Pastoral Privilege, and Contraception

[steph222]

Or perhaps the woman totally misunderstood what he said. One hears “with a different ear” when strong need is felt.

Sadly, I agree. Or maybe I just want to hope that the priest didn’t actually give them his “pastoral privilege” to do something intrinsically evil.

 

[New_Yorker]

I don’t want to get nit picky, nor am I trying to start a debate regarding contraception as there has already been one on here with regards to what I am about to say and Fr. Serpa has even given his say with regards to what I will say -

Perhaps your friends friend - the femal has a partifcular medical condition (not unlike one that afflicts myself)- and has been on a form of the pill prior to marriage. If so and if due to medical reasoning which is serious enough there are (while rare) medical circumstances where the pill can be used - for instance if your friends friend has a situation with regards to bleeding which on the pill will help then because it is firstly being taken not to prevent pregnancy can be allowed - this is allowed due to the practice of double effect. Even with regards to what some believe to be true with certain types of the pill being possible abortifacients (which I have yet to see a medical study which has shown this 100 %positively correct) - it is still allowed. Again, not trying to get a debate going on this because I know even with Fr. Serpa ringing in, there are still some out there that don’t believe it to be true, but I thought I could give a possibility where a Priest could possibly o.k. the use of using a form of contraception.

A woman can use the birth control pill for medical reasons. Simply ingesting the pill is not sinful. It is not “contraception” (contra conception) unless and until the woman engages in sexual intercourse. So, yes, she can be prescribed the pill. No, she cannot have sexual intercourse while on the pill. If she has sexual intercourse while on the pill she is frustrating the Natural Law, engaging in act that is intrinsically evil, and possibly causing abortion.

 

[New_Yorker]

Read this thread, starting at the third page:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=225943

 

[Seatuck]

A woman can use the birth control pill for medical reasons. Simply ingesting the pill is not sinful. It is not “contraception” (contra conception) unless and until the woman engages in sexual intercourse. So, yes, she can be prescribed the pill. No, she cannot have sexual intercourse while on the pill. If she has sexual intercourse while on the pill she is frustrating the Natural Law, engaging in act that is intrinsically evil, and possibly causing abortion.

No, the church allows a married woman who must take a medical treatment that causes contraception as a secondary effect to engage in marital relations. The intent is what is important in this case.

 

[LilyM]

I think the temporary nature of the situation may have compelled the priest to:

1. give absolution;
2. reassure the penitent that as long as those circumstances prevail, the conditions for mortal sin won’t exist, so you don’t need to confess every single week about this.

I haven’t a clue what those circumstances are. It could very well be that the priest was off in left field. Who knows, we’re hearing the story third hand.

Take a drug addict or alcoholic. They can’t possibly mortally sin on their “habit” because they can’t be in full consent due to the addiction. Therefore the priest can probably say with some assurance, that as an addict, even in the future, they aren’t mortally sinning if they take drugs. Especially since there’s no real “cure” for addiction, just avoidance.

That isn’t quite the same thing as “giving permission”. It is saying that it is still a sin, you should do your best to avoid it, and you can still confess it if it helps you with your recovery.

Of course I’m wary because we’re hearing a “friend of a friend” sort of story, and they tend to get distorted with each telling.

I’d bet good money though that the priest effectively said that the person was not in a state of mortal sin because those temporary conditions preclude full consent.

Not quite the same as “giving permission”.

And just what circumstances would exist that would even temporarily make artificial contraception OK? There’s no question, it seems, of any of the usual factors that eliminate full consent. No addiction. No necessity, since complete or partial abstinence is available as an alternative. No outside duress - no-one literally or figuratively holding a gun to either partner’s head to force them to contracept or to not practice abstinence.

 

[OraLabora]

And just what circumstances would exist that would even temporarily make artificial contraception OK? There’s no question, it seems, of any of the usual factors that eliminate full consent. No addiction. No necessity, since complete or partial abstinence is available as an alternative. No outside duress - no-one literally or figuratively holding a gun to either partner’s head to force them to contracept or to not practice abstinence.

And you know all of this how? You were in the confessional with them?

Surely it’s not really any of our business and is between them and their priest.

That said, others have pointed out possible medical reasons for taking the pill. It is commonly used as a treatment for some gynecological conditions.

 

[LilyM]

And you know all of this how? You were in the confessional with them?

Surely it’s not really any of our business and is between them and their priest.

That said, others have pointed out possible medical reasons for taking the pill. It is commonly used as a treatment for some gynecological conditions.

