I have problems with my period and needed to be on birth control for medical reasons. I am having problems with the pill and find I am having more problems than it helping me. What other birth control is okay for medical reasons? I am not married and will not be getting married. It is only for medical reasons. I am not sure what is okay and not okay. I am not wanting to do any sin because of it.
Talk to your doctor. Medical advice cannot be given on these forums.
There are different varieties of hormone birth control pills, each with different make ups/ ingredients. For instance, one type may contain an ingredient you are allergic too or makes you depressed, while another doesn’t. However, when you are on birth control, as with any medication, there will be side effects or risks of side effects at least. It just depends on there severity and finding a balance between the positives of the medication helping your periods versus the cons of the side effects it causes. Unfortunately, that’s the way a lot of medication use works. Not all the time but with hormone pills, patch, etc… It does. I’m a nurse by the way
Birth control pills, according too Catholicism are a problem when you are using them with the intention of having sex but don’t want a baby. You said you are not married and don’t plan too and probably, seeing how you are here asking about the morality of birth control use, I doubt you are engaging in any activity that may result in a pregnancy. Thus, in your situation, according to the Catholic Church, taking birth control pills are not a moral issue. You are using them to help with my guess period and/or hormone imbalance issues? Not prevent a baby. In Catholicism it’s the intent while using birth control that’s the problem, if the intent is to prevent a conception. Not saying I personally agree with there views, but that is what Catholicism teaches.
Most of the people here don’t have any idea what it’s like to have horrible periods. Listen to your doctor. There is no moral problem here with the Church. If side effects are awful, then your doctor can try something else.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. I know a girl, for instance, who was suffering from severe anemia, to the point of hardly able to get up off the couch, unable to walk up the stairs, barely functioning in school, on the brink of failing out of high school as a result.
It turned out to be severely aggravated by very long and heavy menstrual cycles, and the birth control pill, taken temporarily, is what finally regulated it and got things back on track.
There is no inherent moral issue with birth control pills. The issue is how it interrupts the pro-creative purpose of sex, and begins to skew our view of sex to something recreational instead of the sacred (and powerful) act that is a God-given gift.
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) See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].
It makes me so sad that this teaching hasn’t got through, judging by the frequent threads on the subject. Not at all getting at you, OP! Somebody is failing you and all the girls who suffer, and it shouldn’t be happening. I am really sorry for you.
I can understand a married woman wanting to check, but how can it be that any unmarried girl goes through such worry unnecessarily? I mean, evidently somewhere along the line the message 'no artificial birth control ’ seems to have been successfully transmitted, but the other message in the encyclical, ‘the Church isn’t a monster and so doesn’t oppose prescribed medicine to alleviate pain’ hasn’t?
This should be covered in all Catholic schools/colleges as a minimum, surely, even if not addressed from the pulpit.
Part of the problem is the sloppy use of the English language (not necessarily by the OP). The medical use of a hormone to treat a medical disorder should not be called birth control, even if the medication used is the same as that used to artificially regulate births.
I can think of many reasons why some Catholics assume “birth control pills” are never licit for any use.
One is an understandable over-reaction to the dominant cultural narrative, that not only is “birth control” licit, anyone who doesn’t use them must be ignorant at best, irresponsible at worst.
Another is a reaction to the fact that many Catholic women take “birth control pills” ostensibly for some medical reason, but actually see this as a loophole to Church teaching they can exploit, and their true reason for using the Pill is indeed birth control. I can think of more than one CAF poster who freely admits that “I’m so glad I have a medical reason to use ABC, I don’t have to worry about NFP not working!” They seem to have a legalist approach to morality.
Another is a distrust of medical professionals and the pharmaceutical industry. If I had a nickel for every time I have read a CAF post that claims “all birth control pills do is cover up the symptoms, they don’t do anything to cure the disease” I could go to Starbucks free every day, at least for a week. ;). (Yet, one could say the same about blood pressure pills, yet no one has ever questioned the morality of taking them.)
(And if I got a nickel for every time I read a CAF post that claims NaPro technology is a guaranteed cure-all for all gynecological problems, and seems to assume Napro is accessible and affordable to all Catholics, I could probably go to Starbucks daily for two weeks.)
Another is the influence of American fundamentalist ideology. While Catholics find it absurd that, say, Baptists obsess about “Demon Rum” and ban alcohol, as if alcohol itself is somehow sinful just by existing, I have noticed that many of the very same Catholics somewhat inconsistently obsess about “Demon Birth Control Pills” and act as if the very existence of the medication is sinful.
All this being said, I realize there is some theological grey zone when it comes to sexually active people using medications that may have an actual “abortifacient” effect. However, that still doesn’t make non-abortifacient uses of the medication illicit. Methotrexate comes to mind. It can be used as an “abortion pill” but it’s much more common to use it to treat arthritis. I doubt an 80 year old long-postmenopausal woman would be sinning by taking methotrexate.
Perhaps you could explain why you feel that taking this as medication is to be avoided, apparently on medical grounds. For context, the person concerned is not married, and I think we can assume not contemplating s exhale,relationship.
It was addressed but the Sexual - without love - Revolution had to succeed. 1968 was the pivotal year.
"On July 29, 1968, a crescendo of suspense was broken and Pope Paul VI publicly issued his long-awaited encyclical Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth).
"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).
"It caused a firestorm.
"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.
"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”
Source: Regnum Christi
Sex, not lawful therapeutic means, was the most important message.