What are the Church's views on contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tryingtobecatholic1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tryingtobecatholic1

Guest
Today I got yelled at by a fellow parishioner for referencing the story of Andrea Yates, a woman who couldn’t take contraception because she was Catholic yet was suffering from postpartum depression and ended up killing her five kids due to postpartum-induced psychosis. Basically their reasoning was that I apparently was supporting abortion in what I was saying (I don’t support abortion for the record). Yet abortion is the killing of a fertilised zygote or embryo. Contraception does not allow meiosis to occur thereby precluding any formation of a zygote or embryo. But they just didn’t listen so I’ve decided to come here.

Basically my stance with contraception is that it shouldn’t be used but in the case of medical reasons I believe that is an extenuating circumstance.

Also this video here from Catholic Answers supports that contraception is ok if taken for medical reasons (
).

What my question is from here is what actually is the consensus of the Catholic Church? What principle on contraception is mostly agreed on and what is the logic behind it?

I should also say that it is rather appalling that people at my parish can become so offended by a simple piece of information that makes their opinion seem attacked or even simply questioned. I really hope this isn’t a common occurrence among other fellow Catholics.

I go to the SSPX by the way.
 
Last edited:
Tryingtobecatholic1 said:
Basically my stance with contraception is that it shouldn’t be used but in the case of medical reasons I believe that is an extenuating circumstance.
Click to expand...
If the pills are actually used to treat a medical condition hormonally, yes they can be taken. For example endometriosis, PCOS.

But if by”Treatment” you mean prevent more children, no that is not a legitimate medical treatment.
Tryingtobecatholic1 said:
What my question is from here is what actually is the consensus of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
It’s not a consensus, it is a teaching. Yes the church does teach the principle of double effect.
 
Last edited:
So what about with the case with Andrea Yates. Was birth control necessary there?
 
A quick google search indicates that contraceptives aren’t typically used to treat PPD and I read the summary of a study that found using contraceptives could convey a HIGHER risk of PPD, so, unfortunately, I conclude that your opinion regarding Yates is incorrect.

She was a troubled woman with many health problems and her husband seems like a real piece of work who didn’t grasp how dire their situation was. She did not get the treatment she needed, but contraception was not it.

Pax
 
Last edited:
If is a married woman using contraceptives for a medical purpose they must practice abstinence during this time. A non married woman presumed to not be a fornicator of course may also use them for the sake of medicine.
 
Last edited:
You are taking a huge shortcut from not using contraception to murdering five children. This case is not relevant to the issue of contraception. First, she likely wanted children. Second, she was mentally ill and we cannot know how long it was a serious enough illness to cause her to be a danger to herself or others. Third, you presume she would have reliably used birth control even though she clearly became mentally incomoetent at some point. Fourth, you skip over the fact that it is possible to remove children from a parent’s care and protect them. We need to do that better. Finally, you presume the lives of the children, because they were cut short, were of no value so never should have been born. I disagree. Each child was of value adequate to justify their lives.

As for the Catholic stance, birth control medications may be used for medical purposes other than birth control, such as to manage a disease like endometriosis. What you are describing is not among those reasons. Abortion is not permitted but early delivery is appropriate to preserve the life of the mother, even if the child is not developed enough to be reasonably expected to survive. The difference is that actions are not taken to kill the child.

In the case you mention, mental health care for the mother and removal of the children from her care would have been the ethical, practical and moral thing to do, but apparently efforts were not made or the risk was not understood.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
Finally, you presume the lives of the children, because they were cut short, were of no value so never should have been born. I disagree. Each child was of value adequate to justify their lives.
Click to expand...
I also don’t like the implicit message in the idea that birth control would solve the problem of child abuse and murder.

It’s like saying to the victim that the reason for their abuse and/or murder was because they were alive. That’s victim blaming.
 
Last edited:
I guess I never saw it from that angle. I think it is safe to say that I was wrong in my thinking.
 
Last edited:
Read Humanae Vitae. The church does not teach what you are proposing, despite what some people on threads may say.
 
If I am correct, the Yates were not Catholics but Protestants.
So they made their choices without any relation to any Catholic Churh doctrine…
 
Last edited:
I am not sure because I have read conflicting sources.

It seems that they decided to let the babies as they may come (but always? not sure).
But none of them seems to be born in quiveing families. And when the father remarry, he seems far from theses religious convictions.

It also seems thatthe spychaitric problem of Mrs Yates does not appear with te first babies but later in 1999.
The influence of a special pastor, Mr Warniecki is also noted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top