NFP question and "The pill" for medical reasons question

[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.

Do we need to quote it again?

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.

THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER AT ALL ILLICIT…it really doesn’t get more plain that that. It is, in relation to the whole document, a set apart section to describe the only circumstances in which a couple could receive sterilizing medical treatments.

If he meant for couples to remain celibate after having said treatment, he wouldn’t have bothered following it up with:

even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from

I mean, really. Why should he be concerned with impediment to procreation if the couple is already living celibate???

And then he further qualifies the morality of it with:

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

It really can not be more plain. It takes a lot of manipulation to get from this writing that a woman cannot medically receive treatment that effects her fertility, and that if she does, the couple should remain celibate.

He is basically stating that in the cases of the pill, surgeries, or other treatments, that they cease to be contraception at that point and become a medical treatment with infertility as a side effect. The couple is then grouped in with “infertile” couples. They are classified as such because neither want to contracept, and both are carrying the cross of infertility that comes from such a treatment. What does the church magesterium stay about infertile couples? Show me a quote that says that infertile couples are told to remain celibate.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive may result in conception and an early abortion. Therefore, this use is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The abortion is a direct result of the decision to have sexual relations while taking a chemical contraceptive, and so it is direct abortion, not indirect.

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive has the moral object of depriving the marital act of its procreative meaning. The moral object is in the second font.

The purpose for taking the contraceptive is the intended end in the first font. The circumstance that the woman needs a treatment of some kind for a medical problem is a circumstance in the third font. Neither intention nor circumstance is able to transform an evil moral object and an intrinsically evil act to make it moral.

Therefore, the woman may not BOTH take the medication and continue to have sexual relations. She may seek a different treatment and continue to have relations. Or she may refrain from relations while she is taking the treatment.

 

[Jermosh]

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.

This is you crutch of this issue, the “pill” is not being used as a contraceptive in this case. Using your logic we would not be able to drink or take opiates if we are ill, since the abuse of those are an intrinsic evil. Evil is not a thing, its an act and intent, the pill is a thing, just like a gun, or a knife.

Also the Church has definitely defined the use of ABC as an intrinsic evil only in the case of marriage relations. The Church allows the moral use of emergency contraceptives in rape cases for instance. Link

 

[PaulinVA]

Therefore, the woman may not BOTH take the medication and continue to have sexual relations. She may seek a different treatment and continue to have relations. Or she may refrain from relations while she is taking the treatment.

Please address why this view seemingly contradicts Humanae Vitae, as whitacre_girl pointed out in post #39.

Please provide reference to one or more other documents or persons that agrees with your conclusion.

Please address my question of how the Pope could have made the serious mistake of saying “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.” and then not state that a couple must abstainn from relations during the time the treatment is being taken?

 

[Sure]

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive may result in conception and an early abortion. Therefore, this use is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The abortion is a direct result of the decision to have sexual relations while taking a chemical contraceptive, and so it is direct abortion, not indirect.

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive has the moral object of depriving the marital act of its procreative meaning. The moral object is in the second font.

The purpose for taking the contraceptive is the intended end in the first font. The circumstance that the woman needs a treatment of some kind for a medical problem is a circumstance in the third font. Neither intention nor circumstance is able to transform an evil moral object and an intrinsically evil act to make it moral.

Therefore, the woman may not BOTH take the medication and continue to have sexual relations. She may seek a different treatment and continue to have relations. Or she may refrain from relations while she is taking the treatment.

Please answer the 10 or so questions I have posed to you.

Your arguments for a totally unsupported and mistaken view of Church teaching have been obliterated. Repeating them doesn’t help.

 

[tjm190]

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive may result in conception and an early abortion. Therefore, this use is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The abortion is a direct result of the decision to have sexual relations while taking a chemical contraceptive, and so it is direct abortion, not indirect.

Taking anything that might harm a newly conceived baby prior to intercourse is sinful? Huh. So smoking, given that having a cigarette’s toxin’s in your body whilst the child is developing could cause dangerous genetic damage. And we know that caffeine (say, the amount she may have had in her morning cup of coffee) is correlated with a higher rate of miscarriage.

 

[dixieagle]

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive may result in conception and an early abortion. Therefore, this use is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The abortion is a direct result of the decision to have sexual relations while taking a chemical contraceptive, and so it is direct abortion, not indirect.

The use of a chemical contraceptive by a woman who is sexually active and able to conceive has the moral object of depriving the marital act of its procreative meaning. The moral object is in the second font.

The purpose for taking the contraceptive is the intended end in the first font. The circumstance that the woman needs a treatment of some kind for a medical problem is a circumstance in the third font. Neither intention nor circumstance is able to transform an evil moral object and an intrinsically evil act to make it moral.

What a woman takes to treat excessive bleeding, pain, etc., is a medication that happens to be a hormone.

