Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?

[PassingThru]

Yes, I saw what you said to una fides and extracted your position from that, and used “behavior” from an earlier post or ours. You expressed the inability of anybody to articulate the idea correctly and we have been grappling with “natural act” so the term “sexual behavior” is covers the behavior of abstinance during likely fertile times.

I am by the book, because I do not want to deviate from the magisterium.

You said: “For example, you added “motive” to the Catholic position, and thrown in some “naturals” and “end of marriage” bits as well.”

I hope using “nature of the conjugal act” did not add more confusion. I think I was going to make both version the same and missed something, so now I have revised it below. I have used motive throughout my statements as you can see if you read back. I took “end of mariage” from St. Augustine, but I am changing it to “restricted purpose”. I can provide the quote if you are interested. It is the restricted sense of the purpose of marriage. The full sense of the purpose of marriage was explained by Pope Pius XI in Casti Canubii item 24. Pope Pius XI is difficult reading so I never quoted him to you directly before. You can read it here.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

It is important to recognize the broad purpose of marriage which has presedence over the restricted purpose of marriage. There is a good of the couple being together even without sexual activity or children. This can be seen in couples that, having validly married, have some tragedy occur preventing them from any sexual activity and from conceiving a family. Some of these people may be able to adopt.

You said we had the same purpose, but then the wording of the last portion for your position is now uncertain to me. So based upon your remarks I have your position as below, where I eliminated “end” and added modifers to clarify:

1. The primary broad purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other. (Casti Cannubii 24)
2. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. (St. Augustine)
3. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is subordinate to the primary broad purpose of marriage.
4. NFP and ABC both violate the ______ purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
5. No case for NFP over ABC.

So what should be in _______ above, restricted purpose, broad purpose?

Revised Catholic position is:

1. The primary broad purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other. (Casti Cannubii 24)
2. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. (St. Augustine)
3. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is subordinate to the primary broad purpose of marriage.
4. NFP and ABC both violate the restricted purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
5. Serious motive does not allow for violation of the conjugal act.
6. Serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage.
7. There may be a case for NFP over ABC.

I read through the first half of your post about 3 times. I don’t really know what to do with that? It is all fine to me, and it doesn’t change much in my mind.

To answer your question “So what should be in _______ above, restricted purpose, broad purpose?” I guess restricted, or maybe both? I have no idea how to answer that question. I mean, “The primary broad purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other.” Holy cow, I have no idea what to derive from that. It is a perfectly good statement, but what does it mean? A couple of thousand different things I guess.

Your list is now the same for both of us up to 5. Fine by me. If both ABC and NFP violate the restricted purpose, as you listed, what distinguishes the two? One modifies the act, one modifies the sexual relationship, as you defined it, and both violate the “restricted purpose”. Sooooo, how is one worse than the other? Thats why I am questioning why NFP, at its core, is really very different from ABC.

 

[Vico]

…I mean, “The primary broad purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other.” Holy cow, I have no idea what to derive from that. It is a perfectly good statement, but what does it mean?
… If both ABC and NFP violate the restricted purpose, as you listed, what distinguishes the two? One modifies the act, one modifies the sexual relationship, as you defined it, and both violate the “restricted purpose”. Sooooo, how is one worse than the other? Thats why I am questioning why NFP, at its core, is really very different from ABC.

NFP vs ABC

The key is that serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage (which includes both ABC and NFP), but not of the conjugal act.

1. NFP and ABC both violate the restricted purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
2. Serious motive does not allow for violation of the conjugal act.
3. Serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage.

The overall welfare of the spouses given through the broad purpose overrides the restricted purpose of marriage, and I believe you can see that it answers why serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage.

Broad Purpose of Marriage

Pope Pius XI, Casti Canubii:
"24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. "

 

[PassingThru]

NFP vs ABC

The key is that serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage (which includes both ABC and NFP), but not of the conjugal act.** Unsupported, but OK, that is your position.**

1. NFP and ABC both violate the restricted purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
2. Serious motive does not allow for violation of the conjugal act.** See below.**
3. Serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage.