The OP specifically stated that the ‘circumstances’ were not health-related, which eliminates treatment of gynaecological or other health conditions. I wasn’t looking at generalities, rather at the circumstances described in the OP.

Taking the pill for legitimate medical reasons doesn’t require ‘pastoral dispensation’ in any event, as no potential breach of Canon Law exists to be dispensed from.

Apart from such medical reasons, abstinence is almost always available, meaning ABC is rarely an option. And in cases where abstinence isn’t an option (say where one partner isn’t Catholic and wants to continue sexual relations and practice contraception regardless of their Catholic spouse’s concerns) then there is also no sin or breach of Canon Law on the part of the Catholic partner.

And again, certainly no need for ‘pastoral dispensation’ for marital relations to occur. So the use of the term ‘pastoral dispensation’ is quite revealing in this case. And given that the OP’s friend was in this case quite willing to discuss intimate details of their confession, it’s a bit late to be insisting that the contents of their confession be kept between them and their priest, no?

 

[OraLabora]

And given that the OP’s friend was in this case quite willing to discuss intimate details of their confession, it’s a bit late to be insisting that the contents of their confession be kept between them and their priest, no?

OK you bring up some valid points.

As for this one, it always baffles me that that people are so willing to expose their intimate details to others… and worse, have them plastered (even anonymously) on an Internet forum. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Going back to the OP, we can only guess. You alluded to a non-Catholic partner that insists on contraception, but it could very well be a disobedient Catholic partner as well. Not all family situations are rosy.

Bottom line we only have hearsay evidence of a story told third-hand so any of this is speculative and may be very far from the mark.

 

[New_Yorker]

No, the church allows a married woman who must take a medical treatment that causes contraception as a secondary effect to engage in marital relations. The intent is what is important in this case.

Sometimes intent is important. Sometime’s it’s not. Certain acts are bad in and of themselves and “intent” does not make them any less sinful. My intent does not matter if I am committing an act of adultery, rape, prostitution, thievery, etc. These are bad in and of themselves, as is abortion. Hence the term, “intrinsically evil.” There is no “good” in these acts. And a good intent cannot render an intrinsically evil act morally permissible because these acts offend God.

Note the following from Humanae Vitae: “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

This is why contraception is always wrong and “each and every conjugal act” must be free of contraception - it separates the unitive from the procreative function. God established that connection and mankind cannot separate it. When you have contracepted sex - sex that makes procreation impossible because of an artificial means - that is sinful, in and of itself, b/c you are separating the unitive meaning from the procreative meaning. This is not permissible according to HV and the Catechism, to name a few basic documents. In addition, the pill can be abortofacient. Abortion is murder, which is also intrinsically evil, regardless of one’s “intent” to have sexual relations. This is especially true when this risk can be avoided very simply - by abstaining.

Why would a woman be on the birth control pill for an extended period of time? If you’re in that situation, consult an NFP only physician immediately. All the NFP physicians I know state that there can be some exceptional SHORT TERM circumstances for which the pill may be a treatment. Under those conditions, you must abstain - abstain as long as you are on the pill.

 

[Jermosh]

Dear brother Jermosh,

That is quite discerning of you. Does anyone know if the priest spoken of is from one of the Eastern Catholic Churches? I myself have doubts that an Eastern Catholic priest would be advising a couple that contraception was OK.

But for my Latin brethren here who may not know, there is a concept called oikonomia (or economy) in the Eastern and Oriental Churches. It is a pastoral prerogative wherein the temporal punishment due to sin is lessened or removed. Now, it is possible that a priest could do this for pastoral reasons, while exhorting and reminding the couple that contracepting is a sin. This faculty is normally granted only by a bishop to a priest. And the circumstances must be serious enough to warrant such a pastoral leniency.

Maybe that is what occured, not that the priest told the couple that is was OK to contracept. However, from the OP, it does not seem as though the circumstances warrant the use of oikonomia.

Blessings,
Marduk

When I went through RCIA they had a Romanian Orthodox priest speak of this after someone brought it up. He basically described something like you mentioned and only on rare cases. He was also a religous I believe and taught at a local College.

As for the OP? Stories tend to lose and gain points, which is why I find seeking morality of a certain and particular situation hard on an internet site, go see a priest.

 

[Seatuck]

Sometimes intent is important. Sometime’s it’s not. Certain acts are bad in and of themselves and “intent” does not make them any less sinful. My intent does not matter if I am committing an act of adultery, rape, prostitution, thievery, etc. These are bad in and of themselves, as is abortion. Hence the term, “intrinsically evil.” There is no “good” in these acts. And a good intent cannot render an intrinsically evil act morally permissible because these acts offend God.

