NFP question and "The pill" for medical reasons question

[dixieagle]

It would be moral to take a cure or treatment that also had the effect of being contraceptive as long as the person refrained from sexual relations while on the medication. And this is the case also with the use of BCP for theraputic motives.

However, the decision to engage in sexual relations knowing that the act is contracepted and is non-procreative is a separate decision from the choice of taking a medication. If the woman takes the medication and does not engage in sexual relations, then it is not a contraceptive. But if she takes it and engages in sexual relations, she is choosing contracepted sexual acts. Such acts have been clearly and definitively condemned as intrinsically evil.

The passage several posters have quoted above, from Humanae Vitae, must be interpreted in the light of other definitive teachings of the Magisterium. To interpret that passage as permitting contraception, when the whole of that same document, and many passages in other documents, condemn contraception as intrinsically evil is obviously an untenable interpretation.

This is in no way the position of the Church; your opinion on the matter carries no weight. The Church does not require that couples who, for clear medical reasons take “the pill”, abstain from intercourse, as contraception is not their intent.

One must be extremely careful not to raise a purely personal interpretation - which your opinion is - to the level of Church teaching, which it is most definitely not.

That said, I also highly recommend the Pope Paul VI Institute, which has tremendous success treating medical issues such as described by the OP.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

It would be moral to take a cure or treatment that also had the effect of being contraceptive as long as the person refrained from sexual relations while on the medication. And this is the case also with the use of BCP for theraputic motives.

However, the decision to engage in sexual relations knowing that the act is contracepted and is non-procreative is a separate decision from the choice of taking a medication. If the woman takes the medication and does not engage in sexual relations, then it is not a contraceptive. But if she takes it and engages in sexual relations, she is choosing contracepted sexual acts. Such acts have been clearly and definitively condemned as intrinsically evil.

The passage several posters have quoted above, from Humanae Vitae, must be interpreted in the light of other definitive teachings of the Magisterium. To interpret that passage as permitting contraception, when the whole of that same document, and many passages in other documents, condemn contraception as intrinsically evil is obviously an untenable interpretation.

What you say is in direct contradicton to priests and other authoritative figures in the church. See my post above if you have more questions. I’m going to trust those that GOD has appointed, not you.

Your posts over multiple threads are harmful and misreprestntive of catholic truths, as are your links. To continue to present them as truth, is harmful to people’s faith and marriages. I join with others who have posted in asking you to please stop.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Actually, therapeutic here would also include surgery, that’s why a general term would be used.

My example of surgery was just one example, and not intended to limit the interpretation of ‘therapeutic’ only to surgeries.

There are three fonts (or sources) of morality.

1. the intention or purpose for which the act is chosen
2. the moral object
3. the circumstances

When the moral object is evil, then the act itself is intrinsically evil and always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

An act of contracepted sex has an evil moral object because the act is non-procreative; it lacks the procreative meaning which must be present, with the unitive meaning, in each and every marital act. That is why contraception is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

Now if contraception is used for a medical purpose, i.e. with the intention of treating a medical condition, that intention or purpose is in the first font, and does not affect the moral object in the second font. The moral object remains evil, and the act remains intrinsically evil.

Only when the contraceptive pill is taken by a woman who is post-menupausal, or unmarried (and not sexually active), or married but is refraining from marital relations, only then does the act of taking the pill have a good moral object, and not an evil moral object. Only then does the pill not deprive the marital act of its procreative meaning.

And this is made all the more clear by the fact that chemical contraceptives are abortifacient – able to cause an early abortion. If a woman takes these chemical contraceptives, and engages in sexual relations, she may conceive and the child may be aborted. And it is not possible to claim that because of the intended medical purpose the abortion cannot occur. It is medical fact that a woman who takes chemical contraceptives and is sexually active may possibly conceive despite the contraceptives and the prenatal may be aborted by those same chemicals.

Therefore, a woman may not morally take chemical contraceptives and engage in sexual relations (unless she is post-menopausal so that there is no danger of conception and abortion).

 

[Sure]

Now if contraception is used for a medical purpose, i.e. with the intention of treating a medical condition, that intention or purpose is in the first font, and does not affect the moral object in the second font. The moral object remains evil, and the act remains intrinsically evil.

