C
cmom
Guest
How can a priest tell you to practice any form of contraception?
I can understand a docter says it, but not a priest.
I can understand a docter says it, but not a priest.
What do you mean? There are several prominent “Catholic” theologians who are priests who teach that such actions are moral. These “proportionalist” theologians maintain that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act!How can a priest tell you to practice any form of contraception?
I can understand a docter says it, but not a priest.
It makes me want to cry every time I think about it. I remember vividly sitting across from him and having him tell me to do it. Actually, he thought dh should do it b/c it’s “safer”. I guess if I would have done it then it wouldn’t have officially been a “sin” but would have been heartbreaking for sure. Esp. as I grew in my faith and realized what he was really saying.How can a priest tell you to practice any form of contraception?
I can understand a docter says it, but not a priest.
dear husbandWho is “dh”???
Well, that isn’t what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:It can be morally acceptable for “tubes to be tied” for extremely medical reasons (i.e., woman’s health).
CDF said:CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION”
AND RELATED MATTERS
The Cardinal Members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in answer to the questions examined in ordinary session decreed the following replies:
Q. 1. When the uterus becomes so seriously injured (e.g., during a delivery or a Caesarian section) so as to render medically indicated even its total removal (hysterectomy) in order to counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother, is it licit to perform such a procedure notwithstanding the permanent sterility which will result for the woman?
R. Affirmative.
Q. 2. When the uterus (e.g., as a result of previous Caesarian sections) is in a state such that while not constituting in itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman, nevertheless is foreseeably incapable of carrying a future pregnancy to term without danger to the mother, danger which in some cases could be serious, is it licit to remove the uterus (hysterectomy) in order to prevent a possible future danger deriving from conception?
R. Negative.
Q. 3. In the same situation as in no. 2, is it licit to substitute tubal ligation, also called “uterine isolation,” for the hysterectomy, since the same end would be attained of averting the risks of a possible pregnancy by means of a procedure which is much simpler for the doctor and less serious for the woman, and since in addition, in some cases, the ensuing sterility might be reversible?
R. Negative.
In Janet Smith’s Contraception, Why Not?" talk, she notes that her toughest audience is usually priests. She mentions a study that shows only 35% of priests support the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. Given that 90%+ of regular Catholics are opposed, her number sounds believable. Even for those priests who disapprove of conception, I think there are many of them who don’t want to appear confrontational and take the issue head-on. I can’t recall ever hearing about contraception during the homily.How can a priest tell you to practice any form of contraception?
I can understand a docter says it, but not a priest.
You are in my prayers dearieWhen I think about it hard I know that this was right for us, I don’t want to leave my children, I love them so much and they need me, 6 months on bed rest is very hard on a family and I had this with all my pregnancies, my older kids had to constantly hear how mom could not attend this or that etc. My daughter who will be 11 does not even want to get married or have children, it comes from watching her mother go through all this, that makes me very sad that she has had to be affected like that, now, I need to work on undoing that in her mind and convince her that just because her mom had a hard time having babies doesn’t mean it won’t be a breeze for her ( I hope So!!!)
Good post!So if I choose to not tie my tubes and use no form of birth control but I know that my life is in danger to get pregnant so my husband and I should abstain from any and all relations? Thats interesting, how about the woman who has cervical cancer and for medical reasons must have a hysterectomy? If she doesn’t she will die but if she does she will bear no children? So, it is a sin for her to have a hysterectomy but then the cancer spreads all over and she dies? I did not have my tubes tied because I didn’t want more children, I would have loved more children and with the prospect of adoption or foster parenting that is still an option but what about my four living children? Do they not also deserve me to live? We have a loving, forgiving God, I did not tie my tubes to not have more children so I could have more money or material possessions, I choose to live for my family that I have now, if thats a sin then that is between me and God
Kelly,I have to disagree with Ham1. If a person knows the teaching of the church in a given matter (which is having an informed conscience) then that person would be sinning to choose to go against the teaching, whether or not his conscience tells him it’s okay or not.
In the case of a woman whose life would be at stake if she were to get pregnant I believe the churches teaching is that they still would not be free to do anything that is unnatural in preventing pregnancy. That in essence means using NFP and trusing in Gods omnipotence or living a celibate life.
I know that sounds harsh, but remember that we are called to take up our cross daily and follow him.
Love in Christ,
KellyEr~