Valid Use of Birth Control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rawb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a husband has HIV, can he choose to use a condom to prevent disease transmission in marital relations with his wife?

Morally, this question is much the same as the question as to whether or not the wife can choose to use an oral contraceptive to treat a medical disorder AND choose to engage in marital relations with her husband while taking the oral contraceptive.
  1. intention - in both cases, the intended end is good:
    to prevent disease transmission
    to treat a medical disorder
  2. moral object - in both cases, the intentionally-chosen act is inherently directed at the end of prevening conception.
using a condom while having marital relations is inherently contraceptive by the nature of the act (according to its object), regardless of the intended end (the purpose for which the act was chosen).

using oral contraceptives while choosing to be sexually active is inherently contraceptive by the nature of the act (according to its object), regardless of the intended end (the purpose for which the act was chosen).

Therefore, in both cases, the act is intrinsically evil.
  1. consequences - in both cases, the good consequences cannot justify the use of an intrinsically evil means to arrive at a good end result.
 
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
No. Using hormones to treat a medical disease is morally allowed. Might not be the most prudent thing to do but it is morally allowed.
An abortion is always murder whether there are existing medical conditions or not.We can never directly attack a child. We can however perform medical treatments which might cause the death of the child as a side effect.
 
If its the only option to stop her from suffering, then yes she should be able to use it.
It would be a little torturous for the church to say she cant use it, and have to go through all the pain especially if there was no other way to help her.

But I don’t think they are like that, so im sure its fine for her. (:
 
No. Using hormones to treat a medical disease is morally allowed. Might not be the most prudent thing to do but it is morally allowed.
An abortion is always murder whether there are existing medical conditions or not.We can never directly attack a child. We can however perform medical treatments which might cause the death of the child as a side effect.
There are many posts like the one above on this topic. This type of post makes a series of claims about what is or is not morally allowed, without any theological basis. In this case, you are justifying the death of an innocent prenatal, a death that would be avoided by either refraining from the use of oral contraceptives, or by refraining from sexual relations while taking that same drug. Labeling that death a ‘side effect’ does not justity it.

The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80), that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral and are never justified by intention or circumstances (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81). Therefore, the principle of double effect can never justify an intrinsically evil act.

If oral contraceptives are taken as hormones to treat a medical disorder, the couple must refrain from sexual acts. Otherwise, they are deliberately choosing contracepted sex. And since oral contraceptives are also abortifacient, the choice of the couple to have sexual relations while the woman is on abortifacient contraceptives is the sin of abortion as well as the sin of contraception.

The death of an innocent prenatal child as a result of these deliberate acts is not a ‘side effect’ because the acts in question are intrinsically evil. The death results from the deliberate choice of a type of act that is inherently directed toward depriving the innocent prenatal of life.

Humanae Vitae (n. 14) and Familiaris Consortio (n. 32) and Compendium of the Catechism (n. 498) specifically state that contraception is immoral whether used as an end (i.e. to prevent conception) – or as a means to another end (i.e. when oral contraceptives are taken by a sexually active woman as a means to treat a medical disorder). The end does not justify the means (CCC, n. 1753).

The intention to treat a medical disorder is a legitimate intention on the part of the spouses, but this good intention does not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means, such as contraception (CCC, n. 2399).
 
Again, I repeat to everyone reading this thread, (even though it is really old,) do not listen to a theologian who makes claims independently of the Magisterium.

**The Magisterium has stated that contraception must be the intent for it to be sinful. Abortion must be *procured *for it to be sinful.
**
Taken to the conclusion, this particular theologian is making it impossible for a woman of childbearing years to live life. There are many things that cause unnatural infertility. And sadly, there are many spontaneous abortions. Many, many medications, and even some “vitamins” can, and do, cause miscarriage.

The documents quoted are being used much like fundamentalists quote the Bible. This theologian is trying to get the Church documents to say more than they say. Telling a couple that they must refrain from relations on the chance that they might *unintentionally *miscarry is just sick and mean. The Church does not teach that. The Church teaches that *procured *abortion is sinful.

Please, please, only listen to the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals! Anyone can get a degree and slap on the title of theologian. (Fundamentalists have theology degrees too, and also try to use Church documents to say something different.)

I am as against contraception and abortion as it is possible to be. I do ***not ***fall into the, “maybe you are the ONE case where it is okay,” group. Contraception and procured abortion are never, ever, ever okay. The Church has defined the terms. She, and only She, has the authority to interpret and apply them.
 
The Magisterium has stated that contraception must be the intent for it to be sinful.
The use of Natural Family Planning with a contraceptive intent is a sin. The use of NFP with a good intention is not a sin. If contraception were only sinful when used with a contraceptive intent, then it would be no different than NFP.

The Magisterium teaches that there are three fonts of morality: (1) intention, (2) moral object, (3) circumstances.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen; the end in view or the intention; the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.”

Compendium of the Catechism: “The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.”

USCCB Catechism: “Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.”

When an act has an evil moral object, that act is intrinsically evil and always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: “But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67.)

Pope John Paul II: “If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person… 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.)

Is contraception only immoral with a contraceptive intent? No. The Magisterium teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, meaning that the act itself is inherently wrong due to an evil moral object. Intention and circumstances cannot justify an intrinsically evil act.

Compendium of the Catechism: “What are immoral means of birth control? Every action – for example, direct sterilization or contraception – is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.” (Compendium, n. 498)

Contraception is condemned both as an end (when the intended end is contraception) and as a means to some other end, even to a good end.

Can a good intention justify contraception? The CCC says it cannot:

“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).

