzed it yet?
VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

The principle of double effect does not apply when a woman knowingly chooses both to take an abortifacient contraceptive for a medical purpose (first font/intention) and to have sexual relations (with the possibility of conception) because the chosen act has two evil moral objects in the second font: depriving the marital act of the procreative meaning, and depriving an innocent prenatal of life. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by the principle of double effect, nor are they ever justified by intention (purpose) or circumstances. The first font of intention never justified an evil moral object. To say otherwise contradicts the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on intrinsic evil.

The death of an innocent prenatal, caused by deliberately taking an abortifacient contraceptive and then deliberately engaging in sexual relations, is the morally-direct result of intentionally chosen acts. This death is a direct abortion, not an indirect abortion. The woman who takes a pill for medical purposes is not obliged to engage in sexual relations. If she chooses to do so knowing that the act is contracepted, and that the act might result in an abortion, she is committing an objective mortal sin.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just want to point out what I said above in case some readers didn’t catch it, note my emphasis:

Assuming*, arguendo*, that the moral object isn’t evil (again*, arguendo)*, this doesn’t mean one can simply accept any and all evil effects.

VC

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

Similarly:
Lying is not justied for the purpose of saving innocent lives … Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and are never justified by a good intended purpose, nor by dire circumstances. When the moral object is evil, the act is irremedially evil. The only moral choice is to refrain from that act.

Sorry, not trying to start a new thread, but I find thie above comments concerning. While I agree with much of your comments, I respectfully disagree in regards to your example about lying, as does (thankfully) the Catholic Church. Others would disagree as well, for example, Mother Mary Richard Beauchamp Hambrough (were she alive today) who saved over 60 Jews, not to mention the people that hid Ann Frank and many, many other unsung saintly people who lied to spare the lives of Jewish people.

I disagree about the birth control issues as well (though not about abortion or your other examples), however, lying is not remotely the same as abortion or euthanasia and to approach things as though everything is black and white ignores many valid aspects to the issues at hand. Just as lying is not always sinful, so are there times when medical procedures do not go against the sanctity of life, which our Church has acknowledged.
Conditions where women are prescribed BC for medical reasons can be very painful, confusing and the morality difficult to navigate. I applaud anyone who asks the difficult questions and can only speak to my own lengthy experience with this issue. I would gladly explain this privately.

I will follow our Pope and the Magisterium, rather than presume that they did not fully research such a critical issue or are, God forbid, ignorant of the true facts. I find this concept highly insulting to our Magisterium, who I would presume would know far more than we could about the full complexity of the issue at hand.

JMHO

 

[Sure]

The principle of double effect does not apply when a woman knowingly chooses both to take an abortifacient contraceptive for a medical purpose (first font/intention) and to have sexual relations (with the possibility of conception) because the chosen act has two evil moral objects in the second font: depriving the marital act of the procreative meaning, and depriving an innocent prenatal of life. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by the principle of double effect, nor are they ever justified by intention (purpose) or circumstances. The first font of intention never justified an evil moral object. To say otherwise contradicts the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on intrinsic evil.

The death of an innocent prenatal, caused by deliberately taking an abortifacient contraceptive and then deliberately engaging in sexual relations, is the morally-direct result of intentionally chosen acts. This death is a direct abortion, not an indirect abortion. The woman who takes a pill for medical purposes is not obliged to engage in sexual relations. If she chooses to do so knowing that the act is contracepted, and that the act might result in an abortion, she is committing an objective mortal sin.

This is nice. Most of it is true, but it doesn’t pertain at all to the discussion because the object of the act in question is taking medication, not contraception.

It would be the same thing if you posted all about the Church teaching on murder as intrinsically evil on a thread about killing in self-defense. The objects are totally different because they are altered by a fundamental conditio which has become a “principal condition of the object.” Self-defense is not justified murder (for nothing can justify murder). It is simply a totally different moral act and object. In the same way, taking medication is not justified contraception (nothing can justify contraception). It is a totally different act.

Here are some other common acts that may seem at first glance like “justified” (as if such a thing could happen) intrinsically evil acts, but in fact they are utterly separate and distinct acts by virtue of having radically different (while somewhat similar in the physical) objects. All of these acts can have at times, evil effects in which case the traditional Catholic principles of double effect must be applied. The examples…

Killing an innocent person - Killing an unjust aggressor
Taking that which one has no right to take - Taking that which one has a right to take
Sexual intercourse with a non-spouse - Sexual intercourse with spouse
Removal of a healthy uterus - Removal of a cancerous uterus
Taking medication to impede fertility - Taking medication to cure a legitimate physical ailment

These acts as physical acts may look remarkably similar, but here a circumstance actually becomes a principal condition of the object itself. They no longer remain as circumstances to be weighed (as much as liberal proportionalist theologians would love that!). They become a part of the object itself. This is why we do not say that marital intercourse and adultery share the same object. They are radically different objects (one good, one evil) through the very important principal conditions that exist within each object.

I hope this helps you a bit to understand the theological underpinnings in this complex but deeply valuable moral teaching.

 

[tjm190]

The principle of double effect does not apply when a woman knowingly chooses both to take an abortifacient contraceptive for a medical purpose

I understand you’re abit swamped so responding to individual questions is tough, but-

Does this apply to all things that may cause miscarriage? We know having the chemicals in cigarettes, for example, can damage or destroy an embryo- is it therefore sinful to smoke a few hours before having sex? What about drinking a cup of coffee?

How about having sex before chemotherapy?