Can I use a barrier for medical reasons?

[Starrsmother]

i think if you took time to read the replies two or three down from that one you would see someone took time to ask the person if they really thought this was a sin, and the person clarified that no, they did not they were actually still referring to contraception during intercourse. It was a simple mis-post on that particular item of yours.

But, you do not seem to be answering everyone or reading all the posts. You have not answered either me or the other who has asked you why you continue to tell the OP that a priest can “ok” condom use for intercourse (not vagninal ultrasounds, which is a complete red herring). A priest cannot do this because contraception is intrinsically evil. You have given no proof or argument at all to counter this position, you just keep restating it.

Also, we do have ovulation monitors here in the US, thee Marquette Model NFP uses them.

I am only saying that the woman in question should speak with her priest or even bishop–present him with the absolute facts and I do mean all ofthem–and then do what he suggests. The simple truth is she’s using NFP and is apparently faithful to it. I do believe in NFP and that it can and does work well for a committed couple—so, in my opinion, she has limited chances of getting pregnant anyway. Even more likely though, is the simple fact that if she were to get pregnant on methotrexate, the drug would most likely eliminate the embryonic tissue anyway and she’d never even be aware that a pregnancy had occurred! Early pregnancies almost NEVER survive methotrexate use–infact some places do use it as an early abortion drug–which is the one thing that I didn’t mention on this thread as I knew that such an “off label” use–and one I certainly don’t approve of–would become such a central issue with some on here, that the good uses of the drug–such as in RA, lupus, psoriatic arthritis, etc–would be totally lost in the milieu. If the woman decides not to use condoms–or if her doctor feels that condoms aren’t adequate protection for her in his or her mind however, I suggested that she should still honestly tell her doctor of her reservations so that if he isn’t comfortable prescribing the methotrexate to her at all under such circumstances, that he won’t be left out there with his rear end hanging out in the wind in a manner of speaking. I would hope that if I were the woman’s doctor and she were my patient that she would at least pay me this courtesy so that I could choose whether or not to continue treating her. Do you have some issue with discussing things such as this with a priest or bishop and getting their advice? Or is it simply that you feel that the truth has been revealed to yourself above such folks as our priests and bishops–and there is no need for such a consultation? I would have no qualms with getting (name removed by moderator)ut from a priest if I were the woman–but that’s just me!!!

 

[Evania]

I am only saying that the woman in question should speak with her priest or even bishop–present him with the absolute facts and I do mean all ofthem–and then do what he suggests. The simple truth is she’s using NFP and is apparently faithful to it. I do believe in NFP and that it can and does work well for a committed couple—so, in my opinion, she has limited chances of getting pregnant anyway. Even more likely though, is the simple fact that if she were to get pregnant on methotrexate, the drug would most likely eliminate the embryonic tissue anyway and she’d never even be aware that a pregnancy had occurred! Early pregnancies almost NEVER survive methotrexate use–infact some places do use it as an early abortion drug–which is the one thing that I didn’t mention on this thread as I knew that such an “off label” use–and one I certainly don’t approve of–would become such a central issue with some ohn here, that the good uses of the drug–such as in RA, lupus, psoriatic arthritis, etc–would be totally lost in the milieu. If the woman decides not to use condoms–or if her doctor feels that condoms aren’t adequate protection for her in his or her mind however, I suggested that she should still honestly tell her doctor of her reservations so that if he isn’t comfortable prescribing the methotrexate to her at all under such circumstances, that he won’t be left out there with his rear end hanging out in the wind in a manner of speaking. I would hope that if I were the woman’s doctor and she were my patient that she would at least pay me this courtesy so that I could choose whether or not to continue treating her. Do you have some issue with discussing things such as this with a priest or bishop and getting their advice? Or is it simply that you feel that the truth has been revealed to yourself above such folks as our priests and bishops–and there is no need for such a consultation? I would have no qualms with getting (name removed by moderator)ut from a priest if I were the woman–but that’s just me!!!

We all know that there are some priests that are pro-contraceptive. If she encounters such a priest, are you hoping he’ll give her advice contrary to church teaching? What “advice” are you referring to? A priest can only point to what the Church teaches, unless you are hoping to take advantage of encountering such a priest and feigning ignorance when the priest gives his personal opinion and says, “Go ahead and use contraceptives.”

I know a priest that “dispensed” a woman to use the Pill for no medical reason whatsoever. I guess that makes it okay. A priest’s personal opinion doesn’t matter. The teachings of Our Church does.

 

[1ke]

Do you have some issue with discussing things such as this with a priest or bishop and getting their advice?

It is prudent to seek spiritual counsel from one’s pastor when one is struggling with following Church teaching. And Church teaching is that condoms (or any contraception) is intrinsically evil. The OP asked if there were any circumstances where they could be used. The answer to that is no.

That is NOT what you have repeatedly stated, however. You have not urged her to do what is right, morally. What you have stated is that you are sure that she can find a priest to “OK” the use of condoms.

