Taking the Pill when not sexually active, but with the intent to use it as Birth Control

[Deo_Gratias42]

Here’s a random thought I had that can’t be answered by my moral theology book, as it pre-dates the Pill, and no other forms of ABC at the time worked as such.The Pill can be taken (must be taken) prior to being sexually active in order for it to work. Knowing the amount of mothers who want their young daughters in high school on the Pill “just in case” here’s a thinker for you.

A non-sexually active young girl goes on the Pill because mom insists “just in case” and girl has no intention of becoming sexually active. Time goes by and young girl not sexually active, but still on the Pill, knowing that it is grave to use the Pill as birth control get’s a little older and starts having crazy thoughts about using it as a contraceptive should a suitable opportunity comes along (a girl must have high standards, after all) and is thus now intending to use it as a contraceptive. A suitable opportunity never comes along and girl never becomes sexually active. Further, for completely different reasons (ie: not moral reasons) she decides to go off the Pill, thus never actually prevented a pregnancy by using it.

Did the girl commit a grave sin in using the Pill?

Think about it.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

I would say no? If she did not engage in sexual promiscuity than the pill probably did little more than regulate her cycles. But for most girls who are on it who claim this are probably lying or if they aren’t many will end up changing their minds or in a momentary lapse of judgement, engage in sexual promiscuity when opportunity knocks. THEN I’d say its a mortal sin. But that’s just my opinion. Interested in hearing the rest of the CAF family weigh in.

 

[lerapt78]

I would say she had committed a sin by being on the Pill while under the expectation that a sexual opportunity would come along (if we can consider intent alone to be sinful).

I would say she did *not *commit a sin when she was on the Pill at the request of her mother.

 

[lerapt78]

Here’s a comparative question:

Does a man commit a sin if he carries a condom in his wallet, even if he never gets the opportunity to use it?

 

[JK8619]

A bit off topic maybe, but I do not get the Church’s problem with contraception when it is used by married couples, especially when the rhythm method it considered ok. It seems to me that “natural birth control,” which is meant to achieve the same ends as contraception, should be viewed the same way.

Anyway, I don’t think you can blame a child for the parents act. The kid pretty much wouldn’t have a choice. The only thing I think would be a problem is if she was fornicating.

 

[1ke]

Temptation and sin are two separate things.

 

[1ke]

A bit off topic maybe,

Yes, it is off topic.

but I do not get the Church’s problem with contraception when it is used by married couples, especially when the rhythm method it considered ok.

Contraception is an intrinsically evil action.

Abstaining from sexual relations (which is what all methods of natural family planning are) is not.

BTW, the “rhythm method” is antiquated and not a modern method of natural family planning.

It seems to me that “natural birth control,” which is meant to achieve the same ends as contraception, should be viewed the same way.

Means and ends are two different things entirely. BOTH must be moral. Regarding means: Contraception is not, abstaining from relations is.

 

[paperwight66]

Means and ends are two different things entirely. BOTH must be moral. .

I cannot understand this argument.

Would you agree that sticking a needle into a baby was cruel in normal circumstances?

Now keep that same needle but make it into an injection. It becomes good. But the process is just as painful for the helpless baby.

The means haven’t changed. It has caused pain to a helpless infant.

The end or purpose has. It has immunised the child/administered anaesthesia whatever.

 

[1ke]

I cannot understand this argument.

Then I suggest you read the Catechism section on the morality of acts for a good overview:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5Q.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
paperwight66;9516775:

Would you agree that sticking a needle into a baby was cruel in normal circumstances?

See above.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

A bit off topic maybe, but I do not get the Church’s problem with contraception when it is used by married couples, especially when the rhythm method it considered ok. It seems to me that “natural birth control,” which is meant to achieve the same ends as contraception, should be viewed the same way.

Anyway, I don’t think you can blame a child for the parents act. The kid pretty much wouldn’t have a choice. The only thing I think would be a problem is if she was fornicating.

This is completely off topic, and I would appreciate that this rabbit hole not be further indulged into. There are numerous posts on this topic, whereas I was trying to generate a good intellectually stimulating discussion about how and when sins are actually committed.

 

[Nabooru]

I’m on the shot to avoid having periods - it stabilizes my already-fragile moods. But I think I’m not an evil person if I’m grateful I didn’t get pregnant after being raped.

 

[akela135]

I think that in this case the girl would not be sinning. I’d look at it this way. If another girl said to herself “The pill is a good contraceptive and I will use it as BC if I get a partner I can engage in relations with.” She fully intends to buy and use the pill when she gets the opportunity. However circumstances arise later on where she decides for health reasons taking the pill would be a bad idea and thus never takes the pill. During the time period where she had planned on taking the pill she never enters into a relationship and thus the opportunity to sin never presents itself to her.

