another bc question

[thereselittleflower]

The nuns who took the pills were not having sex of their own free will.
Pardon my cander, but one can put on a condom and not having committed a sin, but one cannot morally consent to have sex while wearing it.
This discussion is going on in another thread too... I suggest we take the discussion over there. http://www.christianforums.com/t1172957-nuns-allowed-to-go-on-pill-to-prevent-rape.html

Well. it looks like that thread bit the dust . . . I don't feel anywhere closer to understanding what was happening in regards to that specific topic now than when it was first brought up . . . .

But I was surprised to see that there is the thought that some hormonal contraceptives do not act as abortificts as well . . . I would need to see supporting medical documentation as all hormonal contraceptives have this effect . . .

What is it?

Hormonal contraception is a method of birth control, which involves interference with normal sex hormone function in the body to prevent pregnancy. Although this method is primarily used by women and this use will be the focus of the review, studies are underway to develop a version of "the pill" for men, which works by decreasing sperm production. Estrogens and progestins are female sex hormones used for hormonal contraception. The progestin alone or in combination with the estrogen make up the active ingredients found in oral contraceptive pills (birth-control pills), Depo-Provera (an injection that releases drug over a 3-month period), Progestin implants (an implant that slowly releases medication over 5 years), and intrauterine devices (IUDs).
. . . . . .

How Does Hormonal Contraception Work?

Hormonal contraception works by overriding normal hormonal cycles in the human body to prevent pregnancy.

Estrogens work by:

• preventing release of eggs from the ovaries (ovulation).
• inhibiting implantation of the egg on the wall of the uterus.
• decreasing the time it takes for the egg to travel through the fallopian tubes, thus decreasing the time available for fertilization.

Progestins work by:

• increasing the amount of mucus at the cervix (the opening of the uterus), decreasing sperm passage.
• increasing the time is takes for the egg to travel through the fallopian tubes, interfering with precise timing needed for fertilization.
• inhibiting implantation of the egg on the wall of the uterus.
• decreasing the ability of the sperm to fertilize the egg.
• preventing release of eggs from the ovaries (ovulation).

DRUG DIGEST Hormonal Contraception/Birth Control
http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/PrintablePages/HealthConditions/1,20041,550100,00.html


​

What does not seem to be directly addressed in the article above is the patch . . but the patch is a hormonal contraceptive . . .

The Contraceptive Patch the facts - What is the contraceptive patch?

It is a thin, beige, sticky patch about the size of a matchbox. It contains the same hormones as the combined pill - oestrogen and progestogen.

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/relationships/what-is-the-contraceptive-patch.php


​

I don't see any way out of it that all hormonal contraceptives us one or both of the hormones above, and so are abortives by nature.
Some may be more so, and some may be less so dependent on the strength of the hormones used, but all ARE so (abortives) . . .However, no hormonal contraceptive that is not also abortive by its very nature.


Peace in Him!

 

[RhetorTheo]

Because the Vatican distributed the birth control pills, are we required to believe that the Pill is not abortive? I think that may be the reason for the recent defense of the Pill here.

 

[RhetorTheo]

x

 

[Skripper]

Because the Vatican distributed the birth control pills, are we required to believe that the Pill is not abortive? I think that may be the reason for the recent defense of the Pill here.

Do you have any actual documention that it was "the Vatican" that acutally "distributed the birth control pills"? I'm really curious because I keep seeing this claim, but as of yet haven't actually seen any actual proof of this.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Skripper, I came across this article just now . . . It is interesting . .

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/021601/021601j.htm



Of course, the Vatican did not dipsense the BC, or would not need to, if it gave permission . .. this was back in the 1960's as well . ..

Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said.
Referring to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document of Pope Paul VI that reiterated the church ban on birth control, Johnstone said the document “prohibits the inhibition of procreation in the context of free sexual intercourse.”
“What happens in rape is not free,” Johnstone said, explaining the logic of the 1960s-era Vatican statement. “It can be regarded as an unjust attack, and thus the woman is justified in using chemical means in repelling the effects of the attack.”

​

But here is where I do not understand the reasoning to allow the BC pill at all, given its natural effects as an abortive (the thrid method of action of ALL hormonal contraceptives) unless back in the 1960's it was not well understood by the Vatican officials that this is a very real effect of hormonal BC . .the possible abortion of a new life:

The reasoning applies only to the use of oral contraceptives that inhibit a sperm cell from fertilizing an ovum. It does not justify use of the so-called “morning after” pill, Johnstone said, taken after unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of an embryo in the uterus.

“At that stage,” Johnstone said, “Catholic teaching holds that you have a human being entitled to the right to life.”

​

Sisnce one of the effects of ALL hormonal contraceptives is that of inhibiting implantation of a fertized egg if the first two mechanisms of contraception fail (that of preventing ovulation, or preventing successful fertilization) how can any hormonal contraception be justified?



Peace in Him!

 

[MariaRegina]

The end does not justify the means. Who said that?

 

[Skripper]

Skripper, I came across this article just now . . . It is interesting . .

