Oral Contraceptive Question

[Reuben_J]

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, too:

1. 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:

1. 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, a complete 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 away from what HV actually says is not going to outsmart God.

Great post. Great explanation.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think you need to look at the term “direct abortion”. Medical use of the contraceptive pill is not direct abortion, by definition.

In any case, try looking at section 15 of HV, which you seem to have ignored. Here it is:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

**“15. 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)” **

If the ‘therapeutic means’ is an abortifacient then sex should be avoided during the course of the treatment because of the possibility that procreation (ovulation) occurs, in which case it will be aborted by the abortifacient. HV 15 says it has to impede procreation.

If the ‘therapeutic means’ is not an abortifacient then only sex should be allowed during the period of treatment. In any case, most of the pills in the market today are abortifacients.

So the patient should discuss with the doctor what pill it would be so as not to violate the Church teaching.

HV 15 is very clear **“even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there” **. This could only mean non-abortifacient as abortifacient does not stop procreation. Procreation (conception or ovulation), which is the beginning of life in the Church’s definition, still occur with abortifacient contraceptive pill. It will only stop the embryo from further growing by stopping its implantation on the uterine wall. So it is not allowed.

 

[Reuben_J]

HV 15 is very clear, “even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there” .

The reason why the encyclical dispenses with the impediment to procreation is because it does not kill the fetus. It only close the possibility of procreation which is also not acceptable in Catholic marriage. This however can be circumscribed as the couple should not be totally closed to the possibility of having children but only when the treatment is in effect. Later after the treatment, they can always start having children.

We need to be clear with this encyclical and also the principle behind it and also the Church’s teaching on what sin is and what is not. These will not be in conflict with each other.

 

[Bluegoat]

OP,

Here is an answer to the question of needing to abstain while on the Pill by Fr Vincent Serpa, one of the Catholic Answers apologists. If you have questions you should ask your priest or even email the apologists here, who can tell you what these documents mean.

 

[Ron_Conte]

This quote from Humanae Vitae, refers to medical interventions such as a hysterectomy: “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” (HV 15).

A woman who uses the contraceptive pill to treat a medical condition is able to refrain from marital relations. So the deliberate choice to engage in marital relations is the deliberate (intentional) choice of contracepted sex, and so is immoral.

The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.

Pontifical Council for the Family: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.” (Vademecum, n. 4, instruction for confessors).

Pope John Paul II: “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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious…
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54-56.)

Pope Paul VI: “Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one… Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

Pope John Paul II: “The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 52)

Pope John Paul II: “But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the ‘creativity’ of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67)

Furthermore, oral contraceptives are abortifacient, and so their use by a woman who is sexually active is also the sin of abortion.

Pope John Paul II: “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13)

 

[Debora123]

I am against oral contraceptives for a number of health reasons. I have been having bad problems with my periods; I have now been on my period for almost 2 weeks. I am anemic with a heart murmur, so this amount of heavy blood loss every day has been making me weak, tired, and sick.

The doctor is sending me to an OB/GYN, who will likely prescribe me birth control in order to control and regulate my cycle. Is this morally permissible?

Yes, of course

 

[Debora123]

So let’s say I get married, but have to stay on the pill in order not to bleed to death each month. Will I be unable to have sex with him at all unless I decide to stop taking my birth control for a month or so? I’m afraid if I stopped I might start back with the heavy bleeding, which I really cannot endure anymore.

I’m so sad, because I don’t see how my dreams of a normal marriage are even possible anymore

If you’re taking the pill for health purposes and not with the intention of preventing a pregnancy, then it’s totally fine to still have sex with your own husband!

The sad thing about it is that in case a pregnancy DOES happen, the pill will kill your newly conceived baby w/o you even realizing it. But I think there are ways to prevent this from happening, or at least, to lower the chances. You’ll need to ask you gyno about it.

 

[Debora123]

It is incorrect that if you are taking the Pill for valid medical reasons that you must not have sex. THe Catholic Church does not teach that.

Here is the same question which was directed to one of the apologists.

Oh, well I should have just read this and known that you got your answer before I responded lol. But it’s nice to know I was right
People around these forums are a lot more sexophobic than they need to be, and this was a perfect example.

 

[bhall0689]

So as I understand it, the pill is never allowed to be used for abortifacient intentions. Since my intention is not to use it as an abortifacient, but curb my 2-week periods and anemia, I would not be required to abstain from sex with my husband.

