Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Nov 29, '11, 2:25 pm
manualman manualman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Posts: 11,949
Religion: Catholic - no buts.
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

The church has not declared the chemical formula within the pill to be intrinsically evil! The evil is the intent to intentionally sterilize otherwise fertile sex.

That's simply not applicable to a single, chaste person. There are no moral issues here.

For medical down sides and side effects of hormonal contraception, see your doctor.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Nov 29, '11, 5:48 pm
scc11 scc11 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2011
Posts: 151
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane View Post
Again, were you under the care of a doctor?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Nov 29, '11, 6:04 pm
Talapadme Talapadme is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 4
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Thank you for answering this question! I appreciate the help so much as I am having a similar problem and was hunting through church documents trying to find an answer!

Does anyone know where this information is actually located in church texts so I have some citations to further back this in an argument?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Nov 30, '11, 6:35 am
Nate13 Nate13 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2011
Posts: 2,955
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talapadme View Post
Thank you for answering this question! I appreciate the help so much as I am having a similar problem and was hunting through church documents trying to find an answer!

Does anyone know where this information is actually located in church texts so I have some citations to further back this in an argument?
From Humane Vitae
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...-vitae_en.html

"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)"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Dec 1, '11, 5:56 am
yablabo yablabo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2009
Posts: 454
Religion: I profess to be Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Taking tri-cyclen lo, tri-norinyl, yasmin, cyclessa, apri, or etc. for menstrual purposes cannot be considered using 'birth control.'

However, using such products in conjunction with rendering the marital debt is tantamount to the intention to commit murder.

These "therapeutic means" are known not only to be contraceptive, that is, make fertilization of the ovum more difficult, but also well known to be contragestive to a fertilized ovum, making either the uterus inhabitable/less habitable or by promoting the expulsion of the product of conception. That's why the "pill" is often called an abortifacient by honest medical professionals.

I know that the original poster said this is not a consideration in her case, but I have read some posters reply something to the effect that they couldn't see giving up that "special" part of marriage merely on the account of treatment of a disease. Well, okay...if a person is resigned to the murder of children so that he or she doesn't have to give up that special part of marriage, that makes it all right, right??

-- Nicole
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Dec 1, '11, 7:15 am
manualman manualman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Posts: 11,949
Religion: Catholic - no buts.
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by yablabo View Post
These "therapeutic means" are known not only to be contraceptive, that is, make fertilization of the ovum more difficult, but also well known to be contragestive to a fertilized ovum, making either the uterus inhabitable/less habitable or by promoting the expulsion of the product of conception. That's why the "pill" is often called an abortifacient by honest medical professionals.

I know that the original poster said this is not a consideration in her case, but I have read some posters reply something to the effect that they couldn't see giving up that "special" part of marriage merely on the account of treatment of a disease. Well, okay...if a person is resigned to the murder of children so that he or she doesn't have to give up that special part of marriage, that makes it all right, right??
-- Nicole
But that logic goes to scary places. By your logic, couples must ALL excruciatingly measure the status of the woman's fertility because sex just before ovulation or sex too long after ovulation is known to result in conditions where the sperm and egg meet, conception often happens, but the uterine conditions are naturally inhospitable to the further development and implantation of the tiny baby.

No, I think the language of Humanae Vitae was clearly and decisively written in such a way that says that the couple is only responsible for what they intend and can clearly affect. In the case of a woman who has been competently medically determined to require hormonal therapy for a medical issue, I'm not convinced that she has to morally tremble over potential side effects any more than they woman NOT on meds whose husband is being frisky on the 4th day after her peak mucus symptoms....
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Dec 1, '11, 7:58 am
yablabo yablabo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2009
Posts: 454
Religion: I profess to be Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by manualman View Post
But that logic goes to scary places. By your logic, couples must ALL excruciatingly measure the status of the woman's fertility because sex just before ovulation or sex too long after ovulation is known to result in conditions where the sperm and egg meet, conception often happens, but the uterine conditions are naturally inhospitable to the further development and implantation of the tiny baby.

No, I think the language of Humanae Vitae was clearly and decisively written in such a way that says that the couple is only responsible for what they intend and can clearly affect. In the case of a woman who has been competently medically determined to require hormonal therapy for a medical issue, I'm not convinced that she has to morally tremble over potential side effects any more than they woman NOT on meds whose husband is being frisky on the 4th day after her peak mucus symptoms....
No.

What has always been held to be permissible in marriage, which is the use of the marriage act within chastity, is such, of course.

However, adding a known abortifacient to one's system changes the situation, since the abortifacient is not there by nature, but rather by will.

The situations, while accidentally similar, are not essentially similar.

-- Nicole
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Dec 1, '11, 8:16 am
Nate13 Nate13 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2011
Posts: 2,955
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by yablabo View Post
No.

What has always been held to be permissible in marriage, which is the use of the marriage act within chastity, is such, of course.

However, adding a known abortifacient to one's system changes the situation, since the abortifacient is not there by nature, but rather by will.

