Pastoral Privilege, and Contraception

[New_Yorker]

HV requires conjugal sex to be unitive and procreative. Procreative means capable of procreation. It must be interpreted in accord with the Natural Law, which requires one to use sexual organs in the natural manner, for procreation in general. Not every specific sexual act must be reproductive. Otherwise, NFP and sex after menopause would not be permitted. So, procreation has a meaning that is broader than reproduction (biological conception). While all reproductive sex is procreative, not all procreative sex is reproductive.

When a woman’s ovaries are legitimately removed, she is not capable of reproduction, but the conjugal act would still be “procreative,” because the sexual organs would be functioning consistent with the Natural Law and procreative sex. This is no different than a post-menopausal woman. Her body, due to the treatment, is incapable of biological reproduction, but she can still have procreative (and unitive) sexual relations with her husband. However, if her body were capable of reproduction, and that reproduction were thwarted temporarily, that would be different.

When a woman is on medication which renders a body that IS ACTUALLY reproductive (she can conceive) to be NOT reproductive, and this is not final (removal of organs), then that is contraception, regardless of motive, intent, or means. In this case, the woman’s reproductive capacity is temporarily masked. Since her reproduction is thwarted, she cannot have procreative sex because she has rendered a reproductive body incapable of reproduction, on a temporary basis. If the woman were post-menopause, and received the same treatment, sexual relations would be permissible because, although the sex cannot be reproductive, it still can be procreative if the sexual organs are used in accord with the Natural Law.

I believe that if you review the relevant sections of HV, the Natural Law, and the Catechism, the conclusion is that any medication which temporarily limits reproduction is contraceptive in effect, and that conjugal sex should not occur during this artificial, temporary rendering of sterility, even for a greater purpose. That’s the point of the language in HV - evil cannot be done for a greater good.

No one is saying that the woman should not receive the medical treatment - only that she must abstain during the treatment, if her body will still capable of reproduction after the treatment is ceased. This is the precise nature of most contraception - temporary sterilization and then, when the woman is “off the pill,” reproduction returns. The fact that the contraception is using temporary sterilization as a means to another good does not change its moral nature.

So, if reproduction is possible after the medical treatment ceases, then the treatment is contraceptive, and the woman should abstain.

 

[PaulinVA]

New Yorker, your profile says you are an NFP instructor.

You said, “In this case, the woman’s reproductive capacity is temporarily masked. Since her reproduction is thwarted, she cannot have procreative sex because she has rendered a reproductive body incapable of reproduction, on a temporary basis.”

Does this mean a woman who is practicing ecological breastfeeding and is basically masking her reproductive capacity is not allowed to have sex?

How about the woman athlete who, through strict training and diet, causes herself (not on purpose) to not ovulate and have periods? She will return to fertility when she stops her training regimen.

 

[fix]

HV requires conjugal sex to be unitive and procreative. Procreative means capable of procreation. It must be interpreted in accord with the Natural Law, which requires one to use sexual organs in the natural manner, for procreation in general. Not every specific sexual act must be reproductive. Otherwise, NFP and sex after menopause would not be permitted. So, procreation has a meaning that is broader than reproduction (biological conception). While all reproductive sex is procreative, not all procreative sex is reproductive.

When a woman’s ovaries are legitimately removed, she is not capable of reproduction, but the conjugal act would still be “procreative,” because the sexual organs would be functioning consistent with the Natural Law and procreative sex. This is no different than a post-menopausal woman. Her body, due to the treatment, is incapable of biological reproduction, but she can still have procreative (and unitive) sexual relations with her husband. However, if her body were capable of reproduction, and that reproduction were thwarted temporarily, that would be different.

When a woman is on medication which renders a body that IS ACTUALLY reproductive (she can conceive) to be NOT reproductive, and this is not final (removal of organs), then that is contraception, regardless of motive, intent, or means. In this case, the woman’s reproductive capacity is temporarily masked. Since her reproduction is thwarted, she cannot have procreative sex because she has rendered a reproductive body incapable of reproduction, on a temporary basis. If the woman were post-menopause, and received the same treatment, sexual relations would be permissible because, although the sex cannot be reproductive, it still can be procreative if the sexual organs are used in accord with the Natural Law.

I believe that if you review the relevant sections of HV, the Natural Law, and the Catechism, the conclusion is that any medication which temporarily limits reproduction is contraceptive in effect, and that conjugal sex should not occur during this artificial, temporary rendering of sterility, even for a greater purpose. That’s the point of the language in HV - evil cannot be done for a greater good.