It only makes sense - imagine if I were 30 or 35 and has to suddenly be put on The Pill for the same reason. I might be married already and have to totally abstain from all sexual relations for an unknown amount of time with my husband. Imagine how damaging that might be to our relationship, and how unfair it would also be to him. This is not a problem that’s likely going away any time soon. I’ve tried other things, had test after test done on my sugar levels, thyroid, ovaries, etc. Nothing works.

Or, I might not be married when I start the treatment, then meet someone I want to marry. We would be unable to consummate our marriage, or even have any sex at all unless I temporarily stopped my treatment against the advice of my doctor.

 

[Bluegoat]

If you’re taking the pill for health purposes and not with the intention of preventing a pregnancy, then it’s totally fine to still have sex with your own husband!

The sad thing about it is that in case a pregnancy DOES happen, the pill will kill your newly conceived baby w/o you even realizing it. But I think there are ways to prevent this from happening, or at least, to lower the chances. You’ll need to ask you gyno about it.

Yes, I think there are. Normally the pill works by doing three things. It changes the cervical mucous so that sperm cannot enter the vagina easily; it prevents ovulation; and it prevents the lining of the uterus from thickening to prepare for implantation. So in most cases, it prevents conception from ever taking place. It is only when the first two fail that the prevention of implantation would be an issue. (No one knows what % of the time that happens - it may even never happen - AFAIK it has never been actually studied.)

So one important thing would be to be very regular about taking the pill on a daily basis - never missing days, always at the same time, etc so that it is less likely that the hormone levels will drop and ovulation will occur.

Also, some pills have different levels of hormones which may make it more likely a person will ovulate.

And another thing one could do is learn how to read the body’s signs with NFP. As long as ovulation was suppressed there would be no signs to read, but if ovulation did occur there might be signs one could read and then avoid sex at that time. THis would be something to ask an NFP instructor about.

 

[Bluegoat]

So as I understand it, the pill is never allowed to be used for abortifacient intentions. Since my intention is not to use it as an abortifacient, but curb my 2-week periods and anemia, I would not be required to abstain from sex with my husband.

Yes. Of course you could abstain if you felt better about it. Or look for another solution. That is something you could pursue now if you wanted to - but you might have to look for a doctor who was willing to spend more time on it.

 

[bhall0689]

I dug around and found this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3992187
which pretty clearly deals a similar issue, although the OPs intentions are a bit different. The responses are all applicable to my situation, though.

Thanks so much all.

 

[Debora123]

So as I understand it, the pill is never allowed to be used for abortifacient intentions. Since my intention is not to use it as an abortifacient, but curb my 2-week periods and anemia, I would not be required to abstain from sex with my husband.

It only makes sense - imagine if I were 30 or 35 and has to suddenly be put on The Pill for the same reason. I might be married already and have to totally abstain from all sexual relations for an unknown amount of time with my husband. Imagine how damaging that might be to our relationship, and how unfair it would also be to him. This is not a problem that’s likely going away any time soon. I’ve tried other things, had test after test done on my sugar levels, thyroid, ovaries, etc. Nothing works.

Or, I might not be married when I start the treatment, then meet someone I want to marry. We would be unable to consummate our marriage, or even have any sex at all unless I temporarily stopped my treatment against the advice of my doctor.

I completely agree. The Catholic Church understands that sex is an important and sacred part of marriage, and will under no circumstances prohibit any of us from having sex with our spouses for such a long period of time.

 

[Bluegoat]

So as I understand it, the pill is never allowed to be used for abortifacient intentions. Since my intention is not to use it as an abortifacient, but curb my 2-week periods and anemia, I would not be required to abstain from sex with my husband.

It only makes sense - imagine if I were 30 or 35 and has to suddenly be put on The Pill for the same reason. I might be married already and have to totally abstain from all sexual relations for an unknown amount of time with my husband. Imagine how damaging that might be to our relationship, and how unfair it would also be to him. This is not a problem that’s likely going away any time soon. I’ve tried other things, had test after test done on my sugar levels, thyroid, ovaries, etc. Nothing works.

Or, I might not be married when I start the treatment, then meet someone I want to marry. We would be unable to consummate our marriage, or even have any sex at all unless I temporarily stopped my treatment against the advice of my doctor.

Well, there is no guarantee that you will always be able to have sex just because you are married, or that you will be able to marry just because you want to. There are all kinds of “unfair” things that could get in the way. You could be gay, you could be sick, you could have an illness that would make pregnancy too dangerous, your husband could have a terrible accident with the blender… you get the idea.

