Valid Use of Birth Control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rawb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ryecroft said:
For someone that is in a situation like I am, I know and have been told multiple time by Priests and even one Bishop that my use of birth control is valid and not illicit.
…
I saw some responses from certain people on here who argue the same diatribe over and over that they’re right and the priest’s are wrong and I suggest some of you do what I did if you get tired of hearing them and decide to ignore their responses (i’ll be nice and not name any names - as I don’t want to be confrontational) (although when someone quotes this person it will still show up)-
God Bless
Rye
Click to expand...
Thank God you found something that relieves you of your suffering. Of COURSE the Church doesn’t interfere with medical treatments prescribed by physicians and other healthcare providers. Thank you for sharing your story 🙂
 
  1. The “pill” is per se a particular chemical compound
  2. Such a compound can be used for more than one reason
(just a knife can be used to kill or heal)
  1. To use such a compound as a contraceptive is a grave matter for mortal sin.
  2. To use such a compound for a moral treatment of a disorder is possibly good.
  3. One must look to the effects of course of such use…and it seems there can be some very bad ones. So it seems to me that I would advise other avenues of treatment and use of this compound as last resort…(see paulvi institute for alternatives)
  4. A chaste single person is one thing…they have only to consider the health effects to themselves…
  5. But a married person using such a compound raises other questions. In particular the question of the possibility of such a compound causing an unintended abortion.
Certainly this is an important question particularly in light of that the Vatican PCF the Vad. for Confessors noted:

“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.”

With the foot note of:

“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).

This was said in reference to a couple in which one spouse was using contraception…so it would also certainly go for a couple who is using a compound that could have an abortive side effect…for non contraceptive reasons…(thus not contracepting)

So it is an important part of the question…

So while such a compound may be used potentially by a non sexually active person…as one can see from the Document Humanae Vitae…

A person who is sexually active will be faced with this other question (Which I do not think had seen the light of day at the time of HV) …
 
ThomasToo said:
So you’re really saying it’s better to have someone cut out her uterus than to take a pill every morning?
Click to expand...
Your description ignores the moral object of each of those acts.

The moral meaning of a hysterectomy is a medical treatment for an illness.

The moral meaning of taking an abortifacient contraceptive pill while sexually active is the intrinsically evil grave sins of contraception and abortion.

Do you agree that taking an abortifacient contraceptive while sexually active is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral both because it is contraception and because it can cause a direct abortion? When an act is intrinsically evil, the act is immoral in and of itself. In other words, the type of act (i.e. the moral species of the act) is inherently morally disordered.

The same act done with a different intention, such as a therapeutic intention, or in different circumstances, such as when being off of the pill is painful, is still the same type of act, i.e. the same moral species, because the moral object is not changed by a change in intention or circumstances.

Some quotes for you all to ignore:

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).
 
There are three fonts of morality.
  1. intention (i.e. the reason for choosing the act)
  2. the act itself, with its inherent moral meaning, as determined by the moral object
  3. the circumstances, esp. consequences
The moral object is NOT the reason for which the act is chosen. Those are two different fonts of morality. The Magisterium definitively teaches that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, independent of intention and circumstances. Therefore, you cannot define an act, or define whether or not the act is intrinsically evil, based on the reason for choosing the act, or based on the circumstances. The result would be to nullify the teaching that intrinsically evil acts are independent of intention and circumstances.

Is direct abortion justified if it is necessary to save the life of the mother? Certainly not. Even if the ‘therapeutic purpose’ of an intrinsically evil act is to save a life, intrinsically evil acts are not justified by purpose or circumstances.

Is lying justified if it is necessary to save a life? Certainly not. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. Neither is it true that a good intention (or purpose, or reason, or motive) or a dire circumstance, can define whether or not an act is intrinsically evil. Certain kinds of behavior, certain types of concrete acts are always immoral.

Similarly, neither contraception, nor abortifacient contraception, is justified by a medical purpose, nor by a good reason, nor by a therapeutic intention, nor by difficult circumstances.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.
 
Ron, I am so done with your ridiculousness.

I am on straight progesterone. It does NOT cause abortion. It is often given as a support for carrying to term in people who are at risk for miscarriage. It *sometimes *has a side-effect of infertility when taken for the reasons I am on it. It helps people who have endometreosis. It is an alternative to total hysterectomy. My dear friend is on the same treatment for a different, though related, medical problem.