No one is saying that the woman should not receive the medical treatment - only that she must abstain during the treatment, if her body will still capable of reproduction after the treatment is ceased. This is the precise nature of most contraception - temporary sterilization and then, when the woman is “off the pill,” reproduction returns. The fact that the contraception is using temporary sterilization as a means to another good does not change its moral nature.

So, if reproduction is possible after the medical treatment ceases, then the treatment is contraceptive, and the woman should abstain.

This is your teaching, not the magisterium. You draw this artificial distinction between indirect sterilization from surgery and non surgical therapy that is not in HV.

Also, the intent of medical treatment is to treat a disease, not sterilize. That distinction is left out of your moral calculus and the Church does not leave it out.

 

[fix]

New Yorker, your profile says you are an NFP instructor.

You said, “In this case, the woman’s reproductive capacity is temporarily masked. Since her reproduction is thwarted, she cannot have procreative sex because she has rendered a reproductive body incapable of reproduction, on a temporary basis.”

Does this mean a woman who is practicing ecological breastfeeding and is basically masking her reproductive capacity is not allowed to have sex?

How about the woman athlete who, through strict training and diet, causes herself (not on purpose) to not ovulate and have periods? She will return to fertility when she stops her training regimen.

Good points. In the document about uterine isolation the magisterium makes the distinction between intending to sterilize to alter fertility and treating a medical condition that indirectly sterilizes with no such intent.

 

[OraLabora]

This is your teaching, not the magisterium. You draw this artificial distinction between indirect sterilization from surgery and non surgical therapy that is not in HV.

I agree, I like to think that the Holy Father measured his words very carefully and used very precise language.

For the benefit of everyone (again):

"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. "

Note the use of the word therapeutic. If he had meant surgical, he would have used that word.

He did not. Catholics do not sin by taking his words at face value.

 

[New_Yorker]

I agree, I like to think that the Holy Father measured his words very carefully and used very precise language.

For the benefit of everyone (again):

"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. "

Note the use of the word therapeutic. If he had meant surgical, he would have used that word.

He did not. Catholics do not sin by taking his words at face value.

Given the language in HV and the Catechism that contraception is intrinsically evil and each and every act must be open to procreation, where does it say, in paragraph 15, that when one is being treated for therapeutic means, that one can ALSO engage in sexual relations and, therefore, risk aborting a human life?

The Church has never stated this. Read the entirety of HV and the relevant portions of the Catechism. Read Casti Connubi and Veritatis Splendor, and you’ll understand why contracepted sex is prohibited, but medical, therapeutic treatment (for an end other than contraception) is not.

Otherwise, you must think that the Church is pro-abortion in this circumstance because the pill is abortifacient. Is abortion also suspended by “Pastoral Privilege”?

 

[PaulinVA]

Given the language in HV and the Catechism that contraception is intrinsically evil and each and every act must be open to procreation, where does it say, in paragraph 15, that when one is being treated for therapeutic means, that one can ALSO engage in sexual relations and, therefore, risk aborting a human life?

"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. "

There is no impediment to procreation if no sex is occurring. Therefore, this must be talking about having sex while undergoing a therapeutic treatment that renders one infertile.

 

[fix]

Given the language in HV and the Catechism that contraception is intrinsically evil and each and every act must be open to procreation, where does it say, in paragraph 15, that when one is being treated for therapeutic means, that one can ALSO engage in sexual relations and, therefore, risk aborting a human life?

The Church has never stated this. Read the entirety of HV and the relevant portions of the Catechism. Read Casti Connubi and Veritatis Splendor, and you’ll understand why contracepted sex is prohibited, but medical, therapeutic treatment (for an end other than contraception) is not.

Otherwise, you must think that the Church is pro-abortion in this circumstance because the pill is abortifacient. Is abortion also suspended by “Pastoral Privilege”?

HV 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. (12)

The act must be ordered correctly.

That spontaneous abortion could happen when treating a medical condition would be a physical evil, not a moral evil. In such cases contraception is not willed and not used as a means to such an end. The sterility is an unintended consequence.

 

[New_Yorker]

"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. "

There is no impediment to procreation if no sex is occurring. Therefore, this must be talking about having sex while undergoing a therapeutic treatment that renders one infertile.

