Sure, I’ll post something which says otherwise. The most important one already did, which was the Sixth Commandment:
Thou shalt not kill. You’ll notice there aren’t exclusions there for “therapy.”
But if you need something from
Humanae Vitae, I can do that do:
- Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.
Similarly
excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as **an end **or as a
means.
You quote this part of HV:
- 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. (19)
Where in this do you read that
abortifacients are “okay”? You (and others, including, unfortunately so many RCIA teachers and even priests) incorrectly lump all “therapeutic means”
together, and seem to think that whatever a doctor somewhere labels “therapy” is magically a licit means. This is not true, and has never been time at any time during all of Catholic history. We don’t look to doctors for labels, we look to the
Church. We
know now for a
fact–indisputable fact–that oral contraceptives are
abortifacients, which is why the Holy Ghost prevented the council from listing certain therapeutic means, but instead continued the Tradition to referring advances of science
firstly to the Church.
Any therapeutic means for
any treatment must first be considered against Church teaching, and then against specific restrictions secondly. There are
no conditions under which the Church has declared that the use of abortifacients is licit.
None. People wrongly drawn this conclusion because are more concerned with labeling abortifacients as “therapeutic” than as what they
are, which, again, is abortifacient. Thus, they cannot even be
included as licit “therapeutic means” that would be allowed, and so
15 isn’t even talking about abortifacients. Otherwise it would have said “including abortifacient means.” There are plenty of other cases were 15 does indeed apply to treatments that would otherwise be illicit because of their contraceptive quality but that actually have nothing to do with
abortion, but instead with the
prevention of conception, or “impediment to procreation” as 15 states. I will give more examples if you’d like, but the easiest to cite are medically-necessary sterilizations, as if there is no
possibility for conception, then there is no
possibility for abortion, and thus therapuetic means can certainly be licit (ie, hysterectomy to treat ovarian cancer).
“Impediment to procreation” means that procreation is
impeded: abortifacients do not impede procreation, because
procreation has already occured. Abortifacients destroy the
already formed product of procreation, and therefore they are NEVER licit when used in combination with the
pro-creative act, sex. It is really not that complicated. The text is quite clear, thanks to the Holy Ghost, Who we know from Council appendices, was actually battling the malevolent intent of many Modernist priest and bishops to get verbiage in the document that would make contraception “okay’d”. Even without such verbiage, though, there are still plenty who use their incorrect personal extrapolations of HV to lead others into actually
accepting abortion “…but only for ‘therapeutic’ cases.”
I’m really not sure why this is hard for a good-willed person to see. You only need to be logical. And actually, if you don’t have that, just a good heart will work just fine. What about the horrors of chemically- and artificially-induced abortions are people
not seeing, that this seems “okay”? And furthermore, what is the big deal about abstaining? You reward in Heaven will be great for obeying God’s will. Because someone wants sex, for love or connection or whatever, is not a justification to risk the chemical, artificial abortion of a little one. People have been living for a very long time without this nonsense, and we can drudge on without it, too. People are trying to make things too complicated, with this “exception”
here and “intention”
there, when it is obviously a horrible crime, and obviously
artificially causes a little one to die. All the legalese and prevarication from what HV actually says is
not going to outsmart God.
. Don’t fret: this kind of thing actually happens to lots of women. If a doctor prescribes you an oral contraceptive as a treatment for this problem, then it is likely with the goal of stabilizing a hormonal issue, and it is very (very) likely that you won’t be on this the rest of your life, by any means. You’re all worried about things that aren’t even part of your life right now. You need to chill out.