The Pill!!!!!

[EvelynEVF]

Alicia, within marriage, if we aren’t ready to conceive a child, we’re supposed to not have sex. We can’t separate sex from at least the possibility of pregnancy. The Pill lets married people (or whoever) have sex without thinking about its intrinsic connection to bringing new life. If we aren’t in a place where it would be okay to conceive, we’re supposed to make the sacrifice of abstaining temporarily and choose to love our spouse some other way.

Sex was designed to always have strings attached, and contraceptives attempt to cut those strings.

 

[choose_to_love]

Alicia, what is your understanding of why the Church does not see contraception as consistent with married sexuality? Is it that the rationale is not persuasive, or that you do not understand it? Have you read any theology of the body material, Chris West or otherwise? Janet Smith?

Briefly, using fertility awareness does not equate to rejecting surgery. Surgery aims to restore a bodily system or part to its healthy function. Contraception takes a healthy, functioning system, the reproductive system, and shuts it down - - makes it not function. Not the same concept at all. Fertility awareness is licit not because it is natural (see Onan, below) but because it does not separate the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative.

Onan’s sin was contraception. There was another penalty, basically public humiliation (I think the woman was to call the man out to the public square, so to speak, and slap him with her sandal, or something like that), where the surviving brother would not marry the widow. Given that there was another penalty, what did Onan do differently, hmmm? He did not just disobey, he separated the unitive from the procreative. As I understand it, traditional Jewish commentary always understood it to be the contraceptive aspect as calling down God’s wrath.

More later, as time allows, as I recognize that this response has not really yet addressed your primary concern.

 

[lizaanne]

Don’t worry folks, I doubt Alicia will be back, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on at this point if she wishes to continue supporting contraception.

~Liza

 

[Texas_Roofer]

CONTRAception does not kill babies.

correct

It prevents conception.

correct

Set aside the minisclue number of accidental pregnancies on the pill, for now.

?? seems important

Killing bablies was not the basis for Humane Vitae.

correct

HV said prevention of pregnancy is instrincaly wrong.

I disagree, look at the section concerning “spacing”

I want to know why.

The concept is similar to “free sex is a road to ruin” now there is a lot more, however try to consider the concept that free sex is never free and maybe a starting point will be reached

HV simply said, that human fertilitly could not be manipulated by any unnatural means because it was God’s design, period.

which goes much deeper than sex, like the bonding of the male/female to raise children and depend on each other

That kind of logic would make any surgery unnatural.

no, pregnancy is not injury, illness, disease, etc.

Although I have heard this idea that it weakens the uterine wall I have never seen any scientific reports that actual natural abortions resulted.

no documented abortions, yet, none

Point me to a source that shows that and that would be persuasive. Also, this was never an argument initially used so it is suspect to support the theology.

There is such a study, which links pills to thinning and another that links thinning to pregnancy problems, however the reverse evidence of pregnancies on the pill are also true, so exactly what happens is unknown. Statistical evidence is what does exist, this is weak but real evidence

Assume that the pill only prevents pregnancy. Why is that alone wrong. I’m looking for someone to expound on why, theologically, use of the pill is wrong between 2 married people who want to delay or space children or stop having children if they are economically burdened. All I ever get back on this question is it’s wrong because it’s wrong. Because we said so. I don’t believe the church has done a good job of teaching why.

Agreed however it is a tough issue to understand, because the bigger issue are often outside the understanding of the young. Celibacy is only a part of self control which affects every facet of life. So many issues as control yourself, wait, work for the best interest of your spouse, and are often misunderstood by the young. Look at people who have sex with many others are they really happy, adjusted, moral people? My experience is no, they often care less, bond with no one (to include children who they accidentally produced) etc, etc,

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I was recently diagnosed with PMDD, premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The treatment for this is a combination of antidepressants and hormones. So basically, something like Zoloft and Yaz (birth control pill). I am really struggling with the birth control portion of the treatment. I have practiced NFP for the last 11 years and was told the the birth control pill was like getting an abortion. I was told that it still allows conception but that the newly created life can’t implant into the uterus. Not to mention, the Church doesn’t support or encourage the use. After telling my doctor that, she said I was completely wrong. She said that Catholics believe that life starts at conception and there is no conception with this pill. My doctor says she is catholic and would never prescribe something like that to her patients if it was like an abortion. What is the church’s stance on using birth control for medical reasons like balancing out hormones and not for birth control? Zoloft will help with the depression associated with PMDD but Yaz is for the hormone imbalance. I don’t know if this question is absolutely ridiculous but I would like to know so that I can start my course of treatment.

I don’t see the problem with you taking the pill. You are taking it for entirely medical reasons (which will improve the quality of your life), and not as a contraceptive. Your doctor knows what she’s talking about as well, see as she is a practising medical professional. There is no sin in this.

I agree with both your doctor and Shadark, the key is the treatment is not intended to contracept. Even if contraception is a side effect of treatment it is cover in Humanae Vitae and is allowed by the church.

