Birth Control

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Seems like naprotech is more a fertility issue than a menstrual regulation one. Then again, I have a degree in political science. lol.

The Pope Paul VI Institute really deals with all aspects of the woman's reproductive system. I would greatly encourage women here who have been prescribed birth control to seek out the Pope Paul VI Institute or a NFP only gynecologist. There are other ways of alleviating problems with the menstruation cycle. There are ways that have no side effects as the pill does.

I would say that if it is absolutely necessary for a married woman to take the pill (and I don't think it is, I think there are other ways, most doctors don't care to look into it though, because it takes more work, and it is not lucrative for them as birth control is) then she should abstain from sexual relations with her husband as birth control pills may abort a child, not a good thing.

 

[AMDG]

Seems like naprotech is more a fertility issue than a menstrual regulation one.

Well I'd venture to say that a menstrual problem IS related to a fertility issue. However, NaproTechnology also deals with "women's health issues"--without compromising a women's health. I mean it isn't just a "mask it by handing out a pill", it's a "let's find a solution for why this symptom is presenting itself". NaproTech also adresses policystic disease, irregular bleeding, endometriosis, and much more besides "getting/or not getting pregnant" or even holding onto the pregnancy should that be the difficulty. (I believe EWTN had a whole program devoted to it on "World Over" or something.)

 

[nyj]

Beyond the fact that one is getting medical advice from a priest (which is silly) ...

It's not silly if they have consulted with the medical community and theologians who contemplate these scenarios. I imagine the Catholic Church has spent a good amount of time seeking the advice of the medical community on this particular matter, and I would imagine that seminarians are taught how to not only handle these sorts of scenarios but also how to answer these questions decisively. Hence, the "talk to a priest" recommendation being the best course of actin.

 

[Tonks]

It's not silly if they have consulted with the medical community and theologians who contemplate these scenarios. I imagine the Catholic Church has spent a good amount of time seeking the advice of the medical community on this particular matter, and I would imagine that seminarians are taught how to not only handle these sorts of scenarios but also how to answer these questions decisively. Hence, the "talk to a priest" recommendation being the best course of actin.

I'm talking on a case-by-case basis. As EWTN notes that while there is some very small wiggle room on this issue, the Church as a whole does not deal in individual cases. And for strict and necessary medical advice I'm asking a doctor - as it is their job.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

and I would imagine that seminarians are taught

Not always the case. I've had friends who were seminarians and I've had priests discuss their seminary experience with me, I think one should be careful of advice they get from some priests, which it were not so, but it is the case.

 

[nyj]

And for strict and necessary medical advice I'm asking a doctor - as it is their job.

When that medical advice impacts our spiritual life, I would suggest (here are my two ducats, keep the change) seeking out a Catholic doctor.

 

[Tonks]

When that medical advice impacts our spiritual life, I would suggest (here are my two ducats, keep the change) seeking out a Catholic doctor.

I totally agree with you. I'm merely being pragmatic about this in cases were access / availability to such resources is not readily available - particularly those in the exurbs and beyond.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

When that medical advice impacts our spiritual life, I would suggest (here are my two ducats, keep the change) seeking out a Catholic doctor.

I would definitely agree.

By the way, my post regarding priests is this. If a priest in any way fudges about what he thinks about birth control (ie contradicts Humanae Vitae) I would say seek out another priest. If, however, the priest is orthodox and in line with the Church's teaching on it, then that is a priest that I would discuss it with and also ask him if there are any Catholic gynecologists/doctors in the area that you should talk to.

Let me also say this, the seminaries are getting better on the teaching of contraception, unfortunately in the past there have been people in the seminary faculties who were not in line with the teachings of the Church on this regard, most if not all have been weeded out.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

I totally agree with you. I'm merely being pragmatic about this in cases were access / availability to such resources is not readily available - particularly those in the exurbs and beyond.

