On Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimbo9889
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
underacloud said:
Her direct intent is to treat her medical condition. Her inhibited fertility is an unintended secondary effect. Any marital act would indeed be frustrated, but not deliberately. There is no onus on her to abstain.

I recommend you read the following to better understand the Church’s position on this:

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

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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=30815&highlight=medical+contraception
Click to expand...
All of those discuss cases where the direct object of the act is something other than the prevention of ovulation.
 
devoutchristian said:
All of those discuss cases where the direct object of the act is something other than the prevention of ovulation.
Click to expand...
They discuss PCOS and endometriosis, both conditions I cited above.

So you agree that one can take the Pill to treat these conditions even though it will also supress ovulation?
 
underacloud said:
They discuss PCOS and endometriosis, both conditions I cited above.

So you agree that one can take the Pill to treat these conditions even though it will also supress ovulation?
Click to expand...
Certainly. My point was simply that if the direct object of an act is to prevent ovulation, then abstinence is required.
 
devoutchristian said:
Certainly. My point was simply that if the direct object of an act is to prevent ovulation, then abstinence is required.
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach this. The sin is in contracepting (i.e., deliberately doing something so that you will not get pregnant when you engage in sex), not stopping ovulation.

What does the Church mean when she says its morally licit to take medication even when it is foreseeable that infertility will result? In the case of a woman taking this medication, it means that she will no longer be fertile. In other words, her medication is doing something to stop ovulation. Her intention is not to stop ovulation, but to take a drug that will assist or heal her in some way. She is not required to abstain, because she does not intend to contracept, even though she is rendered infertile by the drug.

In other words, there is nothing inherently sinful about stopping ovulation. It sounds like semantics, but it’s not. If the intention is to contracept (i.e., prevent pregnancy), the action is sinful. If the intention is something else, the action is not necessarily sinful.
 
devoutchristian said:
Certainly. My point was simply that if the direct object of an act is to prevent ovulation, then abstinence is required.
Click to expand...
Such as?

I know of no medical condition where an unfertilised egg is a problem in itself, and thus treated by preventing ovulation.

But there are medical conditions (eg extreme dysmenorrhoea) that occur in the last phase of the woman’s cycle, related to events to do with ovulation (especially the release of hormones by the corpus luteum), and are thus treated by supressing the cycle/ovulation. Do you think that these conditions, because they happen after ovulation has (or would) take place, are morally different?
 
nodito said:
In other words, there is nothing inherently sinful about stopping ovulation. It sounds like semantics, but it’s not. If the intention is to contracept (i.e., prevent pregnancy), the action is sinful. If the intention is something else, the action is not necessarily sinful.
Click to expand...
I agree, and it’s an important distinction when discussing double effect. If the means themselves are wrong, then they cannot be used to achieve the good effect. The means (in this case preventing ovulation) must be good or neutral.

I contend that they are neutral. Otherwise, unmarried women would not be able to treat medical conditions by preventing ovulation. Since they are, we can see that preventing ovulation per se is not a concern.

The concern is in the context of marriage. This is where intent is the crucial factor. Married couples who intend the contraceptive effect sin. Married couples who do not intend it, but accept it as an unavoidable secondary effect, do not sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top