Unique Case Contraceptive

  • Thread starter Thread starter rick-t
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rick-t

Guest
I am a cradle Catholic and do not trust my own ability to discern the proper answer for this unique case.

A Catholic married woman is prescribed a medication for a neurological condition: without this medication she cannot function day to day (literally couch-bound) to take care of her family’s needs. This family has multiple children.

The medication which allows her to function would also be deadly to a child in her womb.

Questions:
  1. Normal marital relations resulting in conception would be knowingly taking a life?
  2. Would a birth control method be allowed in this case to allow normal marital relations? To save the couple from the grief of knowingly participating in the creation of a child knowing the child’s fate?
Thank you in advance
 
rick-t said:
A Catholic married woman is prescribed a medication for a neurological condition: without this medication she cannot function day to day (literally couch-bound) to take care of her family’s needs. This family has multiple children.

The medication which allows her to function would also be deadly to a child in her womb.

Questions:
  1. Normal marital relations resulting in conception would be knowingly taking a life?
  2. Would a birth control method be allowed in this case to allow normal marital relations? To save the couple from the grief of knowingly participating in the creation of a child knowing the child’s fate?
Click to expand...
Is this hypothetical or a real case?

Reluctantly, I’d have to say that total abstinence is the only real solution here. Contraception or sterilization is an immoral means to a good end, and even NFP is not infallible.
 
  1. That’s an interesting concept. I’d say if one purposely tried to get pregnant knowing that it would kill a baby then there would be some culpability but if one just unified with spouse and happened to get pregnant then no culpability but I’m not 100 percent on this.
  2. The only birth control you can use is NFP. Periodic abstinence or permanent abstinence. Conservative NFP would allow for marital relations at least several times a month for most people.
 
“Contraceptives” can be used to help medical problems. I can’t really say anything else about the subject since I’m not really sure. I would go on the safe side. Hopefully there is a different medication that won’t be lethal that can be used instead.
 
Last edited:
rick-t said:
  1. Normal marital relations resulting in conception would be knowingly taking a life?
Click to expand...
No it would not be knowingly taking a life. Not all marital acts result in conception. It would only be problematic if the couple had the intent to become pregnant or did not practice reasonable discretion to avoid becoming pregnant if there was a high risk of fetal demise (e.g. Don’t care if she becomes pregnant because they don’t have a concern for the life that might be placed at risk).
rick-t said:
  1. Would a birth control method be allowed in this case to allow normal marital relations? To save the couple from the grief of knowingly participating in the creation of a child knowing the child’s fate?
Click to expand...
No. The ends do not justify the means. The use of contraceptives to purposely frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act actually makes marital relations in those cases abnormal, not allowing for normalcy.

The way presented implies that the unitive aspect is the “normal” part of the marital act, or its principle purpose, with the procreative aspect a secondary effect that can impede the primary purpose of the act. Seeing it in this way breaks the understanding of the purpose of the marital act by relegating the gift to share in God’s act of creation as secondary to the merely human aspects.

While likely unintentional, even the reason to avoid pregnancy in the second question is more focused on self (avoiding grief) than it is on avoiding anything for the child. How it is formulated reads more along the lines of “does avoiding suffering while enjoying pleasure without sacrifice negate the sinfulness of an act?”
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
“Contraceptives” can be used to help medical problems.
Click to expand...
That is true if the primary purpose it to treat a bodily disfunction and contraception is ancillary to it primary purpose. In this case contraceptives are not being proposed to treating a medical problem. In otherwords, normal bodily function would continue without the use of contraceptives and their primary, if not only, purpose would be to frustrate procreation. That is not a legitimate moral reason to use them.
 
rick-t said:
Would a birth control method be allowed in this case to allow normal marital relations?
Click to expand...
No.

The couple would be called to abstinence in such cases or maybe very conservative natural family planning.
 
Not to mention that artificial birth control has a failure rate too. Conception is not an impossibility while contracepting.
 
JMMJ said:
People here will say the couple should practice abstinence.
Click to expand...
And I think they would probably be wrong, although I think such a couple should ensure they bring up this question with their priest.

I’m not convinced of #1, or that the Church teaches that. I actually think that normal marital relations are morally licit under these circumstances.

#2, however is not an option. Contraception is intrinsically immoral, and cannot be used under any circumstances.

