Birth control for very serious reasons

[josea]

Hi,

I just have a question.

I have read a lot about contraception and sin. I have read the Humane vitae and I understand the vision of he Catholic Church.

I am married for 7 years and have three children. My wife had a serious problem with every pregnancy and it is so serious than the doctors recommended not to become pregnant again: her life could be SERIOUSLY in danger. I know we are allowed to use natural methods but there are different problems:

The first one is that my wife has no regular cycles and she does not trust the natural methods because one can easily make mistakes, she is terrified with the idea of being in death danger. Our sexual relationship is now restricted to few days before and after her menstruation if we are lucky.

Why is in this case the exception not allowed?

The reason is that one can not use a bad mean to achieve a good goal. But this is exactly what the Church allowed in case of the capital punishment or for instance when somebody steals something to survive (food or money). In those cases the mean is bad although the goal is justified.

In our case there is a serious reason to prevent pregnancy. Why are we not allowed to assure with all means that this does not occur?

The reason for the condemnation of the artificial methods is that they separate the two aspects of marriage. But that is exactly what we want to do or, better said, we are obligated and allowed to do in our special case. Why in this particular case is the mean not allowed and in other issues affecting more directly human life as the capital punishment and self defense the Church allows the exception?

Regards,

jose

 

[fix]

Birth control is an intrinsic evil in the conjugal act. Unlike capital punishment, or some forms of theft, it is intrinsically evil. It may never be done for any reason.

There is a huge difference between frustrating the marital embrace and the examples you gave. Birth control is evil in itself.

NFP can and does work. Irregular cycles are no barrier to NFP. Many people think it is not effective becuase they have not studied it. Please go to the couple to couple league. They have a website. There are many resources available to folks in your situation. You are not alone.

 

[renee1258]

You don’t need regular cycles to use NFP effectively. What have you done regarding actual educating youself on effective NFP methods in avoidance.

 

[MamaGeek]

Sex is a good thing for husband and wife to enjoy with one another, as an expression of their love, but limiting it to a couple of times a month is not going to hurt you. Try to find other ways to express yourselves to one another. This is a cross that God has given you to bear. Instead of trying to find ways to throw off that cross, embrace it with love. Offer up this tremendous sacrifice for the sake of your children - what incredible blessings you could procure for them! Spend more time praying together, and be grateful for the opportunities you DO have to express your love physically. Having to wait so long for it will just make it that much more meaningful.

My biggest advice to you is to pray the rosary together. If you or she gets surgery, it is not easily reversed, so take a year to pray and see how it goes. You may actually find this burden lighter than you thought, especially with Christ helping you to bear it.

 

[4_marks]

You have deliberated and reflected much on this matter. I commend you for taking it seriously in light of your faith and also considering the officially declared statements of the Church.

Have you and your wife considered practicing abstinence in marriage? I know that it sounds strange in a culture that constantly barrages us with messages that sex is the be all and end all.

We are told by Church tradition that Saint Joseph and Our Blessed Mother had a chaste marital relationship which was very loving and most intimate. Given the situation that you have described, maybe the example of the Holy Family can serve as a model as you are obviously quite serious about remaining obedient to Christ’s Church in this matter.

 

[felra]

josea:

Hi,

I just have a question.

I have read a lot about contraception and sin. I have read the Humane vitae and I understand the vision of he Catholic Church.

I am married for 7 years and have three children. My wife had a serious problem with every pregnancy and it is so serious than the doctors recommended not to become pregnant again: her life could be SERIOUSLY in danger. I know we are allowed to use natural methods but there are different problems:

The first one is that my wife has no regular cycles and she does not trust the natural methods because one can easily make mistakes, she is terrified with the idea of being in death danger. Our sexual relationship is now restricted to few days before and after her menstruation if we are lucky.

Why is in this case the exception not allowed?

The reason is that one can not use a bad mean to achieve a good goal. But this is exactly what the Church allowed in case of the capital punishment or for instance when somebody steals something to survive (food or money). In those cases the mean is bad although the goal is justified.

In our case there is a serious reason to prevent pregnancy. Why are we not allowed to assure with all means that this does not occur?

The reason for the condemnation of the artificial methods is that they separate the two aspects of marriage. But that is exactly what we want to do or, better said, we are obligated and allowed to do in our special case. Why in this particular case is the mean not allowed and in other issues affecting more directly human life as the capital punishment and self defense the Church allows the exception?

