Oral Contraceptive Question

[Ron_Conte]

But according to the Church, it’s totally fine for you to be on them because you need them for a medical reason.

Not true.

The Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

A ‘medical reason’ or ‘medical purpose’ is a type of intention. When the intended end of taking a contraceptive is to treat a medical disorder, the intention is good. But a good intention cannot justify an act that is intrinsically evil. Choosing to have contracepted sexual relations is intrinsically evil.

There are three fonts of morality: (1) intention, (2) moral object, (3) circumstances.

A good intention cannot justify an act with an evil moral object, such as contraception.

 

[quotidianum]

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.

Bluegoat, you clearly don’t realize it, but you are one of those very people pushing the idea that we have a “right” to sex: you are refusing to even acknowledge that “the pill” is abortifacient, and thus is causing murder, it absolutely overwhelms any “right to sex” a woman might have. You are posting information in this board for this young person to see that basically says, “Yeah, you can use abortifacients, because the Church says its okay to kill an unborn only if you don’t really mean to, even though you can stop it, of course, by just not having sex, and you’re only doing it because sex is ‘important’ and 'God will understand.”" Your words, and perhaps you don’t even realize it, embody the relativism against which you claim to speak.

Again, nowhere in HV, and nowhere else in Catholic teaching has it ever been “okay” to use abortifacients while engaging in sex. PERIOD. You can post all the links to all the priests and apologists you’d like. You are perpetuating this! I’m not trying to call you out, but I must charitably inform of how un-Catholic and illogical you comments are. If a women absolutely must take “the pill” for some health reason, then she is called to abstain, lest she KILL her own baby. This is not that difficult for an honest person to see.

The idea since Vatican Council II that has been wrongly pushed, even from pulpits and apologists, is the idea that the secondary and tertiary roles of sex in marriage (that is, for martial union and for mutual pleasure), are somehow equal to the primary role (procreation). They are not. You cannot willingly and knowingly separate the procreative role of sex from sex without falling into grave sin that is a total affront to God. This discussion is a perfect example: “I want to have sex, but I have to take ‘the pill,’ which** I know is an abortifacient and will KILL my own baby**, but darn it, I want sex, so I’m going to have at it.” That is about as un-Catholic and anit-God’s Will as it gets. And it is a grave, mortal sin that separates us from God and hurts Him.

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post: HV only makes an extraordinary exception for the use of contraceptive means that prevent conception, not abortifacients which kill people, for “therapeutic purposes.” There could not be a bigger difference: one prevents conception, one KILLS God’s creatures. How can you even claim to be Catholic if you honestly think the Catholic Church is giving you carte-blanche to kill your own baby simply to satisfy your sexual urges? That is insane!

Get outta here! And again, as I mentioned in another post, ‘the pill’ has only even been around for a few decades, and women have been doing quite fine for the last several thousand years without it. If is absolutely unnecessary, and if a woman it taking it for some health reason because there is absolutely no alternative and she absolutely must, then she can abstain from sex. How can any woman even enjoy sex with the thought on her ming, all the while she’s making love to her husband, that if they conceive a child, she knows her body is going to kill it because she knows she’s taking an abortifacient and voluntarily having sex. I could never–never!—enjoy such an act for even an instant. It is outrageous.

There is no other word for it–outrageous. Such a thought is totally un-Catholic, and a grave mortal sin. Even without Catholicism, it is illogical and counterintuitive for a person who claims to believe in personhood from conception to say, “Oh well…let’s do this anyway, what happens happens!” Ladies, if you are in the situation, abstain. Your reward in Heaven will be great for placing God’s Will above your own desires. And husbands, support your wives, so you can be saints in Heaven together. Remember the words of Our Lady: “Be it done unto me according to Thy Word,” not “my word.”

 

[casey_zia]

Two points:

Originally, oral contraceptives were known for their ability to prevent ovulation. Because there were so many side effects from these powerful drugs, the levels of estrogen and progesterone have dropped over the years, so that oral contraceptives now work by either preventing ovulation, or by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg (this is the abortifacient part). Perhaps at one time OCPs could be counted on to prevent ovulation, but in these modern days, we must be aware of the “back up” plan, that of aborting new life, should ovulation and conception take place.