The situations, while accidentally similar, are not essentially similar.

-- Nicole
Then no woman who is sexually active should be allowed to take pain medications besides Tylenol or any kind of laxative. Taking any of these while pregnant whether a woman knew it or not, could lead to a miscarriage or birth defects. Your reasoning basically leads to concluding that a woman who is sexually active has to act as if she was pregnant. That would include no smoking or drinking, because you won't know immediately whether your pregnant or not and thus could accidentally end up exposing a child to potential harm. If we found out orange juice was bad for pregnant women, all sexually active women would have to stop drinking orange juice as well.

What this should make clear is that being on birth control while sexually active should only occur for very serious medical reasons that match the potential risk to a child.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Dec 1, '11, 9:26 am
yablabo yablabo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2009
Posts: 454
Religion: I profess to be Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate13 View Post
Then no woman who is sexually active should be allowed to take pain medications besides Tylenol or any kind of laxative. Taking any of these while pregnant whether a woman knew it or not, could lead to a miscarriage or birth defects. Your reasoning basically leads to concluding that a woman who is sexually active has to act as if she was pregnant. That would include no smoking or drinking, because you won't know immediately whether your pregnant or not and thus could accidentally end up exposing a child to potential harm. If we found out orange juice was bad for pregnant women, all sexually active women would have to stop drinking orange juice as well.

What this should make clear is that being on birth control while sexually active should only occur for very serious medical reasons that match the potential risk to a child.
This subject that this thread has fallen to is mainly a subject of the internal forum. A woman is basically going to have to decide whether she can face Christ in good conscience doing, with full knowledge and consent of the will, what she knows does kill children.

A moral agent would reckon these issues by the principle of double effect if there were any hint of possible moral dilemna.

What you seem to imply in your post here is that sacramentally married women need to have no care for Matrimony which is "office of mother." This is a most sacred duty to which Christ raised women, even naming the very sacrament in which it occurs after this duty. If a woman wishes to meet Christ with a clean conscience, then she'll be careful what she chooses to do in this office.

Also, I said that this is mainly a subject of the internal forum, since it touches on a matter which is also addressed in Canon Law (1983 CIC), making it also a matter of the external forum. Anyone who procures a direct abortion is excommunicated latae sententiae...something for all women who claim the name Catholic to think about.

-- Nicole
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Dec 1, '11, 9:45 am
Nate13 Nate13 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2011
Posts: 2,955
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by yablabo View Post
This subject that this thread has fallen to is mainly a subject of the internal forum. A woman is basically going to have to decide whether she can face Christ in good conscience doing, with full knowledge and consent of the will, what she knows does kill children.

A moral agent would reckon these issues by the principle of double effect if there were any hint of possible moral dilemna.

What you seem to imply in your post here is that sacramentally married women need to have no care for Matrimony which is "office of mother." This is a most sacred duty to which Christ raised women, even naming the very sacrament in which it occurs after this duty. If a woman wishes to meet Christ with a clean conscience, then she'll be careful what she chooses to do in this office.

Also, I said that this is mainly a subject of the internal forum, since it touches on a matter which is also addressed in Canon Law (1983 CIC), making it also a matter of the external forum. Anyone who procures a direct abortion is excommunicated latae sententiae...something for all women who claim the name Catholic to think about.

-- Nicole
I am merely providing the information that I have gleaned from Humane Vitae and what it says. I have also talked with a priest on this issue who studied in the Vatican at the Institution created by JPII to study the family life as outlined in his encyclical "Familiaris Consortio". You are correct in saying this is a very sensitive issue that leaves a lot of room for abuse. Thus the warnings this never be taken without a serious reason that in good conscience a woman can act on. We can all pray that medical science will move quickly to find other methods to treat the problems the pill is currently being used to treat, that will have no possibility of inferring harm to an unborn child.

Last edited by Nate13; Dec 1, '11 at 9:57 am.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Dec 1, '11, 9:40 pm
JimmytheButcher JimmytheButcher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2011
Posts: 158
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Birth Control but not SA

Quote:
Originally Posted by scc11 View Post
Hi Guys,
I used contraceptives a couple of times on different occassions at one point but not for birth control. I used it to see if it would help with menstrual problems but I am NOT sexually active. Have I committed a sin. If so, what should I do? I no longer use them because they are not accepted in the church and they do more harm then good.
I have six sisters and a mother who holds a prescriptive medication license. Her professional opinion is that the pill is incedibly dangerous to ingest.

I won't say too much on this but I will say that there are prescriptive (and natural) alternatives to ingesting massive doses of artificial steroids (commonly referred to as the pill).

I say this in concern. Here I am thinking of the massive cancer-causing risks. It is difficult to obtain reliable information on this matter because of the cloud of ambiguity many medical sources place before the altar of the pill.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6597CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6138Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5162Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4627Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: neweggs
4287Poems and Reflections
Last by: Purgatory Pete
4053OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3290For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2822Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: tawny
2448SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:08 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.