This is a great point. Impediment to procreation means an impediment to the organs/process by which procreation occurs. For instance, removal of the uterus, the birth control pill, and numerous other things impede procreation. So, that impediment is permitted, for a legitimate means, but HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE while the body is temporarily impeded is a much different question. Par. 15 does not address the licitness of sex during a time when intercourse is impeded, so it cannot be authoritative to permit sex during this time.

A spontaneous miscarriage is a physical evil. A miscarriage that occurs because two people were having sexual relations while someone is on abortifacient medication is clearly a moral evil. The evil (loss of human life) was caused by an intentional voluntary decision to have contracepted sex - sexual relations during the time that procreation was inhibited - which resulted in the loss of a human life.

 

[New_Yorker]

For those of you who support contraceptive sex which can result in an abortion, consider this:

Suppose you were to engage in a medical treatment that required you to engage in dangerous activity, such that your 10 year old son might die. Would anyone do that? Now, breakthrough ovulation is always possible when one is on ABC. If you engage in sexual activity, you take the risk that your child in utero will die. Yet you wouldn’t do the same with your 10 year old. All life is sacred.

It’s no coincidence that the teaching on contraception AND the teaching on abortion both dictate that a woman who is contracepting (regardless of her intent) should not have sex. That’s why HV 14 explicitly states that good “intent” cannot save an otherwise evil act, like contracepted sex.

 

[OraLabora]

For those of you who support contraceptive sex which can result in an abortion, consider this:

Suppose you were to engage in a medical treatment that required you to engage in dangerous activity, such that your 10 year old son might die. Would anyone do that? Now, breakthrough ovulation is always possible when one is on ABC. If you engage in sexual activity, you take the risk that your child in utero will die. Yet you wouldn’t do the same with your 10 year old. All life is sacred.

It’s no coincidence that the teaching on contraception AND the teaching on abortion both dictate that a woman who is contracepting (regardless of her intent) should not have sex. That’s why HV 14 explicitly states that good “intent” cannot save an otherwise evil act, like contracepted sex.

First of all we’re not just talking hormonal treatments (the pill for instance). In addition to surgery, there is the question of cancer chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy can induce infertility and it can also induce spontaneous abortion if conception takes place. Maybe you see chemotherapy as being a more serious use of an abortifacient than say hormonal treatment for menstrual cramps.

But be that as it may, neither HV nor the catechism explicitly prohibit sexual activity in these cases.

You would have to think that it would if that was the intent. It is true that we users of these forums can research Church documents made available at our fingertips, but keep in mind we are all well-educated folks prosperous enough to be able to own a computer and an Internet connection which allows to do this.

But the Church is not only addressing folks like us. It is addressing folks in developing areas with no such easy access; folks of limited economic means in some cases; folks with literacy issues; and folks who do not have ready access to clergy to instruct them, just to name a few.

You would think then that the Church would tailor its message to be as direct as possible and explicitly prohibit sex in the case of pharmacological therapy that induces sterility or can cause spontaneous miscarriages, so that even folks in the humblest of circumstances would get it. But it does not. To arrive at the conclusion you arrive at requires a lot of mental gymnastics and (non-authoritative) interpretations of various Church documents that don’t appear to connect the dots at first reading.

So the Church hierarchy is either A) attempting to snare people into sin, which makes the Church hierarchy an agent of Satan (maybe it wasn’t just Annibale Bugnini who was an alleged Freemason), and thus makes a mockery of the Bible’s veracity concerning the authority of the Keys, or B) the Holy Father means what he says, and if he doesn’t say it, he doesn’t mean it.

Since I am a faithful Catholic who believes in the Authority that Jesus handed to Saint Peter, and by extension all those who occupy his Chair, I am more inclined to believe in B) than in A). Because if you really do believe it’s A), then you are in fact saying that in essence the Church IS the whore of Babylon, which is quite preposterous.

I guess there’s a third possibility too, C) the Church has not pronounced definitively on this as her learned counsel and Magisterium are not certain as they have not finished studying the issue, in which case I would think Catholics are free to follow their consciences.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is a great point. Impediment to procreation means an impediment to the organs/process by which procreation occurs. For instance, removal of the uterus, the birth control pill, and numerous other things impede procreation. So, that impediment is permitted, for a legitimate means, but HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE while the body is temporarily impeded is a much different question. Par. 15 does not address the licitness of sex during a time when intercourse is impeded, so it cannot be authoritative to permit sex during this time.

The church has no problem telling people that a certain act is sinful. The Church has not said that while taking a birth control pill for a medical treatment a couple must abstain. If they wanted to, they could - but they haven’t.

