I do not know your medical credentials, but I know one doctor that disagrees with you and his information proved accurate in one case.
I’m sure there are doctors willing to ignore the science and the information provided by the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the pill and who will state that the pill “regulates” a cycle. It doesn’t change the pharmacology or the facts.
Again, the OP knows of one situation where a priest disagreed with you.
This is not accurate. The OP knows his priest gave him “permission.” That does not lead to the conclusion that the priest had the ability to do so or rightly applied Catholic moral teaching in doing so.
Knowing of a priest who will give such permissions does not make the permission valid. There are numerous posters on CAF who know a priest-- in fact many posters who were actually told by priests-- to contracept, get sterilized, get married down the street at the Episcopal church because of their prior marriage, and many other intrinsically evil acts. That does not alter the morality of the act, it may alter the person’s culpability since they received bad information. However, with the ease of finding the real truth via the Catechism and other Church documents, it does not entirely absolve the party from responsibility.
Bottom line: A priest cannot give permission to commit an intrinsically evil act, a sin.
Now, perhaps the priest misunderstood the question. Perhaps the OP has not fully explained the situation. That is why I said it **seems **that the permission was misplaced in this situation. Again, we don’t have all the facts only what the OP said. We should certainly give the priest the benefit of the doubt. If there is a legitimate medical need, then certainly the priest was correct as far as double effect goes. However, there are other Church documents that *lend weight *to the requirement to abstain due to the abortifacient potential of the pill. The Church hasn’t made a definitive statement in that area.
There is a possibility where one can be allowed to commit an intrinsically evil action. If one commits a postive good simultaneous with a negative good, and if the positive good is greater than the negative, the the law of double effect allows such an action. One must not forget why contraception is intrinsically evil, that is, that it offends the fecundity, or fruitfulness of marriage.
This is not accurate. You have misstated the criteria required for the principle of double effect to be legitimately used. One can NEVER do evil so that good may come of it. That is a teaching readily found in the Catechism (see below). First, here are the criteria necessary to employ the principle of double effect:
First,
that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the
bad result not be directly intended; third, that
the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that
the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result.
Catholic moral teaching on doing an intrinsically evil action, see
here for the full text of the section:
1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
- the object chosen;
- the end in view or the intention;
- the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. **There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; **such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.
One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Therefore, according to 1756 one can NEVER choose an intrinsically evil act (contraception) even for a good intention. If one does so, one is misapplying the principle of double effect.