Regards,

jose

Except that I have been married 10years, your entire paragraph of your family profile and medical risks of another pregnancy above could have been written by me. Your are entirely correct in stating that “one cannot use a bad mean to achieve a good goal”. Use of contraception is an extrinsic evil, and evil can never be justified that good may come of it. There are no “medical exceptions” to allow for contraceptive intercourse.The *intent *of an evil means does not remove the evil of an act/means, no matter how good the perceived/anticipated end. I know, a tough Cross to bear when it personally applies to your marriage.

I will let other posters explain your cited comparisons. You may want to review these below previous posts that address your specific questions.

I love my kids but…no more!

Moral dilemma; please help!
Contraception and Culpability of Laity ;
Contraception OK? ;

 

[Vincent]

The licit use of capital punishment is not a bad means. It is based on the rightful use of self-defense, which itself is based on “loving others as you love yourself”. As explained in the Catechism,

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow"

Neither is the taking of food to survive. Again from the Catechism:

The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

 

[Island_Oak]

How is this situation distinguishable from the situation involving an etopic pregnancy? Yes, there is the openness to life in one case, but here the very openness to life IS the threat. For etopic pregnanacy the church allows the removal of a fertilized ovum since there is significant risk to the health of the mother and no chance that the child would grow and survive. What’s the difference here if this woman were to have her life threatened by another pregnancy? NFP can be very reliable and predictable for most, but is there really no concession for the exceptional case?

I find it really hard to swallow that the church would impose that kind of risk on either marriage partner and justify it with the suggestion that openness to life is the greater good being served. This is especially true given that the couple is responsible for children already born. I am aware that exceptions to contraception/sterilization have been granted by church officials in such situations. I think that given the sincerity of this couple’s desire to be consistent with church teachings and the serious nature of the health condition involved, this is something they should explore–at higher levels than just the parish priest, if necessary.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

How is this situation distinguishable from the situation involving an etopic pregnancy? Yes, there is the openness to life in one case, but here the very openness to life IS the threat. For etopic pregnanacy the church allows the removal of a fertilized ovum since there is significant risk to the health of the mother and no chance that the child would grow and survive. What’s the difference here if this woman were to have her life threatened by another pregnancy? NFP can be very reliable and predictable for most, but is there really no concession for the exceptional case?

I find it really hard to swallow that the church would impose that kind of risk on either marriage partner and justify it with the suggestion that openness to life is the greater good being served. This is especially true given that the couple is responsible for children already born. I am aware that exceptions to contraception/sterilization have been granted by church officials in such situations. I think that given the sincerity of this couple’s desire to be consistent with church teachings and the serious nature of the health condition involved, this is something they should explore–at higher levels than just the parish priest, if necessary.

For years I have heard of renegade priests claiming they have the authority to “dispense” a couple from the prohibition of ABC. Often they claim recourse to the so called internal forum. Never have I seen proof anyone can be dipensed from an intrinsic evil. Please provide proof that is possible. I have waited for many years for such proof. There is none.

 

[Vincent]

Island Oak:

For etopic pregnanacy the church allows the removal of a fertilized ovum since there is significant risk to the health of the mother and no chance that the child would grow and survive.

Such an operation doesn’t involve an ethical breach; the child dies as an unintended side effect.

The Church’s teaching on openness to life is placed within the context of responsible parenthood. The Church doesn’t order couples to have as many children as biologically possible. For just reasons, they may space births, even indefinitely. But that doesn’t mean that “anything goes”. To give an example, direct abortion as a means of birth control is totally unjustifiable.

 

[Island_Oak]

You have re-stated the rule for the masses, which I am not taking issue with. I am asking/wondering/proposing that there must be exception available when it is demonstrated that there is legitimate, serious medical risk to helath/life of the mother coupled with a sincere desire to stay in union with the church.

 

[mercygate]

Island Oak:

You have re-stated the rule for the masses, which I am not taking issue with. I am asking/wondering/proposing that there must be exception available when it is demonstrated that there is legitimate, serious medical risk to helath/life of the mother coupled with a sincere desire to stay in union with the church.

Island Oak, this is a subject that seems to interest and provoke you and about which your disposition is moderately hostile. Have you read Christopher West’s book yet? Please start there before raising unnecessary dust.

 

[StephiePea]

Your wife is in the same boat as many other women, but this does not justify the use of artificial birth control. NFP can work if you and your spouse become educated in how it works. And this is a time to trust God with your wife’s condition. Pray that whether she gets pregnant again or not that she will be safe and healthy. Children are a blessing, and your wife will be extra blessed because of the danger she faced and still obeyed God. Good luck and God bless you both.

