Priest says morally licit to use the Pill to augment couple’s use of NFP

[mikew262]

The entire point of NFP is to be aware of the physical changes that happen as the cycle plays itself out. Taking hormones masks those signs. Where is the help?

C’mon Fix, it’s obvious. :banghead:

If a woman is having problems keeping a regulated cycle, and taking the pill regulates her cycle, then NFP will become easier to follow. I can’t explain it any plainer than that.

 

[setter]

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

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)

Thank you for this citation. My 2 questions are, does irregular menstrual cycle constitute “bodily disease” that needs curative measures? If the couple were not commited to NFP practice to limit pregnancy, would the irregular menstrual cycle still require treatment? To put it another way: Would a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility be necessary for a single or celibate woman? If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. Correct?

 

[fix]

C’mon Fix, it’s obvious. :banghead:

If a woman is having problems keeping a regulated cycle, and taking the pill regulates her cycle, then NFP will become easier to follow. I can’t explain it any plainer than that.

What would be the point of NFP if one is taking the pill? The only possible benefit I could see would be to avoid sex during the time one thinks they would be ovulating.

 

[fix]

Thank you for this citation. My 2 questions are, does irregular menstrual cycle constitute “bodily disease” that needs curative measures? If the couple were not commited to NFP practice to limit pregnancy, would the irregular menstrual cycle still require treatment? To put it another way: Would a
proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility be necessary for a single or celibate woman? If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. Correct?

I think the question that needs to be asked is if the situation is authentically a pathology. I would think most would agree it may be a type of pathology based on certain criteria. If it is disabling or acutely painful or disruptive to normal life then I can see it would be pathologic.

The debate is often can this problem be treated without the pill? Some say yes, some say no. The point should be is it pathologic and is the pill a legitimate medical therapy. Apparently it may be legitimate. I can see how double effect may kick in.

 

[estesbob]

C’mon Fix, it’s obvious. :banghead:

If a woman is having problems keeping a regulated cycle, and taking the pill regulates her cycle, then NFP will become easier to follow. I can’t explain it any plainer than that.

Why would she need NFP if she was taking the pill?

 

[Jennifer_J]

The pill uses artificial female hormones to “regulate” the cycle (I use the term regulate in jest), it makes the woman’s body think she is pregnant. When you take the green placebo pills you get a bleed (not a period), which is really withdrawal bleeding from the hormones, it has nothing to do with a normal cycle. Women are even now, not taking the green placebo pills so that then NEVER have a bleed.

The pill removes all the signs of normal fertility, because the fake hormones make the woman’s body think she is pregnant. So what the drug manufacturers and pro-contraceptive sites say is regulate, they mean drug induced infertility. NFP becomes impossible to practice when a woman is on the Pill. There are NO fertility signs (no mucous changes, no temp change, no nothing). Infact after coming off the pill it often takes MONTHS for fertility signs to return.

womhealth.org.au/healthjourney/pill_myths_misconceptions.htm
<<The Pill and ‘periods’
When a woman takes the Pill her normal menstrual cycle is interrupted. In effect, the Pill tricks the body into believing it is pregnant. When the Pill was being developed, however, it was felt that women would find the lack of a normal menstrual cycle disconcerting. Many women, for example, rely on their regular menstrual period for reassurance of not being pregnant. Consequently, it was decided to have the Pill consist of 21 days of active pills (pills containing the hormones), followed by a pill-free interval of seven days (either no pills or sugar pills). The rapid decline in the artificial hormones which occurs in the pill-free interval results in a ‘withdrawal bleed’, which somewhat resembles a menstrual period and is often still referred to as a ‘period’ for simplicity. It is important, however, for women to understand that when they take the Pill the bleeding which occurs during the pill free interval is not a menstrual period. >>

Jennifer

 

[Seatuck]

I assume the intention is to get off the pill once the menstrual cycle is regulated . That would be a morally licit reason. However the couple should abstain during this time the pill is taken. Or they may be able to use an ovulation test to be absolutely sure no ovulations have occurred so that they do not abort any of their children. They really ought to determine if there is no other treatment option. The pill is not the best out there. It is a wide casting treatment. Not specified enough. If the doctors took the time to determine exactly what the problem is there would most likely be a different treatment to take.There in lies the problem. The pill is often prescribed instead of doing the more expensive testing that should be done. It’s often the lazy way out. Kind of like prescribing a broad spectrum antibiotic instead of determining exactly what the bacteria is. That happens everyday.

 

[mikew262]

Why would she need NFP if she was taking the pill?

Good point. I suppose it goes to intent. If she was using the pill simply to regulate (medical purpose), so she could use NFP, then maybe the priest bought off on it.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Again, the pill doesn’t regulate anything. In fact after coming off the pill, women are often LESS regular than when starting the Pill. You are only “regular” when you take the pill for 21 days and the take the placebo for 7 (28 day cycle) for each cycle. The pill doesn’t CURE anything.