The overall welfare of the spouses given through the broad purpose overrides the restricted purpose of marriage, and I believe you can see that it answers why serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage.** Absolutely, which is why I am not questioning motive if any of this.**

Broad Purpose of Marriage

Pope Pius XI, Casti Canubii:
“24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. No contention here. Sounds good.”

I feel like a broken record here, but WHY is one acceptable one not? I know you will say ABC violates the act, and NFP violates the natural sexual relationship. But why is it written that the act can not be modified, but the natural relationship can? Is it just because, well, it is written that way?

I mean, look at it this way. I could have a set of rules/documents/logic etc surround sex in marriage for a given religion. I could basically copy all of the different rules/documents/logic etc straight from Catholic teaching. If I left out this one specific part about the “act”, all the other teachings would still apply, and NFP and ABC would be on roughly even footing, and technically “acceptable”. Conversely, if I added one line right after the “act” portion mentioning the “nature of sexual relationship”, then both ABC and NFP would fail the test, and be unacceptable. Is it really just that that line is there, so ABC fails? And if so, why is that specific line there, but any mention of a “natural sexual relationship” and its importance missing? What is the line of logic that led to this? What was the determining factor(s) that led to one being important, and one not?

 

[Vico]

I feel like a broken record here, but WHY is one acceptable one not? I know you will say ABC violates the act, and NFP violates the natural sexual relationship. But why is it written that the act can not be modified, but the natural relationship can? Is it just because, well, it is written that way?

I mean, look at it this way. I could have a set of rules/documents/logic etc surround sex in marriage for a given religion. I could basically copy all of the different rules/documents/logic etc straight from Catholic teaching. If I left out this one specific part about the “act”, all the other teachings would still apply, and NFP and ABC would be on roughly even footing, and technically “acceptable”. Conversely, if I added one line right after the “act” portion mentioning the “nature of sexual relationship”, then both ABC and NFP would fail the test, and be unacceptable. Is it really just that that line is there, so ABC fails? And if so, why is that specific line there, but any mention of a “natural sexual relationship” and its importance missing? What is the line of logic that led to this? What was the determining factor(s) that led to one being important, and one not?

The Objective Order

Objective: “of or having to do with a material object”.

With regard to reproduction, the physiology and biochemistry is objective. God has created this order and it should not be violated, lest we disrespect God as the master of the sources of creation.

The Subjective Order

Subjective: “belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered”.

With regard to reproduction, the sexual behavior is subjective. God has created us with free will, to be the masters over our behavior. To serve God we should live according to the Truth. It is not possible that good can come of bad action (double effect). Since the restricted purpose is subordinate to the broad purpose, the broad purpose must dominate. Therefore there may be serious moral ground to allow for not fulfilling the restricted purpose which is subordinate.

As we see from Saint Paul, abstinance from conjugal relations is allowable, yet it is important to help the spouse to avoid temptation, so it should only be for a time.

Saint Paul states, in 1 Corinthians 7:5 (KJV) “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

This shows that abstinance is not inherintly bad in marriage. Abstinance may work against the restricted purpose of marriage. So to use abstinance is to modify the sexual behavior is not inherintly bad, yet the motive must be sure.

Conclusion

Therefore artificial birth control (which violates objective reproductive order) can never be correct, whereas natural family planning (which could only work against subjective order) may be correct with serious moral grounds.

 

[PassingThru]

The Objective Order

Objective: “of or having to do with a material object”.

With regard to reproduction, the physiology and biochemistry is objective. God has created this order and it should not be violated, lest we disrespect God as the master of the sources of creation.

The Subjective Order

Subjective: “belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered”.

With regard to reproduction, the sexual behavior is subjective. God has created us with free will, to be the masters over our behavior. To serve God we should live according to the Truth. It is not possible that good can come of bad action (double effect). Since the restricted purpose is subordinate to the broad purpose, the broad purpose must dominate. Therefore there may be serious moral ground to allow for not fulfilling the restricted purpose which is subordinate.