Or is it simply that you feel that the truth has been revealed to yourself above such folks as our priests and bishops–and there is no need for such a consultation?

Begging the question.

It is certainly prudent to seek spiritual counsel, but not to try to get permission for what is intrinsically evil, but rather to seek guidance on how to live out Christ’s teaching in this difficult situation.

I need no special revelation regarding the morality of condom use-- it is readily available in Church documents-- no prieest or bishop can give the woman permission to commit a sin.

I would have no qualms with getting (name removed by moderator)ut from a priest if I were the woman–but that’s just me!!!

I think you need to reread my numerous posts where I have encouraged talking to a priest.

But not to try to get them to OK sin.

Is it your position that contraception is not intrinsically evil?

 

[Starrsmother]

We all know that there are some priests that are pro-contraceptive. If she encounters such a priest, are you hoping he’ll give her advice contrary to church teaching? What “advice” are you referring to? A priest can only point to what the Church teaches, unless you are hoping to take advantage of encountering such a priest and feigning ignorance when the priest gives his personal opinion and says, “Go ahead and use contraceptives.”

I know a priest that “dispensed” a woman to use the Pill for no medical reason whatsoever. I guess that makes it okay. A priest’s personal opinion doesn’t matter. The teachings of Our Church does.

Sounds to me like you have a bit of an authority issue. I guess I am a simpler soul–I would never judge the priest or the woman who was told that she could use the pill for something you don’t feel was medically necessary–didn’t quite meet your “standards” or whatever. But that’s just me. My answer remains as above. If you don’t care for it–don’t follow it–after all, you aren’t the woman involved though are you?

 

[on_the_hill]

In reading through these, what I’m seeing is: Talk to a priest, but if the priest says anything that doesn’t agree with what’s been stated here, he’s wrong.

So what’s the point of talking to a priest? OP has gotten her answer from the Forum. Anything to the contrary is misguided at best and evil at worst.

 

[maryjk]

I am simply saying that she should check with her priest or bishop about condom use while on methotrexate and give him the full story–and then be sure that her doctor knows and is comfortable with whatever position she ultimately takes based on what her priest tells her–which I have a feeling may be that condom use while she’s on the methotrexate (only) may be acceptable. Usually it isn’t a period of years that’s involved, more like weeks or months–though somewhere I think she may have mentioned a period of time–not sure. Methotrexate makes you so sick that almost nobody stays on it for a prolonged time. And, yes, sometimes a woman’s body does compensate for the loss of an ovary or tube–and sometimes not. Either way, it’s much like being down one kidney–best hope for sure that the remaining one is not just good but great!

You keep posting things that make me really question what you do know about medicine.

I have been on Methotrexate for 9 months with no change in sight. A co-worker has been taking it for 3 years. Not sure what you mean when you say weeks or months.

Makes you so sick? Again, I don’t know what you are talking about.

And no, I am not on a little dose. I take 20mg a week.

And if it was for only a few weeks, are you really telling me that a couple couldn’t abstain for a couple weeks, especially if the woman was “so sick?”

 

[Evania]

Sounds to me like you have a bit of an authority issue. I guess I am a simpler soul–I would never judge the priest or the woman who was told that she could use the pill for something you don’t feel was medically necessary–didn’t quite meet your “standards” or whatever. But that’s just me. My answer remains as above. If you don’t care for it–don’t follow it–after all, you aren’t the woman involved though are you?

You’re dodging the issue, and resorting to cheap attacks.

The woman in question TOLD us that she didn’t have a medical issue and said she wasn’t aware that she was not following Church teaching because she received a “dispensation” from a priest. She found out through another priest that it is against the teachings of the Church and that it is not permissible to use contraception for any reason. She was grateful to know the Truth. This person is my mother, and she went on to have me and my siblings.

On the contrary, it seems that you are the one with a bit of authority issue. My authority is under the Church. Where is yours?

 

[Rau]

{regarding condom use} I am only saying that the woman in question should speak with her priest or even bishop–present him with the absolute facts and I do mean all ofthem–and then do what he suggests.

{regarding methotrexate to end pregnancy} Early pregnancies almost NEVER survive methotrexate use–infact some places do use it as an early abortion drug–which is the one thing that I didn’t mention on this thread as I knew that such an “off label” use–and one I certainly don’t approve of–would become such a central issue with some on here, that the good uses of the drug–such as in RA, lupus, psoriatic arthritis, etc–would be totally lost in the milieu.

{Regarding Truth} Or is it simply that you feel that the truth has been revealed to yourself above such folks as our priests and bishops–and there is no need for such a consultation? I would have no qualms with getting (name removed by moderator)ut from a priest if I were the woman–but that’s just me!!!

