An Exception to the Rule Against Contraceptive Activity?

[socalcarmelite]

I know of one case where a woman should have had a hysterectomy, for medical reasons, but did not. She chose to do nothing. She had another child, and then she had breast cancer. Her life expectancy is greatly diminished now.

 

[socalcarmelite]

It is OK and acceptable to have a hysterctomy for purely medical reasons. For example, if you had a bad PAP smear. Or if you had cancer, etc.

 

[puzzleannie]

I think the husband has to do some serious thought reflection and prayer on whether his own sexual satisfaction takes higher priority than his wife’s health, safety and life.

 

[rayne89]

puzzleannie:

I think the husband has to do some serious thought reflection and prayer on whether his own sexual satisfaction takes higher priority than his wife’s health, safety and life.

And what about the wife’s sexual satisfaction?

 

[puzzleannie]

well I imagine most women would place their life and health over their sexual satisfaction, but I can only speak for myself.

the fallacy that arises everytime one of these “hypothetical cases” is posed is that sexual satisfaction is the primary reason and good of marriage. Sexual satisfaction is the result, one of several good results, of the love between man and wife and its physical expression. There is a lot more to love and intimacy, however, than this physical expression, and if the marriage is defined by either or both parties as all-or-nothing with regard to sex, a real barrier to intimacy and full expression of love has been erected. The purpose of marriage is the mutual sanctification of the partners and the physical union is one manifestation of the love that desires that sanctification over and above all other goods. True married love ALWAYS places the good of the partner over the good of the individual.

this hypothetical couple should attend a good course on the theology of the body, consult their priest through counselling, and individually in the confessional, and proceed accordingly. if there is a legitimate medical reason for hysterctomy, even though inability to conceive is an unintended evil result, the operation is morally permissible if it cures and underlying life-threatening condition.

rayne89:

And what about the wife’s sexual satisfaction?

 

[rayne89]

puzzleannie:

well I imagine most women would place their life and health over their sexual satisfaction, but I can only speak for myself.

The reason why I asked is because it’s always presumed it’s the guy that doesn’t want to give up sex as if it’s so easy for women to say well I guess I’ll never have relations with my husband again (at least til menopause.)
My life and my health are very important to me. But a 1 to 3% risk of becoming pregnant is not enough of risk to give up sexual intimacy with my husband. I have a higher risk of dying from cancer, stroke, respiratory failure or in a car accident.
I am a mother of a young child, it’s not a decision I made lightly. But at what point do we stop enjoying our lives in order to save ourselves from death. A 3% risk is not high enough for me. I use the means that God has given his church to prevent pregnancy and I trust in Him, and whatever His will is for my life.

 

[YinYangMom]

rayne89:

The reason why I asked is because it’s always presumed it’s the guy that doesn’t want to give up sex as if it’s so easy for women to say well I guess I’ll never have relations with my husband again (at least til menopause.)
My life and my health are very important to me. But a 1 to 3% risk of becoming pregnant is not enough of risk to give up sexual intimacy with my husband. I have a higher risk of dying from cancer, stroke, respiratory failure or in a car accident.
I am a mother of a young child, it’s not a decision I made lightly. But at what point do we stop enjoying our lives in order to save ourselves from death. A 3% risk is not high enough for me. I use the means that God has given his church to prevent pregnancy and I trust in Him, and whatever His will is for my life.

Keep in mind that in this particular hypothetical situation NFP is a perfectly acceptable option for the couple should they decide to go that route. They might also decide to live celibate lives for Christ for the duration of their marriage. It’s up to them.

Also keep in mind that this particular hypothetical woman had 10 miscarriages in 7 years and the last one landed her in the hospital with a long illness…given that situation I’d think it rather safe to say sex wasn’t all it was cracked up to be for her and she would not mind foregoing it if not doing so meant she’d have to endure the pain and grief one more time - let alone death.

This hypothetical situation is misleading in many ways so don’t get caught up on any one particular detail.

 

[Topher]

BibleReader:

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.

The bishop is absolutely wrong. The Church does allow non-abotifacient contraception if pregnance will more than likely kill the woman if she becomes preagnant.

 

[mosher]

mumto5:

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.

I think condone is too strong a word here. I believe that perhaps what is intended is allow or permit but with a condition of understanding that what he would be doing is objectivelly wrong. One cannot avoid good to do good.

 

[mosher]

Topher:

The bishop is absolutely wrong. The Church does allow non-abotifacient contraception if pregnance will more than likely kill the woman if she becomes preagnant.

This is another point that has to be discussed because as some here know most forms of chemical contraceptives are really abortificants. So, in the situation cited the question becomes even tighter morally.

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

Topher:

The bishop is absolutely wrong. The Church does allow non-abotifacient contraception if pregnance will more than likely kill the woman if she becomes preagnant.

It allows NFP. Not condoms or other barriers. Rayne’s a living example of that and I applaude her for it. :clapping:

NFP is putting it in God’s hands. Anything else it putting it in the hands of doctors, pills or laytex.

Unless you don’t trust God?

 

[felra]

Topher:

The bishop is absolutely wrong. The Church does allow non-abotifacient contraception if pregnance will more than likely kill the woman if she becomes preagnant.

Please cite the authoritative source for your above statement. If you cannot, your statement is just your opinion stated as fact.