Jennifer

 

[Corki]

The answer looks rather obvious to me, however I’ll elaborate. NFP, among other things is based on knowing when you ovulate, so you can avoid that “fertile” time. If the menstrual cycle is regulated, then you have a much better idea when ovulation occurs.

The problem is that with the Pill, ovulation is suppressed - not regulated. Since it also masks the normal fertility signs (mucus and temperature), you do not have any idea when you will ovulate since, if you ovulate at all , it is “by accident” - a failure of the pill. You can sometimes tell when breakthrough ovulation has already occurred but you can’t predict it which makes it worthless for NFP purposes.

Giving the priest the benefit of the doubt, though, is it possible that he was speaking about a woman who needed to take the pill for non-BC reasons and wanted to use the regulation to time sexual abstinence and thus decrease the chance of unintended abortion?

 

[1ke]

Hmm… you might want to do some more research on the “pill” regarding regulating menstrual cycles.

No, Mike, I do not need to do any more research.

What are the benefits of taking BCPs?
Regular cycles
BCPs are great at regulating the menstrual cycle, and this is especially helpful for women with periods that come too often or too infrequently.

There is a regular bleeding-- which comes 3 days after the last active pill is taken. That is not a cycle, that is a regularly scheduled withdrawal bleeding.

There is no cycle. Please study a woman’s menstrual cycle, which has a number of hormones involved-- estrogen, FSH, LH, and progesterone. Then study what the pill does to those three hormones and their interconnection.

There is no cycle. The website for the “pill” is trying to sell pills. It is not using an accurate medical description of what happens when a woman takes a pill. It is using the fact that the pills make you bleed every 28 days as a “selling point”-- don’t get caught on the beach with your period starting… take these pills and you’ll bleed every 28 days. It’s marketing, Mike, not science.

It is not accurate to say that it “regulates” a cycle because it completely supresses the cycle and creates its own, artificial pseudo-cycle.

And, there are now many pills, patches, and shots on the market that do not include the 7 day placebo-- and women never have a cycle at all using those hormones. There is no cycle without the placebos that create a bleed, which is *not *menstruation.

I can probably come up with more sources, but I think the point has been made.

No, Mike, you aer misinformed. The supposed “cycle” created by the pill is a bleed at regular intervals. It has nothing to do with a woman’s actual cycle of fertility. You cannot use the pill to “regulate” your cycle and use NFP simultaneously. It cannot happen medically.

Perhaps this priest isn’t as misinformed as you think.

Yes, he is misinformed. Mike, please get educated about this. You are grossly misinformed about how a woman’s body works if you think that the pill creates a menstrual cycle.

 

[1ke]

The answer looks rather obvious to me, however I’ll elaborate. NFP, among other things is based on knowing when you ovulate, so you can avoid that “fertile” time. If the menstrual cycle is regulated, then you have a much better idea when ovulation occurs.

Mike Mike Mike.

PLEASE take a biology course. Please read an NFP manual. Please read a pill packet insert.

1. The pill works by completely supressing the production oof the hormones I mentioned above and then it puts its own formulation of hormones into the body. It supresses the function of the pituitary gland. It works in three ways-- first, the hormones make it likely that a woman will not produce enough estrogen and FSH to ovulate (the whole point of the pill actually). It then thins the lining of the uterus by means of the lack of estrogen that would normally be created by the woman. Then it makes the cervical mucus hostile to sperm by changing its consistency and volume.
2. NFP works by observing the body’s signs of fertility. Mucus and temperature. The pill completely supresses and changes these-- therefore YOU CANNOT MONITOR THEM.

The pill does not make it “easy” to use NFP, it makes it impossible. You cannot know when you ovulate, if you ovulate, on the Pill.

 

[1ke]

Thank you for this citation. My 2 questions are, does irregular menstrual cycle constitute “bodily disease” that needs curative measures?

No. “Irregular” is a misnomer. Every woman’s cycle is different from woman to woman AND from month to month for one woman. A “regular” cycle is anything from 24 to 35 days. "Regular’ meaning “normal”.

Anything shorter than 24 days or longer than 35 days does indicate there is some other problem. There could be a need for medical itervention-- pituitary malfunction, ovarian cysts, endometriosis for example.

However, the Pill does NOTHING to fix any of those problem. It only takes over the body and makes you bleed every 28 days. Get off the pill-- you are back to the same problem.

If the couple were not commited to NFP practice to limit pregnancy, would the irregular menstrual cycle still require treatment?

No, not likely.

To put it another way: Would a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility be necessary for a single or celibate woman? If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. Correct?

Only in the most extreme cases. And, in those cases the Pill is not the treatment.

 

[scylla]

Why isn’t chastity an option, or just trusting God and allowing His will to be done?

Maybe I don’t understand the situation but it is best to have the maximum amount of kids for God as possible. Our basic purpose is to multiply and bring as many souls to Christ as possible, not to just look out for ourselves, that should always be a secondary thought, if that.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[pnewton]

I was given the same advice that it was morally licit as an infertility treatment. My wife was told all her life she would never be able to have children. She took took the pill for a few months to regulate herself, as directed by the doctor. At 39 she was finally able to have a child, my son, John. Maybe this is anecdotal, but the intent was always toward procreation and life, as directed by a priest.