The girl on the pill is in the same boat as the girl I have mentioned. The only difference being she is already on the pill and wouldn’t have to go out and obtain it. I think it couldn’t be a sin until she actually used the pill as BC.

Afterall, if she had gotten into a relationship during the time period she was on the pill she may have decided that she didn’t want to use it as BC and would have requested to get off it. Same with although she stopped taking it for unrelated reasons, if several months in the future she did enter a relationship she might also think how glad she is not using the pill as BC and be glad she stopped taking it. While unlikely she might only have a change of heart about the contraceptive part of it when in a relationship.

 

[tabycat]

Taking the Pill at the urging of a parent is not a sin but after she is out on her own, it might be. This type of question makes me think of my eighth grade CCD (ya, I’m one of THEM) class when Sister was explaining the differents between sins (like do you obey your perent and lie or not lie and desobey your perant). :tsktsk:

 

[Catholic80]

Here’s a random thought I had that can’t be answered by my moral theology book, as it pre-dates the Pill, and no other forms of ABC at the time worked as such.The Pill can be taken (must be taken) prior to being sexually active in order for it to work. Knowing the amount of mothers who want their young daughters in high school on the Pill “just in case” here’s a thinker for you.

A non-sexually active young girl goes on the Pill because mom insists “just in case” and girl has no intention of becoming sexually active. Time goes by and young girl not sexually active, but still on the Pill, knowing that it is grave to use the Pill as birth control get’s a little older and starts having crazy thoughts about using it as a contraceptive should a suitable opportunity comes along (a girl must have high standards, after all) and is thus now intending to use it as a contraceptive. A suitable opportunity never comes along and girl never becomes sexually active. Further, for completely different reasons (ie: not moral reasons) she decides to go off the Pill, thus never actually prevented a pregnancy by using it.

Did the girl commit a grave sin in using the Pill?

Think about it.

I would think that her mother holds the graver sin. She put her child in the near occasion of sin. By putting her daughter on the Pill, she makes a silent statement that premarital sex is okay, that birth control is okay, and that she doesn’t think much of her daughter and her daughter’s dignity.

The daughter, not yet being an adult, followed the guidance of her mother. She is ignorant of the sin.
Now, while being on the Pill, she was taught somewhere that premarital sex was immoral, she would hold some responsibility if she continued to take it because the intent to sin is there. I don’t think it would quite be a mortal sin, but she is then putting herself in the near occasion for a mortal sin, and refusing to acknowledge truth.

 

[timotheos]

She put her child in the near occasion of sin.

Yeah. I think of these words at the end of the act of contrition.

I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more, and to avoid the near occasion of sin.

No I don’t think it is technically a sin. But if it’s not “near occasion”, then nothing is. And “firm resolution” becomes a joke.

 

[LilyM]

A bit off topic maybe, but I do not get the Church’s problem with contraception when it is used by married couples, especially when the rhythm method it considered ok. It seems to me that “natural birth control,” which is meant to achieve the same ends as contraception, should be viewed the same way.

Anyway, I don’t think you can blame a child for the parents act. The kid pretty much wouldn’t have a choice. The only thing I think would be a problem is if she was fornicating.

No, the means need to be considered in and of themselves as well as the end.

Let’s say I am in debt and need to obtain money to pay off my debt. This is a perfectly morally OK goal. I can achieve this end in at least two ways:

a) obtain work (or additional work if I work already) and earn the necessary funds, or
b) rob the nearest bank.

I may do a) or b) with the exact same legitimate goal in mind, obtaining money to pay off my debts. But, highly extraordinary circumstances aside, I would still not be justified in using method b, because of the morally dubious nature of theft in and of itself.

 

[LilyM]

I cannot understand this argument.

Would you agree that sticking a needle into a baby was cruel in normal circumstances?

Now keep that same needle but make it into an injection. It becomes good. But the process is just as painful for the helpless baby.

The means haven’t changed. It has caused pain to a helpless infant.

The end or purpose has. It has immunised the child/administered anaesthesia whatever.

Not all acts are morally good or bad in themselves. Sticking a needle into someone, as you have rightly said, may be good in the context of administering an injection. Mind you you haven’t said an injection of what. Could just as easily be a deadly poison meant to kill as a life saving medication.

Some acts, however, are intrinsically evil. That is, there is no resulting good which can justify their use. Idol worship, as the early Christians showed, is one such intrinsically evil act, which the saints did not even stoop to in cases of torture, persecution and execution.