The fact that the same hormone can, in other instances, also be used to contracept is another issue entirely.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Bold emphasis has been added in quotes below.

The opinion of Dr. Anthony Dardano, a pro-life physician (addressing a question on use of birth control pills for a specific medical condition, but we can extrapolate):

The use of the birth control pill as a medical therapeutic agent may be justifiable if certain conditions are met. First and foremost, the primary intent must be a medical therapy for a condition which is treatable by ovulation suppression. Ovarian cysts are a good example of this. By stopping ovulation for a few months, it gives the cysts a chance to regress. Frequently, surgery can thus be avoided and pain relief can be dramatic. However, with the lower dose pills of today, ovulation is not always completely stopped. If pregnancy were to occur it might very well be aborted by the action of the pill.Therefore, if a woman is prescribed a pill for medical reasons, she must refrain from sexual intercourse during the therapy and only then would it be morally acceptable.

See clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/2007sept-oct.pdf .

Another physician, Dr. Paul Hayes, weighs in:

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.

The rest of his answer at all.org/article.php?id=10162 addresses the medical advisability of using birth control pills for medical reasons. He offers alternatives. It is worth reading.

 

[PaulinVA]

Philothea, thank you for your post.

So, the discussion seems to be around the 2nd action of the pill, namely the abortificient action. I agree that abortion is wrong.

Why has the Catholic teaching/thinking/counseling on this subject for years said that it was okay to take the pill for a therapeutic reason and still have marital relations?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Philothea, thank you for your post.
Why has the Catholic teaching/thinking/counseling on this subject for years said that it was okay to take the pill for a therapeutic reason and still have marital relations?

Probably because the people rendering those opinions did not (or do not) understand the abortifacient effects of the pill. The pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession have done a very good job of suppressing this information. It’s big business.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Please address my question of how the Pope could have made the serious mistake of saying “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.” and then not state that a couple must abstainn from relations during the time the treatment is being taken?

I suspect that what is being alluded to in this reference is something akin to the surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy (implanted in the fallopian tube, fatal to the mother if not removed). The surgery is done to save the life of the mother. The death of the child is an undesired outcome; the pregnancy could not have been carried to term.

It might also refer to a hysterectomy to treat a cancerous condition. It would render the woman infertile, but that is not the intent.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

taking birth control pills for medical problems is often a “quick fix” that masks symptoms rather than getting at the cause of the problem. I would recommend that you contact the Pope Paul VI Institute popepaulvi.com/ for a referral to a doctor who can help your fiancee get to the root of the problem.

The good news is that the same awareness of a women’s fertility symptoms that you learn about in NFP classes can often help a doctor trained in Naprotechnology find out what is causing the medical problems. See naprotechnology.com/ …

What great advice! ! ! These are really fantastic places to start and information about Naprotechnology needs to be spread far and wide.

God bless you for caring enough to ask these questions.May He lead you and your fiancee to a solution that is good for the two of you both physically and spiritually.

Absolutely! very true Naprotechnology is long overdue and can offer some help, however it cannot treat all conditions *endometrosis comes to ming). Both resources above are great places to start. I would always go here first for gyn issues.

Having suffered from endometreoisis for years and being on various hormonal treatments, (both birth control and different chemically-induced menopauses) I can say that the hormonal treatments do cause other problems. Lots of side effects that no one tells you about, ever propagating the myth that they are a wonder drug to treat everything from acne to depression. It’s NOT.

That being said, if one suffers from this and wants to have children there may be no alternative When I got married, I went off the BC and we practiced NFP, however, it soon became clear that I needed to be either on BC or have a hysterectomy, which I fought for over a decade. We already had 4 children between us. Looking back, I wish that I had done the surgery years before. My biggest fear was that, in not really wanting more children, it was hard to discern my true motives. The pain finally won out and I did have surgery. Over the years I talked with 3 different priests who all supported BC and/or hysterectomy in my case, but I was overly scrupulous. The reality is that when you have to take some measures like this, there are still ways to be open to life in marriage in your everyday choices.

I know that for endometreoisis, the best treatment is getting pregnant but even that can be a temporary fix. I was single so that wasn’t going to happen. By the time I did remarry, the damage was done and pregnancy was unlikely due to scarring. That made my final decision easier. My be TMI, but I wanted you to know my experience, to better understand my comments. I hope this information is of some help.

From my personal experience:
a) BC and chemical menopause both have a huge downside in how they can effect your body (side effects, cancer risk), however, they may be the only option for a couple who does want children.
b) talk to a priest, talk to a few priests, and take your prayers to the Blessed Sacrament.

God bless you for taking time to discern the right decisions for your marriage, within the guidelines of the Church. It is hard to discern our true motives in situations like this and I have learned that my understanding of Church teaching is not always accurate. We are so very blessed to have the Magisterium and priests, deacons, and our Popes to lead us in understanding or Truth!

