Contraception- experts please (don't want anyone who apposes the Catholic view)

When can a person use contraceptive-
a) I understand for health reasons.
but can they use it
b) in accords with the law of dual effect,
c) their health could not afford the result?

please give me references and the official answer, and opinions where useful, I do want the thread answered.:thumbsup:

No reason, whatsoever justifies the use of contraception towards the end of unnaturally preventing children.

As to the health reasons given for use other than that, well, it still bothers me when it’s more damage allowed, so I still am searching. I am glad the church forbids such.

I guess it depends on how “health” is defined.

For example, many times “the pill” is prescribed for acne and some other forms of dermatitis. Not to lessen the severity of many cases of these conditions, but dermatitis, even severe, is rarely life-threatening.

Cystic ovaries, uterine problems, etc., are more likely to be significant health problems, again, not to say that acne and other dermatologic problems aren’t significant, just to contrast what’s defined as a health problem for which the pill is prescribed.

However, the problem of relativity then comes in. Who’s to say that, for example, preventing severe, scarring acne/dermatitis that may affect a person’s well-being and self-esteem/psyche isn’t any more valuable in a health sense then preventing internal medical problems?

On the other hand, would mild acne that could be treated with other, perhaps less “convient” means than the pill be a legitimate use for the notion of “double effect”? That’s why we need to define what are legitimate uses for the pill regarding the maintenance or achievement of health.

Contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral.

The contraceptive pill is sometimes prescribed for health reasons, but it would only be moral to use in these instances if the woman is not sexually active while taking the pill, or if the woman is post-menopausal.

The principle of double effect does not apply to acts that are intrinsically evil.

Again, I agree, with both, and am just as much confused as before, because the Catechism also says causing indirect evil, is also evil, they say it is only physical evil, but that is simply saying it’s materially evil, what many falsely call grave sin, but which is the substance, the matter itself of mortal offense, and deadly insanity against nature, which is why I so much am perplexed.

Perhaps using it for another means, but with the knowledge of it’s result, only a life-threatening disease should warrant that, or am I incorrect? I understand taking warm baths, which affect fertility, but that is a natural working of heat, and not the intent, but then I still am perplexed, even as my own example proves nothing, baths are different from the pill.

Well, contraception is intrinsically wrong. It is never justified.

You cannot contracept for health reasons. You can take medication, or have procedures, to treat a pathology that result in temp or permanent sterility as an unintended consequence.

As far as I know, this is not the teaching of the church, but rather a personal opinion. Please provide references and citations if you intend to represent this as fact. Thank you.


Thank you Fix,

that was a great response, Marc :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :wink: :wink: :wink: :cool: :cool:

I am pleased with your opinion,

Let us all pray for guidance in these forums, as they seem to be getting much Godly people.:thumbsup:

I am a man who am guilty of the sin of this sort. Then, the Lord gave me a dream in which he showed me the two children than I would’ve had I not stood in the way of God’s will in this regard. I stood in the way of God’s awesome creative powers to give life. In essence, I am no different than an abortionist, in other words I am guilty of murder. Yes, contraception is a form of murder!

God bless you, I want to cry:) Marc!!!

Contraception is not murder. It IS a grave sin, potentially mortal. Abortion I’ll grant you is murder, but not contraception.

Contraception ALWAYS functions in its primary role to prevent the sperm and egg from coming together. The pill tries to suppress ovulation, the IUD primary method is to create conditions toxic to sperm, the condom, diaphragm, etc serve as physical barriers to sperm reaching the egg (sometimes with spermicidal chemicals too).

Some contraceptives have secondary effects which can be abortifacient. These are arguable unintentional side effects, so you can’t really argue that when they occur they are murder. The primary purpose of cars is to transport people, but we all know that a small percentage of car users are killed by them or kill others in crashes. That isn’t murder for the same reason.

Put the pitchforks away, I’m not minimizing the seriousness of contraception. It is sinful in its own right. The sin just isn’t murder. Catholic teaching is not well served by well-intentioned, but poorly reasoned hyperbole.

