Can I use a barrier for medical reasons?

[Starrsmother]

This in itself is a very good topic. I suggest we open a new forum topic for this and ask an apologist.

From the limited knowledge that I know of. The use of Methotrexate does not qualify for the principle of Double Effect which hysterectomy (or for tubal pregnancies: salpingooophorectomy) can qualify for. They both end up removing an unviable embryo but one directly killed the embryo, while the other one only removed the Fallopian tube it was attached to. In both instances, we try to save the mother’s life, but in one, this is achieved by directly dissolving and killing the child, while the other was achieved by starving the child unintentionally because there was no possible way to provide nourishment.

So in the same way that if there was a house at risk for burning, with a child who was playing with flammable material trapped inside it, we can try to save the house by shooting the child with a gun and killing him, thus saving the House, Or we could have tried to save the house in another manner, but the child being trapped and unable to be saved despite our best effort, ultimately dies because of hunger, suffocation, or some other cause. So in both, the house was saved, but in one the child was murdered. In the other, the child died of an unintended cause because there was no way to save him despite our best efforts.

Unfortunately, even Catholic hospitals and providers may be misled in some of these “grey” issues. They have no intentions of disobeying the church, which is why it is not really an issue for them. We don’t know the whole story, but if there is a question, will the catholic health provider be willing to bring up this question to an apologist or to a Vatican authority? If the apologist says that there is a problem, will they be willing to accept to change what they do or will they further justify it?

Although I quoted the same provider in their example of using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV in case a partner is infected, I don’t necessarily accept this provision too. It think there may also be a problem with that concept.

There is actually a straightforward use that a contraceptive may actually be allowed, and this is when it is NOT used to contracept. For instance, a woman who does not have sexual relations use hormonal pills to cure her irregular menstruation or endometriosis. Since she doesn’t have sex, there is nothing to contracept in the first place. We can also use condoms, for instance, as a barrier protection in transvaginal ultrasound probes when doing transvaginal ultrasound. There is nothing to contracept there too. For these purposes, they can be used without question, I think.

In my opinion, the greater good of openness to life is served by a method that allows a woman to keep her fallopian tube such as methotrexate–thus allowing for future pregnancies. Neither way is pretty. Neither way is what any normal human being wants. But with either way, the same result occurs in that a baby dies–but the baby would also die if only the mother died. When a tube is removed–it is the same thing–you are right–and the embryo actually suffocates long before it starves–but it’s a loss-loss rather than a loss-win. Tube gone–50% fertility also gone. By the way, do you know what the best way is to try to prevent ectopic pregnancies? To remain chaste and to not end up with STD’s like gonorrhea or chlamydia which often end with PID (pelvic inflammatory disease) which causes scarring in a woman’s tubes–thus increasing the potential that a fertilized egg won’t make it all the way down through the tube to implant in the uterus! Now please understand, I am NOT saying that every woman who has had an ectopic has had an STD! Sometimes it’s just the bad luck of the draw. I’m only saying that it’s even MORE common in women with STD histories–which is why we seem to see more ectopics in some areas and populations.

In the example of oral contraceptives being used for a bonafide medical condition–which I think we do both agree is allowed–sometimes the woman is not sexually active and thus not going to conceive anyway. Other times, the woman may be married, thus sexually active and the “pill” does have the secondary effect of preventing a pregnancy–though the primary intent isn’t to prevent pregnancy. Either way, the church makes no differentiation-- such as single women may be treated–but married women may not be treated.

And, does anyone actually worry about a condom being used on a transvag ultrasound being a sin? To me, that would be the height of over-kill and scrupulosity. They better use a condom on any transvag they ever use on me–you can’t sterilize a vag probe in an auto clave and I for sure don’t want to catch anything! LOL!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

most priests will re-assure a woman in the same way that she is not sinning by using condoms if placed on methotrexate–if they understand the situation

In all the distraction about the abortion debate, this has been lost.
The Church does not permit condoms at all. EVER. No matter what a priest says. And if you really think about what you are suggesting it is actually quite harmful.