For those who are in the area where there is no doctor that can be trusted on these matters, give a call or email to the Pope Paul VI institute they work with people from long distance if needed.

There is no doubt about it we need more gynecologists/doctors who are in line with the teaching of the Church.

 

[Globalnomad]

HeatherQ17, my question is whether at 17 - and being already treated for depression - you should be taking hormones anyway. At 17 it is still normal, AFAIK, for your periods not to have settled into regularity. How bad would it be without the Pill? Is it THAT inconvenient? Can't you just avoid this extra chemical whammy to your body, and let things fall into place slowly by themselves?

I am beginning menopause, and my periods are also very unpredictable - drives me crazy - so I sympathize with you - but heck, that's just life! I don't want to mess around with my hormones unless I have to. I wonder if you should not think the same way.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Here is a directory of NFP doctors.

http://www.omsoul.com/nfp-only.php

 

[Tonks]

For those who are in the area where there is no doctor that can be trusted on these matters, give a call or email to the Pope Paul VI institute they work with people from long distance if needed.

Up to the point where one actually needs to goto the ob/gyn I would assume. There is only so much one can do over the phone - particularly if the problem does not go away.

There is no doubt about it we need more gynecologists/doctors who are in line with the teaching of the Church.

agreed.

 

[Chrystabelle]

The following text has been taken from: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0050.html

Humanae Vitae After Twenty-Five Years: Responses


"Many people have difficulty understanding why the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong, because to them contraceptives seem to interfere only with the physical structure of sexual intercourse (cf. condoms) or with natural biological processes of the human body (cf. birth control pills, e.g.). Along these lines, a number of moral theologians have accused Humanae Vitae of “physicalism” in its exclusion of contraception. In general, they think that official Catholic teaching here places too much importance on respecting the natural physical structure of sexual intercourse and biological processes and does not adequately appreciate that morality encompasses a whole range of factors and values. [22] If one carefully reads Catholic teaching here, however, one very much sees an appreciation of other relevant values. For example, Humanae Vitae teaches that by safeguarding both its unitive and procreative meanings, “the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's [and woman's] most high calling to parenthood.” (12) This encyclical teaches too that “it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good” (14), and it speaks of the licitness of therapeutic means, even though they have a sterilizing effect, provided this is not directly willed.(15) It is quite clear that the morality of the act in question is not simply identified with respecting biological processes and the physical structure of the act. The intention of the agent with respect to various values is very significant. [23] Compare also Paul VI's teaching that, “The responsible exercise of parenthood implies ... that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties toward God, toward themselves, toward the family and toward society, in a correct hierarchy of values.” (HV, 10). Surely, this is not physicalist. "

This is Church Law.

 

[Sacha Saint Francis]

Dear friend, the Church's stance on taking the Birth Control Pill (BCP) is that it is only viable if done for medical reasons WHILE REMAINING CELIBATE. The reason for this is two fold:

1) The Pill is an Abortifacient if used while being sexually active (see medical research copied below) and the Church does not tolerate the murder of babies

2) The Holy Spirit's gift of Life should not be intentionally witheld from the Union of Husband and wife for the sake of lust. Sex must always be both procreational and unitive in it's function and purpose.

Here is an experpt explaining why the Pill, if used while having sex, is an abortifacient. You can read the full research paper on this website:http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/mdexplains.php

How the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives

By Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.