In fact, many agents of the Church (Its priests) say that having sex in this context is licit.

So, we are left with the Church on one side, and people connecting the dots in an overly scrupulous manner on the other side.

(and by the way, there is no need for HV 15 if the couple are abstaining during the period of treatment because the issue of sex on the pill isn’t an issue)

 

[New_Yorker]

The church has no problem telling people that a certain act is sinful. The Church has not said that while taking a birth control pill for a medical treatment a couple must abstain. If they wanted to, they could - but they haven’t.

In fact, many agents of the Church (Its priests) say that having sex in this context is licit.

So, we are left with the Church on one side, and people connecting the dots in an overly scrupulous manner on the other side.

(and by the way, there is no need for HV 15 if the couple are abstaining during the period of treatment because the issue of sex on the pill isn’t an issue)

I think you’re missing the point of HV 15. The Church is stating that artificial birth control (the pill, for instance) is intrinsically evil. The purpose of HV 15 is to reinforce that a woman CAN use the pill, or something similar, for legitimate reasons, if it is a cure. So, it’s not the pill that’s evil - it’s contracepted sex that is evil, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT. Intent cannot make an intrinsically evil act morally good.

If you cannot connect the dots yourself, then you would need an explicit statement from the Magisterium stating that a woman who is temporarily on contraception cannot licitly have sexual relations. You need the Magisterium to speak on each and every possible permutation so that you can know what is permitted and prohibited. That is unfortunate. That is not how the Church operates or needs to operate.

From another thread:

The opinion of Dr. Anthony Dardano, a pro-life physician (addressing a question on use of birth control pills for a specific medical condition, but we can extrapolate):

The use of the birth control pill as a medical therapeutic agent may be justifiable if certain conditions are met. First and foremost, the primary intent must be a medical therapy for a condition which is treatable by ovulation suppression. Ovarian cysts are a good example of this. By stopping ovulation for a few months, it gives the cysts a chance to regress. Frequently, surgery can thus be avoided and pain relief can be dramatic. However, with the lower dose pills of today, ovulation is not always completely stopped. If pregnancy were to occur it might very well be aborted by the action of the pill.Therefore, if a woman is prescribed a pill for medical reasons, she must refrain from sexual intercourse during the therapy and only then would it be morally acceptable.

See clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/2007sept-oct.pdf .

Another physician, Dr. Paul Hayes, weighs in:

Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.

The rest of his answer at all.org/article.php?id=10162 addresses the medical advisability of using birth control pills for medical reasons. He offers alternatives. It is worth reading.

That which is intrinsically evil remains so, despite “intent.”

 

[PaulinVA]

I think you’re missing the point of HV 15. The Church is stating that artificial birth control (the pill, for instance) is intrinsically evil. The purpose of HV 15 is to reinforce that a woman CAN use the pill, or something similar, for legitimate reasons, if it is a cure. So, it’s not the pill that’s evil - it’s contracepted sex that is evil, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT. Intent cannot make an intrinsically evil act morally good.

If you cannot connect the dots yourself, then you would need an explicit statement from the Magisterium stating that a woman who is temporarily on contraception cannot licitly have sexual relations. You need the Magisterium to speak on each and every possible permutation so that you can know what is permitted and prohibited. That is unfortunate. That is not how the Church operates or needs to operate.

I’m sorry, I still disagree. For the Pope to write HV 15 with the intent to mean that a married woman can take the pill but must abstain and actually write the words he did sorta defies logic. He was more plain spoken than that.

And those doctors opinions are just opinions.

I generally understand your argument, and if my wife was on the pill for therapeutic reasons I would probably be hesitant to engage in relations, but, frankly, HV15 seems to indicate that I could.

 

[Sure]

I think you’re missing the point of HV 15. The Church is stating that artificial birth control (the pill, for instance) is intrinsically evil. The purpose of HV 15 is to reinforce that a woman CAN use the pill, or something similar, for legitimate reasons, if it is a cure. So, it’s not the pill that’s evil - it’s contracepted sex that is evil, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT. Intent cannot make an intrinsically evil act morally good.

If you cannot connect the dots yourself, then you would need an explicit statement from the Magisterium stating that a woman who is temporarily on contraception cannot licitly have sexual relations. You need the Magisterium to speak on each and every possible permutation so that you can know what is permitted and prohibited. That is unfortunate. That is not how the Church operates or needs to operate.