When I recently went to my OB/GYN for some bleeding issues, she said to me, “Well, since you won’t take the pill, I guess we’ll have to find out what’s wrong with you!” I’m afraid that prescribing the Pill is the easiest way of “treating” these gyne issues, but you need to look further and deeper for some answers. Please, OP, find some physician who will find out why you are bleeding so heavily, and deal with it, treating the disease rather than the symptoms. Both the Billings Ovulation Method doctors and Creighton doctors have moral means of treating your illness. Any NFP-only doctor should be able to point you in the right direction. God bless, and I’ll be praying for you!

 

[Reuben_J]

Bluegoat, you clearly don’t realize it, but you are one of those very people pushing the idea that we have a “right” to sex: you are refusing to even acknowledge that “the pill” is abortifacient, and thus is causing murder, it absolutely overwhelms any “right to sex” a woman might have. You are posting information in this board for this young person to see that basically says, “Yeah, you can use abortifacients, because the Church says its okay to kill an unborn only if you don’t really mean to, even though you can stop it, of course, by just not having sex, and you’re only doing it because sex is ‘important’ and 'God will understand.”" Your words, and perhaps you don’t even realize it, embody the relativism against which you claim to speak.

Again, nowhere in HV, and nowhere else in Catholic teaching has it ever been “okay” to use abortifacients while engaging in sex. PERIOD. You can post all the links to all the priests and apologists you’d like. You are perpetuating this! I’m not trying to call you out, but I must charitably inform of how un-Catholic and illogical you comments are. If a women absolutely must take “the pill” for some health reason, then she is called to abstain, lest she KILL her own baby. This is not that difficult for an honest person to see.

The idea since Vatican Council II that has been wrongly pushed, even from pulpits and apologists, is the idea that the secondary and tertiary roles of sex in marriage (that is, for martial union and for mutual pleasure), are somehow equal to the primary role (procreation). They are not. You cannot willingly and knowingly separate the procreative role of sex from sex without falling into grave sin that is a total affront to God. This discussion is a perfect example: “I want to have sex, but I have to take ‘the pill,’ which** I know is an abortifacient and will KILL my own baby**, but darn it, I want sex, so I’m going to have at it.” That is about as un-Catholic and anit-God’s Will as it gets. And it is a grave, mortal sin that separates us from God and hurts Him.

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post: HV only makes an extraordinary exception for the use of contraceptive means that prevent conception, not abortifacients which kill people, for “therapeutic purposes.” There could not be a bigger difference: one prevents conception, one KILLS God’s creatures. ** How can you even claim to be Catholic if you honestly think the Catholic Church is giving you carte-blanche to kill your own baby simply to satisfy your sexual urges? That is insane! **

Get outta here! And again, as I mentioned in another post, ‘the pill’ has only even been around for a few decades, and women have been doing quite fine for the last several thousand years without it. If is absolutely unnecessary, and if a woman it taking it for some health reason because there is absolutely no alternative and she absolutely must, then she can abstain from sex. How can any woman even enjoy sex with the thought on her ming, all the while she’s making love to her husband, that if they conceive a child, she knows her body is going to kill it because she knows she’s taking an abortifacient and voluntarily having sex. I could never–never!—enjoy such an act for even an instant. It is outrageous.

There is no other word for it–outrageous. Such a thought is totally un-Catholic, and a grave mortal sin. Even without Catholicism, it is illogical and counterintuitive for a person who claims to believe in personhood from conception to say, “Oh well…let’s do this anyway, what happens happens!” Ladies, if you are in the situation, abstain. Your reward in Heaven will be great for placing God’s Will above your own desires. And husbands, support your wives, so you can be saints in Heaven together. Remember the words of Our Lady: “Be it done unto me according to Thy Word,” not “my word.”

Bluegoat is not a Catholic; he/she is an Anglican (Anglican Catholic). She posted what she believes what she think the Catholic Church teaches. I think it is not ehtical at all especially when she participates in giving advice to a Catholic about a very important matter in her life by giving an Anglican point of view and trying to interpret Catholic Church teaching, in this case, contraversially.