Note the following from Humanae Vitae: “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

This is why contraception is always wrong and “each and every conjugal act” must be free of contraception - it separates the unitive from the procreative function. God established that connection and mankind cannot separate it. When you have contracepted sex - sex that makes procreation impossible because of an artificial means - that is sinful, in and of itself, b/c you are separating the unitive meaning from the procreative meaning. This is not permissible according to HV and the Catechism, to name a few basic documents. In addition, the pill can be abortofacient. Abortion is murder, which is also intrinsically evil, regardless of one’s “intent” to have sexual relations. This is especially true when this risk can be avoided very simply - by abstaining.

Why would a woman be on the birth control pill for an extended period of time? If you’re in that situation, consult an NFP only physician immediately. All the NFP physicians I know state that there can be some exceptional SHORT TERM circumstances for which the pill may be a treatment. Under those conditions, you must abstain - abstain as long as you are on the pill.

I have heard multiple times on Catholic Answers and elsewhere that the couple is not bound to be abstinent because of the contraceptive effects of taking a hormonal drug. The majority of moral theologians in the church allow it. You stance is not an absolute teaching of the church in fact it is a minority one.

I emailed a priest from the National Catholic Bioethics Center and received this response:

Re: Consult Insofar as the pill is medically indicated for treatment of a specific and serious ailment, the unintended loss of fertility is not a problem from the moral angle, because this represents an instance of the application of the principle of double effect, assuming that all the requirements of the principle are met. If there were to be an effect on rates of miscarriage (and there is considerable controversy and doubt regarding whether the pill has that effect), it would still be permissible to take the pill under such circumstances, in virtue of the same principle, again assuming the conditions for its application were validly met. The activity of shared marital intimacy would not be causing the miscarriages (if they, in fact, occurred), because the kind of action that marital intercourse represents is not a miscarrying kind of act, but rather a kind of act that engenders new life. Whether that life, after having been engendered, is enabled to implant or not does not depend on the decision to engage in the sexual act itself, but may depend on another act, namely, the taking of the contraceptive pill. The taking of the contraceptive pill will not be licit for contaceptive purposes, but may be licit for the abovementioned therapeutic purposes, and the couple would be free to participate in conjugal relations in that properly therapeutic scenario. I hope this is helpful.

Feel free to email them or call up your diocese to get further information .

 

[Seatuck]

Here’s the website for NCBC

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183

 

[fix]

Sometimes intent is important. Sometime’s it’s not. Certain acts are bad in and of themselves and “intent” does not make them any less sinful. My intent does not matter if I am committing an act of adultery, rape, prostitution, thievery, etc. These are bad in and of themselves, as is abortion. Hence the term, “intrinsically evil.” There is no “good” in these acts. And a good intent cannot render an intrinsically evil act morally permissible because these acts offend God.

Note the following from Humanae Vitae: “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

This is why contraception is always wrong and “each and every conjugal act” must be free of contraception - it separates the unitive from the procreative function. God established that connection and mankind cannot separate it. When you have contracepted sex - sex that makes procreation impossible because of an artificial means - that is sinful, in and of itself, b/c you are separating the unitive meaning from the procreative meaning. This is not permissible according to HV and the Catechism, to name a few basic documents. In addition, the pill can be abortofacient. Abortion is murder, which is also intrinsically evil, regardless of one’s “intent” to have sexual relations. This is especially true when this risk can be avoided very simply - by abstaining.

Why would a woman be on the birth control pill for an extended period of time? If you’re in that situation, consult an NFP only physician immediately. All the NFP physicians I know state that there can be some exceptional SHORT TERM circumstances for which the pill may be a treatment. Under those conditions, you must abstain - abstain as long as you are on the pill.

The act of contraception is intrinsically evil, but he act of treating a medical condition with an unwilled side effect is not intrinsically evil.

In fact, HV specifically says:

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)

 

[New_Yorker]

HV also says: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

EVERY… ACT

The unwilled side effect is an effect on a woman’s ability to procreate. Having sexual relations when one is temporarily contracepted, for medical reasons, is wrong, for the reasons above stated.

The sentence you are quoting has to do with MEDICAL TREATMENT, not with sexual relations. Treatment that causes sterility is still permissible, but intrinsically evil acts are not. Sexual relations are a voluntarily willed act.

