Birth control for very serious reasons

[puzzleannie]

the very good point you have made is that you don’t ask specific questions about applying moral teachings to the particular circumstances of your life, which only you can know, on a general discussion forum like this. “the book” gives the objective moral teaching but cannot apply it to each and every circumstance. that is where judgment and informed conscience comes in, and that is where you consult the priest or bishop. If you trust him, then trust his advice and don’t worry about it. get your spiritual and pastor direction from your pastor (the bishop) and don’t second guess it, or ask others to. thanks for sharing this discussion with us. If anybody here gets judgemental, please forgive us if we overstep the bounds of charity in our zeal for preaching the truth, and rely on your pastor to help with your individual situation.

 

[felra]

josea:

I decided to go to “higher level than just the parish priests” and forums about theology: I asked my Bishop for an audience. We explained the Bishop our problem and he said that in our case, the use of hormone treatment to prevent a pregnancy is legitimated based on therapeutical reasons. I was so surprised …he told me: “as authority of the Church I can interpret the magisterial teachings, be quiet you are not doing “intrinsically evil“ in this case. Jose

Jose,

Felra here, the fellow forum Catholic who as I stated in my original post to you this thread informed you that my family situation basically mimics yours; and my wife likewise faces life threatening risk should she become pregnant with another child. I feel compelled to give you some honest feedback since I am in the same boat and have extensively sought understanding of my situation as a good Catholic.

I must state emphatically that based your medical facts presented, there is no medical exception for “therapeutic reasons” in you situation --“my wife has no regular cycles” – that allow for the licit use of contractive means to limit future pregnancy.

“On the other hand, the Church does not at all consider illicit the use of therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.”(Humanae Vitae). By medical definition of disease, “no regular cycles”, is not a disease of the organism. Secondly, the use of contraceptive means (the pill in your case**) is not a** **curative therapeutic means **in your wife’s situation; it is an attempt to temporarily manipulate and achieve greater regulation of menstrual cycle in service on limiting/preventing future pregnancies.

It can very difficult to objectively determine the morality of what your wife’s doctor tells is necessary to protect our own spouse’s health/life, especially when the alternative requires a great deal of faith and self-sacrifice. But, a simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is **no, **then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral.

As for your professor of dogmatic theology Bishop, his statement “as authority of the Church** I can interpret the magisterial teachings**”, he overstepped the boundaries of his priestly ordination vows “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything that is proposed by the Church definitively regarding teaching on faith and morals”. This is what his boss John Paul II has to say to him: “It is absolutely necessary that the pastoral action of Christian communities to be totally faithful to the teachings of the encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. It would be grave error to set up pastoral requirements in opposition to doctrinal teaching, since the very first service that the Church must perform for people is to tell them the truth of which she is neither the author nor the master” (Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1983); i.e., your Bishop does not have the authority to interpret magisterial teaching based on each “special case” when no ambiguity exists.

Instead of being sooooo relieved, I would first seek an audience with the Pope, before resting easy on this Bishop’s interpretation of definitive and clear Church teaching. Taking up our Cross in true discipleship to Christ really is a life wager; “we do not at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons; for them and everyone else, ‘the gate is narrow and way is hard, that leads to life”, [Matt 7: 14] (Humanae Vitae).

God bless.

 

[felra]

puzzleannie:

…that is where judgment and informed conscience comes in, and that is where you consult the priest or bishop. If you trust him, then trust his advice and don’t worry about it. get your spiritual and pastor direction from your pastor (the bishop) and don’t second guess it, or ask others to. thanks for sharing this discussion with us. If anybody here gets judgemental… and rely on your pastor to help with your individual situation.

To decode this: informed conscience, should mean well-formed conscience; trust him does not always equate to trustful advice (you know, dissent, poor seminary training, those notorious “pastoral solutions” behind closed doors); **don’t second guess it, or ask others, equals abdicate self responsibility, or dont’ ask, don’t tell **appraoch to situational ethics/morality, etc.