I am currently not trying to conceive. The medication is helping and I am still fertile. My friend desperately wants to conceive, but it *did *have the infertility side effect for her. She is very sad and looking to alternative medications.

Pray tell, which of us is sinning? Me, who is still fertile yet not attempting to conceive, or she, who is infertile and trying desperately to conceive?!?!

I have studied every single document that you quote here and then some. Your interpretations do NOT square with Church teaching. You are hurting people! PLEASE STOP!!! :mad:
 
Personally, I’m going to go with what I was told and was shown to be my valid use of birth control. Do we want children? Good God, yes we do! But I don’t want to leave my husband a widdower either. Some on here want to argue that what my priests at Church, what the priest on here said and even what a Bishop told me - but personally, I’m going to go with what those in the Church said. If I am being led astray by 3 Priests and a Bishop (no matter how unlikely), as far as I know the sin does not rest with me. For any of those wanting to see at least one response from a Priest on here, here is one that will at least show some of the response:

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Again, personally, I’ll go with what the Priests and Bishops say. There are many contradictory statement - like saying that the use of artificial birth control is always illicit and yet later seeing that in certain situations for health reasons, the use of it is allowed. In almost any setting where something is said “always” or “never” can happen there are generally exceptions to these “rules”. I think anyone in this situation should pray about it and possibly talk to a spiritual director or Priest or even a Priest on here. Even after much prayer and discussion with my Priest, I can still have question myself.

I do not want to lead anyone astray that’s why I will quote what a Priest has said.

God Bless
Rye

P.S.

As far as the pill being an abortifacient - the insert does say that it “may” occur - but I have yet to see any qualified research that shows for CERTAIN without a doubt that when the woman takes the pill she is causing an abortions - each side seems to have some lovely arguments - but as far as some down to earth research by doctors and research sceintists, I will wait for that jury to come in. I have been told that the “mini” pill is unlikely to cuse these and also if the woman takes the pill at the correct time every day that with some pills this shouldn’t occur (that’s from my doctor’s mouth). Some people like me need to take the pill to keep from having to get transfusions, not pass out and to keep from having to spend months bleeding. Believe me, I wish I didn’t have to and I’m trying some other things now because we really do want kids. Please talk to your Priest or a Priest on here and pray about it. This way you can feel good about your decision.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Your description ignores the moral object of each of those acts.

The moral meaning of a hysterectomy is a medical treatment for an illness.

The moral meaning of taking an abortifacient contraceptive pill while sexually active is the intrinsically evil grave sins of contraception and abortion.

Do you agree that taking an abortifacient contraceptive while sexually active is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral both because it is contraception and because it can cause a direct abortion? When an act is intrinsically evil, the act is immoral in and of itself. In other words, the type of act (i.e. the moral species of the act) is inherently morally disordered.

The same act done with a different intention, such as a therapeutic intention, or in different circumstances, such as when being off of the pill is painful, is still the same type of act, i.e. the same moral species, because the moral object is not changed by a change in intention or circumstances.

the comment about the use of the pill and it causing direct abortions - In this case the purpose is not to cause contraception or to have the outcome be an abortion. The intent is for the pill to keep the bleeding within normal paramaters instead of going on for long periods of time and possibly causing the need for transfusions or causing the person to pass out. The unintended side effect (if it is the type of pill that can cause an unintended abortion) might be that the fertilized egg does not implant (yes still a form of abortion). I can’t imagine anyone on here who has to take it for medical reasons would say they want the pill or are glad that the pill might cause an abortion even at that early stage. The main purpose of taking the pill has nothing to do with contraception or abortion, so no, I don’t believe this situation is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral and neither does my Priest. And shame on you for implying that it would be better for me or someone else in a similar situation to have a hysterectomy! I thank God daily that I might still be able to carry a child or children to term. I don’t generally respond to your comments, but you’re going to really confuse some people out there that are really trying to understand the Church’s teachings and live a life in line with the Church. Please stop confusing people. You don’t speak for the Church - therefore I’ll go by what my Priest and Bishop said since they do speak for the Church.
God Bless
Rye
Click to expand...
 
