Why artificial birth contol is wrong

[distracted]

Given this statement:
Artificial birth control is not only wrong, it is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, regardless of intention and circumstances.

Is using birth control still considered “wrong” if it is used for medical reasons, or only where sex is involved?

So, regardless of circumstances, if birth control could save a woman’s life it is still gravely immoral? That does not sit well with me at all

the pill has been known to cause - or is suspected of causing - sterilty… varicose veins… blood clots… and cancer…

i’ve never heard of it having any good uses… and it causes early abortion… so any woman taking it should NOT be engaging in sexual activity while doing so… i doubt this advice is giving to them by their doctors, tho… seeing as how most… even the so called Catholic ones, aren’t agants bc in the 1st place…

 

[distracted]

**

That brings me to my other point, which is that one of the reasons artificial birth control is wrong is because it’s LYING. And lying is wrong.
Here’s how.
Sex while on the pill leads both parties to believe that no children will be produced.
False.
It greatly reduces the chances of having children, yet somehow, in people’s minds ‘greatly reduce’ becomes ‘impossible’
Again, twins people.
I had TWINS.

!**

well this shows at least one thing:

***God realy does bring good out of evil… ***

 

[distracted]

***that being said… (that last post)

i know someone who used abc and NEVER got pregnant ONCE… even after she had long quit the cr**… and WANTED … with all her heart to get pregnant…

so you just never know… ***

 

[distracted]

I think people who otherwise oppose the use of artificial hormones in their food is because these are a) untested and b) non-human hormones. Also, herbal remedies which are not tested by the FDA (as well as homeopathy in the general case) rely entirely on the placebo effect. The birth control pill, on the other hand, does not and actually works and most people aren’t willing to leave whether or not they get pregnant to chance or the placebo effect.

You realize that no method of birth control is 100% effective, right? It says that on the paperwork that comes with the pill, on the back of every box of condoms and on every birth control advertisement. Statistics vary on efficacy depending on method and usage. I’m happy to link you to the statistics if you’d like.

there is ONE reliable method: abstinance…

I’ve been doing this for many, many years… cuz i can’t find Mr Right… assuming such a creature exists … esp once you know the Ultimate Mr Right otherwise known as Jesus

but anyhow…

strange… been celibate and chaste for years and years… and still alive…!!! :hypno:

 

[ThomasToo]

there is ONE reliable method: abstinance…

I’ve been doing this for many, many years… cuz i can’t find Mr Right… assuming such a creature exists … esp once you know the Ultimate Mr Right otherwise known as Jesus

but anyhow…

strange… been celibate and chaste for years and years… and still alive…!!!

False. Abstinence is only 99.999% effective; that’s the resting point of your religion. Unless you want to question the virgin birth…

I haven’t had sex either but frankly I don’t know how that’s relevant to this discussion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The official Church teaching is that ‘deliberately contraceptive acts’ are intrinsically evil. Taking artificial birth control for health reasons–especially in cases where someone is not sexually active–is morally licit. Things get tricky when someone is married but I am of the mindset that–given a full understanding of Catholic moral teaching–the act of taking artificial birth control is not deliberately contraceptive and the contraceptive effect is secondary, foreseen but not intended.

If a woman is taking the contraceptive pill, but she is not sexually active, then morally her act is not the sin of contraception. The sin of contraception deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

But if she takes a contraceptive pill AND is sexually active, it does not matter if she is choosing to take the contraceptive as a means to a good end, or for a medical purpose, or for legitimate intentions. The deliberate choice to take the contraceptives and to engage in contracepted sexual relations is the intrinsically evil sin of contraception. And when the contraceptive is also an abortifacient, this deliberate choice is also the sin of abortion.

Intrinsically evil acts do not become moral by being done for a good purpose, or a good intended end, or without intending the evil moral object (such as depriving sexual acts of the procreative meaning).

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).

