Artificial Contraception (Not Your Average Question...)

[CMoon72]

Hey Drew-Memphis,

I'm from Memphis too! Good stuff, man.

As a Catholic, I sure can't see how one can justify the use of the pill for anything. You can't tell me that there are not other drugs (if that is the best way to regulate a period) which won't do the same thing, but is not a contraceptive at heart.

Obviously, you should follow your own conscience, but seriously, I'd look into alternatives before I'd condone the use of the pill for anything. I just can't see the logic in it. No matter what the perceived good in it, it shuts off the possibility for procreating and human life. I don't see an upside.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='CMoon72' timestamp='1334861567' post='2420739']
Hey Drew-Memphis,

I'm from Memphis too! Good stuff, man.

As a Catholic, I sure can't see how one can justify the use of the pill for anything. You can't tell me that there are not other drugs (if that is the best way to regulate a period) which won't do the same thing, but is not a contraceptive at heart.

Obviously, you should follow your own conscience, but seriously, I'd look into alternatives before I'd condone the use of the pill for anything. I just can't see the logic in it. No matter what the perceived good in it, it shuts off the possibility for procreating and human life. I don't see an upside.
[/quote]

Unfortunatly, when affecting fertility hormones (which would affect one's period) they would affect fertility. Sometimes there are other treatments like elimination diet or minor surgery that relieve the problems.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1334859040' post='2420719']
You guys probably already know this, but I just want to clarify. The morality of an action is never [i]just[/i] about intent. There are 3 things that have to be in place (all 3 must be morally good) for a morally good action:[list=1]
[*]intent (or goal)
[*]action (the actual action being done)
[*]circumstances
[/list]
So, even if you're using the pill for a medically licit reason, if there's a chance that contraception can take place then it is not morally licit. The only way to be taking the pill morally (at all - before or after marriage) is to refrain from sexual intercourse. Of course, morally speaking, refraining from sexual intercourse is required before marriage, anyway.

So yes, God judges your intent. But He also judges your actions, and He also weighs the circumstances around those actions into His judgement.
[/quote]I agree with you almost entirely here. Unfortunately, a few notable Catholic theologians have muddied this situation by reducing the liceity of contraception to intent alone, which has become a prevalent point of view within the laity.

However, Pope Paul VI is very clear that devices that can prevent conception are licit for medical reasons, so long as they don't cause an abortion should conception take place.

Edited April 19, 2012 by qfnol31

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

I have PCOS as well (I have not had a period in 8 months). I am not on any pill because my doctor doesn't want to tamper with my hormones since I am young. She told me to loose some weight (because hormones are stored in fat cells) and that should regulate it unless there are any further problems. I have to loose about 15 pounds to get things back to normal.

Perhaps your fiancée could talk to her doctor about an alternative treatment or solution, and talk about the problems that you guys would face once you got married and she is still taking this pill. Or maybe she could talk to an NFP doctor?

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1334865229' post='2420786']
However, Pope Paul VI is very clear that devices that can prevent conception are licit for medical reasons, so long as they don't cause an abortion should conception take place.
[/quote]

It took me half a minute to understand the distinction.

I'll have to read up on that - sorry if I don't take what you're saying at face value.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1334865547' post='2420795']
I have PCOS as well (I have not had a period in 8 months). I am not on any pill because my doctor doesn't want to tamper with my hormones since I am young. She told me to loose some weight (because hormones are stored in fat cells) and that should regulate it unless there are any further problems. I have to loose about 15 pounds to get things back to normal.

Perhaps your fiancée could talk to her doctor about an alternative treatment or solution, and talk about the problems that you guys would face once you got married and she is still taking this pill. Or maybe she could talk to an NFP doctor?
[/quote]

Good job!

Keep at it. A normal PCOS thing they don't tell you about is diabetes...I have 2 friends with the disease, one who's in her mid 40's and is diabetic, one who's 33 and pre-diabetic. There is a theory that the pill really can do damage in that dept becuase weight gain can't be treated for the serious factor it is.

[CMoon72]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1334865229' post='2420786']
I agree with you almost entirely here. Unfortunately, a few notable Catholic theologians have muddied this situation by reducing the liceity of contraception to intent alone, which has become a prevalent point of view within the laity.

However, Pope Paul VI is very clear that devices that can prevent conception are licit for medical reasons, so long as they don't cause an abortion should conception take place.
[/quote]

Can you show me where that is? I don't mean to be difficult, but I can't see a Pope saying something like that and I don't remember reading it in his work on Human Life.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1334867867' post='2420824']


It took me half a minute to understand the distinction.