I know that she is free to argue and to disagree but giving advice in an apologetic forum about something which she is not even a member of that Church is quite dangerous, I think. I don’t know whether there is any Forum rule to address this.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, you clearly don’t realize it, but you are one of those very people pushing the idea that we have a “right” to sex: you are refusing to even acknowledge that “the pill” is abortifacient, and thus is causing murder, it absolutely overwhelms any “right to sex” a woman might have. You are posting information in this board for this young person to see that basically says, “Yeah, you can use abortifacients, because the Church says its okay to kill an unborn only if you don’t really mean to, even though you can stop it, of course, by just not having sex, and you’re only doing it because sex is ‘important’ and 'God will understand.”" Your words, and perhaps you don’t even realize it, embody the relativism against which you claim to speak.

Again, nowhere in HV, and nowhere else in Catholic teaching has it ever been “okay” to use abortifacients while engaging in sex. PERIOD. You can post all the links to all the priests and apologists you’d like. You are perpetuating this! I’m not trying to call you out, but I must charitably inform of how un-Catholic and illogical you comments are. If a women absolutely must take “the pill” for some health reason, then she is called to abstain, lest she KILL her own baby. This is not that difficult for an honest person to see.

The idea since Vatican Council II that has been wrongly pushed, even from pulpits and apologists, is the idea that the secondary and tertiary roles of sex in marriage (that is, for martial union and for mutual pleasure), are somehow equal to the primary role (procreation). They are not. You cannot willingly and knowingly separate the procreative role of sex from sex without falling into grave sin that is a total affront to God. This discussion is a perfect example: “I want to have sex, but I have to take ‘the pill,’ which** I know is an abortifacient and will KILL my own baby**, but darn it, I want sex, so I’m going to have at it.” That is about as un-Catholic and anit-God’s Will as it gets. And it is a grave, mortal sin that separates us from God and hurts Him.

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post: HV only makes an extraordinary exception for the use of contraceptive means that prevent conception, not abortifacients which kill people, for “therapeutic purposes.” There could not be a bigger difference: one prevents conception, one KILLS God’s creatures. How can you even claim to be Catholic if you honestly think the Catholic Church is giving you carte-blanche to kill your own baby simply to satisfy your sexual urges? That is insane!

Get outta here! And again, as I mentioned in another post, ‘the pill’ has only even been around for a few decades, and women have been doing quite fine for the last several thousand years without it. If is absolutely unnecessary, and if a woman it taking it for some health reason because there is absolutely no alternative and she absolutely must, then she can abstain from sex. How can any woman even enjoy sex with the thought on her ming, all the while she’s making love to her husband, that if they conceive a child, she knows her body is going to kill it because she knows she’s taking an abortifacient and voluntarily having sex. I could never–never!—enjoy such an act for even an instant. It is outrageous.

There is no other word for it–outrageous. Such a thought is totally un-Catholic, and a grave mortal sin. Even without Catholicism, it is illogical and counterintuitive for a person who claims to believe in personhood from conception to say, “Oh well…let’s do this anyway, what happens happens!” Ladies, if you are in the situation, abstain. Your reward in Heaven will be great for placing God’s Will above your own desires. And husbands, support your wives, so you can be saints in Heaven together. Remember the words of Our Lady: “Be it done unto me according to Thy Word,” not “my word.”

I have been very clear about how the pill works in the information I have posted. I have also refrained from giving my own opinion on the question the OP asked, and instead gave the answer I have heard given by every authoritative Catholic source I have heard on this question. As far as I know, in Catholicism personal readings of Church documents don’t trump authoritative ones, any more than personal readings of the Bible do. I linked to several of the apologist answers given on this website, and I will point out that they do not give their personal opinions either, but try to give the most acceptable authoritative Catholic answer - and when there are differences of opinion, they state it.