As we see from Saint Paul, abstinance from conjugal relations is allowable, yet it is important to help the spouse to avoid temptation, so it should only be for a time.

Saint Paul states, in 1 Corinthians 7:5 (KJV) “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

This shows that abstinance is not inherintly bad in marriage. Abstinance may work against the restricted purpose of marriage. So to use abstinance is to modify the sexual behavior is not inherintly bad, yet the motive must be sure.

Conclusion

Therefore artificial birth control (which violates objective reproductive order) can never be correct, whereas natural family planning (which could only work against subjective order) may be correct with serious moral grounds.

I appreciate all the work you put into these posts. I really do. But, I think fatigue is setting in for me.

I am hoisting a flag, and calling a draw. Although I don’t think your flag is unfolded just yet!

If anyone has any interest in keeping the discussion going in a different direction, maybe some otherwise content Catholics can pick it up with there thoughts from before I hijacked. (For them to discuss, not I)

Thanks again, M

 

[una_fides]

The Objective Order

Objective: “of or having to do with a material object”.

With regard to reproduction, the physiology and biochemistry is objective. God has created this order and it should not be violated, lest we disrespect God as the master of the sources of creation.

The Subjective Order

Subjective: “belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered”.

With regard to reproduction, the sexual behavior is subjective. God has created us with free will, to be the masters over our behavior. To serve God we should live according to the Truth. It is not possible that good can come of bad action (double effect). Since the restricted purpose is subordinate to the broad purpose, the broad purpose must dominate. Therefore there may be serious moral ground to allow for not fulfilling the restricted purpose which is subordinate.

As we see from Saint Paul, abstinance from conjugal relations is allowable, yet it is important to help the spouse to avoid temptation, so it should only be for a time.

Saint Paul states, in 1 Corinthians 7:5 (KJV) “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

This shows that abstinance is not inherintly bad in marriage. Abstinance may work against the restricted purpose of marriage. So to use abstinance is to modify the sexual behavior is not inherintly bad, yet the motive must be sure.

Conclusion

Therefore artificial birth control (which violates objective reproductive order) can never be correct, whereas natural family planning (which could only work against subjective order) may be correct with serious moral grounds.

Great post. I would also add from Scripture pointing back to something that was earlier said that ABC is a sin according to Scripture, as the sin of Onan, who performed a method of contraception against the act by “spilling his seed onto the ground.” God punished his acts of contraception with death. Hence Scripture teaches that the marital act itself cannot be artificially altered and must be properly completed. According to Scripture, ABC is immoral.

But as you pointed out, abstinence is not condemned in Scripture but is actually praised. Thus, abstinence itself, though it goes against the unaltered “behavioral” aspect of the sexual relationship in denying impulses (which is a good and essential thing to be able to do!) is not immoral but in some cases can even be worthy of praise. In the case where a couple has a grave reason to abstain in order to prevent conception, then the abstinence is morally justified because it has a justifiable reason of greater weight than the abstaining from the marital act produces. If one’s wife would certainly die from conceiving, then one has a moral obligation to abstain because avoiding her death outweighs the alternative.

Passing Through, I hope this has been a sufficient reflection for you. Your religious affiliation says “Lutheran-ish” so I would hope that these Scriptures add a great deal of additional weight to the arguments that have already been presented.

 

[ryecroft]

Yes, because that is the way I catagorized it where natural act means coitus. Abstinance is then certainly in a different category. We can modify the groupings to be:

1. Valid marriage and
2. Natural behavior.

Then the intention to exclude children from marriage without serious motive is unnatural behavior and includes both ABC and NFP and ABC is also unnatural behavior because it offends against God as master of the sources of creation.

Pope Pius XII expressed these two key concepts we are examining:

1. “the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint”, and from his predecessor Pope Pius XI he quoted
2. “any attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.”

Is this concrete?

