Straight story on contraception

[UKcatholicGuy]

I’ve seen in recent threads that there has been confusion on whether or not it is licit for a married couple to have sex when the wife is on “the pill” for medical reasons. Even the official Catholic Answers apologists have said that a married couple can have sex while the wife is on the pill, granted it’s not used for contraceptive reasons, but for medical.

This information is flawed and is not in keeping with Church teaching.

The American Life League, a pro-life Catholic organization, gives the straight answer to this difficult issue:
Birth control pills for medical reasons

By Paul 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.

for more info: all.org/issues/hayes001.htm

---

 

[felra]

I have heard it presented by authoritative and respected sources both ways (okay/not okay to have marital relations while on the pill for medical reasons). It depends on how the Double Effect is applied. It seems to me that it can come down to whether or how hard the couple want to try to live the heart of the law versus by the letter of the law. I wish the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would conclusively speak on this matter so that sincere Catholics can well inform their consciences and do what is honoring to God.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

felra:

I wish the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would conclusively speak on this matter so that sincere Catholics can well inform their consciences and do what is honoring to God.

amen!

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

felra:

It seems to me that it can come down to whether or how hard the couple want to try to live the heart of the law versus by the letter of the law.

True, but the problem is people eschew the “letter” for sake of the “heart,” fearing legalism. But the letter of the law is what’s preventing abortions while the heart is in the wrong place.

 

[1ke]

I respect American Life League and I support them monetarily. BUT… **Neither Dr. Hayes nor Judie Brown speak for the Church. **

Therefore, at most, what you have is an opinion, not as you say “the straight story”.

The Church has not made a specific pronouncement on this exact situation. However, the documents of the Church that do address theraputic medical treatments seem to lean against Dr. Hayes’s interpretation. Specifically both the Catechism and Humanae Vitae.

 

[Catholic2003]

The Church has already spoken on this issue, in Humanae Vitae:

1. 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.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Catholic2003:

The Church has already spoken on this issue, in Humanae Vitae:

I’m very familiar with this section of Humanae Vitae. Unfortunately, it is not very specific, hence the confusion. But if you read it carefully, you’ll notice it’s talking about curing diseases. Now, last time I checked, extreme cramps wasn’t a disease. Neither was an irregular cycle. It makes more sense to interpret this passage as referring to something like removing the uterus to cure uteran cancer. Or what if a man has cancer, and the chemotherapy depletes his sperm count, rendering it much less likely to produce offspring? This seems to be more in line with the context of the document.

Plus, you must take into account other well-established Church teachings, such as the one that nothing inherently evil is ever justified, even to bring about good. This would apply to abortion. Interestingly, the Catechism also refers to contraception as intrinsically evil. That alone would rule out the possibility that it’s ok to have sex while on the pill for medical reasons.

But what about the fact that the pill is an abortifacient? Now that adds a whole other evil dimension. Do you honestly think the Church-- the most pro-life institution on the face of the planet-- would condone the deaths of innocent embrionic children because the husband and wife couldnt control themselves while the wife was on BC to cure a disease? Of course they woulldnt. Abortion is always evil, always wrong.

And consider this: the pill prevents new life from coming into being, first by contracepting, but many times by killing a day-old baby. Now, do you think the intent of the husband and wife changes the fact of what happens to the innocent child? NOPE. Whether they “intended” to or not, they’ve killed their child. Sure, it sounds harsh, but it’s true. There is no reason why-- if a woman needs BC for medical reasons-- she and her husband cannot abstain from sex until she is off the medication. After all, we’re talking about the possibilty of killing a child! There;s not a good enough reason in the world to risk that.

 

[FiremanFrank]

UKguy,

I does not appear that we are permitted to take too lightly that last line of Article 15, which states:

---

***"… provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever." ***

---

Menstrual cramps, for example, can at times be a debilitating condition for a certain population of women.

This is a medical fact.

Menstrual Pain

Menstrual Pain Overview

Menstrual cramps are sharp pains in a woman’s lower abdomen that occur when her menstrual period begins and may continue for 2-3 days. Symptoms can range in severity from a mild annoyance to severe pain that interferes with normal activities.