 

[presidentjlh]

the pill has been known to cause - or is suspected of causing - sterilty… varicose veins… blood clots… and cancer…

i’ve never heard of it having any good uses… and it causes early abortion… so any woman taking it should NOT be engaging in sexual activity while doing so… i doubt this advice is giving to them by their doctors, tho… seeing as how most… even the so called Catholic ones, aren’t agants bc in the 1st place…

Distracted, while indeed the pill is not preferable, it is still, in itself, a neutral object. It is what it is used for that determines its morality.

Like all medications and drugs, the pill, even when used in a morally licit way, can still have side effects. Indeed, the most noticeable side effect of using the pill for medical reasons is contraception, and while this is foreseen, if this is not intended, it is not morally wrong.

There are married women that have to take pills that cause contraception, but they do not do such in order to prevent pregnancy. They do it because they need to for their health. The Church has stated these women still may partake in the marital act with their husbands.

 

[presidentjlh]

If a woman is taking the contraceptive pill, but she is not sexually active, then morally her act is not the sin of contraception. The sin of contraception deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

But if she takes a contraceptive pill AND is sexually active, it does not matter if she is choosing to take the contraceptive as a means to a good end, or for a medical purpose, or for legitimate intentions. The deliberate choice to take the contraceptives and to engage in contracepted sexual relations is the intrinsically evil sin of contraception. And when the contraceptive is also an abortifacient, this deliberate choice is also the sin of abortion.

Intrinsically evil acts do not become moral by being done for a good purpose, or a good intended end, or without intending the evil moral object (such as depriving sexual acts of the procreative meaning).

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).

Key word there is “direct”, Ron. If a woman is taking a pill for medical reasons and for that intention, even though there is the foreseen (but undesired) result of contraception, it is no longer an intrinsically evil act. It is indirect contraception, which is not intrinsically grave.

 

[Bookcat]

CatholicPlanet.net - a discussion group to help faithful Catholics learn
the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium ever better.
My translation of the Bible: the Catholic Public Domain Version

Readers please note:

These web pages above are **not **recommended sources for Catholic sexual ethics…other areas too are of private opinion or are problematic or incorrect from a theological or canonical view.

Instead seek out sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and books for sale from Catholic Answers.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Distracted, while indeed the pill is not preferable, it is still, in itself, a neutral object. It is what it is used for that determines its morality.

What something “is used for” is the first font of morality, which can be described correctly in any of the following ways:

the intention of the subject who acts
the purpose for which the subject performs the act
the end in view
the intention
the subjective goal (why we do the act)

But intrinsically evil acts are immoral under the second font, due to the moral object, not the intention. When the objective act (what we do) is the same, a different intention or purpose cannot change the moral object from evil to good. The moral species (the type of act in terms of morality) does not change with a change in intention or purpose.

All three fonts of morality determine whether or not an act is moral, not merely the intended use or purpose.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Key word there is “direct”, Ron. If a woman is taking a pill for medical reasons and for that intention, even though there is the foreseen (but undesired) result of contraception, it is no longer an intrinsically evil act. It is indirect contraception, which is not intrinsically grave.

Any act is intrinsically evil when it has an evil moral object. The intention is a different font of morality.

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.)

 

[ThomasToo]

If a woman is taking the contraceptive pill, but she is not sexually active, then morally her act is not the sin of contraception. The sin of contraception deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning.

But if she takes a contraceptive pill AND is sexually active, it does not matter if she is choosing to take the contraceptive as a means to a good end, or for a medical purpose, or for legitimate intentions. The deliberate choice to take the contraceptives and to engage in contracepted sexual relations is the intrinsically evil sin of contraception. And when the contraceptive is also an abortifacient, this deliberate choice is also the sin of abortion.

That’s simply not true. A deliberately contraceptive act is one whose intended end is contraception.

Intrinsically evil acts do not become moral by being done for a good purpose, or a good intended end, or without intending the evil moral object (such as depriving sexual acts of the procreative meaning).

Certainly not but the Catechism does not say that contraceptive acts in the general case are intrinsically evil but only those contraceptive acts which are aimed at contraception.

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).