ABC = artificial birth control
NFP = natural family planning

I’m afraid I"m going to sound a bit hard headed on this one and I don’t mean to be. BUt one thing I still have not been able to understand with regards to NFP and ABC is the following: you say that “unnatural behavior because it offends against God as master of the sources of creation” - the problem I have with this is that if God wants someone to become pregnant, they will. They can become pregnant using NFP even if they do so religiously (happened to me) - but also, someone can use ABC and never miss taking the pill at the same time each day or the person can have the IUD in - and these people can still become pregnant as well (also happened to me)- we have had more than enough reason to not want me to get pregnant in our 9 year marriage - but through out this time, it has become clear to my husband and I that if God wishes a woman to become pregnant, she will. In both situations, the couple is attempting to not become pregnant while having sex. I read the analogy about the grandmother and the inheritance, but I just don’t see it fitting. There’s a big difference between keeping someone from ovulating due to chemicals and murdering someone (let’s not get into a debate about abortifacients)- Everything and anything is possible with God, so I don’t understand how anyone could consider that we could “frustrate” His efforts.
God Bless
Rye

 

[ryecroft]

With regard to reproduction, the sexual behavior is subjective. God has created us with free will, to be the masters over our behavior. To serve God we should live according to the Truth. It is not possible that good can come of bad action (double effect). Since the restricted purpose is subordinate to the broad purpose, the broad purpose must dominate. Therefore there may be serious moral ground to allow for not fulfilling the restricted purpose which is subordinate.

Sorry to get on here again, but it sounds like (and please correct me if I’m wrong on this)- that you’re saying that there is never a reason for “double effect” with regards to reproduction/sex. Would you be trying to say that women who are on the pill for medical reasons for whom double effect is used (the woman gets married and continues to take the pill for serious medical reasons - there by quite often keeping her from possibly becoming pregnant)- even Fr. Serpa has come ut and said this is allowable - even with the possiblity that the pill may be an abortifacient occiaionally. Although not something that happens often, there are quite a few of us for whom this situation is a reality.

The poster 2 posts above seems to be saying also, that in the situation where a woman must use the pill or other form of abc for medical reasons when married should cease from having sex. It’s been made clear that this is not necessary. If I need to get the quote out, I will, but I think many on here are familiar with it.

Here is even a quote from Fr. Serpa with regards to this situation:
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.

God Bless
Rye

 

[ryecroft]

I do apologize for my last post - I got the wrong quote out from Fr. Serpa, but since the one I got out is up, I figured it would back up this point fairly well anyway. It’s showing that even though the pill may be an abortifacient at times, it is still licit for someone to use abc for medical reasons and still be sexually active with the husband.
GOd Bless
Rye

 

[Vico]

Great post. I would also add from Scripture pointing back to something that was earlier said that ABC is a sin according to Scripture, as the sin of Onan, who performed a method of contraception against the act by “spilling his seed onto the ground.” …

Thank you. That is an excellent scriptural reference for the topic of withdrawal as a method of birth control. Genesis 38:8-10

 

[Vico]

With regard to reproduction, the sexual behavior is subjective. God has created us with free will, to be the masters over our behavior. To serve God we should live according to the Truth. It is not possible that good can come of bad action (double effect). Since the restricted purpose is subordinate to the broad purpose, the broad purpose must dominate. Therefore there may be serious moral ground to allow for not fulfilling the restricted purpose which is subordinate.

Sorry to get on here again, but it sounds like (and please correct me if I’m wrong on this)- that you’re saying that there is never a reason for “double effect” with regards to reproduction/sex. …

God Bless
Rye

No, as I understand it, as long as the good effect is intended and the bad in not, it can be permissible. I mean to say that good could not come from bad action with intention to do bad. (Maybe I should have not referenced double effect there?

 

[ryecroft]

No, as I understand it, as long as the good effect is intended and the bad in not, it can be permissible. I mean to say that good could not come from bad action with intention to do bad. (Maybe I should have not referenced double effect there?