Menstrual cramps are the leading cause of absenteeism in women younger than 30 years. Although over half of women who have menstrual periods experience some discomfort, 10% are temporarily disabled by symptoms.

emedicinehealth.com/articles/6783-1.asp

As such, it seems that ignoring such a “disabling condition” would be antithetical to the very nature and reasoning of Article 15 itself.

So before we get into too much “legalism” here, we must not forget the “heart” of the teaching - that is, it is to be applied to the overall human condition of everyone that is involved.

Also, to address then the “motives” of the individual, it would seem best that a person who is enduring the more severe aspects of this type of condition should seek some type of counseling with a competent priest who is fully aware of the Church’s Teaching in the matter - but who also understands the meaning by which this teaching was to be administered.

Good luck in finding one of those though …

frank

 

[hopeandlove]

There are different Pills/BC that work in different ways. For example some completely stop an egg from being released and there for could never kill a day old baby. Would this type of pill be okay for other medical reasons? Such as cramps – which the pill can make better or worse depending on the women. There is so many what if’s maybe this should be left up to the women her Dr. and God.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Fortunately, the pill works wonders on heavy periods and painful periods.

 

[Catholic2003]

I had a debilitating stomach ulcer for three months. During that time, I couldn’t concentrate for more than 30 seconds on anything before being overcome by the agony that I felt. I couldn’t fall asleep for more than 2 hours before being woken up by the pain, and this was when I was taking Oxiconten at night. (I did not take it during the day to avoid becoming addicted.) If a women is experiencing anything like what I went through, then nitpicking about the word “disease” in Humanae Vitae is just legalism of the worst sort.

It is contraception that is intrinsically evil, not the pill. Otherwise, this section in Humanae Vitae wouldn’t apply even for the case of cancer that you mention. The point about contraception being intrinsically evil is that its use (for the intended purpose of stopping conception) can never be justified, even if, for example, it is certain that another pregnancy would kill the wife.

I’m sorry, I don’t see any confusion here. Everyone from Pope Paul VI to the Catholic Answers apologists seems to be on the same page here.

 

[kmktexas]

hopeandlove:

There are different Pills/BC that work in different ways. For example some completely stop an egg from being released and there for could never kill a day old baby. Would this type of pill be okay for other medical reasons? Such as cramps – which the pill can make better or worse depending on the women. .

Currently there are not approved birth control pills that are that effective. Any pill that was that effective would probably have to be so strong that the side effects would make it unmarketable. If you read the patient insert of any package of BC pills currently available, you will see that there are rates of “break through ovulation”. This means that the pill did not work in its primary goal of preventing ovulation. It usually is then successful in one of its secondary goals which are to prevent implantation or to ensure the sloughing of the utering lining with or without a baby.

Even to reach the theoretical % of effectiveness for the BC pills, you have to take the pill at precise intervals, not become ill while on the pill (stomach illnesses or fevers can reduce the effectiveness), not take any other medication and watch what you eat (food can affect the absorbtion rates). I have known many people who have taken the BC pills including myself (prescribed for homonal imbalance before I was married) and never knew anyone to be that precise or careful.

There is so many what if’s maybe this should be left up to the women her Dr. and God

When you are ever concerned about what is morally right, you are probably prudent to leave your Doctor out of it. The whole point of this thread is to understand better what the Church teaches about it. That’s as close to “the woman and God” as we are going to get while still on this earth.

 

[Pug]

UKcatholicGuy:

But if you read it carefully, you’ll notice it’s talking about curing diseases. Now, last time I checked, extreme cramps wasn’t a disease. Neither was an irregular cycle

Last time I checked, extreme pain during periods and sexual relations (and other female problems with their cycle) is often a symptom of having all sorts of lesions throughout your abdomen, on your bowels, bladder, uterus, abdominal wall, etc. Those lesions can be physically removed with surgery, but they come back. The pill can often prevent them from coming back. But this has nothing to do with disease? Women in these situations could have to have repeated surgery for large ovarian cysts. I think taking a pill to avoid repeated major surgery is reasonably considered preventative treatment. If red implants inside your abdomen and large growths on your ovaries is not a disease (pathological), what is?