Heavenly Father,
Guide this man and this women
bring them closer together in love, drawn them into your safe arms while they navigate decisions about their faith in this confusing world.
Allow them to know what Your plan is to bring fruitfullness in their marriage,
whatever form that may take.
May each of them be open to Your Will
and at peace throughout their search for your Truth
in their life together.
May you bless them with riches from heaven;
joy, faith, peace, compassion, contentment, trust in eachother and trust in You.
In Jesus name,
Amen

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Probably because the people rendering those opinions did not (or do not) understand the abortifacient effects of the pill. The pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession have done a very good job of suppressing this information. It’s big business.

The people rendering these judgements are popes, bishops, and priests. I quote again from CAF apologist:

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

(emphasis mine)
And I absolutely trust the opinions of these people over doctors as to the moral implications.

 

[paperwight]

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.

Ron, would you say that sticking a needle into a helpless baby was wrong?

I think everyone would. Causing a helpless baby pain is evil.

But speak in terms of an injection - an immunisation, say, or (if you are against immunisations) then delivering an anti-biotic - sticking a needle into that baby becomes acceptable. An intrinsically evil act becomes good.

Intentions matter, intentions change things.

 

[Sure]

It seems that everyone here has posted numerous great examples of what St. Thomas Aquinas, the founder of Catholic Moral Theology, describes in the relation of the moral object to circumstances which become principal conditions of the object.

Well done everyone! I think St. Thomas would be proud.

Paul in VA, someone quoted earlier in this thread the post from Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers. As he basically put it, women have miscarriages all the time for many reasons. If a medication that you are taking for some ailment happens to cause or partially cause a miscarriage, that would not be immoral under the principle of double effect. For instance, if a pregnant woman undergoes chemo and causes her to miscarry, that is not an abortion and is not immoral Similarly if a woman takes a hormone to treat a medical problem and that hormone causes a miscarriage, that is not an abortion and is not immoral.

 

[Sure]

Ron, would you say that sticking a needle into a helpless baby was wrong?

I think everyone would. Causing a helpless baby pain is evil.

But speak in terms of an injection - an immunisation, say, or (if you are against immunisations) then delivering an anti-biotic - sticking a needle into that baby becomes acceptable. An intrinsically evil act becomes good.

Intentions matter, intentions change things.

But we should be careful there, only sometimes does the intention become a part of the object of the act and in doing so, makes it a totally different act. For instance, committing adultery for a really good reason doesn’t make it good. For an act to be good the object itself (as correctly noted by Ron!) must be good or at least indifferent.

It doesn’t make an intrinsically evil act good, for that would be impossible. It is a completely different act altogether. It may seem like a very small difference, but it is an important one.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

. . .the post from Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers. As he basically put it, women have miscarriages all the time for many reasons. If a medication that you are taking for some ailment happens to cause or partially cause a miscarriage, that would not be immoral under the principle of double effect.

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

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

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

This is exactly true. Which is why a woman taking the pill to, say, alleviate acne is probably not proprtional. Whereas there are certain ailments that can only be effectively addressed with hormonal treatments. Such issues are usually very severe and effect health in a very dramatic way. This is why, I believe, the Pope allows its use despite the contraceptive effect and why priests continue to back up that position time and again.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul in VA, someone quoted earlier in this thread the post from Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers. As he basically put it, women have miscarriages all the time for many reasons. If a medication that you are taking for some ailment happens to cause or partially cause a miscarriage, that would not be immoral under the principle of double effect. For instance, if a pregnant woman undergoes chemo and causes her to miscarry, that is not an abortion and is not immoral Similarly if a woman takes a hormone to treat a medical problem and that hormone causes a miscarriage, that is not an abortion and is not immoral.

Thanks. I think I understand.

 

[dixieagle]

It seems that everyone here has posted numerous great examples of what St. Thomas Aquinas, the founder of Catholic Moral Theology, describes in the relation of the moral object to circumstances which become principal conditions of the object.

Well done everyone! I think St. Thomas would be proud.

Paul in VA, someone quoted earlier in this thread the post from Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers. As he basically put it, women have miscarriages all the time for many reasons. If a medication that you are taking for some ailment happens to cause or partially cause a miscarriage, that would not be immoral under the principle of double effect. For instance, if a pregnant woman undergoes chemo and causes her to miscarry, that is not an abortion and is not immoral Similarly if a woman takes a hormone to treat a medical problem and that hormone causes a miscarriage, that is not an abortion and is not immoral.

A very good summation, in clear, plain language.

That said, I think that it is imperative to note, as many posters have mentioned, that there may well be ways to alleviate menstrual and fertility difficulties without use of “the pill”.

I again urge couples facing these issues to look into Naprotechnology and the Pope Paul VI Institute.