Pregnancy and codoms

[underacloud]

**From American Life League:
Birth Control Pills for Medical Reasons
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - By Paul L. Hayes, M.D.**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.
all.org/article/index/id/MjQ4NQ

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. A common misunderstanding.

Fortunately, this is not an authoritative source so easily ignored.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926414,00.html

For those who wish to make exceptions to the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception. Also, the fact that the use of birth control pills for uses other than the prevention of ovulation is morally licit for sexually active married women does not make acts where the prevention of the transfer of sperm is the direct object of the act morally licit.

DC are you trying to say that superfetation can occur at week 34?
Given that superfetation even at 4 weeks is extremely rare in humans (and the longest ever know case is 8 weeks) I don’t think your implication that pregnancy doesn’t per se compromise fertility won’t fly. Especially as the poster has made no mention that she is either still menstruating in her 34th week, nor that she has a second uteris.

You believe it is explicit Church Teaching that the physical prevention of the transfer of sperm is enough to define a “marital act” as contraceptive. That is interesting, I have never seen such an explicit statement from Church authority before. Are you able to source that statement?

 

[devoutchristian]

You believe it is explicit Church Teaching that the physical prevention of the transfer of sperm is enough to define a “marital act” as contraceptive. That is interesting, I have never seen such an explicit statement from Church authority before. Are you able to source that statement?

Can you find an explicit Church teaching stating that it’s immoral to murder 2 year olds? No? Does that mean that Catholics are free to believe that such activity is moral? Or does it mean that the Church doesn’t feel the need to specifically condemn every possible subset of an action which it has already condemned as intrinsically evil?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The use of a condom any and all times during the month is a contraceptive act. The couple has to be open to life and to assume that excludes the “infertile” time is a mistake.

Thistle you will have to excuse me if I and others do not believe a pregnant woman in her 34th week is 1:1 comparable with a woman in her “infertile period”. All the more so when we factor in the observation that “the marital act” may in fact be “anit-procreative.”

BTW are you able to source where you found the quote “The use of a condom any and all times during the month is a contraceptive act.” I have never seen any teaching quite that explicit.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can you find an explicit Church teaching stating that it’s immoral to murder 2 year olds? No? Does that mean that Catholics are free to believe that such activity is moral? Or does it mean that the Church doesn’t feel the need to specifically condemn every possible subset of an action which it has already condemned as intrinsically evil?

OK you cannot find a source.
Its your inference from something less explicit.

Please state clearly what the Church holds as intrinsically evil wrt contraception? I believe the wording is very important. Given that the Vatican allowed Congo Nuns to use the pill (before it was found to be abortifacient) as a contraceptive I would be interested in how you interpret it to allow that “exception.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:

Quote:
However I believe there is potential for debate on this situation given there have been justifications for use of contraception in other very unusual cases (e.g. the Congo Nuns and medicinal use of the pill which is acceptable by reason of the principle of double effect).

Exactly DV. The mere physical presence of “contraceptive devices” does not by that simple fact alone seem to make the moral object of a human act “contraceptive.”

It may be possible to view the unusual case posted here in the same way. Then again, maybe not. The point is that a judgement needs to take place as to whether or not we are truly speaking of a contraceptive human act. This is not necessarily the same as "using the pill or “using a condom.”

 

[anjoh66]

FYI, a woman can actually get pregnant while already pregnant. It is EXTREMELY rare, but still possible.

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

[anjoh66]

A couple must always be open to life, even in infertile times. God can create whenever he wants. He cannot be confined only to times we think are okay.
Look at Abraham and Sarah, and Zechariah and Elizabeth.

Yes, God can create whenever he wants, and a condom will certainly not stop Him from creating.

In my opinion the whole condom thing is not about preventing God to create, but a matter of obedience and discipline.

 

[devoutchristian]

OK you cannot find a source.
Its your inference from something less explicit.

Please state clearly what the Church holds as intrinsically evil wrt contraception? I believe the wording is very important. Given that the Vatican allowed Congo Nuns to use the pill (before it was found to be abortifacient) as a contraceptive I would be interested in how you interpret it to allow that “exception.”