It seems to me that your problem isn’t with me, but with the Catholic Church. Perhaps you should direct you anger and disdain in that direction.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have been very clear about how the pill works in the information I have posted. I have also refrained from giving my own opinion on the question the OP asked, and instead gave the answer I have heard given by every authoritative Catholic source I have heard on this question. As far as I know, in Catholicism personal readings of Church documents don’t trump authoritative ones, any more than personal readings of the Bible do. I linked to several of the apologist answers given on this website, and I will point out that they do not give their personal opinions either, but try to give the most acceptable authoritative Catholic answer - and when there are differences of opinion, they state it.

It seems to me that your problem isn’t with me, but with the Catholic Church. Perhaps you should direct you anger and disdain in that direction.

Bluegoat, are you Anglican, or are you an Anglican convert to Catholicism? One poster said you are Anglican-Catholic.

On the question of authoritative answers versus opinions, it is not possible for someone other than a Pope or Bishop (who are able to exercise the Magisterium) to give an answer that is authoritative. The answer is always at least one’s own opinion as to what the teaching authority of the Church teaches. However, a sound theological opinion can be so closely and thoroughly based on Church teaching that it is, or at least should be, obviously correct (sententia certa).

On the question of oral contraceptives for a medical reason, the Magisterium does teach that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances. This obviously implies that contraception is still immoral even when one’s intention is to treat a disease, even when the circumstances are that the woman has a particular medical condition.

In my theologial opinion, the answer that claims contraceptives may be morally used by a sexually active woman for a medical reason is directly contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium that contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore immoral regardless of the intention (purpose or intended end) and regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, are you Anglican, or are you an Anglican convert to Catholicism? One poster said you are Anglican-Catholic.

On the question of authoritative answers versus opinions, it is not possible for someone other than a Pope or Bishop (who are able to exercise the Magisterium) to give an answer that is authoritative. The answer is always at least one’s own opinion as to what the teaching authority of the Church teaches. However, a sound theological opinion can be so closely and thoroughly based on Church teaching that it is, or at least should be, obviously correct (sententia certa).

On the question of oral contraceptives for a medical reason, the Magisterium does teach that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances. This obviously implies that contraception is still immoral even when one’s intention is to treat a disease, even when the circumstances are that the woman has a particular medical condition.

In my theologial opinion, the answer that claims contraceptives may be morally used by a sexually active woman for a medical reason is directly contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium that contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore immoral regardless of the intention (purpose or intended end) and regardless of the circumstances.

I think the word you are looking for is Anglo-catholic. It is really irrelevant though, since many Catholic posters on CAF have pointed out the same problems with the way you present your opinion on this and with your faulty interpretation of these documents. Ad hominem arguments are a pretty poor refuge for poor thinking.

I am a bit shocked about the way that you and several other posters are presenting your own opinion as if it was the CC’s. The authoritative statements that I have heard from theologians, priests, and bishops have all said that taking the pill for medical reasons is acceptable, and one does not have to abstain - that is how they generally interpret these same documents you have been quoting. If you disagree, fine, give your view. But if you are being honest with the OP you should be making it clear that it is YOUR interpretation of the CC’s documents, and that it is a controversial opinion.

I have looked at your other posts on this issue, and you seem to continuously post these same statements, along with articles you have written, as if they are definitive CC teaching. This is despite many other people, Catholics, pointing out that it is not, and giving statements from Popes or Catholic organizations, and pointing out the problems in the logic of your interpretation.

You seem to have an agenda that is not honestly presenting what the CC says to those who come here asking questions. I am almost wondering if you belong to one of the break-away Catholic groups that do not recognize the Pope or the authority of Bishops and priests? If not, I am very curious about what your priest has said about you approach to this issue, and your Bishop.

 

[Debora123]

Bluegoat is not a Catholic; he/she is an Anglican (Anglican Catholic). She posted what she believes what she think the Catholic Church teaches. I think it is not ehtical at all especially when she participates in giving advice to a Catholic about a very important matter in her life by giving an Anglican point of view and trying to interpret Catholic Church teaching, in this case, contraversially.