Wrong.

Because the action in question has ceased to be an act of contraception and is now an act of justified medication. Just like when the principal condition changes from self-defense to innocent person, the moral act changes from a moral act (self-defense) to an immoral act (murder). You misunderstand the manner in which the conditio principalis fundamentally changes what at first seems like an intrinsically evil act into a different act. Dig deeper on your three fonts and ask yourself what makes an act an object? What is part of the object and what is part of intention or circumstance? And when do conditio particularis become conditio principalis and change the moral species of the object itself?

You are correct that contraception is always evil, but as I have already pointed out we’re not talking about contraception, we’re talking about a wholly different moral act that is as different from contraception is as self-defense is to murder.

Please note the examples I posted above and note the way that actions that have something in common (sexual intercourse, killing, taking a pill) can become wholly separate and very different moral acts. This is basic Thomistic moral theology and has been taught for a very long time.

 

[PaulinVA]

It would be moral to take a cure or treatment that also had the effect of being contraceptive as long as the person refrained from sexual relations while on the medication. And this is the case also with the use of BCP for theraputic motives.

However, the decision to engage in sexual relations knowing that the act is contracepted and is non-procreative is a separate decision from the choice of taking a medication. If the woman takes the medication and does not engage in sexual relations, then it is not a contraceptive. But if she takes it and engages in sexual relations, she is choosing contracepted sexual acts. Such acts have been clearly and definitively condemned as intrinsically evil.

Well, you actually bring up a very good point, and a question that should be answered.

Looking at what others in the Church have said, though, the answer seems to be clear. If others, such a Fr. Serpa and the Pope, thought that,while a married woman was allowed to take the Pill for therapeutic reasons, she was required to abstain, don’t you think they would have said so? That’s a huge thing to miss! No one else is saying this, are they?

If a woman has a hysterectomy as the result of something going wrong in a pregnancy, rendering her sterile, is she obligated to abstain for the rest of her life? Of course not! If she has that same hysterectomy so that she in purposely not longer able to conceive, is that wrong? Yes, of course.

As I said, it’s a good question, but has been answered by most others by not mentioning the need for abstention.

 

[Sure]

Ron,

This might help you a bit to understand how a condition (circumstance) can specify the object to a different moral species and thus a different object altogether.

“And consequently that which, in one action, is taken as a circumstance added to the object that specifies the action, can again be taken by the directing reason, as the principal condition of the object that determines the action’s species. But since the reason can direct as to place, time, and the like, it may happen that the condition as to place, in relation to the object, is considered as being in disaccord with reason: for instance, reason forbids damage to be done to a holy place. Consequently to steal from a holy place has an additional repugnance to the order of reason. And thus place, which was first of all considered as a circumstance, is considered here as the principal condition of the object, and as itself repugnant to reason.”

• Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas Q18

 

[camerong]

What’s the point of arguing with Ron? His take on Catholicism is obviously far different than our own. See, for example, his predictions about 2009, and this thread on catholic.com discussing them.

I don’t mean this as a personal attack on Ron, who has been a courteous debater, but he is presenting himself as an authoritative source on Catholic moral theology, and readers should be aware of his understanding of Catholicism.

 

[dixieagle]

What’s the point of arguing with Ron? His take on Catholicism is obviously far different than our own. See, for example, his predictions about 2009, and this thread on catholic.com discussing them.

I don’t mean this as a personal attack on Ron, who has been a courteous debater, but he is presenting himself as an authoritative source on Catholic moral theology, and readers should be aware of his understanding of Catholicism.

Holy moly!!!

I hadn’t gone to his website before. Seems like a lot of energy expended on a very skewed take on Catholicism.

 

[camerong]

And this certainly does not make Ron’s views less valid–he has obviously put a great deal of thought into many of these things. But when a person is presenting his own interpretations, it is important to consider that person’s perspective.

 

[tjm190]

The Church does not consider having sex a sin after a vasectomy (only the vasectomy itself)- what can we conclude from this? That having sex when you have a hindered ability to reproduce is not sinful in and of itself.

And what of people rendered permanently infertile by medical care, such as the men who do not recover their fertility after chemotherapy? Would they be bound to abstain for life?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Holy moly!!!