I'll have to read up on that - sorry if I don't take what you're saying at face value.
[/quote]I can't multi quote from my phone, but this is for both of you:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, 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. (19)

[Lil Red]

here is the link to Humanae Vitae http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

[CMoon72]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1334869239' post='2420839']
I can't multi quote from my phone, but this is for both of you:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, 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. (19)
[/quote]

That seems to be pretty ambiguous. What does Paul VI mean by "any motive?" I tried to google Pope Pius' speech to urologists and found nothing. But regardless of that, should the pill be considered therapeutic? Because doesn't Paul VI say directly above,

[quote][font="Times"][size="3"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when [b]We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun [/b]and, above all, all direct abortion, [b]even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children[/b]....[/size][/font][/size][/font][/quote]

Edited April 20, 2012 by CMoon72

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1334869239' post='2420839']
I can't multi quote from my phone, but this is for both of you:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, 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. (19)
[/quote]

It [i]is[/i] ambiguous, in at least that it doesn't say what context it's in. You seemed to imply that it's okay during marriage, while the marital embrace is taking place. I'm not getting that from this... Having an artificial impediment to procreation is okay for medical reasons, as I said above, as long as you're refraining from the marital embrace.

[fides' Jack]

Well, now that I'm reading that portion of the encyclical, that whole section deals with artificial contraception during marriage... So I guess I'm a little perplexed, and admitting that I need further teaching about the meaning of that passage.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1334938841' post='2421272']
Well, now that I'm reading that portion of the encyclical, that whole section deals with artificial contraception during marriage... So I guess I'm a little perplexed, and admitting that I need further teaching about the meaning of that passage.
[/quote]

Yeah, I've heard some people say that it [i]technically [/i]is licit to use "medication" that is sorely needed (because, let's face it, sometimes the Pill is the only thing that works for a reproductive system issue), even if it has contraceptive side-effects, as long as neither spouse ever intends to ever benefit in any way from those contraceptive side-effects. But while in theory this could definitely be morally licit, in practice it is extremely hard for me to imagine an actual couple that, deep down, wouldn't be a little bit glad that the wife's medication has a contraceptive side-effect if they aren't ready to conceive yet. So a situation where a wife really could use it and still participate in the marital act with her spouse in good conscience seems to be so incredibly rare that it's much better to ignore that tiny exception when giving pastoral advice or spiritual direction. It almost seems like the rare exception would have to involve a couple that is actually TRYING to conceive, but can't because the wife needs medication that has contraceptive side-effects.

But I might just be completely off-base here.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1334946460' post='2421320']
Yeah, I've heard some people say that it [i]technically [/i]is licit to use "medication" that is sorely needed (because, let's face it, sometimes the Pill is the only thing that works for a reproductive system issue), even if it has contraceptive side-effects, as long as neither spouse ever intends to ever benefit in any way from those contraceptive side-effects. But while in theory this could definitely be morally licit, in practice it is extremely hard for me to imagine an actual couple that, deep down, wouldn't be a little bit glad that the wife's medication has a contraceptive side-effect if they aren't ready to conceive yet. So [b]a situation where a wife really could use it and still participate in the marital act with her spouse in good conscience seems to be so incredibly rare that it's much better to ignore that tiny exception when giving pastoral advice or spiritual direction.[/b] It almost seems like the rare exception would have to involve a couple that is actually TRYING to conceive, but can't because the wife needs medication that has contraceptive side-effects.

But I might just be completely off-base here.
[/quote]
Unless you're a doctor I'm going to take issue with this. Whether or not the side-effects outweigh the benefits is something that needs to be discussed between doctor and patients. I don't know when the Catholic Church started having witch-doctors in their clergy, but the Church needs to stay out of that one.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1334953489' post='2421380']
Unless you're a doctor I'm going to take issue with this. Whether or not the side-effects outweigh the benefits is something that needs to be discussed between doctor and patients. I don't know when the Catholic Church started having witch-doctors in their clergy, but the Church needs to stay out of that one.
[/quote]
I am not, but I don't think you are either. So....

I'm not talking about benefits and side-effects in the medical sense. Obviously there are severe risks with getting pregnant while on the Pill. Unless you're not talking about those side-effects.

All I'm saying is that from the point of view of Catholic moral theology, it's fathomable that a couple could have sex while the wife was on the Pill for medical reasons, if the couple has absolutely no intention to take advantage of any of the contraceptive side-effects. Because sometimes there are situations where the only medication that works for a woman is the Pill. As you mentioned, this is something that should be carefully talked about with one's doctor. I just find it hard to believe that a couple that decided to postpone pregnancy for the time being wouldn't take advantage of the Pill's contraceptive qualities. But this would be something to be prayerfully discussed between the couple and their priest.

So we let doctors and patients find remedies to medical problems, and priests and parishioners find remedies for ethical problems. Both kinds of experts are allowed to do their jobs. I see no problem here. Because hypothetically, a doctor uses her best judgment and decides the Pill is the best (or only, for that matter) remedy for a woman's severe medical problem. Then the couple chats with their priest, and he helps them discern if they can continue to have sex while the wife is on the pill with a clear conscience in regards to Catholic moral teaching. It's two separate yet closely related discussions I'm talking about here.