Oral Contraceptive Question

[Reuben_J]

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.

Hi. I would see this from the concept that sin does not change. What was considered sin before would be considered the same today.

The debate on condom does not change the Church’s teaching on it however. It (condom) is still not right and it is sin as such.

About the pills - we know better now. We have the knowledge that Pius X1 did not have. From studies, the majority of the birth control pills in the market today are abortifacients which mean to say, they abort or kill the fetus. There is no way we can circumscribe that and say it is not a sin, no matter how extenuating the circumstances are. Thus if abortifacient is used, the couple should refrain from sex. Believe me, by abstaining because they honor the Lord’s commandment, tremendous blessing would be conferred on their marriage. Faithfulness has its reward. That should not be the issue as God should come first, not our own self interest.

The earlier teaching on the pills mainly came about because we considered them as preventing ovulation. Well, we now know they don’t. Ovulation does still take place, that is conception still takes place. When we use the pills they actually kill the baby. I cannot imagine how we can circumscribe this fact by saying it is alright with such pills.

My advice would be - discuss with the gynecologist and preferably get an alternative treatment that may not compromise the Church’s teaching. Or use the pills that prevent ovulation.

 

[Debora123]

Hi. I would see this from the concept that sin does not change. What was considered sin before would be considered the same today.

Well it changes in the sense that it is concluded it was never a sin to begin with. At one point, thinking the Earth was round was considered a sin in the Catholic Church.

Our pope now says that using a condom in certain circumstances is a better option than not. This differs from JPII, who said time and time again that under NO circumstances was it ever acceptable to wear a condom. There’s definitely a difference there.

 

[Debora123]

From studies, the majority of the birth control pills in the market today are abortifacients which mean to say, they abort or kill the fetus. There is no way we can circumscribe that and say it is not a sin, no matter how extenuating the circumstances are. Thus if abortifacient is used, the couple should refrain from sex. Believe me, by abstaining because they honor the Lord’s commandment, tremendous blessing would be conferred on their marriage. Faithfulness has its reward. That should not be the issue as God should come first, not our own self interest.

If it’s your opinion that it would be wrong under any circumstances, that’s fine. It’s your opinion, you can do what you want. But the Church says it’s ok, so I don’t think you should hold others accountable for doing it if they are going by what the Church teaches rather than by what your opinion is. The OP isn’t here asking for an individual’s opinion, she wants to know what the Church has to say about it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

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

 

[Reuben_J]

He still does not say it is not a sin anymore. I was referring to sin specifically.

 

[Reuben_J]

If it’s your opinion that it would be wrong under any circumstances, that’s fine. It’s your opinion, you can do what you want. But the Church says it’s ok, so I don’t think you should hold others accountable for doing it if they are going by what the Church teaches rather than by what your opinion is. The OP isn’t here asking for an individual’s opinion, she wants to know what the Church has to say about it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

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

My goodness Debora, relax. Since when I become a Pope? It is all opinions here. Even the official CAF apologist - it is still an opinion.

A sin must be against the conscience of a person concerned. I have given my reason and I believe abortifacient is not OK because it does not change the fact that an unborn baby is being killed by it. Thus if the couple persist on intentionally using it, they still have to confess it as a sin. The reason is we are not ignorant anymore and we know what sin is. We know what an abortifacient does.

What about the non-abortifacient pills that I suggest for use in such a case? Why not go for that?

The Church needs to redefine when life begins if it wants to change it to not a sin anymore.

 

[kjn_23]

I think we have some misinformation about how birth control works. There are three main methods, barrier methods, chemical methods, and hormonal methods. Barrier methods seek to prevent sperm from reaching the egg. Chemical methods focus mainly on causing a deformation in the flagella (tail) of a sperm cell inhibiting the their ability to travel through the female reproductive tract. Hormonal contraceptives work in the following ways:

Hormonal forms of birth control contain artificial estrogen and/or progestin to mimic the hormones your body produces. Your body then responds to these increased levels of hormones in different ways, all of which can prevent a pregnancy. The main way in which these forms of contraception are designed to work is by suppressing ovulation. The extra hormones also work to thicken your cervical mucus thereby creating a hostile environment for sperm. Both of these methods help to prevent fertilization. If the other two methods fail and an egg were to be fertilized, then the Pill may work to thin the uterine lining thereby blocking the implantation of a fertilized egg. However, there is some debate as to just how often this occurs.