I hadn’t gone to his website before. Seems like a lot of energy expended on a very skewed take on Catholicism.

I saw this website when he posted on another thread stating that foreplay is not allowed in a catholic marraige unless it is only hugging and kissing. The reason I am getting frustrated with this, is that as we are trying to tell people who accuse catholics of believing really terrible things (which we don’t) and writings like this are only giving them ammunition because they all like to think that because Ron believes these things, we all do, and as a result, we lost people from the one true church…

It is his interpretation, and that’s great. But there is harm being done. And the things he says are only his own opinion. He is in diagreement with popes, bishops, priests, and…well most everyone in catholicism. And he is posting them as hard-and-fast authoritative truth in response to threads of people asking for advice rather than on discussion forums.

 

[Sure]

Well, I was hoping he might come back and answer the questions posed to him in my last 2 posts regarding intrinsically evil acts and principal conditions (when a circumstance actually becomes a part of the object).

Oh well.

To the original poster,

Yes, use of hormonal supplements to treat an illness may be used even if they have the unfortunate side effect of impeding conception and/or causing early miscarriage. HOWEVER, as others have noted, there may be better healthier treatment options for you that would avoid bad side effects.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Concerning the quote from HV, it is absurd to claim that the Pope had in mind to permit women to use intrinsically evil abortifacient contraceptives as long as the woman had a good intended end, such as a theraputic or medical purpose. The Magisterium definitively teaches that intention (the end in view, the purpose) and circumstances cannot make an intrinsically evil act into a moral act. The intention and the circumstances cannot change the moral object.

Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81 in its entirety:
In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

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. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[OraLabora]

Well, I was hoping he might come back and answer the questions posed to him in my last 2 posts regarding intrinsically evil acts and principal conditions (when a circumstance actually becomes a part of the object).

Oh well.

One of the biggest problems with the Internet is discernment. We are often presented with professional-looking writings, with a scholarly and fairly eloquent writer, but when one takes the time to dig and read what the person is saying, we realize that we’re in fact faced with just another heretic, an Internet crank.

Typically these folks shut out all listening and the Internet is just a soapbox for their weird ideas. It’s generally a waste of time arguing with them. They would however make a fascinating psychological study.

The important thing on forums like this is for knowledgeable people to properly refute the silly ideas so that impressionable and less knowledgeable people who come here genuinely seeking advice, aren’t influenced by them and lead away from the Church because of it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Similarly:

Direct abortion is not justified for a medical purpose.

Euthanasia is not justified for the purpose of relieving suffering.

Lying is not justied for the purpose of saving innocent lives.

Theft is not justified for the purpose of obtaining enough money for an operation.

Pre-marital sex is not justified for the purpose of keeping your financee from leaving you.

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.

 

[Sure]

Concerning the quote from HV, it is absurd to claim that the Pope had in mind to permit women to use intrinsically evil abortifacient contraceptives as long as the woman had a good intended end, such as a theraputic or medical purpose. The Magisterium definitively teaches that intention (the end in view, the purpose) and circumstances cannot make an intrinsically evil act into a moral act. The intention and the circumstances cannot change the moral object.

Right on. But using hormonal supplements to treat disease, or surgery to treat disease are not contraception period. EVEN if the same combination of chemicals or surgical cuts can be used to perform an act of contraception. These are not acts of contraception. Which is why Pope Paul VI did not identify them as such. He called them medendi rationes not contraception. And the Magisterium does teach that different physical acts (marital intercourse vs. adultery) have totally different objects because of a circumstance/condition (spouse vs. non-spouse) that actually becomes a principal condition of the object (again see the Summa).

Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81 in its entirety:
In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

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. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Again, a great quote. Every ounce of it is true. But it doesn’t apply in the least because what we are speaking of is simply not contraception and not intrinsically evil. We all agree contraception is intrinsically evil.

I gave you several examples previously. Did you not understand them?

Why do you persist in posting quotations that do not address the subject?

It would be the same if I went to a thread about lethal self-defense and keep posting quotes about how murder is always wrong and can never be justified and is intrinsically evil. All that would be true, (as your citations are true) but it wouldn’t apply in the least to a discussion of lethal self defense, quite simply because the object of the act in lethal self-defense is a different object from murder…and what makes it different??? Why, a “circumstance” that has become, in fact, a principal condition of the object (see Aquinas).