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter WHAT religion he is. He wasn’t giving HIS opinion, neither was he giving the opinion of HIS religion. He was letting the OP know what the CATHOLIC Church’s view is on this, and he’s used direct statements from Catholic authoritative figures to answer the OP’s question. Maybe you should go back and read the links he’s posted on this thread. They come straight from the source, and they are not open to interpretation, they are direct statements made by multiple Catholic apologists on the specific issue of taking the pill for medical reasons while married. It’s not BlueGoat’s opinion, it’s Church teaching. Sorry if you disagree with that teaching, but that IS what the CC teaches on this specific matter. You don’t have to agree if you don’t want, but don’t hold others accountable for doing something that the Church says is ok, and don’t try to tell BlueGoat that his “opinion” isn’t worthy, considering it wasn’t even his opinion to begin with.

 

[spunjalebi]

Honestly if I hadn’t taken the pill I would have continued bleeding for months. That’s right months meaning plural. I stopped taking it after one course and now (so far) I am getting normalish periods again. I really didn’t like the side effects though.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sorry if you disagree with that teaching, but that IS what the CC teaches on this specific matter. You don’t have to agree if you don’t want, but don’t hold others accountable for doing something that the Church says is ok, and don’t try to tell BlueGoat that his “opinion” isn’t worthy, considering it wasn’t even his opinion to begin with.

You don’t know what you are talking about, I think. You are attacking your own shadow and a figment of your imagination. What is that I disagree? I ask Bulegoat to show me where I was wrong in my posts; she has not done that. It is very unChristian to put thing into another’s mouth and start attacking a person based on that. I am sorry to say this but you are getting emotional as in your earlier post. I say it again, relax. Clear your thought and stop making unnecessary objection for what is not there.

 

[Debora123]

You don’t know what you are talking about, I think. You are attacking your own shadow and a figment of your imagination. What is that I disagree? I ask Bulegoat to show me where I was wrong in my posts; she has not done that. It is very unChristian to put thing into another’s mouth and start attacking a person based on that. I am sorry to say this but you are getting emotional as in your earlier post. I say it again, relax. Clear your thought and stop making unnecessary objection for what is not there.

Attacking my own shadow? Huh? I’m not sure I know what YOU’RE talking about. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought you disagreed with the statement: A married woman who is required to use the pill for medical purposes is not required to abstain. Isn’t that what this thread is about??

Anyway, here are a couple of the sites where BlueGoat got his/her information from:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

 

[Reuben_J]

Attacking my own shadow? Huh? I’m not sure I know what YOU’RE talking about. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought you disagreed with the statement: A married woman who is required to use the pill for medical purposes is not required to abstain. Isn’t that what this thread is about??

Anyway, here are a couple of the sites where BlueGoat got his/her information from:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

Then you are generalizing without reading what I actually said. As usual neither you nor the other poster can point out to me where my mistake was. I think it is not prudent and will not lead to any useful discussion for you to make a comment and then pass a statement on what others are talking without knowing what they are talking about.

I will post again my position on this and please point out to me which part I am wrong. As I said I will not be angry; and I am opened to correction and discussion.

First let me state it again – I have no objection on whatsoever its use for treatment purpose.

Regarding the use of contraceptive pills, what is important is to know why it is not allowed and when it is allowed. The core of the matter is the sanctity of life and the definition of when a life is formed. There are a couple of encyclicals that can be used as references, notably Humane Vitae by JP II.

There are many types of birth control pills in the market and they act accordingly. They are generally called hormonal contraceptive.

For simplicity you can roughly put them into two categories:

(i) It stops the body from releasing an egg from the ovary
&
(ii) Changes the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg / or prevents pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

The first one prevents ovulation and the second does not – it stops pregnancy by aborting the embryo.

Many women who use the pills do not know what they do to their body. Now with the knowledge that’s available to us, some of us do know however.

When a gynecologist prescribes contraceptive pills to treat an irregular menstrual cycle I would want him to tell you:

**(1) “Debora123, I am going to treat you with these pills. They allow you to ovulate and fertilization to occur. What these pills do is to abort the embryo and it will be discharge just like your normal menstrual flow” **

OR

(2) “Deborah123, these pills I am going to prescribe to you will stop ovulation from happening in your body and you therefore will not be able to get pregnant during the period”.