The reason that magisterial documents describe contraception as deliberate or intentional is that, in choosing any intrinsically evil act, the human person is intentionally choosing not only the exterior action, but also its essential moral nature, as determined by its moral object. The choice to use contraception is the intentional choice of an act that, by its very nature, renders sexual acts unfruitful, independent of the purpose (intended end) for which the act was chosen, and independent of circumstances.
Abortion must be procured for it to be sinful.
Abortion is a grave sin for the person who procures the abortion, for the person who performs the abortion, for the person who assists in the performing of the abortion, for the person who pays for the abortion, and for the person who takes any action that is directed at accomplishing the abortion, even if that action is only formal cooperation with abortion, and not the procurement of abortion itself.

In fact, not only the person who procures the abortion, but also necessary accomplices, are excommunicated: “The Church’s canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries, has inflicted penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion. This practice, with more or less severe penalties, has been confirmed in various periods of history. The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that “a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication”. The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed. By this reiterated sanction, the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance.” (Evangelium Vitae, 62.)

“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.” (CCC, n. 2272)
 
Mr. Conte. You are proving my point without even realizing it.

Procured abortion does mean *everyone *who participates, correct. Nowhere did I state that only the person who receives the abortion is the only one in sin. But the abortion must be *procured *to be sinful. The doctor who delivers a spontaneous abortion has not sinned.

The Church teaches that *direct *sterilization is a sin. Using the Pill for medical reasons is an *indirect *sterilization (and thankfully a temporary one.)

Your stubborn misuse of Church documents is frankly, getting old. It won’t say what you want it to say, no matter how many times you quote it. Furthermore, you are denying the Sacrament of Reconciliation with your assertions. The couple who has confessed and repented of a direct sterilization is forgiven. According to your misapplication of Church documents, those repentant couples would be required to refrain from relations for life. But they aren’t required to do that because the Church is consistent in Her teachings. Your interpretations are not consistent or accurate. Please stop attempting to mislead people.
 
The doctor who delivers a spontaneous abortion has not sinned.
The term ‘spontaneous abortion’ is used in medical literature to refer to miscarriage. You are also mistaken about the meaning of the word ‘procured’.

A doctor who performs any medical procedure that directly kills the prenatal, for any reason (or purpose or intended end), even for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, commits the sin of direct abortion. This moral analysis is confirmed by the response of the USCCB committee on doctrine and of the local Ordinary of Phoenix to an abortion given to a woman, for the purpose of saving her life, in which the chosen act was the direct killing of the prenatal.
usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf (PDF)
arizonacatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DIOCESE-OF-PHOENIX-STATEMENT-122110.pdf (PDF)

The same is true for any intrinsically evil act. The purpose for which the act was chosen does not justify an act with an evil moral object.

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 Church teaches that *direct *sterilization is a sin. Using the Pill for medical reasons is an *indirect *sterilization (and thankfully a temporary one.)
The purpose or reason or intended end, for which an act of abortion or sterilization or contraception is chosen, does not determine if the act is direct and intrinsically evil, or indirect and possibly permissible. This truth is absolutely clear from the case of the Phoenix hospital abortion. The medical reason for that abortion was to save the mother’s life, and yet the abortion was not thereby made ‘indirect’ nor was it justifiable, because the act itself was still intrinsically evil. The same analysis applies to sterilization and contraception. No purpose can justify an intrinsically evil act.

Also, indirect acts are not justified merely by being indirect, the good consequences must also outweigh the bad consequences.
The couple who has confessed and repented of a direct sterilization is forgiven. According to your misapplication of Church documents, those repentant couples would be required to refrain from relations for life.
No, that is not my interpretation. A couple guilty of the sin of direct sterilization can obtain forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and they can have natural marital relations morally thereafter; they do not need to refrain.

But a woman who uses oral contraception deliberately, and who also deliberately chooses to have sexual relations – knowing that her choices not only deprive the sexual act of its procreative meaning, but also likely result in the deaths of one or more prenatals – is not choosing an indirect temporary sterilization, nor indirect abortion. Her chosen act is intrinsically evil as contraception and as abortion.

Furthermore, when we consider only the third font of morality, circumstances, the use of oral contraceptives for a medical purpose has the grave bad consequence that some innocent prenatals will likely die (if the pill is used for an extended period of time, while the woman is also sexually active). This bad consequence far outweighs the good consequence of being able to engage in sexual relations. So even if one mistakenly thought that this act was ‘indirect’, the act would still be gravely immoral due to the bad consequences of the act. In effect, such a couple is choosing to value sex above innocent human life, trading away the lives of an unknown number of their own prenatal children in exchange for sexual intercourse.
 
Just to share my story:
I was diagnosed with PCOS four years ago. Prior to that diagnosis, my husband and I had two teen age boys. I was told I was lucky to have them because PCOS causes infertility and it was probably because I was young when I conceived. My husband and I were perfectly happy with just the two, but we had alwasy just left that area in God’s hands. After 16 years of no other pregnancies, I assumed I was infertile. My doctor promptly advised me to go on BC because it was very unhealthy to go that long with out a cycle. I did this for about 6 months, but then it was mentioned by a Priest that BC should be used in cases where there are no other alternatives, and only when you have exhausted all of these, should it be used. (not word for word) PCOS is not curable, but it is treatable with diet and exercise (of which I’m not the most disciplined in) so I went off of the BC Pill. I had begun to exercise more at the same time and my cycles, which were almost non-existent before, were now averaging about every 58 days. About 6 months after stopping the Pill, we were blessed with a very unexpected pregnancy. We now have a beautiful 15 month old (our Catholic Blessing!), and we just recently found out we are expecting again. (yikes!!!) However, If I had stayed on my doctor’s advice (who also said it would be detrimental if I ever did get pregnant again)…I would NEVER have experienced our beautiful blessing. It’s scary…as we are older parents now having a second whole family…but this must be God’s plan because the odd’s were against us!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top