Birth control for very serious reasons

  • Thread starter Thread starter josea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear MamaGeek,

My wife and I have not made any decision. We have used the NFP before to space birth between our three children for other reasons. Now we are having sex only before and immediately after the menstruation to be sure.

I am catholic and I want to do what the Church says. But I have also to understand it. And it seems to me that I understand quite a deal of catholic matters but this one. Why?

My wife has had already two “placenta abruptio” a weird problem happening normally only once to a woman. The doctors said (some even member of Opus Dei) she can not put herself at risk of a next pregnancy. A “placenta abruptio” does not kill only the child; it can also kill the mother in less than 10 hours.

So it is logical that we want to be sure that this does not happen again. After hearing different opinions from different priests we have a “big headache” so I decided to ask the Bishop of my diocese about this issue. I imagine the answer. And so will we act.

Regards,

Jose
 
"Pray that whether she gets pregnant again or not that she will be safe and healthy"

Good advice! Many fear using NFP when the doctor tells them pregnancy should be avoided. Of course there may be a chance of pregnancy whether NFP or ABC is used, yet many women have had successful unexpected pregnancies after being told pregnancy would be risky, myself included. We shouldn’t place more faith in our doctors than in God, after all. I realize at times this is easier said than done. I do not recommend total abstinence (as this may lead to serious sin) and abc is not an option, so NFP is the way to go.
 
… even against the almost common agreement (30 to 5 votes) within the Papal Commission on Birth Control consulted before the HV.
Click to expand...
If votes had anything to do with orthodoxy of doctrine, then Athanasius would have been Arian. :rolleyes:

Here’s a wrinkle for you …

I dont’ believe contraception is instrinsically evil. I don’t believe that is what Humanae Vitae teaches. For example, contraception is licit, according to the Church, in preventing conception for women who are victims of rape. If the act of using spermacides to kill sperm such that conception does not occur is licit for rape victims, then such an act cannot be intrinsically evil.

Nonetheless, it is evil for married couples to render marital conjugal acts non-procreative. Thus says the Church, and for Catholics, what the Church teaches either solemnly (infallible) or in her ordinary teaching the following words from Jesus is true: “He who hears you, hears me.”

You’re in my prayers.
 
Observing the Natural Law
  1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)…
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

H.V.
 
CCC:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."160
 
40.png
josea:
Now we are having sex only before and immediately after the menstruation to be sure.
Click to expand...
Jose - If you are not monitoring the signs of ovulation, please remember that immediately after menstruation is not carved in stone as a non-fertile time. With the serious health issues, educating yourselves how to monitor for fertility would seem very important.

Praying for you - Kage
 
40.png
josea:
How can be an “intrinsic evil” be demonstrated that it is so? For me it is very clear in the rest of **cases **issued by the commandments and the basic natural law, but very difficult to see in the case of contraception due to serious reasons.
Somebody told me before that I have not fairly heard all intelectual reasons to have a fair thinking about this issue. I just have to look at the amount of various opinions among different catholic theologians, pristers and orders to see that it is not so easy to achive and “intelectual and reasonable” reason for the situation created in the Church regarding this issue.

There is a page that explains this better than me:

http://members.aol.com/revising/download/site.html

What do you think?

Regards,

Jose
Click to expand...
What I think really does not matter in matters of faith and morals…what matters is what the Church declares as definitive in matters of faith and morals. Intrinsic evil is not determined in case by case situations, this is relativism. The natural law basis for intrinsic evil is derived by the absolutism that is God the Creator.
Birth Control and the Catholic Church
A Divisive Teaching in Need of Revision

Above is the heading for the web page that you posted to better explain dissident opinions…nah, no need to read further, the title says it all. I believe it all comes down to what you are sincerely looking for. Perhaps some prayer, time before the blessed sacrament to have the Holy Spirit impress upon you what is in the best interest of your marriage. Otherwise, you may be finding yourself suffering from the itchy ear syndrone, of seeking out the latest “teacher” theologian, etc, to confirm what you actually desire.
 
Fix,

I agree that in the context of conjugal unions, contraception is intrinsically evil. However, the example I gave, that of rape, is not within the context of conjugal union, and in such cases, the use of contraception is not evil.
 
Artificial Birthcontrol is intrinsically evil. It blocks the creation of a human soul by God.

You are denying that human soul the mercy of God. You are taking on a role of Gods here. Mercy and judgement are both characteristics that belong to God. You are taking that and you are judging whether a person is worth being allowed to live.

Capital Punishment and Birth control are two different issues. In capital punishment it is the execution of a person who is a danger to other people because of his evil acts.

In birth control it is the prevention of a life that is innocent of all actual sin. This person you are preventing was meant to be concieved by God but you are preventing his action, hence going against him.