This thread has never been about contraception. It is about an act that shares some physical (in the Thomistic meaning) sense, but is utterly of a different moral object.

I hope that I can communicate this to you adequately, because it could really help you to hone your moral theology which obviously interests you greatly.

 

[Sure]

Similarly:

Direct abortion is not justified for a medical purpose.

Euthanasia is not justified for the purpose of relieving suffering.

Lying is not justied for the purpose of saving innocent lives.

Theft is not justified for the purpose of obtaining enough money for an operation.

Pre-marital sex is not justified for the purpose of keeping your financee from leaving you.

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.

Absolutely. Everyone here agrees with you. We all get the three fonts and we call get the concept of intrinsically evil.

You mention direct abortion. How about indirect abortion? Please explain the difference in the two moral objects.

Now, please describe to me the moral objects of killing an innocent man and killing a man in self-defense. How are the objects different? How are they the same?

Please describe the moral objects in acts of fornication and marital love? How are they the same, how are they different?

You’re missing a very important part of moral theology here.

 

[PaulinVA]

Concerning the quote from HV, it is absurd to claim that the Pope had in mind to permit women to use intrinsically evil abortifacient contraceptives as long as the woman had a good intended end, such as a theraputic or medical purpose. The Magisterium definitively teaches that intention (the end in view, the purpose) and circumstances cannot make an intrinsically evil act into a moral act. The intention and the circumstances cannot change the moral object.

Then why, oh why, please tell us, have no other Catholic writers mentioned this, including Popes?

This is not a rhetorical question. It’s really an interesting subject and I might be persuaded to agree with you. However, I don’t see this spelled out anywhere else, which casts doubt upon the way that you are connecting the dots.

Contraception is intrinsically evil. Regulating exccessive bleeding during periods or other problems is not intrinsically evil. The fact that the same treatment applies to both does not mean the morality of each use of the treatment devolves to the lowest common denominator.

 

[tjm190]

“Concerning the quote from HV, it is absurd to claim that the Pope had in mind to permit women to use intrinsically evil abortifacient contraceptives as long as the woman had a good intended end, such as a theraputic or medical purpose. The Magisterium definitively teaches that intention (the end in view, the purpose) and circumstances cannot make an intrinsically evil act into a moral act. The intention and the circumstances cannot change the moral object.”

I’d say it’s a sin to directly inject a substance into your body that kills your hair follicles and the cells of your bone marrow and intestinal tract. But everyone undergoing chemotherapy is doing so.

I’d say it’s a sin to pay someone to cut you open. But everyone who has surgery has done so.

I’d say it’s a sin to burn yourself. But everyone who has ever cauterized a wound has done so.

It would seem that intent and circumstances matter in the domain of medicine.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

“Concerning the quote from HV, it is absurd to claim that the Pope had in mind to permit women to use intrinsically evil abortifacient contraceptives as long as the woman had a good intended end, such as a theraputic or medical purpose. The Magisterium definitively teaches that intention (the end in view, the purpose) and circumstances cannot make an intrinsically evil act into a moral act. The intention and the circumstances cannot change the moral object.”

I’d say it’s a sin to directly inject a substance into your body that kills your hair follicles and the cells of your bone marrow and intestinal tract. But everyone undergoing chemotherapy is doing so.

I’d say it’s a sin to pay someone to cut you open. But everyone who has surgery has done so.

I’d say it’s a sin to burn yourself. But everyone who has ever cauterized a wound has done so.

It would seem that intent and circumstances matter in the domain of medicine.

Exactly! This is brilliantly stated!

Also, don’t forget medicines related more specifically to treatment of pain. Opiates, for example. Vicodin is morally neutral by itself. To take it without a prescription is both sinful and illegal. To take it with a prescription will ease pain as the body heals. The act of taking a drug is not sinful. The sinfulness is the reason why it was taken, and what one hopes to accomplish in doing so. With vicodin or other opiates, are you seeking to “get high” or are you taking a controlled amount to contol your pain after a surgery or injury? Same with birth control. Are you taking it to contracept, or are you taking it to ease pain and suffering? It’s the same thing.