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/021601/021601j.htm


Of course, the Vatican did not dipsense the BC, or would not need to, if it gave permission . .. this was back in the 1960's as well . ..

Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious AlphonsianaAcademy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

Thanks, TLF. I didn't think "the Vatican" actually "dispensed" it, despite some claims here in this thread . Also, I still don't see any actual documentation of "Vatican permission," either (I don't consider Fr. Brian's statements to NCR that the Vatican gave permission as documentation that the Vatican actually did. Especially since the quoted article also says this):

“A spokesperson for the Vatican press office told the London Daily Telegraph that there is no ‘official dispensation’ for nuns.”

The article says this as well:

The Catholic church generally bans the use of contraceptives on the grounds that human sexuality should be “open” to the creation of life.

Despite that position, Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla of Segorbe-Castellón said in late January that sisters who face a danger of rape, such as missionaries in war zones, may use the pill as “self-defense against an act of aggression,” according to the Madrid-based newspaper El País.

I also don’t see the words of a Spanish Bishop as being equal to “Vatican approval” either. I have occasionally read of individual bishops saying all sorts of things things that are all over the spectrum. So I’m still looking for some actual confirmation of this claim as well.

But here is where I do not understand the reasoning to allow the BC pill at all, given its natural effects as an abortive (the thrid method of action of ALL hormonal contraceptives) unless back in the 1960's it was not well understood by the Vatican officials that this is a very real effect of hormonal BC . .the possible abortion of a new life . . .

I, too, am having a hard time understanding this as well. But like you, I also wonder how much was known about “the pill,” at that time. A time when, after all, both the pill and knowledge of all of it’s effects was still relatively new . . . and possibly not fully understood.

Although I’m still yet to see any actual evidence that this was ever “Vatican approved” at the time, in the Congo in the 1960s, it is possible that even the Church officials at the time (whomever they were) did not realize the full effect of oral contraceptives.

 

[RhetorTheo]

"Several years ago, nuns in Congo were administered contraceptive pills as a defense against pregnancy in case of rape." (The article quotes Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, discussing the exception made for the nuns.)

http://www.catholicworldnews.com/ne...fm?recnum=10066

Mgr. Sgreccia said it was important to distinguish between ``the act of violence suffered and the reality of new human beings who have begun their life.'' He rejected any comparison with the distribution of contraceptive pills to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s, which he called ``a legitimate defense'' against the possibility of rape.

http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/904/90429.html

Curran cited an example from the 1960s: The Vatican itself condoned giving contraceptive pills to nuns at risk of rape by fighters in the Congo to prevent pregnancy.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/03/24/2003107572

This article is interesting and explores the issue further:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news-old/es4-28-96.html

Whatever the knowledge level was in the 1960s, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, recently called it a "legitimate defense" against rape. And if all the Vatican did was merely state it's okay for nuns to buy it on their own, the references to "giving," "administering" and "distributing" don't make sense.

 

[geocajun]

I could be wrong about the non-abortive birth control pills, however I seem to recall having it demonstrated to me at one time when I was on the other side of the argument. I cannot find anything on it, and do not want to search for it from work.
Also, please undersatnd that I find myself in the very precarious position of trying to justify the non-sexual use of a contraceptive pill so pardon me if I do not do such a great job

 

[geocajun]

Rhetor does this all come down to a single Bishop giving an exception which may have turned out to be morally wrong at a later time possibly in light of new information or something else?

 

[Skripper]

"Several years ago, nuns in Congo were administered contraceptive pills as a defense against pregnancy in case of rape." (The article quotes Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, discussing the exception made for the nuns.)

Yup, that's was it says, were "administered." Of course it doesn't say by whom. It certainly doesn't say it was by the Vatican or, as claimed previously in another post, "dispensed by the Vatican."

http://www.catholicworldnews.com/ne...fm?recnum=10066

http://www.catholicworldnews.com/ne...fm?recnum=10066

Mgr. Sgreccia said it was important to distinguish between ``the act of violence suffered and the reality of new human beings who have begun their life.'' He rejected any comparison with the distribution of contraceptive pills to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s, which he called ``a legitimate defense'' against the possibility of rape.

Agian, doesn't say who did the distrubuting. It also doesn't provide any documentation of "Vatican approval," unless I've missed it.

http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/904/90429.html

Curran cited an example from the 1960s: The Vatican itself condoned giving contraceptive pills to nuns at risk of rape by fighters in the Congo to prevent pregnancy.

Well, first I would point this out:

On another side of the debate sits the Reverend Charles Curran, a Catholic professor of human values at Southern Methodist University who was censured by the Vatican in 1986 for his opposition to church teaching on contraception, among other issues, and barred from teaching theology at the Catholic University of America.

So much for citing professor Curran being a credible witness as proof of "Vatican approval."

Moreover, there's also this, regarding Monsignor Sgreccia:

The position stated by Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, reflected the Vatican's firm opposition to abortion and its concern that rape victims would end their pregnancies.
Sgreccia, writing in the Italian Roman Catholic daily newspaper Avvenire, was reacting to last week's announcement by the U.N. Population Fund that it was providing emergency reproductive health kits for about 350,000 people.