Can you find me the source saying that it’s wrong to murder 2 year olds? If not then by your line of reasoning the Church must have no authoritative teaching on the murder of 2 year olds.

 

[thistle]

Thistle you will have to excuse me if I and others do not believe a pregnant woman in her 34th week is 1:1 comparable with a woman in her “infertile period”. All the more so when we factor in the observation that “the marital act” may in fact be “anit-procreative.”

BTW are you able to source where you found the quote “The use of a condom any and all times during the month is a contraceptive act.” I have never seen any teaching quite that explicit.

You are the one who raised the issue about the infertile period. You show me where the Church teaches that its okay to use a condom during that time.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

FYI, a woman can actually get pregnant while already pregnant. It is EXTREMELY rare, but still possible.

,

This has to be put in context. I believe there have been about 10 recorded case of this occurring. However, the cases involve situations where a second egg gets fertilized early in the pregnancy, not in the 34th week, or anywhere near that.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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 first sentence is correct; the second draws an incorrect conclusion based on personal interpretation.

To quote Humanae Vitae, Encyclical from our Holy Father, Paul VI:

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.

This error which you made is cited by many. Contraception is not permitted. Medicines used for therapeutic means are permitted, even if they have properties that impede procreation, as noted by our Holy Father. Such medicines should not be referred to as “birth control pills” or similar, since such references confuse the purpose of the medicine.

Furthermore, John Paul II’s reference does not conflict with HV, since JPII is referring specifically to contraception, whereas Paul VI is referring to therapeutic means.

 

[MJJean]

The first sentence is correct; the second draws an incorrect conclusion based on personal interpretation.

To quote Humanae Vitae, Encyclical from our Holy Father, Paul VI:

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.

This error which you made is cited by many. Contraception is not permitted. Medicines used for therapeutic means are permitted, even if they have properties that impede procreation, as noted by our Holy Father. **Such medicines should not be referred to as “birth control pills” or similar, since such references confuse the purpose of the medicine.
**
Furthermore, John Paul II’s reference does not conflict with HV, since JPII is referring specifically to contraception, whereas Paul VI is referring to therapeutic means.

I think it’s just easier to say BCP when referring to a pill commonly used for birth control but also used to regulate hormones, for example. There are so many different BCP’s on the market that it would be a pain and probably a bit confusing to refer to the pill used by individuals by brand or generic name.

 

[ahs]

Sex during pregnancy cannot be procreative. It’s not “unlikely” to be procreative, it is impossible for it to be procreative. Sex during pregnancy cannot even be “ordered toward procreation”. So, the condom is not the barrier to procreation, the pregnancy is the barrier to procreation.

Sex doesn’t need to be “procreative” in order to be “ordered, per se, towrds procreation”. “Procreative” refers to an effect…a result (that act was procreative…it led to procreation/conception). Or it can refer to a nature (sex is procreative in nature…it is an act that is ordered toward procreation).

“Ordered, per se, toward” refers to the manner in which an act is engaged (that act was ordered toward procreation…it was engaged in the natural manner and was completed naturally…intravaginal ejaculation).

So, yes, even an infertile act, and even during pregnancy, can be “ordered, per se, toward procreation” if it is engaged in the natural manner. If you want to deduce it down to its most basic step…that means the male ejaculates inside his wife without any barrier or chemical disturbance, etc…

If the Church allows BCP for medical purposes, which prevents procreation as a “side effect”, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be allowed to use a condom per a doctor’s advice during pregnancy to prevent pre-term labor.

Condoms don’t treat pre-term labor, they stop semen. If the semen is the cause of pre-term labor, then the logical treatment would be for the husband not to inseminate in his wife, which means the husbands would want to avoid the potential harm that could be done if he ejaculates inside his wife. Since condoms don’t prevent semen from being ejacualted, the logical treatment here would be for the husband to avoid ejaculation…which means avoid having sex. IF he and his wife choose to engage in a potentially risky behavior (where pre-term labor is an issue) by having sex, that is a choice they have made, and they must accept the risk that comes with that behavior.

