Aids and contraception

[Corki]

He is a religious brother, so a monk, I believe. The subject was using Nfp to avoid conceiving a child with a high probability if a genetic defect.

I have some experience with this, having had a child with a genetic disorder ( who died recently) and a very high likelihood of having another. Nfp must never be used permenently, please show me what document says it may be used to forever bar all future children. Even in the case if a very serious life or death health issue of the parents that would likely never improve, the intent would be that if it DID, you would cease using nfp. The intent would be to use it until the serious concern was resolved (physical, financial etc) and to take steps to resolve the situation. It can only be used to space or postpone. A genetic issue in a parents DNA does not usually effect the health of the parent.

I have read church documents and spoken to priests and the catholics bioethics center. Please post what you have that says differently, it would be helpful to me personally. For the specific child, I’m referring to “we would like a child, could afford a child, but don’t want to conceive one with a genetic defect”. That would be the child they are avoiding.Even if parents carry a genetic defect, there is always a chance, perhaps small depending on the defect involved, that the genetic flaw would not occur with every conceived child.

Without context, I can’t comment on what this monk has said.

Here is what the Pope (Pius XII) said (bolding mine):

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.

I am sorry for your loss but if you are getting advice that says you cannot use genetic risk as a reason to use NFP, it is not teaching that is in conformity with the Church.

 

[etmom]

@etmom & corki: etmom, I think a fair reading of your source is that it is his/someone’s interpretation of HV, and that the Magisterium has in no way spoken in any sort of official capacity regarding using NFP to avoid the transmission of a serious/fatal genetic condition to a child, whether short or long term. If you have a source that says differently, I am open to correction.

That being said, I think Corki is right on this one, although the brother does make an interesting argument. Just reasons are left up to the couple to discern, and the couple may use NFP as long as the just reason exists. I’m pretty sure Pius XII has mentioned this, and it may be right in HV.

@LJH and manualman: Like the above scenario, I do not think the Magisterium has spoken definitively on spouses with HIV having relations and possibly transmitting the disease, nor would I really expect it to. I don’t think manualman has stated it is an authoritative Church teaching, but rather a common sense one based on an understanding of love as willing the good of the other, at whatever cost to me. That being said, I do think it would be up to the couple to discern.

I know that they have not spoken definitively on the specific issue, but the guidance given is that the framework is already there, the many issues are addressed in many other areas to appear to give clear direction.

 

[Dale_M]

I have no idea who “the Brother” is or what the context of that post was but you have misapplied it to the use of NFP.

Etmom is quoting a comment by JReducation, a Franciscan friar whose posts you have likely encountered many times during your time here at CAF. He does post a lot!

(And we are blessed by his presence. He brings a wealth of knowledge, experience and insight.)

I must admit, though, I don’t understand Etmom’s use of Br. JR’s comment. He was responding to a question which asked him to explain why NFP shouldn’t be used as birth control. Here is his post in reply:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9108913&postcount=42

I wonder if Etmom’s concern is that a couple might want to use contraception to avoid the possibility of giving birth to a child infected with HIV? Perhaps she can clarify.

 

[etmom]

People who will pass on serious or fatal genetic conditions to their children are advised that this is not sufficient reason not to conceive or have a child. How is this all that different?

You would think with current retroviral medications, which can keep viral load undetectable, especially if it was the woman who carried the virus from birth, it would make it less likely to transmit to her husband (female to male is not as common as male to female). And taking medication while pregnant is very successful in preventing transmission to an unborn baby.

I know several people who have adopted children infected with HIV from africa, so I’ve wondered about this.

I was responding to a poster here saying it would be immoral to knowingly pass on a fatal disease to a spouse. I was wondering how passing it on to ones child differed.

Sorry about the confusion.Nothing to do with using Nfp in the aids situation, wondering how it was immoral to possibly pass on a serious or fatal condition in one circumstance (Spouse) , but not with a child.

 

[Corki]

Ahhh As I suspected, Brother JR was quoted out of context.

Here’s some of the rest of his comments on the topic (bolding also mine):

As to how long you can use NFP, there is no universal law for a very practical reason. NFP is used when there is a serious reason to do so. The length of time is not the factor, but the necessity is. Again, we’re back in the realm of philosophy. What determines that it is morally justifiable to use NFP is the reason, not the amount of time. As long as the serious reason exists, the use of NFP is justifiable.

Many of his other assertions are based on philosophical reasoning, rather than Church teaching:

Here is where we go back to the issue of an older mother and the possibility of a child with birth defects. Philosophy does not consider possibilities to be moral determinants. In other words, you don’t avoid conception because there is a possibility that you will conceive a child with developmental disabilities.

Philosophy only accepts probabilities as moral determinants. The probability of having a child with developmental disabilities is not guaranteed. All we know is that more children with developmental disabilities are born to older mothers. However, they still remain the minority, not the norm. In addition, developmental disabilities may also occur in younger pregnancies when there is a genetic predisposition. There are families that have a history of developmental disabilities.

Even so, in the case of a **probablilty **rather than a possibility, it follows that there would be a moral determinant. In the case of AIDS transmission or many genetic disorders, there is a much higher probability.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Okay, that’s what I thought. I’m sorry if this is off-topic, but I have a few other questions.

1. Why is a man not allowed to have a vasectomy or a woman have the equivalent?

Well, of course, this would be worse than saying no to life by individual incident with something like a condom, if you think about it, because this is permanently closing yourself to the transmission of life by God. It is a huge, huge NO to God. I was young and stupid (and not Catholic, nor of any kind of right understanding regarding contraception when I had this done in my early 20’s. I’ve thought now about reversal, but I’m 55, and in poor health. The Church says it’s not neccissary, but, I still don’t know. Even after confession, regret, repentence, study, prayer, penance etc., I’m still having a great deal of trouble letting myself off the hook for this. Perhaps it is the thorn that I must carry for all my days as a remembrance of this evil act, even though it was done in ignorance. It would seem, also, that since this is usually done by married men, that they may feel an immunity to the problem of adultery, and not feel as accountable if they fall, and step outside of their marriage, since they don’t fear impregnating their partner in adultery.

1. if becoming pregnent is a danger to a woman, what does she do?

I don’t think this is the case for that many married women. But the answer, however painful to hear, would be that the woman would need to balance the danger of her pregnancy with the will of God for her. I believe this can be accomplished through NFP, but I’m no expert in that field. If the woman is single, then she should be abstaining anyway, and should never become pregnant.

 

[Dale_M]

I think Etmom has taken selected passages from several posts by JReducation, a Franciscan friar who is well known here. He does post a lot!

(And we are blessed by his presence. He brings a wealth of education, experience and insight.)

Here is the thread which Etmom seems to be quoting from.

NFP and traditional movements
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=658879

Unfortunately, Etmom seems to be selecting quotes from several of Br JR’s posts and then pasting them together. This can produce a poor understanding since it strips his comments from their context.

I think Etmom’s concern is that contraception shouldn’t be used to avoid the possibility of transmitting HIV from the mother to the baby. It is a valid point which often is overlooked.

 

[etmom]

Even so, in the case of a **probablilty **rather than a possibility, it follows that there would be a moral determinant. In the case of AIDS transmission or many genetic disorders, there is a much higher probability.

He did also say even if it was likely, it would still not be permissible.
What percentage makes it moral?

I’m sorry about the quotes, not all that was said was even remotely applicable, there were several posts that had pertinent info. I had no idea how to do that, since most were not relevant (he was answering multiple posters)

So the info I quoted here originally , seeing it in its original context, you would feel are not based in church teaching at all?

 

[Corki]

He did also say even if it was likely, it would still not be permissible.
What percentage makes it moral?

I’m sorry about the quotes, not all that was said was even remotely applicable, there were several posts that had pertinent info. I had no idea how to do that, since most were not relevant (he was answering multiple posters)

So the info I quoted here originally , seeing it in its original context, you would feel are not based in church teaching at all?

No, I am simply saying that even the document Brother JR quotes allow for the possibility that a couple may postpone a pregnancy indefinately for a just reason. Brother’s postion (and maybe he will pop in here himself) is that NFP cannot be used as if it was just another form of birth control.

There is no way of knowing “what percentage” of risk might constitute a serious reason for any given couple. That’s why the Church leaves the determination up to the husband and wife in prayerful consideration of the circumstances.

 

[etmom]

No, I am simply saying that even the document Brother JR quotes allow for the possibility that a couple may postpone a pregnancy indefinately for a just reason. Brother’s postion (and maybe he will pop in here himself) is that NFP cannot be used as if it was just another form of birth control.

There is no way of knowing “what percentage” of risk might constitute a serious reason for any given couple. That’s why the Church leaves the determination up to the husband and wife in prayerful consideration of the circumstances.

Ok, I appreciate that I did not take from any of his comments on that post that passing on a serious genetic condition would be a licit reason to use NFP. I also understood that you COULD postpone indefinitely, but that one must never say it was “permenent”, although circumstances could obviously make it permenent, but that must never be the intent. Perhaps I will get the chance to ask more questions of him in the future on this.

Did not mean to get this off track, I’m trying to understand more clearly an issue that obviously has great personal impact and meaning.

Peace,