Often severe menstrual cramps mean disease, and I have listed just one of the things it could be. Even so, I don’t consider being disabled for 2 days out of 28 to be healthy. If severe, it needs treatment of some sort, even if science doesn’t yet know the cause in her particular case.

 

[hopeandlove]

kmktexas:

Currently there are not approved birth control pills that are that effective. Any pill that was that effective would probably have to be so strong that the side effects would make it unmarketable.

Right, My point was different Pills work in different ways I should not have used the word completely. Some Pills however do not attempt to stop ovulation at all.

kmktexas:

When you are ever concerned about what is morally right, you are probably prudent to leave your Doctor out of it. The whole point of this thread is to understand better what the Church teaches about it. That’s as close to “the woman and God” as we are going to get while still on this earth.

We are talking about other medical uses for the Pill, BC for the use of BC is a moral issue between a women and God. Other medical uses still have moral elements between a women and God, I would still take medical advice from a Dr.

 

[FiremanFrank]

**… **

**

The whole point of this thread is to understand better what the Church teaches about it. That’s as close to “the woman and God” as we are going to get while still on this earth.

**

:clapping: :dancing:

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Might some BCP or another be evidenced to be a proper medical aid? Sure. That’s not the point.
If contraception is admissable in extreme cases in which life is at stake, this does not, I believe, include BCPs, if you intend to continue having sex. They are abortifaticents and kill babies. I don’t believe it’s possible to accurately interpret the teaching of the Church to say that killing babies is okay, if that was not your intent (even though it was completely avoidable by means of abstinence).

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

(even though it was completely avoidable by means of abstinence).

amen. thats the part that everyone seems to be leaving out. the argument is NOT whether BC pills are okay for curing ailments. of course they are, as according to the Church. the problem enters when the couple intends to continue having sex, thus risking killing their children. again, it sounds harsh, but you shouldnt be upset with me. it’s the facts of what sometimes happens when on the BC pill: it can cause abortions.

i would never be this “harsh” on someone outside the Church who is seeking to understand our teaching; but we as Catholics should be the last people trying to justify “unintended” abortion

 

[1ke]

Sgt Sweaters:

Might some BCP or another be evidenced to be a proper medical aid? Sure. That’s not the point.
If contraception is admissable in extreme cases in which life is at stake, this does not, I believe, include BCPs, if you intend to continue having sex. They are abortifaticents and kill babies. I don’t believe it’s possible to accurately interpret the teaching of the Church to say that killing babies is okay, if that was not your intent (even though it was completely avoidable by means of abstinence).

There are many other medications and medical procedures that can and do result in the unintended, but forseen, death of the baby and the Church teaches clearly that medical treatment is allowed.

You are trying to state a single black-and-white law applicable to all cases when there is none. Each situation must be evaluated based on its specific circumstances.

There are cases where the hormonal pill is one of many treatments or is for relatively minor problems and certainly these cases would probably not be considered proportionate to the possible side effects of taking the pill. However, there are other cases where hormonal treatment is the only treatment and the problem is severe, and in this case would be considered proportionate to the possible side effects.

 

[BlindSheep]

1ke:

There are many other medications and medical procedures that can and do result in the unintended, but forseen, death of the baby and the Church teaches clearly that medical treatment is allowed.
.

Such as what? In all the examples I can think of, the woman is already pregnant and there is no other option. For instance, with ectopic pregnancy right now the only way to save the mother’s life is to remove the embryo. Or a pregnant woman with cancer might need chemo to survive. But for a woman who isn’t pregnant to go on having sex, knowing her medication will kill any baby concieved, is not the same thing at all.

 

[1ke]

BlindSheep:

Such as what? In all the examples I can think of, the woman is already pregnant and there is no other option. For instance, with ectopic pregnancy right now the only way to save the mother’s life is to remove the embryo. Or a pregnant woman with cancer might need chemo to survive. But for a woman who isn’t pregnant to go on having sex, knowing her medication will kill any baby concieved, is not the same thing at all.

The church does not require a person who is, for example, already on cancer treatment or any other type of medication/treatment, to abstain from sexual relations. Even using NFP, it is possible to conceive a child while on medication and for that medication to result in a spontaneous abortion.