Valid Use of Birth Control?

[Ron_Conte]

1. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because contraception deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning. This deprivation of the procreative meaning is what makes the moral object evil and the act itself inherently immoral. Intrinsically evil acts are **never **justified by intention or purpose (such as a medical purpose), and are **never **justified by circumstances or consequences (such as pain if the contraceptive is not taken).
2. If an unmarried woman who is not sexually active takes the birth control pill, the pill does not deprive the sexual act of its procreative meaning because she is not having sexual relations. Therefore, it is moral for her to take the birth control pill with a good intention (e.g. medical purposes) if the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences (which, by the way, is debatable in the case of the BCP), but only because there is no evil moral object – the deprivation of the procreative meaning.
3. If a married woman remains sexually active and takes the birth control pill, the pill does deprive the sexual act of its procreative meaning. Therefore, the moral object is evil and the act of having contracepted sexual relations is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

This deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual relations is never an “unintended side effect” because this deprivation is in the moral object. In the principle of double effect, a bad effect (consequence) can be tolerated ONLY IF the intentions are good (so the bad effect is unintended) AND the moral object is good. The principle of double effect NEVER justifies intrinsically evil acts.

The procreative meaning of marital relations is not a consequence in the third font of morality (circumstances), but rather the moral object in the second font of morality. A deprivation of the procreative meaning makes the moral object evil and the act itself intrinsically evil. Therefore, the birth control pill may not be morally used by a sexually active women, even for a medical purpose, even in dire circumstances, because the moral object remains evil and the act remains intrinsically evil.

There are three fonts of morality:

1. intention (the purpose for which the act is done)
2. moral object
3. circumstances, especially consequences.
   In order to be moral, all three fonts must be good. So a good purpose, such as a medical purpose, can make the first font good, and dire consequences, such as a painful medical disorder, can make the third font good. But purpose and consequences cannot change a moral object from evil to good; they cannot supply the lack of the procreative meaning which causes the act to be intrinsically evil.
4. A married woman may refrain from sexual relations with her husband for an extended period of time if she has a grave reason, such as a medical disorder which is being treated with BCP. But she may not choose to do both, to use the contraceptive pill AND to have contracepted sexual relations.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can **never **transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.”

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law **whatsoever **can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. This passage from Humanae Vitae:

“The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.” (HV, n. 15)

refers to indirect sterilization, such as when a women gets a hysterectomy in order to treat a medical disorder, and the result is that she is sterile. The passage cannot be applied to the deliberate choice to BOTH use a contraceptive AND have contracepted sexual relations because the woman is deliberately making each choice. She is deliberately choosing (directly willing) to have contracepted sexual relations. She could forgo using the contraceptive and have sexual relations open to life, or she could use the contraceptive but refrain from sexual relations. She is directly willing to do both. Therefore, this passage from HV does not permit women to both use contraceptives for a medical purpose and have contracepted sexual relations. Each act is directly willed.

1. The BCP is an abortifacient. Not only contraception, but also abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The deaths of her unborn children caused by the use of the BCP are not “unintended side effects”, but rather the evil moral object of her knowingly chosen act of having sexual relations while using an abortifacient. So the same argument given above for contraceptives also applies to the abortifacient aspect of the BCP.
2. INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS ARE ALWAYS IMMORAL

ALWAYS. Not always except if you have a good purpose. Not always except if your physician recommends otherwise. Not always except if several anonymous posters in a discussion group online tell you its OK. Not always except when the good consequences of its use outweigh the bad consequences. Not always except when you don’t intend the evil moral object. ALWAYS.

Are there acts which are always illicit?
There are some acts which, in and of themselves, are always illicit by reason of their object (for example, blasphemy, homicide, adultery). Choosing such acts entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil which can never be justified by appealing to the good effects which could possibly result from them. (Compendium, n. 369)

INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS ARE ALWAYS IMMORAL

 

[crohnie4life]

I get terrible cramping during that time of the month so my doctor gave me a script for an actual muscle relaxant which has helped tremendously. As the uterus contractions intensified, the worse I felt. Extra strength tylenol was an option but that didn’t touch the external pain around the abdomen so I was given a low dose pain medication ( I have other health issues that worsen during that time of the month) to take the edge off the discomfort.

DH & I have been using NFP for 13 yrs. to avoid conceiving for serious health reasons. My Gyn recently ran some tests to make sure there were no other serious health issues such as endometriosis or uterine cancer that was causing me recent female troubles.

