Valid Use of Birth Control?

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes, they are saying the same thing.

On the face they do seem like saying the same thing. Is that the case? If that is the case then does the objection given above that the address of Pope Pius XII was given before HV lose some of its traction?

And, if that is the case, are we back to square one? Is there a way to reconcile this statement:

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.

with the address of Pope Paul XII and HV 15?

Thanks,
VC

 

[LittleDeb]

On the face they do seem like saying the same thing. Is that the case? If that is the case then does the objection given above that the address of Pope Pius XII was given before HV lose some of its traction?

And, if that is the case, are we back to square one? Is there a way to reconcile this statement:

with the address of Pope Paul XII and HV 15?

Thanks,
VC

You are right. I am not reading the correct quote then. Do you have a link in context for me to read?

 

[LittleDeb]

Where does the quote come from that is in post 101?

“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.”

Who said this and in what context?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Little Deb,

It is taken from a post on this thread (Post #70), although it has been restated in several ways throughout the thread. It seems to be representative of one side of the controversy, that is why I quoted it.

I was wondering how it can be reconciled with Pope Paul XII and HV 15 (if the latter two are indeed saying the same thing). In other words, can all three be reconciled? Or only the latter 2? Or perhaps that statement and HV 15 can be reconciled?

VC

 

[LittleDeb]

Little Deb,

It is taken from a post on this thread (Post #70), although it has been restated in several ways throughout the thread. It seems to be representative of one side of the controversy, that is why I quoted it.

I was wondering how it can be reconciled with Pope Paul XII and HV 15 (if the latter two are indeed saying the same thing). In other words, can all three be reconciled? Or only the latter 2? Or perhaps that statement and HV 15 can be reconciled?

VC

Ooooooh. Now I see. Yes, it would be up to Mr. Conte to reconcile that. I don’t believe it can be.

So yes. It still stands. Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI were saying the same thing. Pope Paul is reiterating what Pius was saying. Since HV is directed at married people, it is saying that of course they can still have relations will taking theraputic hormones that cause infertility. If that weren’t the case it would be explicitly spelled out. Popes build on prior popes.

This is also why a non-contracepting spouse can participate in relations with a contracepting spouse after certain requirements are met. The *intent *of the non-contracepting spouse is not to contracept. Consistent teaching.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Ooooooh. Now I see. Yes, it would be up to Mr. Conte to reconcile that. I don’t believe it can be.

So yes. It still stands. Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI were saying the same thing. Pope Paul is reiterating what Pius was saying. Since HV is directed at married people, it is saying that of course they can still have relations will taking theraputic hormones that cause infertility. If that weren’t the case it would be explicitly spelled out. Popes build on prior popes.

This is also why a non-contracepting spouse can participate in relations with a contracepting spouse after certain requirements are met. The *intent *of the non-contracepting spouse is not to contracept. Consistent teaching.

Yup!

The thing is, “birth control pills” are a morally neutral object. No object is inherently evil that I am aware of.

Basically it works like this:

If a couple takes hormonal pills to prevent pregnancy - they are birth control pills, and therefore contraception

If a couple takes hormonal pills to treat or mask the symptoms of (just as painkillers do) a medical condition - the pills are a medicine. NOT a contraceptive.

Its like how a pan can either be a deep fryer or a stir fryer. Same tool, different use.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In the case of a married woman who takes a birth control pill for a theraputic purpose, and who also has sexual relations with her husband while on the pill:

The act of taking the medication to treat the medical disorder has a good moral object, treating an illness (or whatever the problem may be). But the woman is not obligated to have contracepted sexual relations as part of her treatment for the disorder. She chooses to have contracepted sexual relations, even though she could refrain. Since these are two separate choices, the contracepted sexual relations cannot be treated as a side effect or an unintended consequence. But the attitude of modern society, which has seeped into the thinking of many Catholics, is that refraining from sex is unthinkable, as if one did not have a choice.

This is not like the case of indirect abortion, where the death of the prenatal occurs necessarily, unintentionally, and not as part of the moral object. The woman chooses to take a contraceptive and to engage in contracepted relations. She is not obligated to do the latter. So there are two moral objects, one good and the other evil. An evil moral object is not an unintended side effect.

The discussion by Pope Pius XII did not permit contraception in all theraputic cases, as the full text shows. Also, his words were not an act of the Magisterium, and were spoken prior to HV, EV, VS, and the CCC. So it is not a tenable theological position to try to modify or nullify the definitive and irreformable subsequent teaching of the Magisterium based on an earlier discussion in a speech.

