Can I date a non-Catholic on birth control?

[TheRealJuliane]

I would have said that you could have continued to date her, since her use of birth control pills wasn’t going to affect you in any way (unless you were tempted to have sex with her). But then again, as you continue to date and grow closer emotionally, you are still left with the problem of her attitude toward contraception, which is not Catholic. So, I think you made the right decision. If she should convert and change her belief system, then you could reconsider, but for now…try to date Catholic girls!



(I see PennyinCanada said the same thing, only more clearly. I fully agree with her post! The issues DO come up, especially when children are born. We have to take a longer view than just how fun the relationship is in the moment.)

 

[aaronlgates]

You did the right thing. The marriage would not be considered valid if your spouse had the intention to contracept when entering into your vows(from my limited understanding of nullity pronouncements).

You may want to ‘befriend’ her and discuss these things in safe environments. Invite her to the next RCIA classes and ask her to learn about your faith.

 

[aaronlgates]

look ,you have mistaken views on the Churchs teaching on this subject .and you with several others insist on giving medical advice when it is banned on this forum.for good reason reading some of the statements made here.

Agree with St. Patrick on this one. This is no more ‘medical advice’ than persuading a woman not to have an abortion is practicing medicine. These are moral issues and women who take chemicals with abortifacient properties need to know the truth of what can happen if they also choose to be sexually active while taking them.

 

[april32010]

Agree with St. Patrick on this one. This is no more ‘medical advice’ than persuading a woman not to have an abortion is practicing medicine. These are moral issues and women who take chemicals with abortifacient properties need to know the truth of what can happen if they also choose to be sexually active while taking them.

There is ALWAYS an alternative to birth control, even for medical issues.

this is medical advice,bad medical advice at that.

 

[april32010]

and if used for medical issues ,it is not birth control.

 

[Listener]

It is perfectly legitimate for a Catholic woman to take birth control pills for medical reasons, so what would be the problem with a non-Catholic woman taking birth control pills for medical reasons?

I think your question has more to do with whether or not you should marry someone who is not Catholic. Since the Church allows marriage with people who are not Catholics, I’m sure the Church realizes that the non-Catholic spouse might have different opinions about things such as birth control.

There are other things to think about. Will you have to go to separate churches on Sundays? Will you both go to the Catholic Church on Saturday evenings and then will both of you go to her church on Sundays?

Do you have a big difference about the number of children you’d like to have?

If all of this is too overwhelming, they breaking up with her was probably the right thing to do.

 

[Godfollower]

I’m new here so I hope I’m posting this in the correct place. I’m just in an ethical dilemma and would appreciate advice from others of my same faith (I’m Catholic). This may need a little (or a lot of) background to explain the situation so I apologize in advance for the long post:

A few months ago I met a girl and we clicked like I had never done with another girl before. I’m not necessarily saying this is the spouse God has for me, but I feel that for one reason or another God sent her at the perfect time when I was feeling very alone. I felt I could open up to her (we both shared our life stories with one another).

Our main issue was birth control. Though she is Christian bu non-Catholic (Lutheran), she knows I (and the Church) am against it. However, she says she needs to be on birth control because she has irregular cycles (apparently very irregular), but I don’t know how true this really is. She believes, since she was told by her doctor (when she started taking the pills 5 years ago) and through her own research that birth control is the only way. I mentioned NFP and she was even open to it but somewhere read that it’s not effective in women with irregular cycles.

About a month ago we spent a whole day discussing this (and other small issues) to try to discern what was the right thing to do. We both wanted to continue dating but knew we needed to resolve these differences or they would come up again eventually. She said she doesn’t want to be on birth control but is convinced that it is necessary for her to use it. However, she also mentioned that after she got married (regardless of with who) she would like to enjoy a few years only with her husband (aka no children).

I tried to discern what to do in the midst of all these details. I know non-Catholics are not obligated to follow Catholic beliefs but I wasn’t sure if it was morally acceptable to keep dating her under these circumstances. Not seeing a way to resolve our issues, I decided we should break up.

About a month after our breakup, I recognize that I still have feelings for her. My question is, did I really do the “right thing” and did I oversee any way in which our relationship could work out while still being morally acceptable and right under the Church’s eyes?

Thanks for any feedback

As you can see from reading this thread, there are quite a few well-meaning Catholics who don’t know squat about Catholic theology – or at least aren’t sufficiently well-versed in it. So let’s review:

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 ¶ 15.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

Humanae Vitae ¶ 16.

I assume that, if she’s dating you, she isn’t having sex – since, if you were, this probably wouldn’t be a deal-breaker, right? Ergo, she isn’t taking the meds right now for contraceptive purposes; she’s taking them for medical reasons.

Separately from that, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to space out births during marriage – including wanting to be alone with your spouse for the first few years. Many people are perfectly fine with that sentiment: I want to marry the love of my life, and I’m open to the gift of children, but I would like to have a few years of marriage before the kids come along.

So long as the medicine is taken only for the purpose of medical treatment (whatever non-contraceptive purpose led her doctor to prescribe it), there is no sin.

Despite what people on an anonymous internet forum might say.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Yes, it is permitted for couples to space out their children using the “advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”

The pill does not use the natural cycle, and many Catholics I hope would find the pill’s abortificient properties upsetting and to be avoided. It’s unfortunate if the pill is being taken for medical purposes, but in the end regardless if anyone says it’s OK for me to take the pill and be sexually active, I still am conscious that I will come before God and see how many babies I aborted because of my choice to have sex and take the pill. I will encourage any friend in Christ to think long and hard about that fact.