But, as others have said, female orgasm can also stimulate pre-term labor. Which is handy if the baby decides to hang around past the due date. One of the most fun pieces of medical advice I ever received was to go home and have lots of sex to hopefully stimulate labor when my babies went a week past due

continued…

I accept AHS’s reference to CCC2376 is much stronger: “…it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life…”

The question is, what really is meant by the “marriage act per se being ordered to procreation” and are their unusual cases which effectively mean that a condom does not per se disorder the act away from procreation of human life?

“Ordered, per se, toward” refers to the manner in which an act is engaged. It has nothing to do with the result of a sex act, but with the manner in which that act is engaged/completed. If a condom is used, that act is not “ordered, per se, toward procreation”.

I believe there is potential for debate on this situation given there have been justifications for use of contraception in other very unusual cases (e.g. the Congo Nuns and medicinal use of the pill which is acceptable by reason of the principle of double effect).

Congo Nuns are not married, and thus cannot engage in a Marital Act with their spouse. A rapist is not a spouse. So, for a Nun to use such a pill is to protect herself from an intruder…not to thwart to procreative nature of the marital act.

 

[davidv]

Exactly DV. The mere physical presence of “contraceptive devices” does not by that simple fact alone seem to make the moral object of a human act “contraceptive.”

It may be possible to view the unusual case posted here in the same way. Then again, maybe not. The point is that a judgement needs to take place as to whether or not we are truly speaking of a contraceptive human act. This is not necessarily the same as "using the pill or “using a condom.”

The parallel to the Congo nun circumstance would be that it is morally acceptable to man to wear a condom if they are not sexually active.

Wearing a condom during the sex act is always contraceptive and sinful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon: BTW are you able to source where you found the quote “The use of a condom any and all times during the month is a contraceptive act.” I have never seen any teaching quite that explicit.

Fine, you’ve uttered another black and white personal statement that you cannot conclusively justify by clear sources. This isn’t the best way to influence sincere open readers my friend .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
OK you cannot find a source. Its your inference from something less explicit.
Please state clearly what the Church holds as intrinsically evil wrt contraception? I believe the wording is very important. Given that the Vatican allowed Congo Nuns to use the pill (before it was found to be abortifacient) as a contraceptive I would be interested in how you interpret it to allow that “exception.”

OK, we understand.
You are unable to explain this rare case of Vatican approved use of “contraceptive action” (your terms). But there are never exceptions to something intrinsically evil are there?
Therefore you must accept that there is something amiss with your personal view that “… [contraceptive] action … has been condemned as intrinsically evil?”

Solution Hint: Your personal opinion appears to be based on “Physicalism” where you have confused a non-physical definition (“contraceptive human** act**”) with a “physical action.” The Church always (in my study/investigations to date) uses the former definition, never the latter when talking about intrinsic evil.

May I repeat: The mere physical presence of “contraceptive devices” does not by that simple fact alone seem to make the moral object of a human act “contraceptive.”

 

[devoutchristian]

Fine, you’ve uttered another black and white personal statement that you cannot conclusively justify by clear sources. This isn’t the best way to influence sincere open readers my friend .

I see that you still haven’t found the document saying that the murder of 2 year olds is wrong.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The first sentence is correct; the second draws an incorrect conclusion based on personal interpretation.

To quote Humanae Vitae, Encyclical from our Holy Father, Paul VI:

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.

This error which you made is cited by many. Contraception is not permitted. Medicines used for therapeutic means are permitted, even if they have properties that impede procreation, as noted by our Holy Father. Such medicines should not be referred to as “birth control pills” or similar, since such references confuse the purpose of the medicine.

Furthermore, John Paul II’s reference does not conflict with HV, since JPII is referring specifically to contraception, whereas Paul VI is referring to therapeutic means.

Agreed .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think it’s just easier to say BCP when referring to a pill commonly used for birth control but also used to regulate hormones, for example. There are so many different BCP’s on the market that it would be a pain and probably a bit confusing to refer to the pill used by individuals by brand or generic name.

And yet it appears the theology of Thistle and DevoutChristian appear forced to call them “contraceptive actions” (and therefore intrinsically evil?) because it is reasonably known they will impede procreation regardless of the intention/circumstances of the users.

Guys it would be good if you could explain how you see this rather than keep going on about the murder of 2 yr olds.