 

[josea]

Dear felra,

I think you are going to far when you say:

felra:
As for your professor of dogmatic theology Bishop, his statement “as authority of the Church** I can interpret the magisterial teachings**”, he overstepped the boundaries of his priestly ordination vows “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything that is proposed by the Church definitively regarding teaching on faith and morals”. This is what his boss John Paul II has to say to him: “It is absolutely necessary that the pastoral action of Christian communities to be totally faithful to the teachings of the encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. It would be grave error to set up pastoral requirements in opposition to doctrinal teaching, since the very first service that the Church must perform for people is to tell them the truth of which she is neither the author nor the master” (Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1983); i.e., your Bishop does not have the authority to interpret magisterial teaching based on each “special case” when no ambiguity exists.

Instead of being sooooo relieved, I would first seek an audience with the Pope, before resting easy on this Bishop’s interpretation of definitive and clear Church teaching.

Our case is very simple: next pregnancy could be death for my wife.

I did what in conscience I thought was necessary due to the different opinions I heard about this. I appealed to the authority of the Church that in this case is my Bishop. And, as other priests already told me, he did not hesitate to consider our case as a medical problem and therefore considered the use of ABC as licit. What the Bishop is saying is that taking hormone treatment to prevent a pregnancy is legitimated because therapeutics is not only meant to cure illnesses but also to prevent them. A pregnancy is not an illness, I know, but is a condition that can threaten life and it can be seen as a medical problem that should be prevented. The example is clear although not exactly the same: if you have an organ or a member that can be the cause of your death you can extirpate it without been considered an act of mutilation. Yes, in the case of serious risk for the life of the woman abstention from sex is an option (apart from NFP methods that we were using before and we would use in other case). When I argued that one could abstain from sex he said that, it could be an option but that one should not necessarily give up the unitive aspect of the marriage because of a medical problem. And this is what I take as a very wise advice from a good pastor. That is what I consider interpretation of the magisterial teachings. You might see it from a different point of view but, if the Church has already allowed the same solution for the same cases, it might not be so heretical after all. Anyways, I miss a clear agreement and doctrine about this particular case. I am not going to seek an audience with the Pope, but I am going to rest easy, as I said before, because even in the case that the Bishop was wrong (that I doubt) we would not be condemn for using ABC in our case. I do not want to get crazy.

My best regards and I think, in the future, you should be a bit more respectful with the authority: I mean, if you do not agree because your interpretation is different, just accept that YOU might be wrong and not the successors of the Apostles. Whom should I trust after all?

Jose

 

[CatholicMatthew]

itsjustdave1988:

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.

In this case the use of a contraceptive is seen as repelling (self-defense against an unjust outside invader. However, nothing that can cause abortus conceptus can be used as that would go after innocent human life.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[felra]

josea:

Our case is very simple: next pregnancy could be death for my wife…I did what in conscience I thought was necessary due to the different opinions I heard about this. I appealed to the authority of the Church that in this case is my Bishop… And this is what I take as a very wise advice from a good pastor. That is what I consider interpretation of the magisterial teachings.
Whom should I trust after all? Jose

*A simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is **no, **then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. >>>>>*This statement may present as too simple for some people to accept, but it is makes the seemingly oblique quite clear and is wholly consonant with Catholic moral theology as found in Humanae Vitae.

Jose,

I commend you as a fellow brother in Christ on your extent of effort to form and inform your conscience. However, your contentions (and yes, those of the bishop and priest representatives that you consulted) and conclusions are flawed, incorrect; see my above* italics* statement. “Our case is very simple: next pregnancy could be death for my wife” >>>>> This is your stated contention for the licit use of introducing contraceptive means/drug into your marital union. This does not hold any water when Catholic moral theology is properly understood and applied.