Regarding the above, how do we incorporate this statement into the behavior in question? Which is the act that deprives the sexual act of procreative meaning in the scenario discussed by Pope Pius XII: the taking of the pill or the engaging in intercourse? If taking the pill is the deprivation then would this mean that the taking of the pill wouldn’t be allowed regardless of whether or not one has intercourse? This doesn’t seem to be the case, because so far there hasn’t been a question about just taking the pill, only about engaging in intercourse after having taken the pill.

Is it the case that a later act (intercourse) makes a prior act (taking a pill for therapeutic reasons) to become morally bad? Or is it the case that an act (intercourse) is morally bad when sterile?

The two deliberate choices to take the pill and to engage in sexual relations is what causes the sexual acts to be deprived of the procreative meaning.

The other consideration is that abortifacient contraceptives, used for an extended period of time, by a woman who is sexually active, is likely to cause an early abortion. It is absurd to say about this loss of life that it is a side effect, or an unintended consequence. Two deliberate types of acts (taking an abortifacient contraceptive and engaging in sexual relations) combine to cause the death of an innocent prenatal. Do you really believe that these deaths are moral because the woman did not wish to refrain from sexual relations while she was on a medication?

The problem here is that sex has become such a high value, disproportionately so, due to the influence of secular society, that no one can even imagine refraining from sexual relations in order to avoid sins of contraception and abortion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The *intent *of the non-contracepting spouse is not to contracept.

As usual in any discussion on intrinsically evil acts, I am the only poster quoting Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae on this point:

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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

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.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

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.” (CCC, n. 1756.)
**
The Catechism of the Catholic Church: **“Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

 

[LittleDeb]

Let me guess then Mr Conte. Based on your above posts you also hold that a Catholic convert must refrain from sexual relations with a non-Catholic contracepting spouse.

Why on earth would anyone join the Church just to tear apart one’s family?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The discussion by Pope Pius XII did not permit contraception in all theraputic cases, as the full text shows. Also, his words were not an act of the Magisterium, and were spoken prior to HV, EV, VS, and the CCC. So it is not a tenable theological position to try to modify or nullify the definitive and irreformable subsequent teaching of the Magisterium based on an earlier discussion in a speech.

Is it the case that the statement of Pope Pius XII’s doesn’t allow the taking of the pill when whatever therapy aimed at is brought about through the prevention of ovulation or pregnancy itself? The address says:
Pope Pius XII:

But a * direct * and, therefore, illicit sterilization results when ovulation is stopped to protect the uterus and the organism from the consequences of a pregnancy which it is not able to sustain. Some moralists contend that it is permissible to take medicines with this latter intention, but they are in error.

            It is likewise necessary to reject the view of a number of doctors and moralists who permit these practices **when medical indications make conception undesirable**, or in other similar cases, which cannot be discussed here. **In these cases the use of medication has as its end the prevention of conception by preventing ovulation.** They are instances, therefore, of direct sterilization.

I’ve bolded the pertinent portions that seem to show that the objectional use of the pill as therapy is only when the therapy brought about by means of preventing ovulation or avoiding conception. Is this a correct reading?

Seemingly in contradistinction to the above cases of direct sterilization the address gives the indirect case:
Pope Pius XII:

If a woman takes such medicine, not to prevent conception, but only on the advice of a doctor as a necessary remedy because of the condition of the uterus or the organism, she produces * indirect * sterilization, which is permitted according to the general principles governing acts with a double effect.

And, this seems to be in the context of a woman who continues to have intercourse:
Pope Pius XII:

Is its use permitted to married women who, in spite of this temporary sterility, desire to have relations with their husbands?

Is the conclusion that what Pope Paul XII is saying here in the address is that it may be permissible for a woman, while still having intercourse, to take a pill that has a contraceptive effect, if the intent is not to prevent conception (i.e. to regulate a hormone or something similar)?

Is this the correct reading of this portion of the address itself?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

VC,

Pope Pius XII’s comments during that speech were not an act of the Magisterium. And those comments were made prior to the definitive and irreformable teaching of HV and VS. Therefore, the teaching of HV, VS, and other documents stands, and anything in the Pope’s speech, which is either contrary to those later teachings or interpreted to be contrary to those later teachings, falls.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Based on your above posts you also hold that a Catholic convert must refrain from sexual relations with a non-Catholic contracepting spouse?