Your reasoning is that since “most” priests will agree it is ok to do something then she should seek this poor council.

I am sure you know that condoms are against Church teaching. And I am sure you are aware that some priests sadly don’t follow this properly when being a pastor. So if you took that same recipe and applied to the medical industry you would actually want her to go to a doctor that would give her unsound advice as well. Just imagine if as a health care provider you encouraged someone to search out a doctor that would give medical advice that was not accepted by the medical industry and absolutely, fatally false. I actually think there are laws preventing you from doing that. Well, in the case of Catholic teaching the implications are even graver than seeking bad medical advice.

Condoms are not allowed ever. I wish Catholic sites like this had the same standards that the medical industry does when it comes to giving bad advice contrary to church teaching.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

And, does anyone actually worry about a condom being used on a transvag ultrasound being a sin? To me, that would be the height of over-kill and scrupulosity. They better use a condom on any transvag they ever use on me–you can’t sterilize a vag probe in an auto clave and I for sure don’t want to catch anything! LOL!

Yes, some people actually have morals and wish to follow them and the teachings of the Church. This may be foreign and hard to understand for some other people.

 

[on_the_hill]

Yes, some people actually have morals and wish to follow them and the teachings of the Church. This may be foreign and hard to understand for some other people.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that some people consider it a sin to put a condom on a transvaginal ultrasound device?

 

[St_Francis]

My husband is on board with NFP. I’ve been doing the Creighton Model since March. I’m just really scared of getting pregnant with a baby that will suffer. I have an appointment with my GYN and a call into my priest. I’ll try to find an answer somewhere in there.

I do hope that between the two of them, your fears will be reduced.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.

Amen.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that some people consider it a sin to put a condom on a transvaginal ultrasound device?

No. Actually I was still addressing the idea of condoms for couples to use. Sorry.

 

[maryjk]

And, does anyone actually worry about a condom being used on a transvag ultrasound being a sin? To me, that would be the height of over-kill and scrupulosity. They better use a condom on any transvag they ever use on me–you can’t sterilize a vag probe in an auto clave and I for sure don’t want to catch anything! LOL!

Comments like that, are why people figure you don’t know what you are talking about. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the OP.

Let’s try to stay on topic. The question was, can I use a condom for birth control? The answer is, “No.” And the answer doesn’t depend on what medications you are taking. It doesn’t matter WHY you want to avoid pregnancy. And it doesn’t matter what else a condom might be used for.

The two options for birth control are total abstinence and periodic abstinence.

 

[Corki]

This is where it would be helpful to have executive staff from Catholic hospitals comment. I’m sure they’re well aware of what they’re doing and have had their folks do the research.

I’ll do you one better. The USCCB has directives on this very matter.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

1. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a
   direct abortion.31

 

[St_Francis]

In my opinion, the greater good of openness to life is served by a method that allows a woman to keep her fallopian tube such as methotrexate–thus allowing for future pregnancies.

But the point of being open to life is the larger one of being open to God’s will, isn’t it?

The Church teaches we must be open to life, and forbids IVF–so we are to be open to life bit not at the expense of avoiding sin.

Neither way is pretty. Neither way is what any normal human being wants. But with either way, the same result occurs in that a baby dies–

The result is the same, but the means are different. In one case, the baby died in the course of treating the mother, but the case of using methotrexate, the baby is killed, a mortal sin has been committed, objectively speaking.

The problem with abortion is not that a baby dies; the problem with abortion is that the baby is *killed. *

but the baby would also die if only the mother died.

Yes, the baby would die if the mother died. And babies die when mothers die in car crashes.

However, the really weird thing about your advocating using methotrexate in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is that there is a moral alternative treatment. It is not a question of using the methotrexate or the mother will die.

When a tube is removed–it is the same thing–you are right–and the embryo actually suffocates long before it starves–but it’s a loss-loss rather than a loss-win. Tube gone–50% fertility also gone.

It is not even a loss-loss. it’s a loss-1/2 win.