Where does HV state that a woman who is undergoing medical contraception CAN engage in sexual relations? In fact, if you look at the quote above, it says the exact opposite.

And since when does a majority vote determine morality? If that were the test, then Seatuck, and the Church, would have submitted to Arianism a long time ago.

 

[OraLabora]

HV also says: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

EVERY… ACT

That would mean that sex during pregnancy, lactation, after menopause, after a hysterectomy, would be immoral.

That isn’t the case.

 

[LilyM]

That would mean that sex during pregnancy, lactation, after menopause, after a hysterectomy, would be immoral.

That isn’t the case.

Or indeed any other condition or illness that you know will temporarily or permanently affect your fertility.

 

[fix]

HV also says: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

EVERY… ACT

You have to reconcile both statements. Engaging in the marital act, while treating a medical condition, does not change the relationship because the temporary effect is not willed.

There would be no reason for the document to mention licit medical reasons if it intended people to not engage in the act.

The unwilled side effect is an effect on a woman’s ability to procreate. Having sexual relations when one is temporarily contracepted, for medical reasons, is wrong, for the reasons above stated.

That is not what the document says.

The sentence you are quoting has to do with MEDICAL TREATMENT, not with sexual relations. Treatment that causes sterility is still permissible, but intrinsically evil acts are not. Sexual relations are a voluntarily willed act.

Double effect says it is licit.

Where does HV state that a woman who is undergoing medical contraception CAN engage in sexual relations? In fact, if you look at the quote above, it says the exact opposite.

It says no such thing. By your logic a woman treated for uterine cancer, who is permanently sterile, could never engage in relations again.

And since when does a majority vote determine morality? If that were the test, then Seatuck, and the Church, would have submitted to Arianism a long time ago.

Majority does not. The magisterium has not said what you claim.

 

[OraLabora]

Majority does not. The magisterium has not said what you claim.

I agree. If the Church had specifically wanted to prohibit marital relations due to medically-necessary sterility, she would have said so specifically through the magisterium. That she has not chosen to do so, means that what is written can be taken at face value. There could be no advantage in deliberately confusing folks on this matter, to do so would be diabolical and neither the Church, nor the magisterium on matters of faith and morals, are diabolical.

In fact if the Church had deliberately chosen to be vague on this, it would snare people into sin, and it would mean that the Church was acting as the agent of Satan, and therefore the promise of the Keys was wrong making either the Bible, or the Catholic interpretation of the Bible, in error. This clearly cannot be the case.

So it is therefore necessary, when reading HV, to take what was said at face value. Paul VI said what he meant. If he had meant that we should not engage in relations when sterility is imposed for medical reasons, by whatever therapeutic means be they hormones or surgery, he would have specifically spelled it out as we aren’t all theologians capable of reading between the lines.

 

[fix]

I agree. If the Church had specifically wanted to prohibit marital relations due to medically-necessary sterility, she would have said so specifically through the magisterium. That she has not chosen to do so, means that what is written can be taken at face value. There could be no advantage in deliberately confusing folks on this matter, to do so would be diabolical and neither the Church, nor the magisterium on matters of faith and morals, are diabolical.

In fact if the Church had deliberately chosen to be vague on this, it would snare people into sin, and it would mean that the Church was acting as the agent of Satan, and therefore the promise of the Keys was wrong making either the Bible, or the Catholic interpretation of the Bible, in error. This clearly cannot be the case.

So it is therefore necessary, when reading HV, to take what was said at face value. Paul VI said what he meant. If he had meant that we should not engage in relations when sterility is imposed for medical reasons, by whatever therapeutic means be they hormones or surgery, he would have specifically spelled it out as we aren’t all theologians capable of reading between the lines.

I agree, the Church would never lead us into sin.

There is another document on this issue:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION”
AND RELATED MATTERS

It points out the differences between direct and indirect sterilizations. To directly will we want to suppress fertility is always wrong. But, to indirectly suppress it due to treating a legitimate medical condition is not morally equal desiring it being supressed.

That is why HV says: “provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever”

Now, can anyone show that She has taught that if it is indirectly suppressed one must never engage in the marital act again?

 

[PaulinVA]

HV also says: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

EVERY… ACT

What is the intrinsic relationship to procreation of human life?

Well, isn’t this the tab A in slot B relationship? All acts must ultimately be ordered towards the procreation of human life. Most of the time, a new human is not created, whether through the fact that there is no conception but the parts are all there, or because there is no egg released, or because of a variety of other fertility problems.