Definitely tell your friend to have a good Gyn r/o any female problems & to find other methods to help alleviate the discomfort during that time of the month if she decides down the road that the side effects of the pill are too much for her. Some times, after being on them for too long, mood swings, weight gain, spotting, blood clots or even a stroke will cause the patient to stop using them. Good luck.

 

[LittleDeb]

Good to hear you are getting some help Brittany. Do be aware that straight progesterone has the exact same effect on PCOS and is not an abortifacient. ProgesTIN has a different effect on the uterus than natural progesterone. Progesterone will help sustain a pregnancy. Progestin is what thins the lining of the uterus causing abortion. Plus, you don’t need the estrogen that is in the Pill and it will probably add problems in the future.

But with that said, you are using it for theraputic reasons so the principle of double effect does still apply. It can be licitly used for that reason.The previous poster is incorrect about Church teaching. It is an indirect sterility that happens to be temporary. The only thing that was ever up for debate was because the Pill is also an abortifacient. Some debate with theologians was to abstain due to the possibility of abortion. The indirect sterility is not at issue. But the fact that it can be an abortifacient leads many Catholics to seek out alternatives.

We walk a fine line here. We have to educate people on what causes abortion, and/or violates Church teaching. But at the same time, we cannot say anything that could be misunderstood as offering medical advice.

Peace and God’s blessings in your journey! I hope your troubles get resolved soon so you can focus on children and not have to struggle just to have them.

 

[Usagi]

INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS ARE ALWAYS IMMORAL

Yes. Deliberately undertaking contraception or abortion would be an intrinsically evil act.

Taking a particular medication is not an intrinsically evil act if it can have non-evil uses. The woman in question is not married or sexually active, so concerns about contraception or abortion are not even warranted. Her treatment happens to be the same collection of chemicals that can, under other circumstances, lead to contraception or abortion, but that doesn’t make the chemicals or their use as medication intrinsically evil.

Usagi

 

[Ron_Conte]

Every morally good act consists of three fonts:

the objective act (what you are doing),
the subjective goal or intention (why you are doing it),
and the circumstances (especially the consequences).

The intention of the subject who acts is the purpose for which the subject performs the act. A medical purpose, i.e. the intention to achieve the goal of good health, cannot justify an act that is objectively inherently immoral, such as contraception, because all three fonts must be good in order for the act to be morally good.

 

[Bookcat]

CatholicPlanet.net discussion group
The Catechism of Catholic Ethics - Roman Catholic moral theology
Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics

These sources are NOT recommended sources of Catholic Moral Theology… readers are instead referred to other sources…such as those sold by Catholic Answers.

 

[Bookcat]

great source;

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183

 

[Bookcat]

Also contact popepaulvi.com/home.html they can help…with endometeriosis etc

 

[Ron_Conte]

But with that said, you are using it for theraputic reasons so the principle of double effect does still apply. It can be licitly used for that reason.

The principle of double effect never applies to intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion and contraception:

"Principle of Double Effect

"An action that is good in itself that has two effects – an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect – is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil…

“The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil)…”
ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81rinciple-of-double-effect&Itemid=171

The contraceptive pill is intrinsically evil because it deprives sexual acts of the procreative meaning. When used by a woman who is not sexually active, there would be no deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts because there are no sexual acts. In this case, the contraceptive pill could be used to treat a medical disorder.

However, when the contraceptive pill is used by a woman who is sexually active, the pill deprives the sexual acts of the procreative meaning, and so its use is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

 

[davidv]

The principle of double effect never applies to intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion and contraception:

"Principle of Double Effect

"An action that is good in itself that has two effects – an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect – is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil…

“The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil)…”
ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81rinciple-of-double-effect&Itemid=171

The contraceptive pill is intrinsically evil because it deprives sexual acts of the procreative meaning. When used by a woman who is not sexually active, there would be no deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts because there are no sexual acts. In this case, the contraceptive pill could be used to treat a medical disorder.

However, when the contraceptive pill is used by a woman who is sexually active, the pill deprives the sexual acts of the procreative meaning, and so its use is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

No physical object is intrinsically evil. Only acts can be classified this way. It is only acts using objects that can be classified evil.
The pill, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad.
Using the pill when there is no sexual activity does not deprive the sexual act of its meaning.

 

[LittleDeb]

No physical object is intrinsically evil. Only acts can be classified this way. It is only acts using objects that can be classified evil.
The pill, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad.
Using the pill when there is no sexual activity does not deprive the sexual act of its meaning.

Exactly! Thank you!

I have said it so many times here: Contraceptives are neutral. Contraception is intrinsically evil.