My thoughts are this couple have NFP or normal marital relations as their recourse.
 
rick-t said:
I am a cradle Catholic and do not trust my own ability to discern the proper answer for this unique case.

A Catholic married woman is prescribed a medication for a neurological condition: without this medication she cannot function day to day (literally couch-bound) to take care of her family’s needs. This family has multiple children.

The medication which allows her to function would also be deadly to a child in her womb.

Questions:
  1. Normal marital relations resulting in conception would be knowingly taking a life?
  2. Would a birth control method be allowed in this case to allow normal marital relations? To save the couple from the grief of knowingly participating in the creation of a child knowing the child’s fate?
Thank you in advance
Click to expand...
I believe this would be a double-effect scenario. Contraceptive drugs can be morally acceptable when taken to treat another issue; they’re only illicit when taken as contraception.

I think.

@edward_george1
 
As to the second case, it’s pretty clear that birth control would not be allowed. The ends do not justify the means, as others have said. There is never a case in which it is allowed to intentionally frustrate the marital act so that it is rendered non-procreative. This is distinct from taking medications which render one infertile for the intention of treating some pathology; in this case, the intention is not to contracept, but a loss of fertility is a side effect.

As to the first, it’s not the same thing as knowingly taking a life. If you were having marital relations with the intention of conceiving a child so that the child would be miscarried, obviously that would be beyond the pale of what is morally licit (and what is healthy mentally and physically, of course). I guess I would ask the clarifying question, are we talking about a medication that would kill a child already conceived, or a medication which would make the woman incapable of conceiving, i.e. making implantation impossible? I would have to know more about the medication and the mechanism of action, especially vis-a-vis the reproductive side effects.

My best advice would be to contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center, via their Consultation Request Form.

And if you don’t mind, PM me and let me know what they say.

-Fr ACEGC
 
rick-t said:
The medication which allows her to function would also be deadly to a child in her womb.
Click to expand...
Obviously not the same scenario than in the CDF note from December 2018, but the principles explained in that note may be helpful.

Applying the same principles from that note contraceptives would be permitted: since procreation is not possible then contraceptives are not counterprocreative in the defined scenario.
 
HopkinsReb said:
I believe this would be a double-effect scenario. Contraceptive drugs can be morally acceptable when taken to treat another issue; they’re only illicit when taken as contraception.
Click to expand...
Except the Doctrine of Double Effect requires that the ends of an action not be intrinsically evil. If a drug was being used to treat a neurological condition (per the OP) and that drug had a contraceptive side effect the ends of the action wouldn’t be contraception, rather the remediation of the symptoms of the neurological condition. The OP is asking whether a drug that is not contraceptive but instead is abortive used for the sake of therapy might allow for another drug that is contraceptive, and whose entire purpose is to prevent conception so that the first drug does not then kill the resulting child. This would be using a means of treatment for the sake of contraception, and would therefore be intrinsically evil.
 
Last edited:
Not for the sake of contraception since you are not seeking to avoid procreation but to avoid an abortion. According to CDF if the child will not reach viability there is not procreation and therefore there is no contraception
 

The precise object of sterilization is to impede the functioning of the reproductive organs, and the malice of sterilization consists in the refusal of children: it is an act against the bonum prolis . On the contrary, in the case considered in the question, it is known that the reproductive organs are not capable of protecting a conceived child up to viability, namely, they are not capable of fulfilling their natural procreative function. The objective of the procreative process is to bring a baby into the world, but here the birth of a living fetus is not biologically possible. Therefore, we are not dealing with a defective, or risky, functioning of the reproductive organs, but we are faced here with a situation in which the natural end of bringing a living child into the world is not attainable.

The medical procedure should not be judged as being against procreation, because we find ourselves within an objective context in which neither procreation, nor as a consequence, an anti-procreative action, are possible.
 
That has to do with hysterectomies of inhospitable wombs not using artificial contraception, which is intrinsically evil, in order to prevent spontaneous miscarriage due to other medical treatment. Indeed, the paragraph titled “A Different Issue” explains the difference between an earlier decision made in regards to hysterectomies qua contraception:

A different issue​

The cases addressed in the present response, while also concerning hysterectomy “present a different issue from that which was examined in 1993,” the Congregation explains, precisely “because they regard situations in which procreation is no longer possible.” That is, “removing a reproductive organ incapable of bringing a pregnancy to term should not therefore be qualified as direct sterilization, which is and remains intrinsically illicit as an end and as a means.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top