You are making two comparisons of importance. The first one is between two lifes, whether you realize it or not. You are comparing the importance of your wifes life and a baby’ life. You are also making another comparison between the importance of your sexual relations and the life of a child. It would be better to abstain than to prevent the life of a child.

This teaching has been constant since the time of Christ. You can read, the epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius and you can see it. You can also read people like Irenaeus and Chrysostom. Perhaps the greatest defenders of the Catholic belief were Augustine and Chrysostom. Here is a quote from Chrysostom.
Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it;** for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.** What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (*Homilies on Romans *24 [A.D. 391]).
Click to expand...
 
Yes, any site that claims an eternal truth needs to be changed is not Catholic. Our Church has many dissenters. They try to lead others atray. It is a shame, but today we are blessed with technology. We have access to the truth. That also means we are under a greater obligation than ever before. We have few excuses not to learn what is expected of us.
 
Josea,

I think your current method is risky. I highly recommend the sympto-thermal method, which has a 99-100% success rate. The Couple-to-couple league can educate you on this method: ccli.org
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Fix,

I agree that in the context of conjugal unions, contraception is intrinsically evil. However, the example I gave, that of rape, is not within the context of conjugal union, and in such cases, the use of contraception is not evil.
Click to expand...
We are in total agreement.
 
40.png
josea:
I am catholic and I want to do what the Church says. But I have also to understand it. And it seems to me that I understand quite a deal of catholic matters but this one. Why?

Jose
Click to expand...
Perhaps because you are trying too hard, too fast to understand and grasp this Church teaching which suddenly has become extremely challenging and difficult to continue to live by, no longer a convenient byline application of Catholic teaching. Give yourself some time, but, please for sake of your marriage (and soul), don’t be rash, resist taking the easy, consensus way out. Allow the Holy Spirit to work on your understanding and acceptance of what is true. Consider fasting and prayer to know what is most honoring to your bride and your marriage. God will give you the grace to know, the grace to do His holy will for your marriage, whatever the Cross. God bless.
 
Thanks for all your support and advices. I really appreciate it.

I have a short question regarding the same issue.

I have recently heard how some catholic people are dealing with this. The idea is to avoid pregnancy using a mixture of NFP and the pill. This is the case of a friend of mine that had the 6th baby (she did not want it) by using the NPF. She had problems with double ovulation and an irregular cycle. So she was advised (by Opus Dei priests and doctors) to take the pill to regulate her menstruation allowing one ovulation to occur and use a security window of abstinence covering the ovulation time as follows:

She would take the pill the 16th day of her cycle until the 26th, then leave it to get the menstruation (day 28, 4 days bleeding) and apply a window from day 9 to day 18 where she abstains.

By doing this, she corrects the beginning of her menstruation assuring one ovulation to occur and avoiding extra ovulations and the risks of getting pregnant using only NFP.

This is the first time I heard about this method. And I have three questions:
  1. Is it allowed? To me it seems that regulating the menstruation and avoiding extra ovulations to occur using the pill could also be considered “intrinsically evil”. What is the difference strictly speaking from the “natural law” point of view between cycles with one or two ovulations? Both cases are wanted by God and trying to reduce the number of ovulations chemically looks to me the same than trying to avoid the “normal” one. I know what you can tell me about the double effect. One tries to regulate the menstruation and then the consequence is that she gets rid of extra ovulations. But this looks to me as a fallacious explanation. The original intention is to have a constant menstruation time and to get rid by doing this of extra ovulations using the pill.
  2. Why did I learn this just by chance? I have no found this combination of using a pill for medical reasons and NFP anywhere before.
  3. If this is licit, we are dealing with a very very complicated moral and I do not think that neither God (neither the Church) can make things so complicated for the people who want to follow him. Could this really be so?
Regards,

Jose
 
She had problems with double ovulation and an irregular cycle.
Click to expand...
The sympto-thermal method accounts for double ovulation and irregular cycle. She probably wasn’t carefully monitoring her temperatures and other symptoms. The only way, in my opinion, when the sympto-thermal method fails, is because of a failure to actually follow the method.

My wife also has irregular cycles and double ovulation, and the sympto-thermal method works to determine when this occurs.

Let me think about the rest of your post.
 
Sorry in my last post I made a mistake I said:

“She would take the pill the 16th day of her cycle until the 26th, then leave it to get the menstruation (day 28, 4 days bleeding) and apply a window from day 9 to day 18 where she abstains.”

It should say:

She would take the pill the 16th day of her cycle until the 26th, then leave it to get the menstruation (day 28, 4 days bleeding) and apply a window until day 18 where she abstains.
 