Hope that helps

 

[AliciaCL]

Well, I am back. I’m not trying to be contrary. Sometimes here when a person asks for genuine explanation or discussion about something, the other writers take on a very defensive, attacking stance. Lighthen up. I’m not trying to say your wrong or the church is wrong. I’m saying I genuinely do not see, understand the concept that use of the pill inside a marriage, to space children or delay children or stop having children for financial reasons, when the couple is committed to family life, why is it “instrinsically evil.” I’m asking for you who are so committed to this, so well-versed presumably in the theology of it all to explain it to me like a high schooler young woman or college girl could understand it.
I have spent years looking at this issue. I get the words, the standard responses but I’m sorry they don’t make sense to me. I am highly educated, studied and practiced law. I’m no dummy. If I don’t get it and I can’t get someone to nicely, tell it to me in terms I can understand, it’s no wonder there are millions of other women who also don’t see the wrong in it. For me, it no longer matters.

I have read some of Janet’s Smith things, seen her speak on TV. I read Humane Vitae many times. I will look at theology of the body too but that is extremely lengthy as it derives from some 100+ speeches by JP II. It seems like the Quiniffer group someone mentioned makes more sense; they think any avoidance of pregnancy is wrong. That at least resolves the inconsistency between avoiding pregnancy with NFP and avoiding it with a pill. I have never really read the fine print of bc pill pack. But I am pretty sure abortifacent was never cited as an original reason for the “intrinsic evil.” I guess I’m asking for a more detailed natural law argument. You have provided some things for me to read and I will although I can’t get to it for at least a few more days.

Thanks thus far. Please don’t get your backs up so easily. I’m sure no one intended to be snotty but really, several posts sounded very condescending. I’m not trying to convince you all that you are wrong. Clearly there are evils which derive from the pill. No question. So are there many evils that derive from alcohol. Those arguments don’t logically work to conclude that alcohol is therefore intrinsically evil. The lack of “unitive” acts and being open to life sound very vague to me. They really sound like circular arguments.

Will look into the readings you cited.

 

[choose_to_love]

Alicia, I don’t think you are trying to be contrary. Of course you should ask questions to seek to understand. I don’t see you as doing anything but looking for a dialogue. I am not trying to be condescending, snotty, get my back up, or attack. I am trying to see where you are coming from (if you thought I was doing any of those, please accept my apology).

I asked for your understanding so that I could learn what you think the reasons for the Church’s position on contraception are, again to understand and maybe help you to see it in a different light.

Briefly, we are created as male and female in the image and likeness of God. Right in our bodies, in the way we become one flesh in the marital embrace, we image the Trinitarian life and love. God the Father gives Himself completely to God the Son, who receives and reciprocates that self-giving love, and that love is so real, we call it the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity. Like any analogy, it is not perfect, as the Trinitarian love is not sexual as we understand it, nor is it bodily, but nonetheless, it is a clue in our very bodies as to the life of God. That’s how much He wants us to understand Him, and how much He loves us. That love is free, total, faithful, and fruitful.

Similarly, Christ’s love for His Bride, the Church (us), is free (He chose to incarnate, and laid down his life willingly), total (look at a crucifix), faithful, and fruitful. We are called to image both that Trinitarian love and Christ’s love for us in our marital relationship. These are also the component parts of the vows exchanged in marriage. Our consent must be free (no coercion), total (our whole lives), faithful (forsaking all others), and fruitful (accept children lovingly).

Contraception negates all the vows, some more necessarily than others. It obviously contradicts the promise to accept children lovingly. By engaging in the act, we are acknowledging children as a possibility, or accepting God’s invitation in our design to be co-creators with Him of new life - - that is how we are designed, for babies and bonding (procreative and unitive). Pleasure, while attached to the act, is not the purpose, strictly speaking. Contraception severs the connection with which we are created between the unitive and procreative aspects.

If you have read C. West, you’ll recognize this example (also part of why I asked if you’ve read any of his work - - don’t want to bore you with repeats). If you cannot see how contraception within marriage violates the vow to accept children lovingly, because a couple already has some kids, has serious reason, etc., apply that logic to the vow to be faithful. “You mean every act of intercourse, for the rest of my life, has to be with my spouse!?!? I mean, most of the time, I’m faithful, and overall I don’t want to leave my spouse.” Yes, and every act of intercourse between spouses has to be objectively ordered toward procreation, even if subjectively procreation is not possible - - wrong time in the cycle, post-menopausal, already pregnant. In those instances, the couple is not taking any positive action to render the act infertile - - if it is subjectively is infertile, it is because that is also part of how we are made.

More later in the weekend as time allows. I hope you will want to continue the conversation, Alicia. I’ll do my best, and try to get out of the way of the Holy Spirit.

 

[budgie2]

I don’t see the problem with you taking the pill. You are taking it for entirely medical reasons (which will improve the quality of your life), and not as a contraceptive. Your doctor knows what she’s talking about as well, see as she is a practising medical professional. There is no sin in this.