Thank you! I’m afraid that when some of these topics come up, I get a little defensive (certain members, get very passionate about there being no reason that ABC could ever be used and not be a mortal sin) -I misunderstood what you meant with regards to the double effect comment. I do apologize!
God Bless
Rye

 

[Vico]

I’m afraid I"m going to sound a bit hard headed on this one and I don’t mean to be. But one thing I still have not been able to understand with regards to NFP and ABC is the following: you say that “unnatural behavior because it offends against God as master of the sources of creation” … it has become clear to my husband and I that if God wishes a woman to become pregnant, she will. … Everything and anything is possible with God, so I don’t understand how anyone could consider that we could “frustrate” His efforts.
God Bless
Rye

How about frustrate meaning impede, to intefere with or slow the progress of. We offend by the effort to do so, even if it is ineffectual.

This is from Pope Paul VI, HV 13:
“to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.”

 

[Vico]

I appreciate all the work you put into these posts. I really do. But, I think fatigue is setting in for me.

I am hoisting a flag, and calling a draw. Although I don’t think your flag is unfolded just yet!

If anyone has any interest in keeping the discussion going in a different direction, maybe some otherwise content Catholics can pick it up with there thoughts from before I hijacked. (For them to discuss, not I)

Thanks again, M

OK. It is really difficult to express systematically. Personally I think abstinance is a better way than NFP because it develops self-mastery (of couse through the grace of God) and can be an offering to God.

 

[una_fides]

With regard to reproduction, the sexual behavior is subjective. God has created us with free will, to be the masters over our behavior. To serve God we should live according to the Truth. It is not possible that good can come of bad action (double effect). Since the restricted purpose is subordinate to the broad purpose, the broad purpose must dominate. Therefore there may be serious moral ground to allow for not fulfilling the restricted purpose which is subordinate.

Sorry to get on here again, but it sounds like (and please correct me if I’m wrong on this)- that you’re saying that there is never a reason for “double effect” with regards to reproduction/sex. Would you be trying to say that women who are on the pill for medical reasons for whom double effect is used (the woman gets married and continues to take the pill for serious medical reasons - there by quite often keeping her from possibly becoming pregnant)- even Fr. Serpa has come ut and said this is allowable - even with the possiblity that the pill may be an abortifacient occiaionally. Although not something that happens often, there are quite a few of us for whom this situation is a reality.

The poster 2 posts above seems to be saying also, that in the situation where a woman must use the pill or other form of abc for medical reasons when married should cease from having sex. It’s been made clear that this is not necessary. If I need to get the quote out, I will, but I think many on here are familiar with it.

Here is even a quote from Fr. Serpa with regards to this situation:
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.

God Bless
Rye

Regarding double effect, I honestly haven’t done extensive research into the medical reasons why someone would be proscribed the pill. I would presume that in order for the the act to be morally justifiable the pill would have to be proscribed for grave medical reasons not just due to some discomfort, etc. Also intention would come into the equation as well. One’s sole intention would be to use the pill in this case for the grave medical reasons and would be opposed to its secondary effects. I suppose one would look at it in a similar light to a doctor proscribing a drug that could produce death or serious illness for some grave reason to thwart off another serious ailment… I would also add that the pill must be the only remedy available. If there are alternatives that are not seriously damaging to one’s health, then those options should be sought rather than taking a contraceptive.
My summary:

1. Grave medical reason (not just cramps, etc)
2. No viable alternatives
3. Proper motive (medical reasons only, not at all to contracept)

Lastly, could you let me know what medical conditions fall under the category of being a serious condition that no viable alternative medical options exist other than the pill? Thanks.