There is an idea floating around, I think as an import from secular culture, that we all have a “right” to have sex, or the even more bizarre idea that all married people have a right to have sex. It just isn’t so. Some people may be celibate their whole lives, not because that is what they want, but because that is the hand they have been dealt.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So as I understand it, the pill is never allowed to be used for abortifacient intentions. Since my intention is not to use it as an abortifacient, but curb my 2-week periods and anemia, I would not be required to abstain from sex with my husband.

Not correct. The Magisterium teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are not justified by intention or circumstances.

If you take the pill AND decide to have sexual relations, then you are choosing an act that is contraceptive and abortive. Your intention does not justify the contracepted sexual relations, nor does your intention justify the deaths of any conceived prenatals.

Pontifical Council for the Family: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception” (Vademecum for confessors, n. 4)

Pope John Paul II: “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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Abortifacient contraception includes the sin of abortion as well as contraception. Both sins are intrinsically evil, and never justified by intention or circumstances.

Abortion is murder. Abortion ‘with a good intention’ is still murder ‘with a good intention’ which is still a mortal sin. How could any one justify killing his or her own children in the womb just to avoid living a chaste life? Is sexual relations so important that it is worth killing innocent children in the womb to obtain? Secular society has answered this question with a resounding ‘Yes’. And unfortunately so have some Catholics.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I completely agree. The Catholic Church understands that sex is an important and sacred part of marriage, and will under no circumstances prohibit any of us from having sex with our spouses for such a long period of time.

The Catholic Church has no such teaching, justifying abortion and contraception if it is necessary to avoid refraining from sex. There is no teaching of the Church which gives sexual relations such a high place in the scale of values that abortifacient contraception, or even simple contraception, becomes justified in order to obtain that end.

The end of marital relations does not justify the means.

Pope Pius XI: “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious…” (Casti Connubii, n. 54.)

 

[Debora123]

The Catholic Church has no such teaching, justifying abortion and contraception if it is necessary to avoid refraining from sex. There is no teaching of the Church which gives sexual relations such a high place in the scale of values that abortifacient contraception, or even simple contraception, becomes justified in order to obtain that end.

Well you’re actually wrong about that. In some special circumstances, the Church actually does say it’s ok. I don’t know if you saw, but it’s been official in the Church that if you have to take the pill for health purposes and you have no choice, the death of an unborn child would then be considered a miscarriage, not an abortion. They’ve posted a couple links on it, you should take a look.

 

[blackherbs]

yes, if you have exhausted all other options.

however (and this is just MY opinion), you shouldn’t care. i’m on BC for my moods (also on an anti-depressant) and to prevent pregnancy, and it’s the best thing i ever did.

 

[Debora123]

Pope Pius XI: “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious…” (Casti Connubii, n. 54.)

Pius XI was the pope many many years ago. Things change. Issues come up that hadn’t been addressed yet. The new encouragement of condom use with prostitutes is a perfect example of that. JPII always stated that under no circumstances whatsoever were condoms ok, and yet Benedict just came out and told us all that in certain very specific circumstances, they were. This is just another one of those things.

 

[Listener]

Yes, I think there are. Normally the pill works by doing three things. It changes the cervical mucous so that sperm cannot enter the vagina easily; it prevents ovulation; and it prevents the lining of the uterus from thickening to prepare for implantation. So in most cases, it prevents conception from ever taking place. It is only when the first two fail that the prevention of implantation would be an issue. (No one knows what % of the time that happens - it may even never happen - AFAIK it has never been actually studied.)

So one important thing would be to be very regular about taking the pill on a daily basis - never missing days, always at the same time, etc so that it is less likely that the hormone levels will drop and ovulation will occur.

Also, some pills have different levels of hormones which may make it more likely a person will ovulate.

And another thing one could do is learn how to read the body’s signs with NFP. As long as ovulation was suppressed there would be no signs to read, but if ovulation did occur there might be signs one could read and then avoid sex at that time. THis would be something to ask an NFP instructor about.

I agree with what this person says. I’m wondering why people don’t listen to what Father Vincent Serpa says on the subject. Of course it is okay to take the pill for medical reasons whether you are married or unmarried. I can even tell you that the priests approved of this back in the early 1960’s, which I remember well. I’m not sure if people know that for a woman who is NOT on the pill, the chances are as high as 50% that the fertilized egg will not “take” and will pass out with her period. The woman usually doesn’t even know that this happened. So if you’re on the pill, the chances of this happening are reduced from 50% to maybe 5%. We all know of women who got pregnant while on the pill and had a baby 9 month later.

I think the main problem with being on the pill is not a moral problem but rather a medical problem. It is probably not wise to stay on it for years and years, but that’s a different issue.