An Exception to the Rule Against Contraceptive Activity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleReader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BibleReader

Guest
Hypothetical: After she marries at 21 years of age, a woman suffers 10 miscarriages in 7 years, each one before the end of two months’ gestation. At age 28, after her last miscarriage, during which she also got very sick, she goes to a reproductive specialist. After a careful examination he says, "Look, the problem is simple: Your womb has been horribly scarred since your own birth. Your womb simply can’t expand to accommodate the growing fetus in your womb. It is medically certain that you will miscarry before the end of two months every single time.

"Now, so far you’ve only gotten sick once from the miscarriage. That’s because you’re older now, and you’re starting to wear out. You’re immune system can’t take the roller coaster ride anymore. If you get pregnant again, maybe once we can save your life. If you get pregnant again, after that, you will simply die.

“So, you really have three choices: (1) Tell your husband that from now on you two must refrain from all sex; (2) learn natural family planning, to keep your husband happy, but that is to take your life into your own hands, because like other measures to avoid conception there is a statistical failure rate; or (3) get your tubes tied. Since it makes no sense to keep your womb, because you’re not allowed to use it, morally, if you do keep it, since you’re not allowed to risk your life for sex, and since your womb can only create babies that must die before the end of two months gestation in the womb, long before they are viable, you’re not really offending nature or God by having your tubes tied. You’re only using marital sexuality unitively, to use the terminology of Humanae Vitae.”

The woman’s pastor is the diocesan bishop. He agrees that even NFP would be immoral, if another pregnancy will kill her, due to the statistical failure rate of NFP. “I’m sorry,” says the bishop, "But even NFP is immoral in your case. You’re not allowed to risk your life to make your husband sexually satisfied.

"Additionally, even though your womb can’t hold onto offspring for more than two months, and even though you are not allowed to risk using the womb ever again, and so must abstain from sex until you are an old lady, and clearly post-menopausal, you may not get rid of the womb, to make sex possible, since that would be birth control."
**
The bishop explains that if he hears that the woman has “used birth control” by getting her tubes tied, he will deny the woman Communion at Mass.

The woman goes home and tells her husband that he may never have sex with her again.

Six months later, he files for divorce.

Was the bishop’s advice correct? Or, is the bishop wrong, and where the womb is deadly if it is used again, and can not gestate a baby beyond two months, it is a “sick” womb morally able to be blocked-off by having tubes tied, to permit risk-free, non-death-defying sex?

I asked this question in another thread. I think that it deserves reconsideration.
 
Your womb has been horribly scarred since your own birth.
Click to expand...
Since scar tissue has an increased possibility of becoming precancerous, might she not be a good candidate for a (medically justifiable) hysterectomy?

This would then remove any danger, and the procedure is not being done for any contraceptive reasons.
 
Hypothetically, the scenario has too many gross errors in it to warrant response…perhaps that’s why they didn’t answer before.

Now, if this really happened, then many people here will guide you through what was right/wrong along the way and what can be done about it.
 
The bishop explains that if he hears that the woman has “used birth control” by getting her tubes tied, he will deny the woman Communion at Mass.
Click to expand...
How does the bishop hear about her sex life??? It’s none of his business…
 
My wife was told her uterus was too diseased to have another baby. 9 months later a beautiful baby girl was born. They could not believe it!
 
For the heck of it…let’s break this down…
40.png
BibleReader:
After she marries at 21 years of age, a woman suffers 10 miscarriages in 7 years, each one before the end of two months’ gestation. At age 28, after her last miscarriage, during which she also got very sick, she goes to a reproductive specialist.

This in itself seems rather unlikely, physically and emotionally for any woman to endure. I would imagine any woman would have sought professional counseling after the 3rd, rather than continue on 4 more times and waiting until she got sick.

After a careful examination he says, "Look, the problem is simple: Your womb has been horribly scarred since your own birth. Your womb simply can’t expand to accommodate the growing fetus in your womb. It is medically certain that you will miscarry before the end of two months every single time.

Again, I would think the gynecologist/obstetrician would have identified the problem after the 1st D&C done after the first miscarriage…or perhaps even during a regular pap exam.

"Now, so far you’ve only gotten sick once from the miscarriage. That’s because you’re older now, and you’re starting to wear out. You’re immune system can’t take the roller coaster ride anymore.