A Catholic woman may either choose (1) or (2). I would suggest (2). However, should she chooses (1) for whatever reason, then she should be aware of the possibility of abortion happening in her body.

Personally, I would suggest that she refrains from sex if the choice is (1) during her fertile period which happen three or four days in a month. This is covered in NFP. It does not mean that the woman abstains for the rest of her life while she is on the pills.

Sin is when it is against our conscience and knows it is wrong but willfully commit it anyway.

CAF apologists in the links both of you provided, say “for therapeutic reasons, use of “the pill” is not immoral. … provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (HV 15). - Jim Blackburn

and,

“The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. … It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral” Fr. Vincent Serpa

Now if you knowingly know that you are ovulating and fertile but want to have sex nevertheless because of the stronger urge at that time, don’t you think you have an intended motive? **And knowing that the fertilized embryo will be aborted, surely what you did is NOT Unintended but INTENDED. Fr. Serpa capped the words for effect.**So take that on your conscience.

If after knowing all this, your conscience tells you it is not immoral, then, I say, by all means go ahead. I do not, however

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter WHAT religion he is. He wasn’t giving HIS opinion, neither was he giving the opinion of HIS religion. He was letting the OP know what the CATHOLIC Church’s view is on this, and he’s used direct statements from Catholic authoritative figures to answer the OP’s question.

To many people it does. To me it does matter. I would want a reasonably informed Catholic to tell me about my Catholic belief especially so in very important aspect of the faith. An Anglo Catholic may think from her Anglo Catholic mind, her opinion may be tinged with her prejudice and it may not be good for me as a Catholic to be advised especially by Anglo Catholics who believe that birth control is right or homosexuality is OK.

Please give me a Catholic adviser anytime!

 

[spunjalebi]

For what it’s worth, the hormonal contraceptive also reduces the amount of free testosterone in a woman’s body so she can ovulate. It also changes the way a woman’s hormones interact so she’s not always building up a lining in her uterus, and she can finally shed the lining instead of constantly building it up. At least that’s what the therapeutic purpose is for. I don’t think the pill should be something that a woman takes indefinitely but once it fulfills that purpose it should be discontinued.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think the word you are looking for is Anglo-catholic. It is really irrelevant though, since many Catholic posters on CAF have pointed out the same problems with the way you present your opinion on this and with your faulty interpretation of these documents. Ad hominem arguments are a pretty poor refuge for poor thinking.

So you are an Anglican, not a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism. It is not an ad hominem argument to ask to know the religion of someone who is presuming to teach Catholicism to Catholics.

I am a bit shocked about the way that you and several other posters are presenting your own opinion as if it was the CC’s. The authoritative statements that I have heard from theologians, priests, and bishops have all said that taking the pill for medical reasons is acceptable, and one does not have to abstain - that is how they generally interpret these same documents you have been quoting. If you disagree, fine, give your view. But if you are being honest with the OP you should be making it clear that it is YOUR interpretation of the CC’s documents, and that it is a controversial opinion.

I have cited numerous magisterial documents, mostly from Popes. There is very little by way of interpretation here. Contraception is intrinsically evil, and intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances. This is not my opinion, but the definitive teaching of the Magisterium. The Magisterium actually states that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.

What you present is not authoritative. I have not seen any quotes or citations from a Bishop by you, but only from a priest and an apologist – those are not authoritative or magisterial sources. So an assertion about a grave question of morality based on non-authoritative sources can only be an opinion. It is absurd for you to claim that, as an Anglican, you are presenting the teaching of the Magisterium, when you don’t believe in the Magisterium.

I have looked at your other posts on this issue, and you seem to continuously post these same statements, along with articles you have written, as if they are definitive CC teaching. This is despite many other people, Catholics, pointing out that it is not, and giving statements from Popes or Catholic organizations, and pointing out the problems in the logic of your interpretation.

I will next post a series of quotes from Popes and other magisterial documents to show that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are not justified by intention or circumstances.