You should talk to your OB/GYN about the available forms of the hormonal birth control. There are shots, patches, vaginal rings, intrauterine devices, the pill, and the mini-pill. Also, when it comes to the pill there are pills that contain only progestin, or pills that contain a combination of estrogen and progestin. Also there is the option to completely eliminate the “pill period” or to reduce the number to 3 per year.

Now on to my personal feelings.

I believe it it morally licit to have sex while on the pill for medical reasons as long as one in in a valid marriage. Using plan-b wouldn’t be, because its only function is to prevent life and has no medical benefit, but HBC can be a valid medical tool. To those who say you cant do it because it may cause an abortion I ask why surgery in the case of an etopic pregnancy is ok? It’s primary goal isn’t to abort the pregnancy, but it still ends up doing that. No different than using HBC for a medical reason and having sex. The goal of the medication is to cure an ailment, but there is a small chance an abortion may occur but one didn’t intend for that to happen. And intent is part of the criteria for sining.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks for the informative post about birth control. You do not however explain about the pills as an abortifacient and how it works. I know how it works but perhaps you may want to explain that in details and see whether it is morally right or not, since we has an alternative treatment too.

Just to remind folks again, I have no problem with abortifacient as a treatment except that if that must be used the couple should practice abstainance.

About ectopic pregnancy. The analogy does seem apt. In the medical term, ectopic pregnancy is not a pregnancy at all. It does not lead to life. But any fertilization does lead to life.

 

[Bluegoat]

Thanks for the informative post about birth control. You do not however explain about the pills as an abortifacient and how it works. I know how it works but perhaps you may want to explain that in details and see whether it is morally right or not, since we has an alternative treatment too.

Just to remind folks again, I have no problem with abortifacient as a treatment except that if that must be used the couple should practice abstainance.

About ectopic pregnancy. The analogy does seem apt. In the medical term, ectopic pregnancy is not a pregnancy at all. It does not lead to life. But any fertilization does lead to life.

Reuben - you don’t seem to understand the CC teaching on ectopic pregnancy either. These teachings are not hard to find out - there is a lot written on them. I’m Anglican and don’t even agree with them all necessarily, and I was still able to find out what the Catholic Church teaches on these things.

An ectopic pregnancy is considered a life - it is a living embryo with a living baby. Removal of the tube is allowed according to the principle of double effect - the intent is to remove the damaged tube rather than kill the baby. There is some question over whether other methods of dealing with ectopic pregnancy are moral, but the wight of opinion seems to be that it is not.

However, there is pretty much unanimity about using the pill for health reasons and continuing to have sex.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben - you don’t seem to understand the CC teaching on ectopic pregnancy either. These teachings are not hard to find out - there is a lot written on them. I’m Anglican and don’t even agree with them all necessarily, and I was still able to find out what the Catholic Church teaches on these things.

An ectopic pregnancy is considered a life - it is a living embryo with a living baby. Removal of the tube is allowed according to the principle of double effect - the intent is to remove the damaged tube rather than kill the baby. There is some question over whether other methods of dealing with ectopic pregnancy are moral, but the wight of opinion seems to be that it is not.

However, there is pretty much unanimity about using the pill for health reasons and continuing to have sex.

I know. If it is a matter of life and death then the life of the mother takes precedent. Ectopic pregnancy is a life and death matter to the mother and beside ectopic pregnancy is not leading to life. To me the distinction is simple.

Ectopic pregnancy is a misconception. It is foolish to consider it a life giving possibility. It has nothing to do with life; it is only a mishap but if not acted upon it endangers the life of the mother; the mother will get killed.

The principle of saving life applies here and so that’s it. Similarly hysterectomy. Why do we do it? Because of the health of the mother otherwise the cancerous womb will kill the mother if it is not taken out.

Then we talk about treatment of irregular period with abortifacient. There is alternative in doing it (the treatment). If abortifacient should be used then the couple should abstain from sex because of the possibility of conception has taken place only to be aborted by the abortifacient.

I don’t know of any Church teaching that allows intentional killing of the fetus. If it can be avoided it must be avoided. By having sex while using the abortifacient is not intentionally avoiding the killing of one’s fetus. It is that simple.

There are many so-called theologians and apologists who speak on this matter. Well, not all of them are necessarily correct about it either.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are no magisterial documents stating that the contraceptive pill can be morally used by a woman who is ALSO sexually active. In such a case, the use of the pill is both abortive and contraceptive. So it is not correct to say that this idea is Church teaching.