Since spermicides and medication to delay ovulation are allowed, and even encouraged for rape victims, they cannot be considered intrinsically evil.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Using the pill when there is no sexual activity does not deprive the sexual act of its meaning.

That is exactly what I explained in detail above.

However, two scenarios were presented by the OP. The second scenario was use of contraception for a medical purpose while sexually active. In this case, the deliberately chosen acts of using contraception and engaging in sexual relations result in the deprivation of the procreative meaning, which is intrinsically evil.

The claim by some persons that contraceptives can be used for a good purpose, or in difficult circumstances is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium on intrinsic evil. It is also particularly troubling since chemical contraceptives are also abortifacients. The justification of abortifacient contraceptives for medical purposes is essentially a justification of both contraception and abortion, two intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts, based on a good intention (medical purpose) or difficult circumstances.

Intention and circumstances cannot change a moral object from evil to good.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Since spermicides and medication to delay ovulation are allowed, and even encouraged for rape victims, they cannot be considered intrinsically evil.

It is not as simple as that. Some spermicides are abortifacient; others are not. And a ‘medication to delay ovulation’ might also be abortifacient, unless it can be determined that the woman has not conceived, and has not recently ovulated. Only an intervention that is clearly not abortifacient would be morally permissible in cases of rape.

 

[paperwight]

That is exactly what I explained in detail above.

However, two scenarios were presented by the OP. The second scenario was use of contraception for a medical purpose while sexually active. In this case, the deliberately chosen acts of using contraception and engaging in sexual relations result in the deprivation of the procreative meaning, which is intrinsically evil.

The claim by some persons that contraceptives can be used for a good purpose, or in difficult circumstances is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium on intrinsic evil. It is also particularly troubling since chemical contraceptives are also abortifacients. The justification of abortifacient contraceptives for medical purposes is essentially a justification of both contraception and abortion, two intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts, based on a good intention (medical purpose) or difficult circumstances.

Intention and circumstances cannot change a moral object from evil to good.

Where does that leave the nuns in the Congo who were given the Pill when they were in danger of rape?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Where does that leave the nuns in the Congo who were given the Pill when they were in danger of rape?

If that report is correct, then it was an objective mortal sin for those nuns to take an abortifacient contraception, in advance, in order to prevent a pregnancy from occurring due to a rape.

This is not the same as particular medical interventions after rape, which are not abortifacient, and which in effect interrupt the rape. Sexual acts are inherently directed at the end of procreation. This is why contraception is intrinsically evil. And this is why those medical interventions are not contraceptive; in terms of morality, they interrrupt the rape. Similarly, interrupting a rape in progress is also moral.

 

[Seatuck]

It is not as simple as that. Some spermicides are abortifacient; others are not. And a ‘medication to delay ovulation’ might also be abortifacient, unless it can be determined that the woman has not conceived, and has not recently ovulated. Only an intervention that is clearly not abortifacient would be morally permissible in cases of rape.

Ron, do you have any scientific proof that spermicides are abortifacient?

Spermicide comes in various forms: foam, cream, jelly or suppository. Its function is also to kill sperm or block them from entering the uterus. Neither the Sponge or other Spermicides have an abortifacient function.

lifeissues.net/writers/willke/willke_10dispellingmyths.html

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron, do you have any scientific proof that spermicides are abortifacient?

Contraception Journal, Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 323-393 (December 1996).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968666

“Neem oil, an extract of a native plant of India, has been demonstrated to have anti-fertility, anti-implantation, and abortifacient properties. An active fraction, termed NIM-76, was extracted that eliminates its abortifacient properties while retaining spermicidal activity.”

Neem oil, was found to be an abortifacient spermicide, but an extract of the oil was found to be not abortifacient, but still a spermicide. This implies that some spermicides are abortifacient, and others are not. Whether or not the spermicides in general use in the U.S. are abortifacient or not is not known, but this study implies that it is possible for a spermicide to be an abortifacient.

 

[Rence]

Where does that leave the nuns in the Congo who were given the Pill when they were in danger of rape?

I don’t know what the Church says in regards to this specific example. But IMOHO, it leaves them in the position of not getting pregnant in case they were raped. And that’s it. To think a celibate nun doing missionary in the congo taking birth control to protect herself in the case of rape is living in sin, is, IMOHO laughable.

 

[paperwight]

I don’t know what the Church says in regards to this specific example. But IMOHO, it leaves them in the position of not getting pregnant in case they were raped. And that’s it. To think a celibate nun doing missionary in the congo taking birth control to protect herself in the case of rape is living in sin, is, IMOHO laughable.

‘Laughable’ isn’t the word I’d choose, frankly.