There are three fonts of morality.
  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. consequences
Intrinsically evil acts are not defined by intention. The use of contraception while sexually active for any reason, purpose, or intention is intrinsically evil because the chosen act is inherently ordered toward the moral evil of depriving the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit…” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

So it is not true that any intrinsically evil act is only immoral, or is only intrinsically evil, if the person intends the evil moral object. The chosen act itself is inherently directed toward the moral object, regardless of whether or not the person chooses to intend that same end. This principle is very clearly and definitively stated in various magisterial sources, such as VS and EV. Those documents are authoritative and binding on all Catholics.

But even if we ignore the moral object (which all of you continue to do), and even if we only consider the circumstances: the bad consequence of repeated unintended deaths of prenatals would far outweigh any medical benefits, or, what is really at issue here, would far outweigh the benefit of being able to continue having sexual relations. Because of the influence of sinful secular society, some Catholics have given such a high value to sexual relations that they justify it even if it results in repeated unintended deaths of their own prenatal children.

If you know the intention and the circumstances of an act, can you judge its morality?

“human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.” (VS, n. 72)

“the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice.” (VS, n. 77)

In order to judge the morality of an act, it is not sufficient to know the intention and the consequences, one must also know the moral object.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Intrinsically evil acts are not defined by intention. The use of contraception while sexually active for any reason, purpose, or intention is intrinsically evil because the chosen act is inherently ordered toward the moral evil of depriving the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit…” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

So it is not true that any intrinsically evil act is only immoral, or is only intrinsically evil, if the person intends the evil moral object. The chosen act itself is inherently directed toward the moral object, regardless of whether or not the person chooses to intend that same end. This principle is very clearly and definitively stated in various magisterial sources, such as VS and EV. Those documents are authoritative and binding on all Catholics.

But even if we ignore the moral object (which all of you continue to do), and even if we only consider the circumstances: the bad consequence of repeated unintended deaths of prenatals would far outweigh any medical benefits, or, what is really at issue here, would far outweigh the benefit of being able to continue having sexual relations. Because of the influence of sinful secular society, some Catholics have given such a high value to sexual relations that they justify it even if it results in repeated unintended deaths of their own prenatal children.

If you know the intention and the circumstances of an act, can you judge its morality?

“human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.” (VS, n. 72)

“the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice.” (VS, n. 77)

In order to judge the morality of an act, it is not sufficient to know the intention and the consequences, one must also know the moral object.
Click to expand...
You really don’t know how to interpret what you are reading do you? This doesn’t mean what you think it means.
or to put it more clearly, “You keep usin’ tha’ word. I don’na think it means what you thing it means.” 😉

What this *actually *means is much clearer than you are making it. It means that I cannot *murder *my spouse or child in order to save the life of the other. I am however, permitted to *allow *one to die in order to save the other.

I cannot murder no matter what, under any circumstances. Murder is intrinsically evil. But I *can *allow the natural circumstances to happen. The death is still a material evil (as are all deaths by unnatural cause,) but I have not sinned in allowing to happen.

I cannot say, “I am going to contracept now, so that I can have a baby later.” Contraception is intrinsically evil. But I can however, try to heal my health problems even if it has the *unintended *side of effect of temporary sterility.

If you can’t see it with that example, then talking to you is futile.
 
LittleDeb said:
You really don’t know how to interpret what you are reading do you? This doesn’t mean what you think it means.
or to put it more clearly, “You keep usin’ tha’ word. I don’na think it means what you thing it means.” 😉

What this *actually *means is much clearer than you are making it. It means that I cannot *murder *my spouse or child in order to save the life of the other. I am however, permitted to *allow *one to die in order to save the other.

I couldn’t have said it any better or any more succinctly than you did. Thank you and God Bless!
Rye
Click to expand...
 
LittleDeb said:
You really don’t know how to interpret what you are reading do you? This doesn’t mean what you think it means.
or to put it more clearly, “You keep usin’ tha’ word. I don’na think it means what you thing it means.” 😉

What this *actually *means is much clearer than you are making it. It means that I cannot *murder *my spouse or child in order to save the life of the other. I am however, permitted to *allow *one to die in order to save the other.

I cannot murder no matter what, under any circumstances. Murder is intrinsically evil. But I *can *allow the natural circumstances to happen. The death is still a material evil (as are all deaths by unnatural cause,) but I have not sinned in allowing to happen.

I cannot say, “I am going to contracept now, so that I can have a baby later.” Contraception is intrinsically evil. But I can however, try to heal my health problems even if it has the *unintended *side of effect of temporary sterility.