Unfortunately, that situation is not limited to non-Catholic spouses.

The situation is one of cooperation with evil. There are also two type of situations, mere contraception (e.g. condoms) and abortifacient contraception.

If a husband knows that his wife is using abortifacient contraception, and he continues to have sexual relations with her, then he is formally cooperating in direct abortion. Formal cooperation with gravely immoral and intrinsically acts is itself a gravely immoral and intrinsically evil act. He must not commit that sin, even if he has to refrain from marital relations for a long time.

If a wife knows that her husband intends to use a condom or the withdrawal method, she is morally obligated to refuse marital relations, otherwise she would be committing the sin of formal cooperation with contraception, which is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. She must not commit that sin, even if he has to refrain from marital relations for a long time.

Secular society teaches that sex is such a high value that it justifies contraception, abortion, sexual acts that are non-marital or non-unitive or non-procreative, the spreading of disease, and every kind of harm to persons and society.

This attitude has seeped into the thinking of many Catholics. As a result, they attempt to devise all manner of absurd arguments to justify contraception and abortifacient contraception in order to allow sexual relations.
**
The martyrs gave up their lives rather than commit one mortal sin.** But there is an attitude among some Catholics that no one should have to give up sexual relations in order to avoid mortal sexual sin. Instead, they bend and twist the teaching of the Church in order to always permit sexual relations, and to avoid the little martyrdom of having to refrain from sexual relations for a long time.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ron Conte:

anything in the Pope’s speech, which is either contrary to those later teachings or interpreted to be contrary to those later teachings, falls.

I have a question regarding the above. Is the portion of the Pope’s speech which I have been focusing on contrary to later teaching? Or rather is it being interpreted contrary to later teaching?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have a question regarding the above. Is the portion of the Pope’s speech which I have been focusing on contrary to later teaching? Or rather is it being interpreted contrary to later teaching?

Irrelevant since the later teaching is the definitive and irreformable teaching of the Magisterium, and is required belief, whereas the earlier speech is not definitive, not irreformable, not a teaching of the Magisterium, and not a required belief.

For the same reason, I’m not willing to continue to discuss the speech.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

If a husband knows that his wife is using abortifacient contraception, and he continues to have sexual relations with her, then he is formally cooperating in direct abortion. Formal cooperation with gravely immoral and intrinsically acts is itself a gravely immoral and intrinsically evil act. He must not commit that sin, even if he has to refrain from marital relations for a long time.

If a wife knows that her husband intends to use a condom or the withdrawal method, she is morally obligated to refuse marital relations, otherwise she would be committing the sin of formal cooperation with contraception, which is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. She must not commit that sin, even if he has to refrain from marital relations for a long time.

Not formal cooperation, only material which is sometimes licit…

Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter’s evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter’s evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.

Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the “distance” (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.10 Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the “double effect” or “indirect voluntary” action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question11.

immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

 

[Ron_Conte]

Material cooperation is cooperation only in the circumstances of the other person’s act.

When a husband and wife have contracepted sexual relations, it is not merely a circumstance that there are two persons, one man and one woman, but rather this fact is essential to the very nature of the act. Therefore, it is formal cooperation, not material.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I would like to integrate the following statement

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.

with HV 15
Humanae vitae:

. .the Chruch does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means nevessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a forseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom – provided such impediment is not directly intended. . .

Can anyone help?

Thank you,
VC

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Material cooperation is cooperation only in the circumstances of the other person’s act.

When a husband and wife have contracepted sexual relations, it is not merely a circumstance that there are two persons, one man and one woman, but rather this fact is essential to the very nature of the act. Therefore, it is formal cooperation, not material.

So the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith got a very basic definition in moral theology wrong?

Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter’s evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.

immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

 

[Bookcat]

So the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith got a very basic definition in moral theology wrong?

immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

This is just a comment on “formal cooperation”

This is one way that it can be formal cooperation…(they are not wrong)

it can also be another;

“From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action,** either** by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74).

…now is this the case with ‘the pill’ when used as a medical help …with possible unintended side effects of the death of a child …that is the question here.

In the

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE

it says:

1. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
2. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
3. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
4. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
5. **Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.**48

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

found some info on “the pill”…

ccli.org/nfp/contraception/pill.php