There are magisterial documents stating that contraception is intrinsically evil and that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

The claim that an intrinsically evil act becomes moral when done for a particular intention is refuted by the encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Does anyone really believe that the Church would permit a woman to abort her own children, by means of an abortifacient contraceptive, so that she does not have to refrain from sexual relations? Does anyone really believe that Jesus or Mary would say that a woman should use an abortifacient contraceptive so that she does not have to refrain from sexual relations?

Morally, if it is the case that she must take a contraceptive pill to treat a medical disorder (that is a medical judgment, perhaps there are alternative treatments), she can refrain from sexual relations and take the pill. But if she takes the pill AND chooses to engage in contracepted sexual relations – especially when the result can also be the abortion of a conceived child – she sins seriously by choosing abortion and contraception. She is not choosing a medical treatment with an unintended side effect, as some persons claim, because she is able to refrain from sexual relations and still receive the treatment. She is choosing to engage in sexual relations that is contraceptive and possibly may result in abortion.

The numerous claims in posts above that the Church permits the use of an abortifacient contraceptive are false and unsupportable. I note that those posts ignore all of the magisterial documents that I cited. They appeal instead to news media claims that the Pope approved of condoms in some cases. He did not approve of condoms to prevent disease transmission, and he would not approve of abortifacient contraceptives in order to treat a medical condition.

Intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion and contraception, are always immoral.

A good intention does not justify any intrinsically evil act, especially not the form of murder called abortion.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks Ron. You can argue it better and also referencing the Church’s documents. Actually it is such cut and dry, there is not much to argue and there is no confusion about it. The principle of unitive and procreative in sex in marriage is clear; the principle of killing is clear and the Church definition of life is clear.

No doubt humanly speaking some of these teachings are difficult to swallow but then again truth is often difficult to accept because we are merely human and often times we want to justify what we do.

Since long ago I have believed succinctly that if any act needs justification one can be sure it is a sin.

 

[Bluegoat]

Thanks Ron. You can argue it better and also referencing the Church’s documents. Actually it is such cut and dry, there is not much to argue and there is no confusion about it. The principle of unitive and procreative in sex in marriage is clear; the principle of killing is clear and the Church definition of life is clear.

No doubt humanly speaking some of these teachings are difficult to swallow but then again truth is often difficult to accept because we are merely human and often times we want to justify what we do.

Since long ago I have believed succinctly that if any act needs justification one can be sure it is a sin.

You’d better write the CAF apologists and tell them they are misleading a lot of people I guess - this is a common question they get.

 

[Ron_Conte]

You’d better write the CAF apologists and tell them they are misleading a lot of people I guess - this is a common question they get.

The CAF apologists do not claim to be infallible, nor do they claim to exercise the Magisterium. And even the Pope can have erroneous personal opinions.

The use of contraception is intrinsically evil.
Every intrinsically evil act is always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

Therefore, a sexually-active woman cannot justify the use of contraception based on a good intention (the intention to treat a medical disorder). Nor can she justify it based on the bad consequence that she woulld have to refrain from marital relations.

 

[Debora123]

The CAF apologists do not claim to be infallible, nor do they claim to exercise the Magisterium.

Do YOU? What makes you think you know more than multiple apologists? What they said wasn’t their “opinion.” It’s Church teaching.

 

[paperwight66]

Every intrinsically evil act is always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.
QUOTE]

Well…

Every time I see this claimed I ponder on the immunisation of babies.

A helpless baby, an adult sticking a sharp needle into the baby’s arm. Yes, if that is done out of sadism, it would be intrinsically evil.

But make the needle the means of injecting a potentially life-saving vaccine, it becomes good. Or if you are against ‘interfering with nature’ by immunising a child, make it the means of giving anti-biotics or an anaesthetic. Whatever, it’s still piercing a helpless baby with a needle.

But the act is no longer intrinsically evil, because the intention is to save the baby’s life or prevent pain and illness.

It seems irrefutable to me that circumstances and intent DO alter an act.

 

[Adam1986]

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?

Well first off I will state that I am not against contraceptives at all. But according to the Church, it’s totally fine for you to be on them because you need them for a medical reason.

If you don’t mind me asking; what are your reasons for being against them? It’s really the horrible IUDs that cause MOST of the health problems in women taking hormonal contraceptives.

 

[faithfully]

Hi…

I have been in your situation. The contant bleeding. There IS a cause for this. For me it was fybroids. Your body treats them as a foriegn objects and puts a lot of efort towards throwing them off.

They fybroids can also act as a “natural” IUD. In that something is already stuck to your uterus. Your uterus has a hard time allowing a baby to attach.