Jose,
How educated are you about NFP and a woman’s cycle in general? How would you rate your wife’s knowledge of her body and fertility signals?

If being used correctly, a double ovulation would be crystal clear on an NFP chart. Irregular cycles would be the same.

This method takes time, education, persistence and diligence. It takes a person who is willing to chart and to learn about their body.

I see you choosing between two dangerous options right now: 1. Having sex before or after her period (which is why I asked how educated she was about fertility in general, because she should know that this is far from foolproof, and has a high chance of resulting in pregnancy statistically speaking), or 2. Contraception.

I won’t argue about intrinsic evils because, quite frankly, the others know a lot more about it than I do, but I will encourage you to make an INFORMED DECISION.

That means educating yourself on exactly what is entailed in following a woman’s fertility signals and how pregnancy is prevented/achieved. It is so much more than cervical mucus and body temperature. I was surprised and amazed at what a complex system it really is.

When you are informed and know what you would be choosing from, then make your decision accordingly. Right now, you are choosing between incorrect information regarding contraception (namely that it is not an abortifacient) and incorrect information regarding NFP (namely that it is ineffective).

I read a really good book on fertility called “Taking Charge of Your Fertility” by Toni Weschler. She is not a Catholic author but I loved her book because the illustrations and photographs were so clear that it really simplified the whole process.

Carrie
 
40.png
josea:
I do not konw of anybod ygetting pregnant taking the pill and many, many cases close to me of getting pregnant using naturla methods. There is a clear difference.

Please, get informed, the pill is not abortive, it blocks ovulation, nothing else, and if you mean that in the rare case of fecundation the pill could induce an abortion because the body is not ready to receive the fecundate oocite, it should moraly be seen as a secundary effect, using the same method you do to argue about this issues.

It is a bit strange: you are allowed to use an “intrinsic evil” mean for other reasons as cycle control or therapy… and then the anticonceptive effect is the secondary one…although the mean you use to cure is “intrinsic evil”.(???)
Sorry but this kind of things reminds me the complicated rounds abouts of the pharisees.
Are we not constructing the same type of moral?
Again, I am not sure Jesus forbides directly the use of artificial methods as some posted here. Who told you that?
Anyways… serviam!
Click to expand...
The pill is most certainly abortive. You need to get yourself informed. Some pills only abort. That is what they do. Also, the Pill imposes many other dangerous side effects such as blood clots that can kill the women taking them. The Church doesn’t allow the use of the Pill for any reason…so there is no contradiction here as you are implying. I think you are talking of things you know very little about. Jesus does forbid artificial birth control because the Church forbids it, and the authority given to the church came from Christ himself.
And yes, people can get pregnant on the pill. It has happened to my sister-in-law, and a girl I go to med. school with. It is only 95-98% effective, and NFP has similar percentages.
 
One thing that comes to mind is the following teaching from Humanae Vitae:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11***) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will***, it is foreseen to be infertile.
Click to expand...
My question would be this: Using NFP and the pill together, is the infertile period really and truly “independent of their will”? If not, than there really is no NFP. The “N” in NFP I think demands that the infertile period cannot be willfully rendered by human actions.

Non-procreative sex during natural infertility periods is clearly not immoral. It doesn’t seem to be clear to me that the Church approves of any human actions which intentionally renders either the man or woman infertile, even temporarily, for the purposes of non-procreative conjugal union.
 
40.png
carrieloon:
Right now, you are choosing between incorrect information regarding contraception (namely that it is not an abortifacient) and incorrect information regarding NFP (namely that it is ineffective).
Click to expand...
Carrie,

As far as I know and been informed (I am biologist) the actual pill impairs ovulation. Yes, an abortion would theoretically occurs in the remote case of fecundation, becuase the body is not prepared to receive a fecundated oocyte. But I would like to see statistics before we happily say this pill fails so often in preventing ovulation. In any case, the “putative” abortion case, that I doubt it would ocurr, would be a secondary unwanted effect.

How good are we informed about NFP? As good as a normal christian out there: very little. We were using the basal temperature method before and you shoud see the temperature charts of my wife! (even following all the advises) Remember we have three children, my wife works and it is very difficult to have a nice text-book temperature curve. My sister has the same problem with the basal temperature method. We also tried the Billings but my wife had also many problems with infections that impairs the normal observation of the mucus. So is this.
Now we are trying to contact some people here in Germany (yes we are in Europe) that I know by chance are teaching NFP. But as a normal christian we did not find the place where to get help so far.

But apart from that there is a big issue here that nobody wants to admit and I hear again and again:
Theoretically the NFP is a very secure method but only theoretically, the chances of making a mistake using NFP practically are way biger than using let’s say the pill and a condom at the same time. This is not an argument.

Regards,
Jose
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top