 

[ValPal]

The pill does not use the natural cycle, and many Catholics I hope would find the pill’s abortificient properties upsetting and to be avoided. It’s unfortunate if the pill is being taken for medical purposes, but in the end regardless if anyone says it’s OK for me to take the pill and be sexually active, I still am conscious that I will come before God and see how many babies I aborted because of my choice to have sex and take the pill. I will encourage any friend in Christ to think long and hard about that fact.

Personally, I wouldn’t call the non-implantation of a fertilized egg, due to licit use of hormones, an abortion. That is logically very problematic, since it basically means that the Church is allowing the use of a medicine that can cause abortions.

Also, FWIW, the non-implantation of a fertilized egg due to taking these hormones is approximately the same, though slightly less, than the non-implantation of a fertilized egg due to breakthrough ovulation when practicing NFP. This makes sense because the primary function of the pill in a birth control context stops ovulation, whereas NFP does not.

 

[Voltaren]

This is, truly, a dealbreaker. No you cannot enter marriage with her knowing she is going to contracept and reject the Church’s teaching on marriage, family, and fertility.

Regarding “irregular” periods, I am afraid she has gotten bad information regarding NFP. =

It is unlikely you will be able to convince her otherwise.

When discerning marriage and any other decision, you need to think about whether or not God would really call you to sin.

Your post is a lie. A person can enter marriage in that circumstance. Even if your religion says he should not, it does not prevent him from doing it. The evidence for this is strong since people do, in fact, enter marriage in these circumstances, even if they should not under their religion’s rules.

 

[april32010]

Your post is a lie. A person can enter marriage in that circumstance. Even if your religion says he should not, it does not prevent him from doing it. The evidence for this is strong since people do, in fact, enter marriage in these circumstances, even if they should not under their religion’s rules.

i’ll suggest you tone it down, 7 posts and your calling someone liar.this is not tolerated on this forum,be civil or trust me you’ll not be long here.

 

[aaronlgates]

and if used for medical issues ,it is not birth control.

And if killing the innocent is in the name of convenience, then it it isn’t premeditated murder… It’s just killing in the name of the one god our society of death worships… Self.

 

[aaronlgates]

Personally, I wouldn’t call the non-implantation of a fertilized egg, due to licit use of hormones, an abortion. That is logically very problematic, since it basically means that the Church is allowing the use of a medicine that can cause abortions.

Follow the logic my friend. The benefit reaped by a drug with abortifacient mechanism is made illicit… nay gravely sinful to say the least… by the killing of innocent life made in the image of God. Take this as medicine if you wish, but only when abstaining from intercourse altogether.

 

[aaronlgates]

two things #1) #2) Catholics have made the decision to have children by the act of marriage ,to get married in the Church one has to be open to life.and getting tested for genetic reasons after marriage ,i don’t know why one would because they can’t use abc for the fear of an disabled child being conceived . before marriage i do not know if that is permitted for the purpose of deciding whether or not to marry.

Well said April

 

[aaronlgates]

this is medical advice,bad medical advice at that.

Now now April.

We are merely saying that taking a chemical into one’s body that was originally designed as an anti-implantational drug will act as it was intended to act… Abortfaciently!

This is NOT medical advice and please don’t wave the ‘banned topics’ comments around in your posts. It sounds as if you’re threatening… Or threatened.

I’d look into the mechanism of these drugs you are defending. I have spent many years studying them… Quite interesting really!

 

[aaronlgates]

First of all, don’t put too much meaning into random meetings. You can meet someone with whom you have common interests and a spark of sexual attraction without believing that God “sent” that person to you.

As for the birth control for irregular periods - valid for treating medical conditions in the view of the Church. There are people here who believe that any medical condition requiring hormones can actually be treated effectively without hormones. Certainly worth a try.

When the conversation morphs into taking birth control for birth control because of irregular periods, then that is something with no grey area. It is not permitted to use artificial birth control.

And, the idea that you have to spend time together before kids to get to know each other is bogus. Once you have kids, you change. You’ve wasted all that time getting to know someone who doesn’t exist anymore.

Here here

 

[ValPal]

Follow the logic my friend. The benefit reaped by a drug with abortifacient mechanism is made illicit… nay gravely sinful to say the least… by the killing of innocent life made in the image of God. Take this as medicine if you wish, but only when abstaining from intercourse altogether.

It’s not my position; it’s a reiteration of the Church’s position.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Personally, I wouldn’t call the non-implantation of a fertilized egg, due to licit use of hormones, an abortion. That is logically very problematic, since it basically means that the Church is allowing the use of a medicine that can cause abortions.

Also, FWIW, the non-implantation of a fertilized egg due to taking these hormones is approximately the same, though slightly less, than the non-implantation of a fertilized egg due to breakthrough ovulation when practicing NFP. This makes sense because the primary function of the pill in a birth control context stops ovulation, whereas NFP does not.

Well, you may not wish to use the term abortifacient, but that is the correct medical term. The pill and other hormone-containing devices and medications create a uterine condition of being unfriendly to a fertilized egg, i.e. a baby. The baby has nowhere to go, so to speak, because of alterations in the mother’s womb, thus, it is aborted. You can call it what you will but the baby is expelled, thus, an abortion.

Your next paragraph doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that a woman practicing NFP will have a miscarriage when a baby is created “by accident?” No, she will get pregnant, since there is nothing changing the condition of her uterus to make it unfriendly to implantation.

 

[april32010]

Now now April.

We are merely saying that taking a chemical into one’s body that was originally designed as an anti-implantational drug will act as it was intended to act… Abortfaciently!

This is NOT medical advice and please don’t wave the ‘banned topics’ comments around in your posts. It sounds as if you’re threatening… Or threatened.

I’d look into the mechanism of these drugs you are defending. I have spent many years studying them… Quite interesting really!

i am not defending the drugs,i am defending church teaching.and as for the banned topics comments these are banned topics and it is medical advice.

 

[april32010]

anyone hear of the principle of double effect?