You err repeatedly on this subject by equating the magisterial teaching of the Pope with the opinions of ‘Catholic organizations’ and of persons who cannot exercise the Magisterium. Your position inherently denies that the Church has a teaching authority that is binding on the faithful and that is able to teach infallibly.

The Roman Catholic Church is the one Ark of salvation, and the teaching of Her Pope and of Her Bishops is an exercise of the teaching authority of Christ. The Magisterium is able to teach infallibly, most often by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, and Her infallible teaching is binding on the consciences of the faithful.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Contraception is intrinsically evil:

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 for Confessors, n. 4)

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)

Pope Pius XII: “Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.” (Address to Midwives)

Pope Paul VI: “Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14)

Compendium of the Catechism: “What are immoral means of birth control? Every action – for example, direct sterilization or contraception – is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.” (Compendium, n. 498)

Cardinal Stafford: “the unitive and procreative meanings of marriage cannot be separated. Consequently, to deprive a conjugal act deliberately of its fertility is intrinsically wrong.” (Francis Cardinal Stafford, Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, speech to American Academy of Fertilitycare Professionals, 11 June 2008)

Pope John Paul II: “This is the reason for the intrinsic unlawfulness of contraception: it introduces a substantial limitation into this reciprocal giving, breaking that ‘inseparable connection’ between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive and the procreative, which, as Pope Paul VI pointed out, are written by God himself into the nature of the human being (n. 12).” (Speeches, 27 Feb. 1998)

Pope John Paul II: “With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: ‘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 (cf. Rom 3:8) - 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’.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

 

[Ron_Conte]

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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.” (CCC, n. 1756)

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.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

Pope John Paul II: “In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture…. 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?’.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

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.)

 

[Ron_Conte]

Can a woman who is sexually active use oral contraceptives, if her intention is to treat a medical disorder, or with any other good intention, or in any dire circumstances?

No. Contraception is intrinsically evil, and intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

USCCB Catechism: “Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.”

So a good subjective goal or intention, a good reason for doing the act, is not sufficient to make the act moral. Neither can intention and circumstances together make an act moral, if the objective act is intrinsically evil.

The intention is in the subject, the person who acts.
The moral object is in the objective act, chosen by the person.
Neither intention nor circumstances can change a moral object from evil to good.
When an act is inherently immoral, no reason, no purpose, no circumstance can justify that act.

 

[Bluegoat]

Ron - I ahve no problem with the documents you posted, because they agree with what I am saying. You have misunderstood them, and I have given at least one reasonable sourse to support my reading. You haven’t given any.

Do you understand the difference between using the term contraceptive as a verb, and using it as a noun? All of the documents you are quoting are using it in the former sense - contraception is the act of using artificial means to prevent pregnancy while having sex.

Contraception as a noun is a different story. Many things are contraceptive but are not used for the purpose of contracepting. Even some foods can have the effect of reducing fertility. A woman who has a hysterectomy to stop a life threatening hemorrhage is having a procedure that will prevent pregnancy - but she is not contracepting if she continues to have sex afterward.

There are many teachings of the Catholic Church that are connected here, and they would all be different if you were correct in your understanding. Women or men who were no fertile would not be able to have sex, pregnant women would not be able to have sex, and women would not be allowed to have sex when they know they are not fertile; surgery to remove the tube in ectopic pregnancy would not be allowed, and women with cancer or other disease could not have any treatment that could harm their unborn child. And yet the CC allows all of these things.

The logic is the same as with your example - any time a woman had sex in a state that rendered her infertile she would be contracepting, and any time a woman had a procedure that could harm an unborn child, even though that is not the intent, she would be guilty.

 

[spunjalebi]

Can a woman who is sexually active use oral contraceptives, if her intention is to treat a medical disorder, or with any other good intention, or in any dire circumstances?

No. Contraception is intrinsically evil, and intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

That’s not true. If you fast from sexual activity to abstain while taking it, there aren’t any problems. I had a thread about women’s issues and taking the oral contraceptive and the information I was given made no indication that taking it for medical treatment purposes solely was not wrong.

What did you suggest so I would stop bleeding to death?