A doctor is only trained to care for the body. A doctor is not trained to care for the soul. Although I doubt the contraceptive pill has any medical benefits in my opinion, your doctor cannot tell you if you are committing a sin by taking the pill and is employed by the state which funds contraception. I personally would visit the priest in confessional to see if taking the pill was a sin. I hope you recover, and really and truly it is only the priest and the Catholic Church that has authority to tell you if it’s right or wrong.

 

[manualman]

There are a couple different issues here.

It is my understanding that legitimate medical treatments of a disorder that utilize the same hormones that make up “the pill” are not necessarily immoral in catholic teaching. We must resist the temptation to reduce principles to rules.

Catholicism does not teach that “the pill” is immoral. It teaches that intentional sterilization of lovemaking is immoral. If a competent doctor determines that this hormone treatment is the best medical cure for an ailment, that isn’t contraception, even if it results in ovulation suppression as an unintended side effect. Now this leaves open the question as to how do you decide if a doctor is really trying to CURE you or just treating your symptoms. That’s not a moral question, its a practical one!

Others have provided good links. I’ll be dangerous and try to summarize why the Church teaches against contraception. We humans are a union of body and spirit. What we do with our bodies has unseverable links to what we do with our souls. God has designed the miracle of sexuality to have the potential to create new life, but not every time. When we, mere humans, intentionally sever the link between sex and life we unintentionally damage the bonding experience that God intended sex to provide between man and wife. Just why is it that people are so desperate to justify ABC instead of NFP? Because its hard. It requires sacrifice. It doesn’t let you have whatever you want, whenever you want it. When you have a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy, you must submit to the sexual fasting times to achieve it. That fasting period maintains God’s link between sex and life. It makes you confront MONTHLY the reason that is allegedly so serious. And a funny thing happens. After a while, a lot of us learn that it ain’t so serious after all! ABC, on the other hand, requires no committment or sacrifice. It takes no effort, no contemplation, no work, no sacrifice, no trade-offs. Actually, its a pretty good metaphor for most of what’s wrong in the Western culture.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well, I am back. I’m not trying to be contrary. Sometimes here when a person asks for genuine explanation or discussion about something, the other writers take on a very defensive, attacking stance. Lighthen up. I’m not trying to say your wrong or the church is wrong. I’m saying I genuinely do not see, understand the concept that use of the pill inside a marriage, to space children or delay children or stop having children for financial reasons, when the couple is committed to family life, why is it “instrinsically evil.” I’m asking for you who are so committed to this, so well-versed presumably in the theology of it all to explain it to me like a high schooler young woman or college girl could understand it.

The reduction or better the avoidance of natural responsibility which is allowed by the pill is not free, it is expensive. The expense is not in money but in human dignity. High rates of abondanment, divorce, single parenting, government involvement with the family are all parts of a turn away from personal responsibility. Part of the issue is to encourage people to stop looking for license (free), and accept the responsibilities of god’s plan for man

I have spent years looking at this issue. I get the words, the standard responses but I’m sorry they don’t make sense to me. I am highly educated, studied and practiced law. I’m no dummy. If I don’t get it and I can’t get someone to nicely, tell it to me in terms I can understand, it’s no wonder there are millions of other women who also don’t see the wrong in it. For me, it no longer matters.

I have read some of Janet’s Smith things, seen her speak on TV. I read Humane Vitae many times. I will look at theology of the body too but that is extremely lengthy as it derives from some 100+ speeches by JP II. It seems like the Quiniffer group someone mentioned makes more sense; they think any avoidance of pregnancy is wrong.

Who is the “Quiniffer group”? if they believe “avoidance of pregnancy is wrong” that is not aligned with actual church teaching. Children may be avoided if done within the plan; self controlled calls of celebacy.

That at least resolves the inconsistency between avoiding pregnancy with NFP and avoiding it with a pill. I have never really read the fine print of bc pill pack. But I am pretty sure abortifacent was never cited as an original reason for the “intrinsic evil.” I guess I’m asking for a more detailed natural law argument. You have provided some things for me to read and I will although I can’t get to it for at least a few more days.

It will be hard to find in the reading but let’s look back at

*" Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it isan evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. "*

Now it is hard but the above is not your answer. to understand deeper I recommend you consider the sin of sterilization

Thanks thus far. Please don’t get your backs up so easily. I’m sure no one intended to be snotty but really, several posts sounded very condescending. I’m not trying to convince you all that you are wrong. Clearly there are evils which derive from the pill. No question. So are there many evils that derive from alcohol. Those arguments don’t logically work to conclude that alcohol is therefore intrinsically evil. The lack of “unitive” acts and being open to life sound very vague to me. They really sound like circular arguments.

Will look into the readings you cited.

Is this “I can practice the pill and love my wife” equal to “I can drink and not hurt anybody”? Well I think one part is drinking is not a natural call, while sex is. Sex by its very nature requires humans to develop self control. Alcohol can get there but only after one has developed and addiction to alcohol, yet sex affects all and always has affected all. (a single individual can leave a wake of broken homes and abandon kids)

hope that helps