In the example of oral contraceptives being used for a bonafide medical condition–which I think we do both agree is allowed–sometimes the woman is not sexually active and thus not going to conceive anyway. Other times, the woman may be married, thus sexually active and the “pill” does have the secondary effect of preventing a pregnancy–though the primary intent isn’t to prevent pregnancy. Either way, the church makes no differentiation-- such as single women may be treated–but married women may not be treated.

Getting treated for a medical condition is not immoral.

Look at people who take oxytocin. Some of them take it via doctor’s prescription for a valid medical treatment. Some people buy it on the street for the sole purpose of getting high. One is legal; one is illegal. In the same way, taking the Pill for treatment of a medical problem is moral; using it to prevent conception is immoral.

And, does anyone actually worry about a condom being used on a transvag ultrasound being a sin? To me, that would be the height of over-kill and scrupulosity. They better use a condom on any transvag they ever use on me–you can’t sterilize a vag probe in an auto clave and I for sure don’t want to catch anything! LOL!

Some people are not thoroughly versed on moral theology and are not sure of differences aand similarities. If someone who wants to be a good Catholic has heard that one should not use condoms but does not know precisely why, she may be concerned about this.

 

[Rau]

In my opinion, the greater good of openness to life is served by a method that allows…

I understand your rationale, but what you state is, as you say, your opinion, and it is in conflict with the Catholic Church’s teaching. Do you agree that you are in conflict?

And, does anyone actually worry about a condom being used on a transvag ultrasound being a sin?

Of course not, and a red herring. The condom is not being applied as a contraceptive.

 

[LongingSoul]

In all the distraction about the abortion debate, this has been lost.
The Church does not permit condoms at all. EVER. No matter what a priest says. And if you really think about what you are suggesting it is actually quite harmful.

Your reasoning is that since “most” priests will agree it is ok to do something then she should seek this poor council.

I am sure you know that condoms are against Church teaching. And I am sure you are aware that some priests sadly don’t follow this properly when being a pastor. So if you took that same recipe and applied to the medical industry you would actually want her to go to a doctor that would give her unsound advice as well. Just imagine if as a health care provider you encouraged someone to search out a doctor that would give medical advice that was not accepted by the medical industry and absolutely, fatally false. I actually think there are laws preventing you from doing that. Well, in the case of Catholic teaching the implications are even graver than seeking bad medical advice.

Condoms are not allowed ever. I wish Catholic sites like this had the same standards that the medical industry does when it comes to giving bad advice contrary to church teaching.

The Church teaches that condoms are not acceptable for the purposes of contraception but the then Pope Benedict in his 2010 interview Light of the World, makes some important distinctions that unpack the Church position in the world we live in.

He added: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.”

Mr Seewald then asks the Pope whether he is saying that the Church is not opposed in principle to condoms.

The Pope answers: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/11/23/condoms-may-be-first-step-in-moralisation-of-sexuality-says-pope/

These contemporary issues call for a theological unpacking of teachings to keep what is truly evil in the sexual life of humanity, clearly in focus.

 

[1ke]

In my opinion, the greater good of openness to life is served by a method that allows a woman to keep her fallopian tube such as methotrexate–thus allowing for future pregnancies. Neither way is pretty. Neither way is what any normal human being wants. But with either way, the same result occurs in that a baby dies–but the baby would also die if only the mother died. When a tube is removed–it is the same thing–you are right–and the embryo actually suffocates long before it starves–but it’s a loss-loss rather than a loss-win. Tube gone–50% fertility also gone.

But, morality is not a numbers game. We may never do evil even in pursuit of a good. Therefore, the method that directly attacks the child and produces an abortion is not a moral option, ever.

And, does anyone actually worry about a condom being used on a transvag ultrasound being a sin? To me, that would be the height of over-kill and scrupulosity. They better use a condom on any transvag they ever use on me–you can’t sterilize a vag probe in an auto clave and I for sure don’t want to catch anything! LOL!