 

[una_fides]

I’m afraid I"m going to sound a bit hard headed on this one and I don’t mean to be. BUt one thing I still have not been able to understand with regards to NFP and ABC is the following: you say that “unnatural behavior because it offends against God as master of the sources of creation” - the problem I have with this is that if God wants someone to become pregnant, they will. They can become pregnant using NFP even if they do so religiously (happened to me) - but also, someone can use ABC and never miss taking the pill at the same time each day or the person can have the IUD in - and these people can still become pregnant as well (also happened to me)- we have had more than enough reason to not want me to get pregnant in our 9 year marriage - but through out this time, it has become clear to my husband and I that if God wishes a woman to become pregnant, she will. In both situations, the couple is attempting to not become pregnant while having sex. I read the analogy about the grandmother and the inheritance, but I just don’t see it fitting. There’s a big difference between keeping someone from ovulating due to chemicals and murdering someone (let’s not get into a debate about abortifacients)- Everything and anything is possible with God, so I don’t understand how anyone could consider that we could “frustrate” His efforts.
God Bless
Rye

It’s based on intention as well. One is altering the natural act of procreation with the intention of not having children, which is the intended end of marriage. All three pillars of the Church–Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium–all condemn any form of birth control in altering the marital act. Abstinence from sex is the only thing permissible when grave reasons exist. ABC is not permissible for grave reasons because it is an offense against the act of procreation itself by altering it through man’s ill intentions.

God has said not to alter the act, and who is man to question God’s law? We can certainly see his reasons as to the evil effects that ABC produces and the problems within marriages as well. We can also the the problems of altering God’s design. Ultimately, just like any other of God’s commandments, we are called to obey him even if we were not able to understand all his reasons why. I say that because I know for some people this topic is a difficult one to understand but for others like me it makes perfect sense.

 

[Vico]

Old Style Families

My grandmother, wife of a cotton farmer in Texas, had fourteen children. She died at age 38, in 1917, giving birth to the last two, twins, that also died.

 

[ryecroft]

Regarding double effect, I honestly haven’t done extensive research into the medical reasons why someone would be proscribed the pill. I would presume that in order for the the act to be morally justifiable the pill would have to be proscribed for grave medical reasons not just due to some discomfort, etc. Also intention would come into the equation as well. One’s sole intention would be to use the pill in this case for the grave medical reasons and would be opposed to its secondary effects. I suppose one would look at it in a similar light to a doctor proscribing a drug that could produce death or serious illness for some grave reason to thwart off another serious ailment… I would also add that the pill must be the only remedy available. If there are alternatives that are not seriously damaging to one’s health, then those options should be sought rather than taking a contraceptive.
My summary:

1. Grave medical reason (not just cramps, etc)
2. No viable alternatives
3. Proper motive (medical reasons only, not at all to contracept)

Lastly, could you let me know what medical conditions fall under the category of being a serious condition that no viable alternative medical options exist other than the pill? Thanks.