This doesn’t even sound medically sound…what were the symptoms of her sickness? Was it because of the pregancy or the miscarriage? What can’t the immune system handle - a pregnancy or a miscarriage?

If you get pregnant again, maybe once we can save your life. If you get pregnant again, after that, you will simply die.

No doctor would say something that final. They would say there is a strong risk of death, but never would pronounce with certainty death is imminent.

"So, you really have three choices: (1) Tell your husband that from now on you two must refrain from all sex;

She would be advised to refrain from sexual intercourse. Period. Not to tell her husband to leave her alone.

(2) learn natural family planning, to keep your husband happy, but that is to take your life into your own hands, because like other measures to avoid conception there is a statistical failure rate; or

This is the bigger hole in the hypothetical situation. NFP is not taking one’s life in their own hands, it’s giving it to God, where it belongs. But the doctor would probably advise she use some sort of method to avoid pregnancy in the future - leaving it up to her to choose among NFP or ABC.

(3) get your tubes tied. Since it makes no sense to keep your womb, because you’re not allowed to use it, morally, if you do keep it, since you’re not allowed to risk your life for sex, and since your womb can only create babies that must die before the end of two months gestation in the womb, long before they are viable, you’re not really offending nature or God by having your tubes tied. You’re only using marital sexuality unitively, to use the terminology of Humanae Vitae."

First of all, you never stated in your hypothetical whether or not the doctor was Catholic. If he wasn’t then morals would not even enter the conversation - it would be based on science alone. If he was Catholic, then he certainly would not say 'it makes no sense to keep your womb because you’re not allowed to use it".

The woman’s pastor is the diocesan bishop. He agrees that even NFP would be immoral, if another pregnancy will kill her, due to the statistical failure rate of NFP. “I’m sorry,” says the bishop, "But even NFP is immoral in your case. You’re not allowed to risk your life to make your husband sexually satisfied.

I could not imagine NFP ever being ruled immoral by a bishop or any other Catholic clergy. The Catholic position would be to trust in God in all things. Her options would be to lead a celibate life within her marriage - with her husband’s full support and cooperation, or practice NFP. Should she develop uterine cancer as a result of her condition, and surgical removal of her reproductive organs are necessary to save her life, then she could agree to the procedure.
Click to expand...
 
Continued…
40.png
BibleReader:
"Additionally, even though your womb can’t hold onto offspring for more than two months, and even though you are not allowed to risk using the womb ever again, and so must abstain from sex until you are an old lady, and clearly post-menopausal, you may not get rid of the womb, to make sex possible, since that would be birth control."

Well, here you’re partially correct…she may not voluntarily choose to remove the womb only so that she can have sex in her marriage. I still don’t believe the Church would say she isn’t allowed to risk using the womb ever again.

The bishop explains that if he hears that the woman has “used birth control” by getting her tubes tied, he will deny the woman Communion at Mass.

No bishop or priest would ever do that…threaten her like that.

The woman goes home and tells her husband that he may never have sex with her again.

Gee? Without even discussing her options with him?

Six months later, he files for divorce.

There must have been underlying problems in the marriage for that. Besides, what does his filing for divorce have to do with her situation. So long as she doesn’t remarry she remains in good standing as a Catholic.

Was the bishop’s advice correct? Or, is the bishop wrong, and where the womb is deadly if it is used again, and can not gestate a baby beyond two months, it is a “sick” womb morally able to be blocked-off by having tubes tied, to permit risk-free, non-death-defying sex?

I asked this question in another thread. I think that it deserves reconsideration.
Click to expand...
 
Situational ethics should never be done the subjectivity of it is dangerous.
 
I believe in this situation the woman may not contracept BUT for the good of the marriage, had her husband decided to get a vasectomy she would have been allowed to stand back and let him. Normally this situation presents when the one partner is Catholic and the other isn’t. The same goes for him using condoms.
 
Hi, YinYangMom.
The hypothetical is a combination of facts from various clients’ cases, sometimes exaggerated to sharpen issues.

This in itself seems rather unlikely, physically and emotionally for any woman to endure. I would imagine any woman would have sought professional counseling after the 3rd, rather than continue on 4 more times and waiting until she got sick.