You make the quantum leap of redefining pregnancy (in your “special case”) from an intrinsic *procreative good *of marriage to a life threatening condition that is “seen as a medical problem that should be prevented”. In this revised (and grossly flawed) understanding of pregnancy, you open the door to assail the procreative good that is intrinsically and always good. The fecundity, reproductive potential of conjugal love is not even remotely even analogous to a bodily “organ” or “member” that you can “extirpate” or chemically/surgically treat in an amoral fashion. Properly understood, the procreative function/potential of the marriage covenant is “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter ……It aims at a deep personal unity ……and it is open to fertility” (CCC 1643), and “Sexuality, ……is not something simply biological, but concerns the inmost being of the person as such” (CCC 2361).

Plainly stated, the procreative function/capacity is not a medical problem (condition) that necessitates or requires therapeutic intervention; to attempt to do so directly or otherwise for the sole/primary purpose of preventing/limiting future pregnancy is immoral; i.e., it is immoral to act directly against a basic human good. The procreative good is of its very nature always good. I see that you (and the Bishop) try to redefine pregnancy as a “medical problem” and call contraceptive means “therapeutics” to prevent this potential “medical problem”; this is amazingly flawed/distorted logic. “In the contraceptive act, one freely and deliberately chooses to attack a great human good. The motive for this act may be upright; one may wish to avoid for oneself and others the harms that would be inseparable from the untimely realization of that good. But there are many ways in which those harms could be avoided, some good and some evil”, (**Catholic Sexual Ethics,Updated, p. 162, Lawler, Boyle, and May, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Our Sunday Visitor, 1996). As the American bishops have noted, to prevent an act of intercourse from being procreative is a rejection of the “life-giving meaning of intercourse”; and “the wrongness of such an act lies in the rejection of this value”, (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, To Live In Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Reflection on the Moral Life, [Washington, D, C.: U. S. Catholic Conference, 1976], p. 18). Again, “On the other hand, the Church does not at all consider illicit the use of therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.”(Humanae Vitae).

 

[felra]

(cont)

You (and the Bishop) are advancing a line of reasoning by revisionist theologians called the “Preference” Principle or Principle of “Proportionate Good”, which supports the denial of the truth of moral absolutes basic to moral theology. They apply a principle of totality whereby that some hoped-for-good-to-come-about can justify the deliberate intention to act directly against a good here and now. They label acts of contraception as “premoral”. They have attempted to extend the principle of totality to justify contraceptive drug/procedures to prevent a future pregnancy that may be hazardous to the life of the mother, and thus will contribute to the total well-being of the person and to their family (see *An Introduction to Moral Theology, *May, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Our Sunday Visitor, 1994 for a more thorough read on the flaws of revisionist theologians). “As Paul IV made clear in *Humanae Vitae, *no. 14, the proposal to evaluate actions directed toward *premoral *goods by the proportionalist principle of the lesser evil does not avoid the inconsistency between proportionalism and the received moral teaching of the Church on the meaning of the principle that the end does not justify the means” and “To allow contraception one must deny that procreation is a good, or assert that it is sometimes permissible to act directly against basic human good”, (**, p162-163). “*It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow there from”(Humanae Vitae). *
I hope that this information that I present (not mine or my interpretation) gives you pause to reconsider your options. “Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and god and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it. Conscience enables one to assume *responsibility *for the acts performed. ” (CCC 1787, 1789, 1781).

“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious.” – Abp. Fulton J. Sheen before the Knights of Columbus in June 1972.

God bless.

Felra

 

[josea]

Dear Felra,

In Mark 9:43ff Jesus said more or less:

If the hand, foot, or eye causes you to sin to cut the hand or foot off or pluck the eye out.

I know that we do not have to take this literarily but, first sight, it looks like proportionalism, doesn’t it?

Would Jesus make such a speech allowing to be misunderstood when, even in a figurative manner, recommends to do “intrinsically evil” in order to achieve a higher superior good or to avoid a worse bad thing as a sin?

No, the idea that procreation is an “absolute good” and that it can not be touched by any reason in any ways does not seem logic to me.

Regards,

Jose

 

[formercatholic]

Dear Jose,

How blest you are to have the choice before you of being able to keep your loving wife and mother of your children by simply abstaining from sex, for her!