Sure- I can give you my personal reasons - and before anyone else goes off about going to the Pope Paul institute or getting an NFP condusive doctor- been there, done that - can’t risk it again. Personally, I’ve been on the stuff on and off since I was about 13. I have had TONS of medical tests and even tried herbal methods and diet changing methods. If I don’t have the pill (or the hormones in it), then I can wind up having to get transfusions as well as meses lasting for MONTHS (8 months 3 weeks one time). As a secondary situation to this, I have kidney disease, and while I had to take the pill prior to having kidney disease or having the effects of it, - this disease is called LPHS and has been ranked as the 3rd rarest kdieny disease in the world, mostly among women and I loose blood because of this through hematuria (gross and microscopic). Also, I don’t mean to be rude to you, or any other male, but some of you guys mention that we shouldn’t use birth control just because of “discomfort” (or some version of the word there in) - I have friends who are on birth control because of this and have tried many other remedies for want of a better word. But for some women, that “discomfort” is a pain which can lay us up for days at a time. I also have this “discomfort” but it can last for months at a time. I have had ureteroscopies, cystoscopies, I’ve had cysts removed and the whole gammit. I have also tried NFP along with diet and although followed it to the T and even abstained longer than the charts told us we needed to, and tried to endure to blood loss as well as inability to really go out due to the fact that at times when I would stand up, I would loose a copious amount of blood and nearly pass out, I still got pregnant - first time I was told it was due to a “freak” ovulation - lets try a different method- only problem is the only way you find out if it doesn’t work is if you get a plus sign on your pregnancy test. I have been tested up the wazoo (for want of a better way to put it) - and I have a hard time seeing how you can say that it isn’t ever permissable when there are experts on here as well as a quote from the Vatican saying that a woman for medical reasons may use birth control and even quotes from Fr. Serpa on here backing up a woman using birth control even on the off chance that the birth control method may be an abortifacient. If it were just the pain for me, I might be able to handle it without the pill, but no woman should have to be in pain or “discomfort” (and I’m not trying to be sarcastic) - because she all of the sudden gets married and some feel she should no longer take the pill (even thought the Vatican has said that for medical reasons double effect can come into play). It seems fairly easy for a man to say she should just deal with the cramps or “discomfort” but I really believe that if men had to experience some of what many women went through every month they’d be curled up in a ball, crying for their mommies and screaming “there’s blood - there’s blood coming out of me - my stomach - oh God will this never end?” (o.k. maybe a little sarcasm, but this is what my husband says would probably happen to him if he went through only a 1/10th of what I sometimes go through.) (I say sometimes because I have had menses last for nearly 8-9 months before and had to make weekly trips to the hospital to get transfusions - premarin helps sometimes but while on it makes me vomit and when ceased everything including the bleeding generally returns.) Just as a note - I DO WANT CHILDREN -I would like to survive the process as well as have the child survive the pregnancy. We are hoping that the doctors will say I can try again but we’ve been trying to deal with my situation for over a decade. Some doctors just think “ripping” out my reproductive parts would cease the problem but then I couldn’t have any kids. Believe me, I pray fervently that I’ll be able to go long enough to get pregnant and not have our 7th or 8th miscarriage/loss of pregnancy. In fact, I’ve asked on here how to get my husband excited about trying again (I get that he’s scared as during one pregnancy, I began bleeding out and almost died) but got very little constructive comments
God Bless
Rye

 

[una_fides]

Sure- I can give you my personal reasons - and before anyone else goes off about going to the Pope Paul institute or getting an NFP condusive doctor- been there, done that - can’t risk it again. Personally, I’ve been on the stuff on and off since I was about 13. I have had TONS of medical tests and even tried herbal methods and diet changing methods. If I don’t have the pill (or the hormones in it), then I can wind up having to get transfusions as well as meses lasting for MONTHS (8 months 3 weeks one time). As a secondary situation to this, I have kidney disease, and while I had to take the pill prior to having kidney disease or having the effects of it, - this disease is called LPHS and has been ranked as the 3rd rarest kdieny disease in the world, mostly among women and I loose blood because of this through hematuria (gross and microscopic). Also, I don’t mean to be rude to you, or any other male, but some of you guys mention that we shouldn’t use birth control just because of “discomfort” (or some version of the word there in) - I have friends who are on birth control because of this and have tried many other remedies for want of a better word. But for some women, that “discomfort” is a pain which can lay us up for days at a time. I also have this “discomfort” but it can last for months at a time. I have had ureteroscopies, cystoscopies, I’ve had cysts removed and the whole gammit. I have also tried NFP along with diet and although followed it to the T and even abstained longer than the charts told us we needed to, and tried to endure to blood loss as well as inability to really go out due to the fact that at times when I would stand up, I would loose a copious amount of blood and nearly pass out, I still got pregnant - first time I was told it was due to a “freak” ovulation - lets try a different method- only problem is the only way you find out if it doesn’t work is if you get a plus sign on your pregnancy test. I have been tested up the wazoo (for want of a better way to put it) - and I have a hard time seeing how you can say that it isn’t ever permissable when there are experts on here as well as a quote from the Vatican saying that a woman for medical reasons may use birth control and even quotes from Fr. Serpa on here backing up a woman using birth control even on the off chance that the birth control method may be an abortifacient. If it were just the pain for me, I might be able to handle it without the pill, but no woman should have to be in pain or “discomfort” (and I’m not trying to be sarcastic) - because she all of the sudden gets married and some feel she should no longer take the pill (even thought the Vatican has said that for medical reasons double effect can come into play). It seems fairly easy for a man to say she should just deal with the cramps or “discomfort” but I really believe that if men had to experience some of what many women went through every month they’d be curled up in a ball, crying for their mommies and screaming “there’s blood - there’s blood coming out of me - my stomach - oh God will this never end?” (o.k. maybe a little sarcasm, but this is what my husband says would probably happen to him if he went through only a 1/10th of what I sometimes go through.) (I say sometimes because I have had menses last for nearly 8-9 months before and had to make weekly trips to the hospital to get transfusions - premarin helps sometimes but while on it makes me vomit and when ceased everything including the bleeding generally returns.) Just as a note - I DO WANT CHILDREN -I would like to survive the process as well as have the child survive the pregnancy. We are hoping that the doctors will say I can try again but we’ve been trying to deal with my situation for over a decade. Some doctors just think “ripping” out my reproductive parts would cease the problem but then I couldn’t have any kids. Believe me, I pray fervently that I’ll be able to go long enough to get pregnant and not have our 7th or 8th miscarriage/loss of pregnancy. In fact, I’ve asked on here how to get my husband excited about trying again (I get that he’s scared as during one pregnancy, I began bleeding out and almost died) but got very little constructive comments
God Bless
Rye