The OP question should be phrased differently. If a medication is prescribed as a corrective medication for a non-reproductive medical issue, it isn’t contraception. Even if it is the “pill.” Personally, I think people would be well served to find less toxic alternative medications, but using a pill for acne or PCOS treatment is NOT contraceptive use by every legitimate catholic teaching authority I can find. Even those who are sexually active can use medication that has unintentional contraceptive side effects without sin.

It is the INTENT to engage in sex divorced from its procreative potential that is damaging to the soul. When,say, the pill is used for a legitimate medical purpose, the unintended side effect does not necessarily cause the same spiritual damage (i.e. sin). This is the same reason that people who have themselves sterilized, but then repent and confess this sin are not required by the Church to seek sterilization reversal.

You have received great answers so far but I don’t think this part was directly answered.

If I am understanding your question properly, you are asking if a person has a health condition that make pregnancy dangerous to her health, can contraception be used under the principal of dual effect. The answer is no.

While it is ok to use the drugs contained in contraception to treat a medical condition such as cysts or bleeding, it is not licit to use them to directly prevent even a dangerous pregnancy.

In order for the principal of dual effect to apply the act must be morally neutral at worst. Actively preventing pregnancy is not a morally neutral act.

This is hard teaching for many who have been told they should not get pregnant. I am not in their shoes and cannot begin to understand how they must wrestle with this.

Life begins BEFORE conception, in the Mind of God! I’m not saying we existed before conception, but all life comes from God; to prevent that life that God “Conceived in his mind”, as it were, is a murderer before the fact.

The Canons of the Church prescribe the penalty for murder to be 30 years ban from Holy Communion. The Canons of the Church prescribe 3 years for making yourself a eunuch and go on to say that this is self-murder.:eek:

30 year ban on holy communion for murder?

A one size fits all punishment for any type of murder, circumstances ect?

This sounds as arbitrary as assigning X amount of days for plenary indulgence for saying X prayer so many times.

That is not Church teaching, and not the current Canons.

There is no ban from Holy Communion for sin. One is not to receive until after confession (for mortal sin), but once you have confessed and been absolved, you are free to return to communion.

God Bless

Are you saying that a single women cannot take the pill for health reasons. The Church does allow it because the intention of contraception is not present and the physical contraception is not present.

Yeah right! Go and check that with the pharmaceutical companies. The abortifacient part of the pill is a further insurance to lower the probability of a pregnancy, thus limiting the liability of a faulty product.

How to deal with physicality of the “emergency contraception” of the morning after pill. Is that contraception or abortion?

But if you are driving reclessly or DUI?
Take another example. Suppose that there is a small military target in an enemy country which is situated in a larger city and you drop a nuclear bomb on the target, but at the same time wipe out 5 million innocent civilians. Now your intention was to wipe out the military target, but in so doing, you killed 5 million innocent people. Wouldn’t that be murder, since there were other methods of accomplishing the same thing? Similarly with abortifactient birth control pills - there are other methods of accomplishing the ssme thing, so it is murder and killing of an unborn child to use them.

This is what I mean by us sometimes doing a disservice to Church teaching. We have no reason to suspect a diabolical profit-driven intentional provision of the potentially abortifacient properties of contraception. On the contrary, the very science involved being manipulated to prevent conception by its very nature leads to the secondary effect. You couldn’t avoid it if you wanted to.

Instead of demonizing those who disagree with Church teaching, we need to present a clear and charitable presentation of the truth. We have plenty of ammo to argue the case against ABC on its own without need for recourse to hyperbole about nukes, nazis or murderers.

Your very welcome. It is a confusing topic on some levels.

I think part of the problem is the word contraception is used in many differing ways.

I try to view it as in the act of contraception is always gravely sinful no matter how that act is done. Be it a pill, a procedure, a sheath, withdrawing, or anything else.

Treating medical problems is a separate issue. If the goal is to correct some pathology then that is not contraception. If there is an unintended side effect that is another matter.

If the goal is to contracept, for any reason health or not, then it is wrong.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit