Allergic to semen... Condoms okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SanctaMommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SanctaMommy said:
Thank you all for your replies. I am getting good feedback here. ** For those that have suggested it, my God-daughter has spoken with her priest about it. He said to of course follow her doctor’s recommendation to use condoms to prevent contact with the allergen (he said he used a dust-mite pillow cover for the same reason.)** This didn’t seem quite right to me. My niece’s reaction is severe and could become anaphylactic if she keeps exposing herself to semen. In fact, the doctor prescribed an epi pen for the possibility of an emergency. I am very worried about her, but I know I cannot give her false advice. I am checking on the links to alternative therapies to see if those might work for her.
Click to expand...
Yup, just as I said, the vast majority of priests will say using a condom in this case is permissible , though according to the letter of the law, it is not.

Has she seen an actual allergist about this?
 
Debora123 said:
If you want to object to this, why not write a letter to the Vatican and to USCCB? :rolleyes:

Trying to argue with us for simply stating the Church’s position on this, is completely pointless.
Click to expand...
Oh, according to you, the Church’s laws are “completely pointless” now?

How about this one, from the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
 
iloveangels said:
Oh, according to you, the Church’s laws are “completely pointless” now?

How about this one, from the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Click to expand...
That is not what she said AT ALL.
 
**Hormonal changes don’t take place until the pregnancy is established. Why would you think the woman’s hormones would change after fertilization but before implantation???
**
I’m tired of the fuzzy thinking and excuses that go on around this issue. Some of this stuff is just plain illogical and ignorant.
 
iloveangels said:
Oh, according to you, the Church’s laws are “completely pointless” now?

How about this one, from the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Click to expand...
:confused:

Is there some sort of language barrier here??

I said arguing with US about it is pointless, because we weren’t the ones who made it up.

And for the 4th time, there would be no abortion taking place.
 
Letter of the Law - If you are not a cannon lawyer I do not think you should be “interpreting” the letter of the law. Why because there is also the spirit of the law and the purpose.

SanctaMommy - If you feel that the priest’s advice is wrong then speak to your priest or ask to speak with someone at the Chancellery that can answer your question.

But better than that why do you not pose the question to the staff at Catholic Answers and get an authoritative answer:

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4

Cheers
 
iloveangels said:
Hormonal changes don’t take place until the pregnancy is established. Why would you think the woman’s hormones would change after fertilization but before implantation???

I’m tired of the fuzzy thinking and excuses that go on around this issue. Some of this stuff is just plain illogical and ignorant.
Click to expand...
Then write a letter of complaint to USCCB and the Vatican.
 
iloveangels said:
Hormonal changes don’t take place until the pregnancy is established. Why would you think the woman’s hormones would change after fertilization but before implantation???

I’m tired of the fuzzy thinking and excuses that go on around this issue. Some of this stuff is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Um, women’s hormone levels change all throughout their cycles. A hormone called LH (luteinizing hormone) triggers ovulation. This is not “fuzzy thinking”, it is science.
 
Katie966 said:
Um, women’s hormone levels change all throughout their cycles. A hormone called LH (luteinizing hormone) triggers ovulation. This is not “fuzzy thinking”, it is science.
Click to expand...
So if ovulation occurs 10 seconds after the pill is given, what do you do then?

(doubting that you could even tell one way or the other in that time frame)
 
iloveangels said:
I have no issue with the Church on morning-after-pills. Apparently you do.
Click to expand...
Lol, who are you! Are we even understanding each other correctly here? Are you a troll??

I don’t have an issue with the Church’s position on the morning after pill.

However, according to USCCB and the general consensus within the Church, taking the morning after pill IS permissible for rape victims so long as ovulation and fertilization hasn’t happened.

You are the one who doesn’t want to believe that, and you start arguing with us for simply telling you this.

Please see below:
In 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their revised “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”. Directive 36 states:
Click to expand...
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum”. (1)
Click to expand...
catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=968
 
Debora123 said:
Lol, who are you! Are we even understanding each other correctly here? Are you a troll??

I don’t have an issue with the Church’s position on the morning after pill.

However, according to USCCB and the general consensus within the Church, taking the morning after pill IS permissible so long as ovulation and fertilization hasn’t happened.

You are the one who doesn’t want to believe that, and you start arguing with us for simply telling you this.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t teach that. In the US, this has not been made clear up to this point. But the Church doesn’t teach that. Morning after pills are not permissible morally.

From the VATICAN:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

"3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven “anti-implantation” action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing."
 
iloveangels said:
So if ovulation occurs 10 seconds after the pill is given, what do you do then?

(doubting that you could even tell one way or the other in that time frame)
Click to expand...
In this case, the pill would not be given to the individual because her hormones levels and/or ultrasound would indicate ovulation was imminent or had already occurred. That is the point.

Whether you agree with the USCCB or not is your business, but a valid opinion at least requires an adequate understanding of biology, which seems to be lacking here.
 
SanctaMommy said:
Thank you all for your replies. I am getting good feedback here. For those that have suggested it, my God-daughter has spoken with her priest about it. He said to of course follow her doctor’s recommendation to use condoms to prevent contact with the allergen (he said he used a dust-mite pillow cover for the same reason.) This didn’t seem quite right to me. My niece’s reaction is severe and could become anaphylactic if she keeps exposing herself to semen. In fact, the doctor prescribed an epi pen for the possibility of an emergency. I am very worried about her, but I know I cannot give her false advice. I am checking on the links to alternative therapies to see if those might work for her.

For the poster that thought the topic was lewd, I apologize. Sexuality and health does not seem lewd to me when it is being discussed respectfully and without the intent to arouse indecent passions.
Click to expand...
If her condition is that dangerous, no loving husband would trust a dime store bit of laytex (even if they were not immoral).

Prayers she finds a good doctor.
 
iloveangels said:
From the VATICAN:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html
  1. It is clear, therefore, that the proven “anti-implantation” action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.
Click to expand...
:banghead:

Again I ask:

Is there a language barrier here???
 
iloveangels said:
No. I posted the relevant statement of the Vatican very clearly. In English. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension problem.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don’t know how the Morning After Pill actually works and our explanations to you haven’t been thorough enough for you to understand.

Let me try one more time:

The morning after pill works in 3 ways:
  1. It can delay ovulation
  2. It kills the sperm inside the woman’s body
  3. It prevents implantation of an already fertilized egg
So yes, the 3rd way it works is an abortion. Which is precisely why we must determine whether or not ovulation/fertilization has taken place PRIOR to giving a rape victim the morning after pill - to be sure we are not causing an abortion.

Once it is determined that ovulation has not taken place and there is *no *fertilized egg, we can go ahead and give the rape victim the morning after pill to prevent ovulation from happening, and to kill the rapist’s sperm that is still lingering in her body.

Therefore, an abortion would not be taking place. The only thing that would be happening would be the prevention of fertilization.

I’ve posted this for you before, but I’ll post it again in case you didn’t quite understand it the first time:
In 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their revised “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”. Directive 36 states:
Click to expand...
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum”. (1)
Click to expand...
Please read full source here if you need a more clear understanding: catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=968
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top