The birth control pill is currently being used by more than 10 million women in the U.S.1 A number of physicians and researchers have claimed that the birth control pill (BCP—also called the oral contraceptive) is actually an abortifacient. An abortifacient causes an early abortion , specifically the death of the zygote, embryo or fetus after conception has occurred. Others do not believe the BCP is an abortifacient as noted in a 1998 publication authored by several physicians: Hormonal Contraceptives: Are They Abortifacients?2
Before 1930 all Christian denominations agreed that contraception was a sin.3 this paper will focus on the medical and technical aspects of the pill’s abortifacient qualities and refrain from comment on the morality of taking or prescribing the BCP.
To answer the question of whether the BCP causes early abortions a number of introductory questions must be addressed.
What is a birth control pill (BCP) and how does it work?
Normally the pituitary gland produces two hormones called FSH (Follicle Stimulating Hormone) and LH (Luteinizing Hormone). These hormones serve to stimulate the ovary to produce an egg each menstrual cycle (to ovulate). The ovary is also the production site for the woman’s two central female hormones: estradiol (EST), a type of estrogen, and progesterone (PRO), a type of progestin. BCPs are a combination of synthetic estrogen and progestin. BCPs "fool" the pituitary gland so that it produces less FSH and LH. By reducing the FSH and LH required for ovulation, BCPs suppress, but do not eliminate ovulation.
Birth control pills are acknowledged to have two other main effects:
* They thin the inner lining of the uterus (called the endometrium), depleting it of glycogen (a type of sugar) and blood supply, and
* BCPs may thicken the cervical mucus, making it more difficult for the sperm to travel up through the cervix.
Though this latter effect is claimed by BCP manufacturers, the evidence for it is weak4,5 and not strongly supported by the rabbit model.6
Of course, BCPs could not cause abortions if they always stopped ovulation, so this needs to be the first issue raised. A clear indication that ovulation will occur in women taking the BCP is provided by noting what the BCP manufacturers state in the PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference, @1998).7 The "efficacy rate" table for each BCP claims a "typical failure rate" of about 3%. The PDR defines "typical failure rate" as the rate of annual pregnancy occurrence in "typical couples who initiate use of a method (not necessarily for the first time) and who use it consistently and correctly during the first year if they do not stop for any other reason."
This means that even couples who use the pill consistently over the course of a year will have an average pregnancy rate of 3% according to the BCP manufacturers, who might tend to underestimate this number. A 1996 paper by Potter8 gives an excellent overview of the matter. She notes that the most recent data point to a rate of pregnancy for "typical use" as being 7%, which is probably a more accurate statistic. This is especially true given the immediacy of her research data and the fact that today’s BCPs are lower dose and theoretically permit a higher rate of breakthrough ovulation. From these estimates of BCP failure and the common experience of on-pill pregnancies, it is clear that both ovulation and conception occur in couples who use the BCP...."

For more info refer to website noted above.

Your sister in Christ,
Sacha

 

[Chrystabelle]

1) The Pill is an Abortifacient if used while being sexually active (see medical research copied below) and the Church does not tolerate the murder of babies

So if the woman has to take the pill for therapeutic reasons, would the couple be permitted to use condoms to prevent the killing of an embryo?

 

[Tonks]

As I noted in EWTN, the thin edge of the compromise appears to be (as an ultimate last restort) refraining from sexual activity during ovulation / fertile periods.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

The following text has been taken from: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0050.html

Humanae Vitae After Twenty-Five Years: Responses


"Many people have difficulty understanding why the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong, because to them contraceptives seem to interfere only with the physical structure of sexual intercourse (cf. condoms) or with natural biological processes of the human body (cf. birth control pills, e.g.). Along these lines, a number of moral theologians have accused Humanae Vitae of “physicalism” in its exclusion of contraception. In general, they think that official Catholic teaching here places too much importance on respecting the natural physical structure of sexual intercourse and biological processes and does not adequately appreciate that morality encompasses a whole range of factors and values. [22] If one carefully reads Catholic teaching here, however, one very much sees an appreciation of other relevant values. For example, Humanae Vitae teaches that by safeguarding both its unitive and procreative meanings, “the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's [and woman's] most high calling to parenthood.” (12) This encyclical teaches too that “it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good” (14), and it speaks of the licitness of therapeutic means, even though they have a sterilizing effect, provided this is not directly willed.(15) It is quite clear that the morality of the act in question is not simply identified with respecting biological processes and the physical structure of the act. The intention of the agent with respect to various values is very significant. [23] Compare also Paul VI's teaching that, “The responsible exercise of parenthood implies ... that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties toward God, toward themselves, toward the family and toward society, in a correct hierarchy of values.” (HV, 10). Surely, this is not physicalist. "

This is Church Law.