If you can’t see it with that example, then talking to you is futile.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Ron, I understand where you’re coming from. Contraception is intrinsically evil and Catholics everywhere are refusing to acknowledge that. You’re right.

However, contraceptives are not intrinsically evil. Why can’t you understand that? Murder is evil, but guns are not. A gun can have a legitimate purpose, even though many use it for evil.

When progesterone pills are used to treat endometriosis, it’s not contraception. When a gun is used in defending one’s self against an attacker, it’s not murder.

The act of non-contraceptive intercourse with one’s wife is not intrinsically wrong. However, you can have sex with your wife in an unloving manner that treats her as a sexual object and not as your wife, even when you’re not using contraception.

Intent is definitely related to sin.
 
Hello everyone 🙂

I’ve been doing a lot of lurking on this thread (and forum) because my wife and I are considering becoming Catholic. Birth control, however, is what’s stopping my wife from moving forward with any sort of enthusiasm.

My wife has Lupus, along with the the debilitating cramping and severe bleeding. She also has extremely irregular periods. She takes the birth control pill to regulate her periods and avoid the cramping. NFP would be difficult for us because her lupus does elevates her body temperature when it’s active, and so two of the three guides for NFP are going to be unhelpful at best.

Additionally, my wife is on at least 4 medications for her Lupus that can cause birth defects. For those who are unaware, the categories of medications relating to birth defects are A, B, C, D, X. A means ok to use while pregnant; B,C,D are progressively bad to use while pregnant; and X means will cause severe birth defects in a high percentage of cases. My wife is on 2 pills that are category B, 1 that is category C, and 1 that is category D.

So we have spent many hours talking and praying about is how to solve this dilemma. While my wife can go off her medications for a short time while pregnant, we would have to plan months in advance to ween her off her meds in order to allow her to get pregnant without serious risk of birth defects in a child. She cannot just get pregnant and stop her meds the next day. The damage to the child would already be done.

Is it morally wrong to use the pill a) to help with her cramping and bleeding; b) take the pill to prevent a pregnancy that would severely injure a child?

Additionally, my wife is a medical student, and her knowledge of available methods for treating her own illness are extremely thorough. If there were alternative medications available to treat her lupus that did not have high pregnancy risks associated with them, she would be on them no questions asked. We want to have a sizable family in our lifetime, but we have to be very careful to not maim our own children before they’re even born.

I’d be interested on hearing some opinions on this.
 
nesguy said:
Hello everyone 🙂

I’ve been doing a lot of lurking on this thread (and forum) because my wife and I are considering becoming Catholic. Birth control, however, is what’s stopping my wife from moving forward with any sort of enthusiasm.

My wife has Lupus, along with the the debilitating cramping and severe bleeding. She also has extremely irregular periods. She takes the birth control pill to regulate her periods and avoid the cramping. NFP would be difficult for us because her lupus does elevates her body temperature when it’s active, and so two of the three guides for NFP are going to be unhelpful at best.

Additionally, my wife is on at least 4 medications for her Lupus that can cause birth defects. For those who are unaware, the categories of medications relating to birth defects are A, B, C, D, X. A means ok to use while pregnant; B,C,D are progressively bad to use while pregnant; and X means will cause severe birth defects in a high percentage of cases. My wife is on 2 pills that are category B, 1 that is category C, and 1 that is category D.

So we have spent many hours talking and praying about is how to solve this dilemma. While my wife can go off her medications for a short time while pregnant, we would have to plan months in advance to ween her off her meds in order to allow her to get pregnant without serious risk of birth defects in a child. She cannot just get pregnant and stop her meds the next day. The damage to the child would already be done.

Is it morally wrong to use the pill a) to help with her cramping and bleeding; b) take the pill to prevent a pregnancy that would severely injure a child?

Additionally, my wife is a medical student, and her knowledge of available methods for treating her own illness are extremely thorough. If there were alternative medications available to treat her lupus that did not have high pregnancy risks associated with them, she would be on them no questions asked. We want to have a sizable family in our lifetime, but we have to be very careful to not maim our own children before they’re even born.

I’d be interested on hearing some opinions on this.
Click to expand...
Please bring this to a Priest or Bishop. It is a very specific situation and there are bound to be people on here who will disagree since the rules get a little harder to understand as well as emotional in such cases. Trust me you will feel much better discussing such a serious matter face to face, or at the very least over e-mail with someone of official capacity since they will give you one solid answer as to what to do.
 