You have a very complex situation, and I empathize with you greatly and hope and pray that your condition improves. Perhaps one day God will grant you a pregnancy like he did miraculously for Sarah in the OT. If not, we give him thanks anyway for his great love and mercy in knowing what is best for us even when it doesn’t always make sense to us.

Could you post anything that the Church has officially taught regarding the morality of using birth control for medical reasons? Idk if you posted it already, but I don’t recall seeing it. Fr. Vincent usually gives great answers, but unfortunately, he is not speaking on behalf of the Church, not to say he’s not reiterating what the Church has taught in this instance, but I’d just like to read it directly from the source. Thanks.

 

[ryecroft]

You have a very complex situation, and I empathize with you greatly and hope and pray that your condition improves. Perhaps one day God will grant you a pregnancy like he did miraculously for Sarah in the OT. If not, we give him thanks anyway for his great love and mercy in knowing what is best for us even when it doesn’t always make sense to us.

Could you post anything that the Church has officially taught regarding the morality of using birth control for medical reasons? Idk if you posted it already, but I don’t recall seeing it. Fr. Vincent usually gives great answers, but unfortunately, he is not speaking on behalf of the Church, not to say he’s not reiterating what the Church has taught in this instance, but I’d just like to read it directly from the source. Thanks.

I understand why you would want that - I did too at first. It seemed that I would a different answer from different Priests and even a Bishop as well as a Theologian and even a Professor (I was working on a master’s in Ecclesiastical History)- when I came looking for answers here it didn’t really get any betterexcept that there were others that understood my situation and could at least empathize and explain what they had done. So I try to go with something that the Church has published- (although I do agree that Fr. Serpa has done an excellent job explaining the stand of the Church - and if my eyes did not deceive me, I believe he is one that answers questions for EWTN online-or there’s another Fr. V. Serpa)- Please let me know if the following quote from Humana Vitae is sufficient -

When needed to be taken for theraputic reasons, the use of “the pill” is not immoral. Humanae Vitae states, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (HV 15).

I must say for this one, I wanted to do one more thing - I wanted to define theraputic - I would have said “medical” but I thought since the word used in HV was theraputic I should stick with it-
(this is from Miriam Webster Dictionary BTW)
Theraputicf or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods
2 : providing or assisting in a cure : curative, medicinal

the word actually comes from the Greek and means to treat or attend to. I know there are a couple more quotes I could find (but it might take me a while) - but I hope this is sufficient. I’m not trying to cause scandal or anything - but when the Church gives a quote, no matter what certain people on here say, I will believe what the Church says. There are so many times where it doesn’t seem quite as clear but I believe this time the Church is clear.
God Bless
Rye aka Annie