 

[LittleDeb]

I was given the same advice that it was morally licit as an infertility treatment. My wife was told all her life she would never be able to have children. She took took the pill for a few months to regulate herself, as directed by the doctor. At 39 she was finally able to have a child, my son, John. Maybe this is anecdotal, but the intent was always toward procreation and life, as directed by a priest.

There are always better ways to treat this kind of infertility, but yes, it was licit for theraputic reasons. Please understand though, that the pill did nothing to “regulate” your wife’s cycle. It told her body she was pregnant. Pregnancy is one of the best cures for endometreosis related infertility. Double edged sword though. Pregnancy is hard to acheive while suffering endometreosis.

One of the better treatments is boosting thyroid to help with the estrogen phase. A stronger estrogen phase means the body doesn’t spend extra time lining the uterus. Too much uterine lining can travel up the fallopian tubes causing blood growths on the outside of the uterus. This is probably more information than you wanted about your wife’s condition, but I wanted to put this ‘out there’ for others suffering the same problem.

I sought out charting through NFP to heal my painful endometreosis. I was on the “theraputic treatments” prescribed by doctors for many years. (10 years actually) It never healed me. It just numbed the pain a little. Through charting I was able to get real help and real healing. Already one son and currently pregnant. YAY!!

I hope your wife has found real healing to her infertility.

 

[LittleDeb]

No, Mike, I do not need to do any more research.

There is a regular bleeding-- which comes 3 days after the last active pill is taken. That is not a cycle, that is a regularly scheduled withdrawal bleeding.

There is no cycle. Please study a woman’s menstrual cycle, which has a number of hormones involved-- estrogen, FSH, LH, and progesterone. Then study what the pill does to those three hormones and their interconnection.

There is no cycle. The website for the “pill” is trying to sell pills. It is not using an accurate medical description of what happens when a woman takes a pill. It is using the fact that the pills make you bleed every 28 days as a “selling point”-- don’t get caught on the beach with your period starting… take these pills and you’ll bleed every 28 days. It’s marketing, Mike, not science.

It is not accurate to say that it “regulates” a cycle because it completely supresses the cycle and creates its own, artificial pseudo-cycle.

And, there are now many pills, patches, and shots on the market that do not include the 7 day placebo-- and women never have a cycle at all using those hormones. There is no cycle without the placebos that create a bleed, which is *not *menstruation.

No, Mike, you aer misinformed. The supposed “cycle” created by the pill is a bleed at regular intervals. It has nothing to do with a woman’s actual cycle of fertility. You cannot use the pill to “regulate” your cycle and use NFP simultaneously. It cannot happen medically.

Yes, he is misinformed. Mike, please get educated about this. You are grossly misinformed about how a woman’s body works if you think that the pill creates a menstrual cycle.

Good wording and right on the mark as usual 1ke. I had the experience of having to prayerfully correct a priest on a similar issue recently. Happily, he was open to it. Later he brought a couple to me saying, “She is a better expert on this. She can answer your question.”

 

[setter]

Good wording and right on the mark as usual 1ke.

I concur and my thanks to the other posters who helped to explicate this for me.

I had the experience of having to prayerfully correct a priest on a similar issue recently. Happily, he was open to it. Later he brought a couple to me saying, “She is a better expert on this. She can answer your question.”

I plan to give this priest a written capsule of what has been presented here as a follow up to our cordial though widely disagreeable conversation on ABC.

 

[fix]

This is from a very good diocese:

** Is it wrong to take the pill for non-contraceptive purposes?** I assume you meant he contraceptive pill. If it is prescribed for a genuine pathological situation and there is a very serious reason for its use and if there is no will of any kind for a contraceptive result, it possibly could be taken. Because there are so many variables in a possible answer, however, I recommend that you consult your parish priest or another priest skilled in Moral Theology and present the matter to him. Remember that the contraceptive pill often has an abortifacient effect.
dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/birth/index.htm#6

Now, it says for serious reasons. That would seem to mean it is up to the patient and doctor to discern how serious it is? Is the problem life altering?

Also, Is one required to abstain while on these drugs? I have seen pro and con answers. I would like to know if there is a definitive answer?

Are there alternatives to these drugs, most likely yes as has been mentioned, but that some understand that much does not mean the rest of the medical community agrees. Is the use of these drugs for non contraceptive purposes of the exact same moral magnitude as if a physician were to suggest a sterilization procedure to prevent a possible future untoward preganancy? I would think not.

Is the abortifacient property very significant? Yes. Is that possbility covered by the principle of double effect?

 

[pnewton]

There are always better ways to treat this kind of infertility, but yes, it was licit for theraputic reasons. Please understand though, that the pill did nothing to “regulate” your wife’s cycle.

Perhaps, but it’s hard to argue with results. Besides, why pay a doctor for advice if you aren’t going to listen? Bottom line is that we are so happy with our little bundle who turns two today. But since I am 47, he sure makes me feel old.