Pastoral Privilege, and Contraception

[PaulinVA]

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).

HV 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. "

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.

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.

I don’t really have a dog in this hunt. I would have a hard time, as I’ve said, having relations with my wife if she were being treated with something that would be contraceptive in nature.

That said, I am disappointed that HV 15 is ambiguous. It does not say that while taking the cure you have to abstain, and that would have been a perfect place to say it.

 

[OraLabora]

That said, I am disappointed that HV 15 is ambiguous. It does not say that while taking the cure you have to abstain, and that would have been a perfect place to say it.

I suspect it was deliberately vague for a reason. One possible reason is that we as Catholics are encourage to use our (well-formed) conscience. This is perhaps one area where the Church suggests that different cultural, social and psychological conditions means that couples are to exercise their own discretion in this area.

Another possible reason is the rapid strides that medical science made up until the 1960s suggested that such strides would also continue in the future. For example the abortifacient potential of a particular treatment may not have been known in the '60s but it is known in the 21st century. So being deliberately specific and spelling out that relations are allowed may have the effect of inadvertently allowing conception to take place while on a given therapy, knowing full well that an abortion is inevitable. Similarly, saying a blanket “no” would eliminate many the possibility of sexual relations for some treatments that are not abortifacient.

I also wondered why the focus on therapies that are sterilizing for the woman.

In another thread I invoked the example of a friend (male) undergoing cancer chemotherapy. His cancer is incurable; his chemo will only prolong life. It makes him sterile as well. Does this mean he is not to engage in marital relations with his wife? If it were the intent, and what the Church were teaching, I for one would no longer want to have anything to do with her. There is no danger, however, in his case, of the drug being an abortifacient, it acts upon his sterility, not his wife’s.

So this is another reason why HV 15 had to be somewhat vague and allow for the examen of one’s own conscience, guided by prudence.

I therefore think that a couple facing this situation has to examine their conscience, taking into consideration whether or not the treatment is an abortifacient, and act accordingly, which for the most part probably means that they will find it permissible.

That would seem to be the leaning of most clergy and theologians based on what I have read here.

I don’t think God will condemn us for taking their advice at face value. They are after all our pastors, and if we can’t rely on their guidance who can we rely on? I am reminded here of the Rule of St. Benedict concerning the Abbot:

“And let the Abbot be sure
that any lack of profit
the master of the house may find in the sheep
will be laid to the blame of the shepherd.”

I think this very much applies in this instance.

 

[PaulinVA]

Another possible reason is the rapid strides that medical science made up until the 1960s suggested that such strides would also continue in the future. For example the abortifacient potential of a particular treatment may not have been known in the '60s but it is known in the 21st century. So being deliberately specific and spelling out that relations are allowed may have the effect of inadvertently allowing conception to take place while on a given therapy, knowing full well that an abortion is inevitable. Similarly, saying a blanket “no” would eliminate many the possibility of sexual relations for some treatments that are not abortifacient.

I also wondered why the focus on therapies that are sterilizing for the woman.

…

I therefore think that a couple facing this situation has to examine their conscience, taking into consideration whether or not the treatment is an abortifacient, and act accordingly, which for the most part probably means that they will find it permissible.

That would seem to be the leaning of most clergy and theologians based on what I have read here.

Thanks. You do have a point that vagueness allows for changing revelations by science, or rather our understanding of science as God created it.

 

[fix]

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.

That refers to intent in regard to suppressing fertility.

Notice HV says:
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)

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.

Where does HV say that? It does not say what you claim. HV says:

***Unlawful Birth Control Methods
*** Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

It refers to contraception, not to medical therapy.

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.

This is your private teaching. Where has the Church stated this?

Specifically, where has She said one may engage in sex after surgery that leaves one sterile but may not engage in sex while one is temporarily sterile?

Where the treatment is therapeutic and temporary, that means the body is being contracepted.

No, that means one is being treated. Contraception involves the intent and/or means to alter the marital act to suppress normal fertility to space children.

There is a difference between temporary contraception and sterility. Sterility is a biological condition, not contraception.

This makes little sense. Medical therapy that leaves one sterile, no matter the amount of time, is a biological condition too.

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.

This is false and you have not supported your case. At least I have linked to a faithful priest that contradicts your position. You only offer your opinion.

Also, your choice of words is not accurate. The medical use of the word contraception is not always equal to the theological use of that word.

We all agree the intent to “contracept” is intrinsically wrong. What we do not agree on is calling medical treatment “contraception”.

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.

We will not find the sentence because that is not the teaching.

 

[fix]

H

That said, I am disappointed that HV 15 is ambiguous. It does not say that while taking the cure you have to abstain, and that would have been a perfect place to say it.

We really need to rely on moral theologians here and not our limited understanding of a vast topic. I contend the reason it does not say it is because that is not what She teaches.

The sin of contraception is separating the unitive and procreative aspect of the act to space births. If it were true, as the other poster says, then any medical therapy to supresses fertility would be intrinsically wrong. But, HV says you can comply with therapy, even when it does alter the act. Why? Because it is an indirect and unwilled consequence of legitimate medical therapy to restore or repair some pathology. That is not “contracepted” sex anymore that post hysterectomy sex is directly sterilized sex.