Again, I would think the gynecologist/obstetrician would have identified the problem after the 1st D&C done after the first miscarriage…or perhaps even during a regular pap exam.

This doesn’t even sound medically sound…what were the symptoms of her sickness? Was it because of the pregancy or the miscarriage? What can’t the immune system handle - a pregnancy or a miscarriage?

The woman with the repeated miscarriages was a poor woman from the ghetto in a certain Southern New Jersey municipality. The true number of miscarriages? Eight, in four years. I exaggerated the number of miscarriages to ten.

There were no D&Cs, no pap exams. These things aren’t readily available in the ghetto.

She was finally catred off to an ER, and then to a clinic, in an ambulance when number eight made her sick. Why did it make her sick? I have no idea. I’m a lawyer, not a doctor.

No doctor would say something that final. They would say there is a strong risk of death, but never would pronounce with certainty death is imminent.

She would be advised to refrain from sexual intercourse. Period. Not to tell her husband to leave her alone.

Weeeeeeeeelllllllllllllll, I used to do medical malpractice, and in essence medical malpractice is about the 1% of doctors who say and do stupid things. Believe me, doctors DO say and do stupid things. They frequently record these acts in their own notes. I have seen it done.

One of the insurance industry magazines recently carried an article on a hospital which has adopted a policy of immediately admitting all negligence, instead of hiding it or lying about it. Claims so far are about 60% of normal.

I had one case where the doctor’s notes said, “I have decided to leave the rest of the metal filings in the patient’s eye,” and then the doctor discharged him! On the stand, the doctor could not explain his own notes.

I had another case where the doctor issued a prescription weaning the patient off of 5 years of 60 miligrams of Prednisone in 3 weeks. The patient collapsed when adrenal insufficiency caused his immune system to go wild, quadrupling his permanent MS symptoms in a few days.

I had another case where the doctor claimed that he told the patient that the level of sphincter muscle relaxer he was prescribing would permanently damage the patient’s vision. I.e., he was implying that the patient opted for functional blindness to get his ulcer treated!

Now, you wouldn’t think that the doctors in any of those cases would do or say any of those things, but they did!

It’s probably never safe to say, “Oh a doctor would never do X.” Ultimately, some doctor always does X.
 
This is the bigger hole in the hypothetical situation. NFP is not taking one’s life in their own hands, it’s giving it to God, where it belongs. But the doctor would probably advise she use some sort of method to avoid pregnancy in the future - leaving it up to her to choose among NFP or ABC.

This part of the story is truly hypothetical.

However, I doubt that one has the right to access sex if death is a sizable risk. It is probably immoral for a girl who is HIV - free to marry and have sex with an HIV- infected man. One is not allowed to engage in sex if sex is the moral equivalent of Russian Roulette.

First of all, you never stated in your hypothetical whether or not the doctor was Catholic. If he wasn’t then morals would not even enter the conversation - it would be based on science alone.

My Jewish doctor has frquently discussed Catholic morality with me. My Jewish wife knows more about the Faith than most of the Catholics here. I disagree on the Catholic/non-Catholic dichotomy.

If he was Catholic, then he certainly would not say 'it makes no sense to keep your womb because you’re not allowed to use it".

Nah, MOST ob/gynes would talk like that: True or false?: It’s still the case that doctors still too readily recommend hysterectomies.

I could not imagine NFP ever being ruled immoral by a bishop or any other Catholic clergy. The Catholic position would be to trust in God in all things. Her options would be to lead a celibate life within her marriage - with her husband’s full support and cooperation, or practice NFP.

If NFP is the moral equivalent of Russian Roulette, some bishop somewhere is going to have the sense to say, “I’m sorry, but if pregnancy = **death, in your case, I can’t really agree that even NFP is moral. People use things like tubal litigation to escape the small chance of pregnancy that accompanies NFP. That same small chance of pregnancy is a small chance of dying, in your case.”

Should she develop uterine cancer as a result of her condition, and surgical removal of her reproductive organs are necessary to save her life, then she could agree to the procedure.

Sorry, but my hypothetical carefully excludes uterine cancer. Why? Because the question I’m examining is, "May a married woman tie off her tubes, to prevent a pregnancy that has not yet occurred, and that can not possibly last beyond two months’ gestation, from killing her?