I went years with drs. telling me this was “normal”… and prescribing BC. Which DID offer temporary relief from this drama.

Thank God for the internet. Dr.s are forced to do more rather than rely on their RX pad.

Fybroids removed, bleeding stopped, no unncessary fake hormones.

IF I were you, I might tell my dr. I’d be willing to go on BC after he/she does a complete investigation as to why the heck you are bleeding off the charts and they prove to you that you are some sort of enigma whose body doesn’t act human.

I recommend you stand your ground now. Because there potentially exists an even more sad component to your reality beyond worrying about being married later and having sex, and a family. And it could be that you have an issue that will interferre with your ability to HAVE a family and the search and treatment will be delayed all this time until you are married and actively trying and failing. You would not wait 10-15 years to treat a heart problem. Why wait until you really want your body to function properly to investigate why…

My 2cents…

 

[Reuben_J]

Good advice.

Today serious Catholics are more discerning in accepting medical treatment that may involve the question of their belief. There are many alternatives available too in the medical field in treating symptomatic sicknesses. We should try to exhaust those possibilities and choose the one that we are at peace with. In the last decade many new medical technologies have been developed that were not available some twenty years ago. We should not make an excuse through ignorance if possible.

The evil of contraceptive pills is not only that it is intrinsic but also the side effect that it has on the women. This side effect like breast and cervix cancer has been proven and many women who have used these pills suffer the consequence. Unnecessary corrective surgery need to be done as a result and the patients have to undergo life long hormone treatment therapy which in turn cause more side effects to them. The cycle is truly vicious.

 

[Reuben_J]

You’d better write the CAF apologists and tell them they are misleading a lot of people I guess - this is a common question they get.

I seem to miss this post.

Bluegoat, I have written a few posts regarding this subject. Please point to me where I err. I am opened to correction and discussion. It is no big deal and I will not be angry about it.

However, I am a Catholic and you are not. It does not mean that I am better than you in understanding Catholicism but I am serious about my religion. I am serious about sin and always try very hard not to transgress them. If I am in doubt whether it is a sin or not, I will not do it. No sacrifice is bigger than the consequence of committing sin. I hope you understand my position regarding my belief.

You are proven to be wrong regarding ectopic pregnancy. I don’t know what profession you are in but I can tell you that I have some background in the medical field. As I said, medically speaking ectopic pregnancy is not a pregnancy at all. It is an accident and nobody in their right mind considers it as a potential for life.

As for the Church’s teachings - have you really gone through them? Have you meditated on them? Have you ever gone to many retreats in order to understand them and their spirit? Have you invested in your time with people who know about them and learned from them? Is you ministry involves in knowing these Church’s teachings?

For your information, I do. I say this not because I want to show off what I know but probably it’s good for you to know my background before you make that statement that I misunderstand my Church’s teachings.

You see, Googling out those documents is not enough in order to have a deeper knowledge of what they mean especially Vatican documents which are not that simple to understand. Even if you are sure of their meaning you need to know the spirit in which they are written and also the mind of the Pope when he wrote them. There are quite a lot of factors involved in the understanding of those teachings.

And please do not try to pit me against the CAF and the apologists here whom I have the deepest respect. But as Ron said, none of us claim infallibility and besides some of the thought we have could be just personal. So please keep the context right and in place.

God bless you.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Every time I see this claimed I ponder on the immunisation of babies.

A helpless baby, an adult sticking a sharp needle into the baby’s arm. Yes, if that is done out of sadism, it would be intrinsically evil.

But make the needle the means of injecting a potentially life-saving vaccine, it becomes good. Or if you are against ‘interfering with nature’ by immunising a child, make it the means of giving anti-biotics or an anaesthetic. Whatever, it’s still piercing a helpless baby with a needle.

But the act is no longer intrinsically evil, because the intention is to save the baby’s life or prevent pain and illness.

It seems irrefutable to me that circumstances and intent DO alter an act.

There are three fonts of morality: (1) intention, (2) moral object, (3) circumstances.
In order to be moral, each and every knowingly chosen act must have three good fonts.
If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is immoral.
Every act with an evil moral object is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

A sadistic intention (first font) does not make an act intrinsically evil; it makes an act sinful, but does not affect the moral object.

The Magisterium definitively teaches that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention and circumstances.

Veritatis Splendor, n. 81:
"81. 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?”.

“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.”

The Catechism:

“1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the **intention **that inspires them or the **circumstances **(environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”