Artificial Contraception (Not Your Average Question...)

[fides' Jack]

[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]

health of soul > health of body

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1335069802' post='2421814']
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.
[/quote]

I don't think this is correct. Again, intent is not the only factor involved.

[fides' Jack]

But I get what you're saying, and I think you're right that only a saintly couple could pull off the requirements - if those are requirements.

Sorry - just nitpicking.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1335375098' post='2423243']
[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1335069802' post='2421814']
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.[/quote]
I don't think this is correct. Again, intent is not the only factor involved.
[/quote]In the case of actions, an action that is morally neutral in its genus can be made immoral by the intent of the person(s) acting. For example, the act of picking up straw is in its genus a morally neutral act, but when the act itself is being performed it is either morally good or morally evil. The distinction here is the end/intent of the person acting. All of this is to say that there are three aspects of an act, intent being one of them. If any one of these is incorrect then the whole act is morally evil. An act that would otherwise be good is no longer good because of the person's intent. Therefore, the moral goodness of the act is determined by the couple, in the case of licit sex.

The case of having sex while the woman is using non-abortifacient, medically-necessary, contraceptive medicine relies partly on the intent of the actors. The second aspect of such an act is the principle of double effect. The woman is taking the medicine, but it has the effect of making her infertile. Overall, it's not quite a morally-neutral act, but (assuming that the medicine is necessary and she's taking it for health reasons) the act's morality is determined entirely by the couple's intent. This means that should the couple want to take advantage of their infertility, should they act as though their infertility is a good thing, then their action would be morally evil. If a couple continues having sex with an openness to life, then their act is morally licit.

The other part of this is the question about when the couple may morally have sex. As far as I know, this question has never been answered definitively. As it stands now, the general consensus is that they can have sex at any point in her cycle. I'm not sure where I stand, but I'm hesitant to say whenever. I've heard good arguments that if you want aid making sure your intentions are good, recognize the normally fertile period and have sex only during that time of the woman's cycle.

[Tantum Ergo]

To answer the original question, the Church teaches that it is okay to use medicine for therapeutic reasons, even though that medicine or treatment may have the side effect of rendering one infertile, as long as the side effect of infertility is not directly intended.

As Humanae Vitae states:

"[color=#282828]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."[/color]

It's not sinful in and of itself to take "the pill." The pill is not intrinsically evil. Contracepting is. The pill, in and of itself, is not evil because it's simply a chemical, one that can be used to treat diseases. As long as one is taking the pill to treat a disease, and the effect of making one infertile is not directly intended, it's okay.

A direct intention means that you deliberately, and directly, choose it of your own free will. The Church is saying here that you cannot deliberately choose to use the pill for the [i]direct purpose[/i] of its contraceptive effects, even if health reasons are involved. For example, it's not ok to take the pill [i]in order that[/i] you become infertile, because your doctor says that a pregnancy would harm your health. In this case, it's not okay because the pill is not actually being used for its medicinal effects, but [i]directly for the effect of rendering one infertile, [/i]even though it is being done for "health reasons." That is why Humanae Vitae mentions the part about how the effect of infertility should not be "directly intended for any motive whatsoever." Even if one has a "good" motive, such as health, it is still intrinsically evil to use a medicine explicitly for its contraceptive effects.

Direct intention, however, is not the same as simply feeling an emotion. Some of you seem to be mixing up a "direct intention" with an "emotional reaction." Even if, deep down, the woman feels some relief that the pill she is taking for medical reasons has a contraceptive side-effect, that doesn't automatically make the medicine immoral for her. The emotions are the most unruly, fallen power of man. Most of the time, we don't have complete control over our emotions. So even if a woman felt emotional relief from the contraceptive side-effect of the pill, it would still be okay for her to take it, as long as the contraceptive effect was not the directly willed reason she took it in the first place. Let's say she took it as a treatment for PCOS. As long as she chose to take it for the direct purpose of curing her disease, and not for the purpose of contracepting, it's morally okay. I can't see anywhere the Church teaches that you are required to be "saintlike," or have complete control over your emotions, in order to use therapeutic means. It would be practically impossible anyway.

So yes, it's okay for your fiance to take the pill, as long as her intention is to use it to treat PCOS. It's even okay for her to use it while she is married. [i]However[/i], there are added complications there because the pill can cause an early abortion, if a child should happen to be conceived. Therefore, married women on the pill (taken as a medical treatment) will either have to abstain completely, or practice NFP very strictly to avoid a pregnancy. This is obviously to prevent a child from being aborted.