Let me try to put it another way…

The situation seems to impose two requirements on the woman…DON’T get pregnant, and DON’T use a contraceptive means.

It’s the MIX of those two rules that’s the problem.

If we agree that the woman may not morally get pregnant because for hypothetical purposes “pregnancy = death” in this case, then we are saying that God morally requires that her womb remain “dead” – unused, inert.

Now, if that is God’s Own requirement, why in Heaven’s name would God demand that the husband be denied the unitive function of sex, established by Humanae Vitae itself?

Does God so prefer the conception of killer fetuses that can’t live beyond two months’ gestration, over the risk of death to the woman, that He requires that the woman’s womb be left lying in wait, ready to kill the woman should she give in to sex in a week moment?

I’m having trouble reaching a satisfactory conclusion to this one.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, YinYangMom.
The hypothetical is a combination of facts from various clients’ cases, sometimes exaggerated to sharpen issues.

OK…good to know.

The woman with the repeated miscarriages was a poor woman from the ghetto in a certain Southern New Jersey municipality. The true number of miscarriages? Eight, in four years. I exaggerated the number of miscarriages to ten. There were no D&Cs, no pap exams. These things aren’t readily available in the ghetto. She was finally catred off to an ER, and then to a clinic, in an ambulance when number eight made her sick. Why did it make her sick? I have no idea. I’m a lawyer, not a doctor.

Well obviously, being poor wasn’t her only problem and to take her situation carried out to one more stable (no poverty, married) changes the argument.

Weeeeeeeeelllllllllllllll, I used to do medical malpractice, and in essence medical malpractice is about the 1% of doctors who say and do stupid things. Believe me, doctors DO say and do stupid things. They frequently record these acts in their own notes. I have seen it done.

It’s probably never safe to say, “Oh a doctor would never do X.” Ultimately, some doctor always does X.

Fair enough, but again, the woman in your hypothesis would have had access to a second opinion, and then some before deciding to have a hysterectomy or live a celibate life.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BibleReader:
It is probably immoral for a girl who is HIV - free to marry and have sex with an HIV- infected man.
Well, it isn’t immoral, but she could not marry him in a Catholic ceremony because they could not consumate the marriage without committing mortal sin (using a condom and/or his knowingly and willingly putting her life at risk of getting a terminal disease. If she chose to marry him anyway outside the church then the rest of your hypothetical situation goes out the window.

I disagree on the Catholic/non-Catholic dichotomy.
Well, the doctor in your hypothetical situation did not know much about the Faith, then, and your hypothetical woman, being concerned about remaining true to her faith would have recognized that, or at least double checked with her priest.

True or false?: It’s still the case that doctors still too readily recommend hysterectomies.
I believe he would have recommended that, just not for moral reasons…he’d have played the ‘your life is at risk medically’ card.

If NFP is the moral equivalent of Russian Roulette, some bishop somewhere is going to have the sense to say, “I’m sorry, but if pregnancy = **death, in your case, I can’t really agree that even NFP is moral. People use things like tubal litigation to escape the small chance of pregnancy that accompanies NFP. That same small chance of pregnancy is a small chance of dying, in your case.”
But bishops know that NFP is not the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette, and I don’t believe one would find a bishop advise for contraception over NFP or celibacy in her situation. You and I disagree on that.

As for ‘some people’…well ‘some people’ also believe abortion within the first trimester isn’t murder but the Church - nor Her bishops - would never take that position.

the question I’m examining is, "May a married woman tie off her tubes, to prevent a pregnancy that has not yet occurred, and that can not possibly last beyond two months’ gestation, from killing her?
The answer to that is No. A woman cannot tie off her tubes to prevent a pregnancy which might kill her. She can faithfully practice NFP or live a celibate life with her husband.

The situation seems to impose two requirements on the woman…DON’T get pregnant, and DON’T use a contraceptive means. It’s the MIX of those two rules that’s the problem.
If we agree that the woman may not morally get pregnant because for hypothetical purposes “pregnancy = death” in this case, then we are saying that God morally requires that her womb remain “dead” – unused, inert.
We don’t agree that the Church would ever state it would be immoral (or a mortal sin) for her to get pregnant. What would be immoral is if she knowingly and purposefully allowed herself to get pregnant because she wanted to die. A woman in your scenario cares about her standing in the church…she would have trust in God above all things…and she would have to place her trust in her husband, should they decide to practice NFP…or trust herself by choosing a celebate life. If the man leaves her for remaining true to her faith, then the sin is on him, not her.