The part that you bolded does not speak to what we are talking about. The bolded part is talking about the idea of double effect in regards to removing certain organs or performing certain medical procedures (not abortion) to cure a certain effect, which the result also may be the sterilizing of the woman.

What we are talking about is birth control pills which very possibly could abort a child if a person has sex while on the pill.

Two completely different scenarios.

 

[Fish and Bread]

There are two issues here I think that merit consideration:

Firstly, it has been a fairly consistant Catholic teaching that the scriptures are infallible and hold an important place in Catholic faith and Catholic teaching. St. Paul very explicitly and with clear intent essentially says that those who can't contain their passions should marry and that married couples should never deny each other except for mutually agreed limited periods of time of abstaining to grow closer to God. If a woman needs to use a birth control for health purposes and then refused to ever have sex, isn't that subverting the basic biblical teachings on marriage? And if she doesn't use the birth control at grave risk to her health, isn't that showing a lack of respect for the life God has given her?

Secondly, I think if we take a pragmatic approach to this issue, yes, some birth control have a side effect of making the uterine lining slicker and lessing the odds of implantation,but from what I've heard a lot of fertilized eggs slide off the wall anyhow. Is it a tragic accidental death everytime that happens? Because I'm told it's very common the extent that almost every married couple would have countless dead unborn children they'd never know about. Isn't it possible that when the Catholic Church says that life lasts from conception to natural death, that's supposed to be a guideline that ensures openness to life and not to be taken hyperliterally in cases like this? If we take it hyperliterally, we'd have probably have to have sexually active women on bedrest just in case they might get pregnant and miscarry a single-celled embroyo.

I hope this doesn't seem too out of left-field, I just think these are issues that should be thought about. These aren't easy issues to consider, and Pope Paul VI, though he took a fairly strict line relative to what his advisors on this issue recommended to him, still allowed for the fact that there are certain exceptions to the rule. I hope that legitimate teaching of the Church doesn't get lost in a rising tide of rigidity that's growing in the Church. Remember, Christ not only have the Apostles the power to bind, but also to loose. And rules can be taken seriously and followed without being interpreted in the strictest possible way.

Evangelical-style fundamentalism is no more Catholic than people who ignore the magisterium on everything. I fear that what may be happening is that the Church is trading one problem for another.

 

[Chrystabelle]

The part that you bolded does not speak to what we are talking about. The bolded part is talking about the idea of double effect in regards to removing certain organs or performing certain medical procedures (not abortion) to cure a certain effect, which the result also may be the sterilizing of the woman.

What we are talking about is birth control pills which very possibly could abort a child if a person has sex while on the pill.

Two completely different scenarios.

Well this is news to me. For the past 25 years, amongst my female Roman Catholic friends, it has been common knowledge that the Pope was talking about the pill. Even the priests advised us of this. (It was not known, until recently, that the combined pill was an abortificient.)

Personally, I never took the pill. If I had and I had been told that it was possibly abortificient, I would have used condoms with it. I think most Christians would. Most Christians would not want to rely on NFP for something so important.

As a long-term user of NFP I can guarantee that someone who was taking the pill would not be able to accurately use NFP at the same time. The pill thickens the cervical mucus and changes the body's temperature. Therefore, how on earth would a woman know that she was ovulating?

I really do not think that where there is a possibility that the pill maybe abortificient, that people should rely on NFP to prevent this.

As I noted in EWTN, the thin edge of the compromise appears to be (as an ultimate last restort) refraining from sexual activity during ovulation / fertile periods.

 

[heatherq17]

I am confused how is being on the bill abortion?