PatrickSebast said:
Please bring this to a Priest or Bishop. It is a very specific situation and there are bound to be people on here who will disagree since the rules get a little harder to understand as well as emotional in such cases. Trust me you will feel much better discussing such a serious matter face to face, or at the very least over e-mail with someone of official capacity since they will give you one solid answer as to what to do.
Click to expand...
I just answered something from a couple months ago…whoops:blush:
 
I’ve read that BC isn’t the best solution for Dysmenorrhea and that NSAIDS are the best. My wife gets them and she uses a heating pad. Although I have morphine if the pain gets too severe, which rarely it does. Maybe once or twice a year there is a severe one and I have to give her a shot of morphine for the pain…

Herbal remedies such as Viburnum prunifolium, Scutellaria spp., and Cimicifuga raemosa have an antispasmodic effect that may reduce some
 
Rawb said:
I have a friend who is considering joining The Church, but one of the major blocks for her is birth control. She told me before she was put on it, her cramps were so bad that she would sometimes pass out or throw up. Her doctor also warned her about something like endometriosis or something where bits of tissue could break off inside because of cramps. She asked me if it would be allowable for her to use birth control (the pill) just for medicinal purposes; relieving her cramps (she isn’t sexually active and she isn’t married). I said the pill was probably just masking the symptoms (because it seems that’s all the pill does) and that she aught to consult her doctor about treating the cause, but that I thought if there was no other way to help the cramps then this might be a valid use of birth control.

Then she asked me if she ever did get married, but still used the pill for these medicinal purposes, would that be ok. I said that the contraceptive results would be an unintended side effect, so she’d probably be fine. Then she asked “what if I was glad that it could be a simple way to space children?” and I said that might be getting into rockier waters.

My main questions are A) How have I done so far? Do my answers sound right? and B) Has anyone else delt with extreme cramping and not using the pill to alleviate it?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The church tells us we should not conciously put anything in the way of the transmission of life. One of the actions of the pill is as an abortificant. In that case the pill is an obstacle to the transmission of life. She needs only to be aware of what the church teaches and from there its up to her to make decisions about how she will handle the problem.
 
using birth control for helping a diease is just like getting an aportion cause of medical reasons which isnt consider a moral sin it something u cant control
 
nesguy
My wife has Lupus, along with the the debilitating cramping and severe bleeding. She also has extremely irregular periods.
Click to expand...
The advice to consult a priest or bishop may help, but also this may help by pointing to a specific forum:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=512587&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Lupus&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
NFP Outreach on Aug-25-2007 (EWTN):
Lupus is a systemic autoimmune disease which has only a one-third chance of worsening during pregnancy (1/3rd improve and 1/3rd stay the same). While there can be factors which impact the pregnancy, such as increased risk of pregnancy loss and, rarely, fetal cardiac rythmn disturbances, daily aspirin in the first and second trimesters is usually sufficient. Lovenox, which is low molecular weight heparin, may be prescribed in select cases, but has the advantage of standard dosing and no need for weekly blood work. Self- administration is no more difficult than using insulin. Certainly an additional pregnancy can be managed by a maternal fetal medicine specialist if a generalist OB/GYN does not feel comfortable. If there are true contraindications to another pregnancy, then Natural Family Planning is as effective and leaves couples an ethical alternative to sterilization. I recommend the Billings Ovulation Method (www.boma- usa.org ), which has 54 years of research and 1 million hormonal assays as proof of its scientific validity. There are only 4 simple rules. The effectiveness for postponing or preventing pregnancy is 99.5% as published by WHO studies.

Mary W. Martin, M.D.,FACOG

Further:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=501801&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Billings+method&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=2&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
Reply to NFP question re: test strips
Question from on April-29-2007 (EWTN):
I’d like to respond to Martha’s question regarding test strips. My husband and I are NFP promoters and instructors in the Pgh, PA diocese. We instruct in the Billings Method. Because I have a serious medical condition we use additional means of confirming Peak………

Also:billings-centre.ab.ca/interview.html
Billings Ovulation Method Marks 50 Years
There is no method of avoiding pregnancy which is more effective than the Billings Method. It has given 100% success in some trials and consistently in recent years has yielded a success rate of 99% to 100%.

(It now has 57 years of progress).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top