RED HERRING. This has nothing to do with anything.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Starrsmother
In my opinion, the greater good of openness to life is served by a method that allows…

Please don’t think I’m trying to push any liberal/progressive agenda because I’m not, but the medical community has been officially directed thus…

“Resolution of this debate will depend on further specification of the exact nature of these medical procedures and further refinement of the arguments about the moral object of each act. Generally, if there are two competing but contrary bodies of theological opinion about a moral issue, each held by experts whose work is in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, and if there is no specific magisterial teaching on the issue that would resolve the matter, then the decision makers may licitly act on either opinion until such time that the magisterium has resolved the question.”

Edward J. Furton, et al., eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Practitioners, Philadelphia, PA: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009, p. 123.

chausa.org/docs/default-source/general-files/c6776764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

I’m not sure if there are more recent developments which have led to an official ban on the two procedures in question, but Catholic providers using the procedures by dint of conscience, have been within the bounds of Catholic bioethics as described above.

 

[Starrsmother]

In all the distraction about the abortion debate, this has been lost.
The Church does not permit condoms at all. EVER. No matter what a priest says. And if you really think about what you are suggesting it is actually quite harmful.

Your reasoning is that since “most” priests will agree it is ok to do something then she should seek this poor council.

I am sure you know that condoms are against Church teaching. And I am sure you are aware that some priests sadly don’t follow this properly when being a pastor. So if you took that same recipe and applied to the medical industry you would actually want her to go to a doctor that would give her unsound advice as well. Just imagine if as a health care provider you encouraged someone to search out a doctor that would give medical advice that was not accepted by the medical industry and absolutely, fatally false. I actually think there are laws preventing you from doing that. Well, in the case of Catholic teaching the implications are even graver than seeking bad medical advice.

Condoms are not allowed ever. I wish Catholic sites like this had the same standards that the medical industry does when it comes to giving bad advice contrary to church teaching.

I give up. Lady, talk to your priest or bishop. Please!!!:banghead:

 

[Corki]

Please don’t think I’m trying to push any liberal/progressive agenda because I’m not, but the medical community has been officially directed thus…

“Resolution of this debate will depend on further specification of the exact nature of these medical procedures and further refinement of the arguments about the moral object of each act. Generally, if there are two competing but contrary bodies of theological opinion about a moral issue, each held by experts whose work is in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, and if there is no specific magisterial teaching on the issue that would resolve the matter, then the decision makers may licitly act on either opinion until such time that the magisterium has resolved the question.”

Edward J. Furton, et al., eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Practitioners, Philadelphia, PA: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009, p. 123.

chausa.org/docs/default-source/general-files/c6776764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

I’m not sure if there are more recent developments which have led to an official ban on the two procedures in question, but Catholic providers using the procedures by dint of conscience, have been within the bounds of Catholic bioethics as described above.

The key point being:

each held by experts whose work is in accordance with the magisterium of the Church

An expert that advocates using condoms to prevent pregnancy in certain cases is not one whose work is “in accordance with the magisterium of the Church.”

Neither an expert who justifies using a drug to directly kill a developing fetus regardless of its viability.

Both of those positions are opposed to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

The key point being:

An expert that advocates using condoms to prevent pregnancy in certain cases is not one whose work is “in accordance with the magisterium of the Church.”

Neither an expert who justifies using a drug to directly kill a developing fetus regardless of its viability.

Both of those positions are opposed to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.

I’m not saying the procedures are morally licit or illicit, but that it is an unresolved area as yet. The Catholic bioethics community while majorly rejecting the 2 options, are also in debate within the scope of their area of expertise with other respected Catholic ethicists who argue that the procedures don’t constitute direct abortion. The Church has spoken with regards to direct abortion, but not specifically with regard to these two debated procedures as yet. They remain unresolved within the Catholic bioethics sphere.