 

[Island_Oak]

mercygate:

Island Oak, this is a subject that seems to interest and provoke you and about which your disposition is moderately hostile. Have you read Christopher West’s book yet? Please start there before raising unnecessary dust.

Please explain how anything I have written here could be taken as anything but a sincere, respectful exploration of this issue or where I have directed hostility towards anyone? I thought the point of these forums was to provide the faithful with a safe, Catholic-based environment to work through real-life issues The topic raised in this thread is a tough reality for someone out there, not simply my own creation for the sake of raising “unnecessary dust.”

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

For years I have heard of renegade priests claiming they have the authority to “dispense” a couple from the prohibition of ABC. Often they claim recourse to the so called internal forum. Never have I seen proof anyone can be dipensed from an intrinsic evil. Please provide proof that is possible. I have waited for many years for such proof. There is none.

I’m sorry I can’t help you. I guess I’m looking for the same information. I, too have heard that it is/has been granted but am not aware if it is just a “renegade priest” or some higher authority.

 

[fix]

There is no exception. ABC may never be done in the context of the marital act. Many priests have received poor formation in the seminary. Some are just disobedient. It would be like getting a dispensation to have an abortion. It cannot be done licitly. I think it is given all the time, but that is very wrong. It places at risk the soul of the person doing it and the priest who tells them it is ok to do.

 

[felra]

Island Oak:

How is this situation distinguishable from the situation involving an etopic pregnancy? Yes, there is the openness to life in one case, but here the very openness to life IS the threat. For etopic pregnanacy the church allows the removal of a fertilized ovum since there is significant risk to the health of the mother and no chance that the child would grow and survive. What’s the difference here if this woman were to have her life threatened by another pregnancy? NFP can be very reliable and predictable for most, but is there really no concession for the exceptional case?

I find it really hard to swallow that the church would impose that kind of risk on either marriage partner and justify it with the suggestion that openness to life is the greater good being served. This is especially true given that the couple is responsible for children already born.** I am aware that exceptions to contraception/sterilization have been granted by church officials in such situations.** I think that given the sincerity of this couple’s desire to be consistent with church teachings and the serious nature of the health condition involved, this is something they should explore–at higher levels than just the parish priest, if necessary.

You are looking for “medical exception” loophole …that simply does not exist. It takes some time to come to terms with the reality and loving demand of authentic Church teaching. The Church does not “impose” any risk on the couple; the couple have incurred a medical risk of future conception. Any so called “exceptions” granted by “church officials” is simply a fallacy and blatant dissent. A person can always shop around and eventually behind closed doors find a “compassionate” priest/religious who will offer a “pastoral soution” to introduce contraceptive means for the sake of …

This is what the Church officially teaches:

“an evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself . . . one may not do evil that good may result from it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1755-1756)

“On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” (Humanae Vitae)

“. . .the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children . . . Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” (Humanae Vitae)
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

 

[fix]

felra:

You are looking for “medical exception” loophole …that simply does not exist. It takes some time to come to terms with the reality and loving demand of authentic Church teaching. The Church does not “impose” any risk on the couple; the couple have incurred a medical risk of future conception. Any so called “exceptions” granted by “church officials” is simply a fallacy and blatant dissent. A person can always shop around and eventually behind closed doors find a “compassionate” priest/religious who will offer a “pastoral soution” to introduce contraceptive means for the sake of …

This is what the Church officially teaches:

“an evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself . . . one may not do evil that good may result from it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1755-1756)

“On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” (Humanae Vitae)

“. . .the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children . . . Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” (Humanae Vitae)
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

Very good post. Many of us have crosses and find ourselves in very hard situations. What I find interesting is that we all want to find a loop hole when it comes to gender or sexuality. It seems these areas are the ones where words like pastoral and compassion are misused so often.

 

[Vincent]

One thing needs to be kept in mind: the Church doesn’t impose these rules. That contraception is intrinsically evil is based on what we are. For that reason, there are no exceptions.

 

[mercygate]

Island Oak:

Please explain how anything I have written here could be taken as anything but a sincere, respectful exploration of this issue or where I have directed hostility towards anyone? I thought the point of these forums was to provide the faithful with a safe, Catholic-based environment to work through real-life issues The topic raised in this thread is a tough reality for someone out there, not simply my own creation for the sake of raising “unnecessary dust.”

My apologies. But the question is answered in West’s book, which came up on a thread you participated in elsewhere. Sorry.