Now, if that is God’s Own requirement, *why in Heaven’s name would God demand that the husband be denied the unitive function of sex, established by Humanae Vitae itself?
*Men are not denied anything. Men who truly love their wives would rather die themselves first before putting the lives of their wives in danger. A selfish, lustful man would consider Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body restrictive. A chaste and loving man finds it liberating.

Does God so prefer the conception of killer fetuses that can’t live beyond two months’ gestration, over the risk of death to the woman, that He requires that the woman’s womb be left lying in wait, ready to kill the woman should she give in to sex in a week moment?
Bottom line there, is God wills all souls to take their place beside Him in Heaven…perhaps He wants this woman beside her along with her child…it is not for us to know or to try to control. We must always trust in Him.

I’m having trouble reaching a satisfactory conclusion to this one.
That’s ok. It’s really hard to deprogram oneself after the inundating lies we’ve been fed for so long. Revisit Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body with a more open mind…when you feel the hair raise in the back of your neck over certain passages (yeah, I know, that really happens) stop, say a quiet prayer to the Holy Spirit, and read it again until you see the Truth in the statement. It’s there.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, mosher.

All ethics are situational.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Ethics are objective and their application is to subjective situations. One cannot determine the moral principle from any subjective situation. It is the logical falicy of going fromt he particular to the universal.
 
40.png
mumto5:
I believe in this situation the woman may not contracept BUT for the good of the marriage, had her husband decided to get a vasectomy she would have been allowed to stand back and let him. Normally this situation presents when the one partner is Catholic and the other isn’t. The same goes for him using condoms.
Click to expand...
That is not an acceptible solution because whether one is catholic or not self mutilation and contraception is morally evil. It is not a Catholic restriction on such things as they flow from the Natural Moral Law. The end never justifies the means.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
“So, you really have three choices: (1) Tell your husband that from now on you two must refrain from all sex; (2) learn natural family planning, to keep your husband happy, but that is to take your life into your own hands, because like other measures to avoid conception there is a statistical failure rate; or (3) get your tubes tied. Since it makes no sense to keep your womb, because you’re not allowed to use it, morally, if you do keep it, since you’re not allowed to risk your life for sex, and since your womb can only create babies that must die before the end of two months gestation in the womb, long before they are viable, you’re not really offending nature or God by having your tubes tied. You’re only using marital sexuality unitively, to use the terminology of Humanae Vitae.”

The woman’s pastor is the diocesan bishop. He agrees that even NFP would be immoral, if another pregnancy will kill her, due to the statistical failure rate of NFP. “I’m sorry,” says the bishop, "But even NFP is immoral in your case. You’re not allowed to risk your life to make your husband sexually satisfied.
Click to expand...
Well, considering that tubal ligations have the same 99% effectiveness rate (comparable failure rate to conservative practicing NFP), I don’t see how this could make a case for being morally licit. I would suggest the couple use extended phase 3 rules and have relations only during the end of her phase 3 cycle.
 
Well, considering that tubal ligations have the same 99% effectiveness rate (comparable failure rate to conservative practicing NFP), I don’t see how this could make a case for being morally licit.
Click to expand...
My thoughts too. I know more than one couple who have had an surprise pregnancy following sterilization.
 
40.png
mosher:
That is not an acceptible solution because whether one is catholic or not self mutilation and contraception is morally evil. It is not a Catholic restriction on such things as they flow from the Natural Moral Law. The end never justifies the means.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t intending to say that there is no sin on the part of the spouse that contracepts but even on EWTN they constantly say that while the Catholic spouse cannot contracept and must try to persuade the contracepting spouse to stop doing so from time to time, they can condone him (or her) doing so for the good of the marriage.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
The woman’s pastor is the diocesan bishop. He agrees that even NFP would be immoral, if another pregnancy will kill her, due to the statistical failure rate of NFP. “I’m sorry,” says the bishop, "But even NFP is immoral in your case. You’re not allowed to risk your life to make your husband sexually satisfied.
Click to expand...
Another pregnancy will kill me -Not-hypothetically. I use NFP. Have for 9 years. Trust God. 'nuff said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top