My wife is an adulterer who stole our children from me and my family and whom I must pay, to subsidize her adultery and to turn our children against me and love her adulterous partner. Yet, as our marriage is a Sacrament and I will never stop loving the woman I married, I must be faithful to OUR promises to each other, to our children, to society and to God. For these, I gladly remain faithful to our promises.

What hurts me is that the Catholic Church told her to divorce me, seek an annulment, civilly marry her lover and to continue to punish me, for what I never did. Just because I am human and not perfect; in spite of declaring our marriage to be a Sacrament.

So, Jose. You are a lucky man. Not really lucky, just blessed.
So is your wife. So are your children.

Fill you life with them, my friend and God bless you.

 

[felra]

josea:

Dear Felra,
In Mark 9:43ff Jesus said more or less:
If the hand, foot, or eye causes you to sin to cut the hand or foot off or pluck the eye out.
I know that we do not have to take this literarily but, first sight, it looks like proportionalism, doesn’t it?
Would Jesus make such a speech allowing to be misunderstood when, even in a figurative manner, recommends to do “intrinsically evil” in order to achieve a higher superior good or to avoid a worse bad thing as a sin?
No, the idea that procreation is an “absolute good” and that it can not be touched by any reason in any ways does not seem logic to me.
Regards,
Jose

Here is the actual verses in their entirety:

Mark** Chapter 9**

42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, 10 into the unquenchable fire.

44 11 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,

48 where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

49 12 "Everyone will be salted with fire.

50 Salt is good, but if salt becomes insipid, with what will you restore its flavor? Keep salt in yourselves and you will have peace with one another."

To put this verse into context, Jesus is warning those who persist in their sinful behavior/habits (ex, contraceptive intercourse) of the severity that they need to break with sin at the risk of jeopardizing their salvation. Also, especially warning those of influence/entrustment over others of the great peril they face if they cause them to sin (ex, dissident bishops & clergy).

I refer your statement "No, the idea that procreation is an “absolute good” and that it can not be touched by any reason in any ways does not seem logic to me", to your earlier statement of how to give assent when one’s personal interpretation/understanding conflicts with the authority vested in the Church magesterium: “My best regards and I think, in the future, you should be a bit more respectful with the authority: I mean, if you do not agree because your interpretation is different, just accept that YOU might be wrong and not the successors of the Apostles. Whom should I trust after all?”.

Somehow all this discussion (and your other thread discussions on this topic) does not seem to be arriving you at a greater assent and acceptance of the truth and teaching authority of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morality.

Here is a scripture back at you to likewise consider:

2 Timothy Chapter 4

3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,
will accumulate teachers
4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

God bless.

 

[josea]

Dear Felra,

Thnaks for your advices. I try only to understand. You know, as well as I know that what I think or I understand is not important here. Do not take me wrong. We still use NFP methods and we intend to do it as long as we can. But that does not mean I should not try to understand why. I accept the teachings of the Church although, seriously, I do not understand them in this case.
I hope God bring peace to our hearts and forgive and help the ones that do not see everything so clear as you do.
Regards,
Jose

 

[josea]

And my last question to you, felra,
If we go on using NFP and we make a mistake interpreting charts and mucus and my wife dies as a consequence, would that be the will of God?
Regards,
Jose

 

[felra]

josea:

And my last question to you, felra,
If we go on using NFP and we make a mistake interpreting charts and mucus and my wife dies as a consequence, would that be the will of God?
Regards,
Jose

It really does require of us faith and childlike mature trust in God to walk faithfully with Him. Some would call it “heroic virtue”, the stuff of the saints, to take up this Cross and walk the narrow way that leads to life. A friend of mine suggested that I unit my suffering and uncertainty to Christ’s in the garden of Gethsemane. Even Christ Himself begged God to take the cup of suffering away from Him. Hew knows your fears and pain and He can give you the graces necessary to carry this cross and be obedient to the Father’s will. All you have to do is ask. Again, the only 100% guarantee against future pregnancy is abstinence or removal or ovaries or castration. Check out previous posts this thread for NFP training/support resources.