Right, legitimate intentions such as desiring to space out children or to not have more children for financial reasons. This isn’t talking about medication.

I ask this question without spite and as respectfully as possible, what training to do you have in moral theology? Your website seems somewhat extensive (including your translation of the Bible) but I’m curious where–and frankly, how much–you studied, if I may ask.

 

[Bookcat]

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 (non contraceptive) 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.

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…that of the possible abortive side effect… (Which I do not think had seen the light of day at the time of HV) …

 

[distracted]

False. Abstinence is only 99.999% effective; that’s the resting point of your religion. Unless you want to question the virgin birth…

I haven’t had sex either but frankly I don’t know how that’s relevant to this discussion.

i have no idea what this post means…

 

[ThomasToo]

i have no idea what this post means…

You said ‘there is ONE reliable method: abstinance [sic]’ but according to the Catholic faith there is at least one person who never had sex but got pregnant anyways: Mary, Mother of Jesus. As such it’s hardly fair to say abstinence is 100% effective either.

That clear things up?

 

[distracted]

You said ‘there is ONE reliable method: abstinance [sic]’ but according to the Catholic faith there is at least one person who never had sex but got pregnant anyways: Mary, Mother of Jesus. As such it’s hardly fair to say abstinence is 100% effective either.

That clear things up?

you can’t be serious…

i don’t flatter myself that God would do that with ME…

wish He would… but … uh… i can forget it…

i wouldn’t want to have my baby go through anything remotely like what Mary’s child went through anyhow… which is why God would never choose me if nothing else… He doesn’t deal w/ cowards…

 

[distracted]

There are married women that have to take pills that cause contraception, but they do not do such in order to prevent pregnancy. They do it because they need to for their health. The Church has stated these women still may partake in the marital act with their husbands.

no way!

the Pill causes early abortions… spontaneous ones… miscarriage…

the church is against killing the innocent… against aborition at all stages of development…

 

[presidentjlh]

no way!

the Pill causes early abortions… spontaneous ones… miscarriage…

the church is against killing the innocent… against aborition at all stages of development…

Distracted, I understand what you are saying. I am not at all advocating birth control, I am saying that if for medicinal purposes a woman must take a pill that has the unfortunate effect of also being a contraceptive, that is not direct contraception. For example, if a married woman has a major problem with bleeding “down there”, and the only effective way to treat it is a pill that also can be used as a contraceptive, she can take the pill and still partake in the marital act with her husband. She is not attempting direct contraception. It is an unfortunate side effect of the treatment that there is contraception, but this is not intended.

 

[ThomasToo]

you can’t be serious…

i don’t flatter myself that God would do that with ME…

wish He would… but … uh… i can forget it…

i wouldn’t want to have my baby go through anything remotely like what Mary’s child went through anyhow… which is why God would never choose me if nothing else… He doesn’t deal w/ cowards…

Of course I’m not serious but a little humor never hurt anyone (except the 3 Stooges). I just always like to pull that joke out when people play the abstinence is 100% effective card. That may be true but it’s also a whole lot less fun.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A deliberately contraceptive act is one whose intended end is contraception.

There are three fonts of morality. The intended end or purpose is a different font from the moral object. Intrinsically evil acts have an evil moral object, regardless of intention.

For example, a physican gives a patient an injection with the intended end of relieving suffering. This is a good intended end, but it does not tell you the moral object.

One physician may give a patient an injection with the intended end of relieving suffering by means of euthanasia. The moral object is the proximate end: the deprivation of life from an innocent human person. The moral object is evil, but the intended end is good. Two different kinds of ends, distinct and independent from one another.

Another physician may give a patient an injection with the intended end of relieving suffering by means of a medication which does not kill, but only relieves pain. The moral object is the same as the intention: to relieve suffering. Both the intended end and the moral object are good in this case.

I have repeatedly quoted Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, the CCC, the compendium, and the USCCB on this point: there are three fonts of morality, and the intention is a different font from the moral object. Therefore, a good intention does not imply a good moral object.