From another thread:

The opinion of Dr. Anthony Dardano, a pro-life physician (addressing a question on use of birth control pills for a specific medical condition, but we can extrapolate):

The use of the birth control pill as a medical therapeutic agent may be justifiable if certain conditions are met. First and foremost, the primary intent must be a medical therapy for a condition which is treatable by ovulation suppression. Ovarian cysts are a good example of this. By stopping ovulation for a few months, it gives the cysts a chance to regress. Frequently, surgery can thus be avoided and pain relief can be dramatic. However, with the lower dose pills of today, ovulation is not always completely stopped. If pregnancy were to occur it might very well be aborted by the action of the pill.Therefore, if a woman is prescribed a pill for medical reasons, she must refrain from sexual intercourse during the therapy and only then would it be morally acceptable.

See clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/2007sept-oct.pdf .

Another physician, Dr. Paul Hayes, weighs in:

Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.

The rest of his answer at all.org/article.php?id=10162 addresses the medical advisability of using birth control pills for medical reasons. He offers alternatives. It is worth reading.

That which is intrinsically evil remains so, despite “intent.”

You are correct that contraception is intrinsically evil. It can never be done. But taking a medication that as a side effect may cause some infertility or increase the chance of miscarriage is not taking contraception. It is a different moral object altogether.

As formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church does teach that an intent or circumstance can be so significant as to be considered a principal condition of the object itself.

Consider the act of killing in self-defense. We know that murder is intrinsically evil. But is it okay to murder in self-defense? NO, because although the two acts seem the same (they are the same physically - just as the chemical hormones contained in a pill may be the same) they are fundamentally different acts. The circumstance of “unjust aggressor” is so significant that it changes the object itself from killing an innocent human being to killing an unjust aggressor.

An easier example would be sexual intercourse. With your spouse it’s a good act. With a non-spouse it’s intrinsically evil. The spouse/non-spouse distinction is so significant that it is a circumstance (condition) that actually ceases to be properly a circumstance and becomes a principal condition of the object itself.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[fix]

For those of you who support contraceptive sex which can result in an abortion, consider this:

Suppose you were to engage in a medical treatment that required you to engage in dangerous activity, such that your 10 year old son might die. Would anyone do that? Now, breakthrough ovulation is always possible when one is on ABC. If you engage in sexual activity, you take the risk that your child in utero will die. Yet you wouldn’t do the same with your 10 year old. All life is sacred.

This is not analogous. The marital act is not a dangerous act. It is a natural and morally good action.

Please see here.

It’s no coincidence that the teaching on contraception AND the teaching on abortion both dictate that a woman who is contracepting (regardless of her intent) should not have sex. That’s why HV 14 explicitly states that good “intent” cannot save an otherwise evil act, like contracepted sex.

The sin of contraception involves the intent and means. Medical therpay, in the cases we speak of here, is not the sin of contraception as no one is intending to alter fertility and no means are used to alter fertility.

What is being done is that a medical condition is being treated.

 

[fix]

I think you’re missing the point of HV 15. The Church is stating that artificial birth control (the pill, for instance) is intrinsically evil. The purpose of HV 15 is to reinforce that a woman CAN use the pill, or something similar, for legitimate reasons, if it is a cure. So, it’s not the pill that’s evil - it’s contracepted sex that is evil, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT. Intent cannot make an intrinsically evil act morally good.

If you cannot connect the dots yourself, then you would need an explicit statement from the Magisterium stating that a woman who is temporarily on contraception cannot licitly have sexual relations. You need the Magisterium to speak on each and every possible permutation so that you can know what is permitted and prohibited. That is unfortunate. That is not how the Church operates or needs to operate.

Your are correct in that the Church does not need to speak on every single aspect of every single issue. The problem is your position has not been stated by the magisterium. In fact, the Church has said the opposite.

From another thread:

The opinion of Dr. Anthony Dardano, a pro-life physician (addressing a question on use of birth control pills for a specific medical condition, but we can extrapolate):

The use of the birth control pill as a medical therapeutic agent may be justifiable if certain conditions are met. First and foremost, the primary intent must be a medical therapy for a condition which is treatable by ovulation suppression. Ovarian cysts are a good example of this. By stopping ovulation for a few months, it gives the cysts a chance to regress. Frequently, surgery can thus be avoided and pain relief can be dramatic. However, with the lower dose pills of today, ovulation is not always completely stopped. If pregnancy were to occur it might very well be aborted by the action of the pill.Therefore, if a woman is prescribed a pill for medical reasons, she must refrain from sexual intercourse during the therapy and only then would it be morally acceptable.

See clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/2007sept-oct.pdf .

Another physician, Dr. Paul Hayes, weighs in:

Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.

The rest of his answer at all.org/article.php?id=10162 addresses the medical advisability of using birth control pills for medical reasons. He offers alternatives. It is worth reading.

That which is intrinsically evil remains so, despite “intent.”

You have notes from physicians, not moral theologians or the magisterium.

Again, the action of contracpetion is intrinsically evil. The problem is we are not talking about contraception. Redefining reality does not change what is actually taking place.

Claiming some person is “contracepting” when they engage in the marital embrace because they are treating a medical condition would mean they are “sinning” when they engage in sterilized sex after a uterus is removed to treat pathology.

There is a significant moral difference between a man who intentionally sterilizes himself to suppress his fertility and a man who was treated for cancer and is sterile through no fault of his own. You want to make these cases morally equal.

 

[New_Yorker]

The sin of contraception involves the intent and means. Medical therpay, in the cases we speak of here, is not the sin of contraception as no one is intending to alter fertility and no means are used to alter fertility.

What is being done is that a medical condition is being treated.

There is a distinction that is being lost here, which is very important - (1) treating a medical condition (therapeutic means) vs. (2) contracepted sex. The first is permissible. This is the point of HV 15. The second is not. This is the point of HV as a whole.

HV 15 allows therapeutic means. There is nothing in HV that says that a woman on the pill, who is necessarily blocking the possibility of conception, can have sexual relations. Treating a condition and sexual relations while a condition is being treated are two different questions. It’s only by confusing the two and not making this crucial distinction that you can come to the conclusion you seek - that during a time when an otherwise fertile woman has her ability to conceive interrupted through therapeutic means, she may engage in sexual relations.

Such contracepted sex is prohibited.

 

[fix]

There is a distinction that is being lost here, which is very important - (1) treating a medical condition (therapeutic means) vs. (2) contracepted sex. The first is permissible. This is the point of HV 15. The second is not. This is the point of HV as a whole.

Contracepted sex involves the intent and means to suppress fertility that is functioning normally to limit children. Treating a condition that is pathologic is a different matter.

HV 15 allows therapeutic means. There is nothing in HV that says that a woman on the pill, who is necessarily blocking the possibility of conception, can have sexual relations. Treating a condition and sexual relations while a condition is being treated are two different questions. It’s only by confusing the two and not making this crucial distinction that you can come to the conclusion you seek - that during a time when an otherwise fertile woman has her ability to conceive interrupted through therapeutic means, she may engage in sexual relations.

Such contracepted sex is prohibited.

By that errorneous standard one may never engage in sex after one is indirectly sterilized by medical therapy. You are creating a distinction that HV, and the magisterium, does not state.

Why do you claim this moral distinction between a temporary indirectly sterilized case and a permanently indirectly sterilized case?

 

[New_Yorker]

Contracepted sex involves the intent and means to suppress fertility that is functioning normally to limit children. Treating a condition that is pathologic is a different matter.

By that errorneous standard one may never engage in sex after one is indirectly sterilized by medical therapy. You are creating a distinction that HV, and the magisterium, does not state.

Why do you claim this moral distinction between a temporary indirectly sterilized case and a permanently indirectly sterilized case?

Intent is not a part of contraception. From the Catechism:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.** Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses **do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

So, there it is. Intent is not a sufficient reason to permit contracepted sex, just as it says in HV.

YOU are reading into one paragraph of HV something that is not there - that a couple can have sex while temporarily contracepted due to medical treatment. HV allows the treatement; not the sex.

Of course, based on the natural law and Magisterium, you must distinguish between a couple that is permanently sterilized (NOT for the purpose of birth control), through medication or birth, and one that has fertility temporarily masked through medical treatment (which is allowed). In the first case, sex is permitted b/c the couples are using their sexual organs in the proper fashion where fertility is impossible. The Natural Law permits this because that is the function of sexual organs.

Where the treatment is therapeutic and temporary, that means the body is being contracepted. There is a difference between temporary contraception and sterility. Sterility is a biological condition, not contraception.

With temporary contraception, as permitted by the Natural Law and HV 15, one cannot have recourse to sexual intercourse, NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENT IS.

You may not find a sentence that says this, but look at the NFP physicians’ above, read the documents, and you can piece it together. The Magisterium does not, and need not, speak to every permutation. And Catholic morality would never allow contracepted sex that is necessarily abortifacient where a conception occurs.