No, God’s will is not that your wife die from complications associated with a future pregnancy. But, because we live in a fallen, imperfect world, He does allow/permit bad things to happen to good people trying to do His will. That is a mystery for theologians and philosophers to discuss. Keeping the eternal perspective helps to put our short journey through life in perspective.

God bless.

2823"He has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ. . . to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will."98 We ask insistently for this loving plan to be fully realized on earth as it is already in heaven. (CCC)

2826 By prayer we can discern “what is the will of God” and obtain the endurance to do it.108 Jesus teaches us that one enters the kingdom of heaven not by speaking words, but by doing "the will of my Father in heaven."109 (CCC)

2827 "If any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him."110 Such is the power of the Church’s prayer in the name of her Lord, above all in the Eucharist. Her prayer is also a communion of intercession with the all-holy Mother of God111 and all the saints who have been pleasing to the Lord because they willed his will alone. (CCC)

 

[Vincent]

While you might die as a result of having sex, you will not die from not having sex.

 

[KCT]

The Anglicans were the first denomination to allow abc- within marriage and for serious reasons. Look where that led. —KCT

 

[manualman]

Yo soy mucho CONFUSED!

What your bishop has said sure seems contrary to what I’ve been taught all my life. Unless there are issues here not clearly spoken. Does your wife’s odd cycle include other problematic symptoms besides difficulty in fertiity prediction? Heavy cramps, unsafe bleeding severity, etc? I could see a prescription of hormonal treatment for those symptoms that might have the side effect of ‘regularizing’ the cycle. But using a pill to force a more ordered cycle purely for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy sure sounds like ABC to me.

I will not presume to over-rule your bishop, but I WOULD advise you to continue to pray about a few hazards. Presuming your bishop has identified some aspect unique to your case, you still must take positive steps to ensure that your married sex life is well ordered. ABC is not a sin just for the sake of making it so. It is wrong because it divorces the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative. In other words it takes an act of married giving and turns it into an act of taking. You will need to be very careful not to allow modern western culture not to steal the gift of your married sexuality away.

You mentioned using the Billing Method. We do too. But your later statement about limiting intercourse to just before and after menstruation indicates you are behaving in a risky manner. My wife has manifested fertile mucus sometimes just a day or two after bleeding ended. I hope she is checking for mucus in those times just after. Did you receive training in the Billing method, or just read a book? Does distaste for the checking interfere with the mucus checks? Was she careful to check before every urination? Surely during time she has an infection it is a moot point anyways? Perhaps the people we know are just lucky, but this has been a very effective (if at first yucky) method of fertility monitoring.

You have been given a heavy burden. I pray you may bear it as our Lord intends. God bless.

 

[Seatuck]

Josea,
And if your wife dies from a blood clot or stroke or some other complication of the pill will that make you feel better than if she died from childbirth? Of course I think your answer will be no. The pill is not a safe medicine. There are many side effects. Also one of its mechanisms is to make the lining of the uterus inhospitable for implantation of a fertilized embyro - otherwise known as the baby.This is called being an abortion.The published reports vary on how often this action of the pill actually happens.It may be very small. How many of your children are you willing to risk? The Pill is not acceptable for Catholics who engage in the marital act despite your wanting it to be so.I do know two women I know who are on the Pill for medical reasons who also practice NFP. There is no attempt to use the pill as a contraceptive method.The use NFP so as not to abort a child of theirs however small the chance may be.
Several Women that I know with irregular periods learned to regulate them with vitamin supplements. Perhaps you could look into that for your wife. One of the most often used ones is Optivite. There are some others with increased doses of Vit B that really help.
Learn the methods of NFP very well or consider abstaining completely. I am glad you love your wife enought to even think this through. Consider the readings that people have suggested. Christopher Wests, The Good News About Sex and Marriage, Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility (written by the Pope in much younger days.)

You have my prayers for the health of your wife and for your marriage.

 

[Schana]

Josea -

If you have not already read it, might I suggest you read a book called “St. Gianna Molla: Wife, Mother and Doctor”.

It’s a beautiful testament to how we should “love one another”, by respecting life, even to our own death.