Abstract. Respected Catholic ethicists, namely, William E. May, Christopher
Kaczor, and Rev. Martin Rhonheimer, have recently defended methods for
managing ectopic pregnancies, such as the use of salpingostomy and methotrexate,
that very few Catholic moralists previously endorsed. This article
examines the arguments for the revised assessments to determine whether
there are sound reasons to believe that these two methods do not constitute
the direct and immediate killing of innocent human beings. National Catholic
Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 (Spring 2011): 000–000.

johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

I’m on every point that is finally established by the Magisterium, in complete obedience. I’m just saying that the Magisterium has not yet spoken definitively on the moral nature of these two procedures.

 

[Rau]

I give up. Lady, talk to your priest or bishop. Please!!!:banghead:

Beating your head is a bit dramatic! Could you point us to any Catholic reference or Authority wherein it is put that there are circumstances where it is Ok for a man to have sex with his wife while wearing a condom? You have provided (in good faith, I’m sure) anecdotes, but if it is truly allowed, there must be more. Do you agree?

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not saying the procedures are morally licit or illicit, but that it is an unresolved area as yet. The Catholic bioethics community while majorly rejecting the 2 options, are also in debate within the scope of their area of expertise with other respected Catholic ethicists who argue that the procedures don’t constitute direct abortion. The Church has spoken with regards to direct abortion, but not specifically with regard to these two debated procedures as yet. They remain unresolved within the Catholic bioethics sphere.

I’m on every point that is finally established by the Magisterium, in complete obedience. I’m just saying that the Magisterium has not yet spoken definitively on the moral nature of these two procedures.

I am totally flabbergasted. I understand what they are saying and how it fits in with what Starrsmother is saying… but… I mean, I SERIOUSLY do not understand this and believe that at least one point, if not two, needs to be explained.

1. In the normal course of normal moral discernment, avoidance of sin is more important. So if a deerhunter hears something in the woods and thinks this might be a human being, they are not permitted to shoot.

Since there are two points of view on this, it seems to me that to err on the side of avoiding killing a baby would be the more moral course, for two reasons, ESP since there is an already-decided moral alternative–it’s not that women would be dying because the Chirch has not reached a decision.

But on the one hand, we should err on the side of caution, and on the other, did we not learn the lesson of the Pill, when for several years priests said it was all right, and then the Pope said no, and there was a HUGE amount of dissent from that?

Moreover, the idea that the use of methotrexate could possibly be permitted is based on an specious idea that the mechanism on which the drug works, that it only keeps non-embryonic cells which aid in implantation from multiplying, which is very similar to the result of what we call abortifacient property of the Pill and IUDs, which do not “directly” attack the unborn baby but render the womb a place where the baby cannot implant.

And i call this idea specious because the drug obviously does indeed attack the baby him- or herself 1. by reducing the ability of cells to replicate through interference with the action of folate–there is no discernment between embryonic and non-embryonic cells *as revealed by 2. the fact that the drug causes terrible birth defects. *

 

[Rau]

I’m not saying the procedures are morally licit or illicit, but that it is an unresolved area as yet. The Catholic bioethics community while majorly rejecting the 2 options, are also in debate within the scope of their area of expertise with other respected Catholic ethicists who argue that the procedures don’t constitute direct abortion. The Church has spoken with regards to direct abortion, but not specifically with regard to these two debated procedures as yet. They remain unresolved within the Catholic bioethics sphere.

I’m on every point that is finally established by the Magisterium, in complete obedience. I’m just saying that the Magisterium has not yet spoken definitively on the moral nature of these two procedures.

If the treatment referred to is not provided in order to kill the baby, or if there is debate about its operation, then we need to keep an open mind. I understood it was explained in this thread that destroying the child was the purpose, hence my/our response that that would not be permitted.

As to the condom issue, why do you say that is unaddressed by the Magisteruim?

 

[Corki]

If the treatment referred to is not provided in order to kill the baby, or if there is debate about its operation, then we need to keep an open mind. I understood it was explained in this thread that destroying the child was the purpose, hence my/our response that that would not be permitted.

As to the condom issue, why do you say that is unaddressed by the Magisteruim?

It is not unaddressed. All contraceptive acts are gravely sinful.