Neither does the good Monsignor's words to a newspaper constitute anything official from the Vatican . . . certainly it isn't proof of "Vatican approval." Got anything else? Otherwise, we're right back to where we started. No documentation of Vatican approval.

By the way, the first link didn't work.

 

[Skripper]

Rhetor does this all come down to a single Bishop giving an exception which may have turned out to be morally wrong at a later time possibly in light of new information or something else?

It woud appear to be several bishops, actually. But basially . . . yeah. So far nobody's been able to produce anything actually from the Vatican on this .

 

[RhetorTheo]

Rhetor does this all come down to a single Bishop giving an exception which may have turned out to be morally wrong at a later time possibly in light of new information or something else?

The stories say that "the Vatican" condoned distribution of contraceptive pills to nuns in "the early 1960's." (Does this mean the Vatican distributed it, or just condoned distributing it? Unless somebody had them for free, distributed them to the nuns and then asked if it was moral, I think the former is more likely.) The bishops today, including at the Vatican, do not deny this story and defend the decision (suggesting to me that the story is true).

If the decision was wrong, or appeared right on the information available at that time, I would think the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life would say that. He could have said that it wasn't the Vatican but a single bishop, or that it was morally acceptable to give contraception but not the Pill given what we know today about its abortive effects, yet the stories show him defending the action.

Is there a way to write a letter and get an answer about this?

 

[RhetorTheo]

Skripper, if the Vatican approves something but does not provide public documentation, it has no significance?

 

[Rising_Suns]

I could be wrong about the non-abortive birth control pills, however I seem to recall having it demonstrated to me at one time when I was on the other side of the argument.

Geo,
From what I have read, the BC pill can be abortive if the right conditions exist; this being first, that the first of the three mechanisms of the pill is ineffective (that being the prevnetion of ovulation). If this fails, the sperm may be able to fertalize the egg, at which the second mechanism denigrates the lining of the womb, which will abort the child.

 

[geocajun]

Davide, that corresponds exactly to what I have read, however as I have always understood it, the abortificent is a seperate chemical which is added, and not part of the hormon. There it is not inconceivable that a pill could be produced without the abortificient. That said, the text Therese' post above indicates it is the hormone (or seems to anyway) which causes the abortion.
I am no medical student, and don't play the role very well either. I am speaking outside of my expertise when it comes to this so I am likely wrong on some level if not alltogether. I do recall having been shown this before, but I may have just misunderstood it then and am just now being corrected.

 

[Rising_Suns]

He rejected any comparison with the distribution of contraceptive pills to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s, which he called ``a legitimate defense'' against the possibility of rape.

I am not following Msgnr. Segreccia's logic. If there is a chance that the BC pill can be abortive, then there is a chance that a nun could have an abortion by taking the pill. This "legitate defense" can therfore become an offense.

I am going to assume that scientific knowledge of the pill being abortive was very much lacking in the 1960's, otherwise there probably would have been no allowances, whether from the Vatican or from a Bishop; it doesnt matter. Today, with full knowledge of its implications, the Church is firmly against contraception, so this isolated event that occured back in the 60's is totally irrelevent. Wouldn't you say?

 

[Skripper]

Skripper, if the Vatican approves something but does not provide public documentation, it has no significance?

Call me a skeptic, but if someone claims that something has "Vatican approval" but is unable to provide any proof of such approval, it is simply unconvincing. I've seen enough unsubstantiated accusations, on on plethora of topics, leveled against the Catholic Church and/or "the Vatican," without substantiation, to realize that anyone can (and often do) say anything, especially when they've got an agenda, or disagreement with the Church on some teaching. I have found that too often people will use whatever "club" they can to further their battle against the Church, if it suits their needs.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I could be wrong about the non-abortive birth control pills, however I seem to recall having it demonstrated to me at one time when I was on the other side of the argument. I cannot find anything on it, and do not want to search for it from work.
Also, please undersatnd that I find myself in the very precarious position of trying to justify the non-sexual use of a contraceptive pill so pardon me if I do not do such a great job

Hi geo . . I know . . . such things can be difficult to wade through . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Davide, that corresponds exactly to what I have read, however as I have always understood it, the abortificent is a seperate chemical which is added, and not part of the hormon. There it is not inconceivable that a pill could be produced without the abortificient. That said, the text Therese' post above indicates it is the hormone (or seems to anyway) which causes the abortion.

Actually, no . . the hormones themselves are responsible for this action . . . What you can do when you have the time to do so is go to a Physician's desk reference and look this information up . . . the article I linked to is correct . . .

I am no medical student, and don't play the role very well either. I am speaking outside of my expertise when it comes to this so I am likely wrong on some level if not alltogether. I do recall having been shown this before, but I may have just misunderstood it then and am just now being corrected.

Most doctors do not tell their patients about this effect, for whatever the reason . . . so you could have been told something that was misrepresented as well . . .


Peace in Him!