A little caveat - As others mentioned, there are often much better treatments out there for PCOS besides "the pill." Many OBGYNs, when faced with a patient with PCOS, simply prescribe the pill as a matter of habit. It keeps them from being liable. However, doctors who have been trained in NFP and NaproTechnology often have better treatments than the pill. To find a doctor trained in NaproTechnology, check out http://www.fertilitycare.org/ I really recommend you look into it. Your fiance might have better, more effective options than the pill, without the contraceptive side effects.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335384258' post='2423308']
The case of having sex while the woman is using non-abortifacient, medically-necessary, contraceptive medicine relies partly on the intent of the actors. The second aspect of such an act is the principle of double effect. The woman is taking the medicine, but it has the effect of making her infertile. Overall, it's not quite a morally-neutral act, but (assuming that the medicine is necessary and she's taking it for health reasons) the act's morality is determined entirely by the couple's intent. This means that should the couple want to take advantage of their infertility, should they act as though their infertility is a good thing, then their action would be morally evil. If a couple continues having sex with an openness to life, then their act is morally licit.
[/quote]

You seem to only be taking into account 2 of the 3 conditions for a morally acceptable action. You said that it's not overall a morally neutral act - I would agree. Therefore, I don't see how it's determined entirely by the couple's intent, unless it's a morally good act. But we still have a 3rd part to consider - circumstances. The circumstances (namely, creating the possibility of contracepting artificially), makes the action a bad one, if the couple is still embracing maritally, even if the intent is for the health of the woman.

[quote name='Tantum Ergo' timestamp='1335485197' post='2423740']
To answer the original question, the Church teaches that it is okay to use medicine for therapeutic reasons, even though that medicine or treatment may have the side effect of rendering one infertile, as long as the side effect of infertility is not directly intended.

As Humanae Vitae states:

"[color=#282828]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."[/color]

So yes, it's okay for your fiance to take the pill, as long as her intention is to use it to treat PCOS. It's even okay for her to use it while she is married. [i]However[/i], there are added complications there because the pill can cause an early abortion, if a child should happen to be conceived. Therefore, married women on the pill (taken as a medical treatment) will either have to abstain completely, or practice NFP very strictly to avoid a pregnancy. This is obviously to prevent a child from being aborted.
[/quote]

So you're saying that it's okay as long as the unintended side-effect is contraception, and not abortion? Not sure I agree, but my opinion isn't rock-solid on this (which is why I'm arguing with people here - trying to get at the root of the issue so I can understand it better).

Also, the statement "abstain completely or practice NFP very strictly to avoid a pregnancy" doesn't make sense. The only reason that couples are allowed to use NFP is because it does not create an artificial barrier, and the Church recognizes that babies can still happen. If babies can still happen, then anything that might have a side-effect of killing that potential baby [i]must[/i] be avoided. Practicing NFP very strictly doesn't assure that a baby won't be killed, so I think they are left with the choice to abstain completely. (This paragraph is assuming the contraception taken is an abortifacient)

[fides' Jack]

I think my real question is this: why is contraception immoral? Not talking about abortifacients, but, say, latex... Why is using latex immoral? The answer to that question will help determine the answer to the topic.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1336413407' post='2428134']
You seem to only be taking into account 2 of the 3 conditions for a morally acceptable action. You said that it's not overall a morally neutral act - I would agree. Therefore, I don't see how it's determined entirely by the couple's intent, unless it's a morally good act. But we still have a 3rd part to consider - circumstances. The circumstances (namely, creating the possibility of contracepting artificially), makes the action a bad one, if the couple is still embracing maritally, even if the intent is for the health of the woman.



So you're saying that it's okay as long as the unintended side-effect is contraception, and not abortion? Not sure I agree, but my opinion isn't rock-solid on this (which is why I'm arguing with people here - trying to get at the root of the issue so I can understand it better).

Also, the statement "abstain completely or practice NFP very strictly to avoid a pregnancy" doesn't make sense. The only reason that couples are allowed to use NFP is because it does not create an artificial barrier, and the Church recognizes that babies can still happen. If babies can still happen, then anything that might have a side-effect of killing that potential baby [i]must[/i] be avoided. Practicing NFP very strictly doesn't assure that a baby won't be killed, so I think they are left with the choice to abstain completely. (This paragraph is assuming the contraception taken is an abortifacient)
[/quote]In this case the circumstances would be the health of the mother. The marital embrace is the actual act itself.

Edited May 7, 2012 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1336413522' post='2428135']
I think my real question is this: why is contraception immoral? Not talking about abortifacients, but, say, latex... Why is using latex immoral? The answer to that question will help determine the answer to the topic.
[/quote]Coitus is about openness to life and the unity of the couple. These two aspects cannot exist separate from each other.

A couple can be open to life even while one is unintentionally infertile.

Edited May 7, 2012 by qfnol31

[Archaeology cat]

I thought perhaps Fr Cappie's posts might be helpful: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/120878-consummation/
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/120883-contraception-and-annulment/

At least I know I would've been adamant about an alternative treatment sooner had I known that.

God bless

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1334302558' post='2416902']
Using the pill for PCOS is a HORRIBLE idea...HORRIBLE. The pill does nothing to treat PCOS. It simply masks the symptoms by making your body have a period. There are other solutions out there. My wife has/had PCOS so I know from experience. There is no reason once you are married and having sex why she needs to be on birth control for her PCOS when there are other, non abortion inducing drugs to be on. Drugs that won't kill a baby. Talk to her doctor, research online or personal message me for other options. But don't have her stay on birth control once your having sex, there are other options out there.
[/quote]

What of naprotechnology, can that help ?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1336417960' post='2428165']
I thought perhaps Fr Cappie's posts might be helpful: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/120878-consummation/
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/120883-contraception-and-annulment/

At least I know I would've been adamant about an alternative treatment sooner had I known that.

God bless
[/quote]While Cappie is certainly right and Canon Law reflects reality, the case of contraception includes many other aspects as well. Canon Law here presents a very minimum necessary for marriage.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1336418760' post='2428172']
While Cappie is certainly right and Canon Law reflects reality, the case of contraception includes many other aspects as well. Canon Law here presents a very minimum necessary for marriage.
[/quote]Absolutely! That part was just one I hadn't known before. Speaking from experience, one can be in denial about the other issues at first. I thank God for His mercy and grace.

God bless

[Impameeffebra]

The calendar method of protection from undesirable pregnancy is simple enough in use. It is necessary to know the cycle. This method women, at which menstrual can easily use a cycle constant. Supervision over a cycle are necessary for conducting within several months (a calendar ovulation), and it is even better – that there was data for last 2 years. That, it is necessary for women at whom the cycle not constant, is better to refuse use of a calendar method of contraception, but a message menstrual a calendar all the same. At once we will make a reservation what precisely to define safe days difficult, even it is almost impossible, because viability sperm in a vagina is very high also all this time they are capable to cause fertilisation if will come ovulation.
Read more about calendar method safe days calculator http://en.method-contraception.ru/natural-methods/calendar-method/

[Archaeology cat]

The calendar method, or rhythm method, simply isn't the best method. Wile it works fairly well if a woman has regular cycles, many women don't, and almost all women will have at least one cycle that is off. Stress and illness can both delay ovulation, so it's almost inevitable that there will be a long cycle in there somewhere. I know the standard days method is basically an update of the rhythm method, but they also say it only works with regular cycles of a certain length, as far as I'm aware. Personally, if one wishes to chart, I'd suggest a more reliable method of tracking cycles, in large part because it would've helped me, seeing as I've never had a regular cycle in my life. [quote name='Impameeffebra' timestamp='1346391338' post='2476617']
The calendar method of protection from undesirable pregnancy is simple enough in use. It is necessary to know the cycle. This method women, at which menstrual can easily use a cycle constant. Supervision over a cycle are necessary for conducting within several months (a calendar ovulation), and it is even better – that there was data for last 2 years. That, it is necessary for women at whom the cycle not constant, is better to refuse use of a calendar method of contraception, but a message menstrual a calendar all the same. At once we will make a reservation what precisely to define safe days difficult, even it is almost impossible, because viability sperm in a vagina is very high also all this time they are capable to cause fertilisation if will come ovulation.
Read more about calendar method safe days calculator http://en.method-contraception.ru/natural-methods/calendar-method/
[/quote]

[TheUbiquitous]

[quote name='Drew-Memphis' timestamp='1334247365' post='2416410']We aren't using it to avoid pregnancy but due to her irregular cycles and medical condition. If we were using it for birth control, that would be different.[/quote]

When weighing a moral decision, there are three points to consider: [list=1]
[*]Act
[*]Circumstance
[*]Intent
[/list]
You're looking at things the wrong way, as if a pure enough 1, 2, or 3 will absolve you from a bad enough 1, 2, or 3. Well, it won't. Contrariwise: Messing up any one of these will [i][b]condemn[/b][/i] what you do. A bad act, a bad circumstance, or a bad intent [b][i]will taint and ruin the whole act, irrespective[/i][/b] of the other qualities.

You've asked regarding No. 1, which to your credit is the right question. However, and this is crucial, [b]if by No. 1 the act is itself wrong, then you cannot appeal to No. 3.[/b]