In regard to condom use, you originally wrote the following, suggesting that “dispensations” to use condoms can be given:

Starrsmother:

I think you should absolutely speak to your priest–but I do know as a Catholic health care provider, that dispensations to allow condom use have been granted in a number of cases…

IF, however, in the one in a million chance that somehow a pregnancy occurred on methotrexate and then actually continued–you’re right–the fetus would have some of the most horrible deformities you can ever imagine…I’d explain all this to your priest and I bet you’ll be dispensed–as you are truly only wanting to use condoms due to a medical treatment, and one which is certainly needed and warranted.

In regard to this, we have pointed out that the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, and hence a priest or bishop has no discretion and no power in the matter, but you don’t respond to that. The condom is not (as you state) a medical treatment at all - it is an alternative to continence. From the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2370 Periodic continence, … is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality… 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 Rather than simply suggesting the OP seek spiritual guidance from her Priest, you hold out the fiction of a “dispensation” (you later modify your words to sat that a Priest might be able to say it’s “not a sin”) to commit an intrinsically evil act! That could be an host mistake on you part - perhaps you believed it was OK. Of if you know the truth - as you should now having been directed to clear teachings, it is reprehensible.

In regard to methotrexate to end tubal pregnancy, you write above that you don’t endorse methotrexate as an early abortion drug, yet originally you wrote this tribute to its value in ending a tubal pregnancy:

Starrsmother:

It also has a use in obstetrics that many people don’t realize–but that I feel is equally valuable! We use a shot of methotrexate to dissolve an ectopic or “tubal” pregnancy if said pregnancy is discovered before it is so far along that it bursts the tube. Since the advent of early pregnancy tests and the use of methotrexate to dissolve these early extra-uterine pregnancies, many women’s very lives have been saved…

These statements can only be reconciled by a belief that directly killing the embryo is OK sometimes, **or **that Methotrexate is the required treatment for the mother, which regrettably has the side-effect of killing the embryo. The latter is certainly not true (on the facts). The former has been postulated, but is not (yet) accepted. It is certainly a “convenient” treatment due to the physically low impact on the mother, but it fails the tests defined currently for a moral treatment per Church teachings.

Finally, in regard to Truth no-one debating with you here claims to be in possession of a special revelation. Everyone - with one solitary exception - points to the same revelation - Church Teachings. That single exception is you! You don’t reference any church teaching at all. You only quote your own beliefs.

Starrsmother:

Y’know–in my opinion…

I honestly think if you lay it out to your priest…

 

[Starrsmother]

In reading through these, what I’m seeing is: Talk to a priest, but if the priest says anything that doesn’t agree with what’s been stated here, he’s wrong.

So what’s the point of talking to a priest? OP has gotten her answer from the Forum. Anything to the contrary is misguided at best and evil at worst.

My point exactly. Too bad Pope Francis hasn’t come here for advice --he’d know that he was always getting it right! 'Nuff said.

 

[KellyPalmer]

Sounds to me like you have a bit of an authority issue. I guess I am a simpler soul–I would never judge the priest or the woman who was told that she could use the pill for something you don’t feel was medically necessary–didn’t quite meet your “standards” or whatever. But that’s just me. My answer remains as above. If you don’t care for it–don’t follow it–after all, you aren’t the woman involved though are you?

The information you’ve provided is inaccurate. It’s coming across not as a simple soul but a prideful soul because you refuse to accept correction. The church has spoken on this issue so we have a definitive answer.

 

[Starrsmother]

In regard to condom use, you originally wrote the following, suggesting that “dispensations” to use condoms can be given:

In regard to this, we have pointed out that the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, and hence a priest or bishop has no discretion and no power in the matter, but you don’t respond to that. The condom is not (as you state) a medical treatment at all - it is an alternative to continence. From the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2370 Periodic continence, … is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality… 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 Rather than simply suggesting the OP seek spiritual guidance from her Priest, you hold out the fiction of a “dispensation” (you later modify your words to sat that a Priest might be able to say it’s “not a sin”) to commit an intrinsically evil act! That could be an host mistake on you part - perhaps you believed it was OK. Of if you know the truth - as you should now having been directed to clear teachings, it is reprehensible.

In regard to methotrexate to end tubal pregnancy, you write above that you don’t endorse methotrexate as an early abortion drug, yet originally you wrote this tribute to its value in ending a tubal pregnancy:

These statements can only be reconciled by a belief that directly killing the embryo is OK sometimes, **or **that Methotrexate is the required treatment for the mother, which regrettably has the side-effect of killing the embryo. The latter is certainly not true (on the facts). The former has been postulated, but is not (yet) accepted. It is certainly a “convenient” treatment due to the physically low impact on the mother, but it fails the tests defined currently for a moral treatment per Church teachings.

Finally, in regard to Truth no-one debating with you here claims to be in possession of a special revelation. Everyone - with one solitary exception - points to the same revelation - Church Teachings. That single exception is you! You don’t reference any church teaching at all. You only quote your own beliefs.

HOWEVER–having stated my position on abortion:
An embryo attached inside a woman’s fallopian tube is never–not EVER–going to live. It is a situation incompatible with life. A tube is not as elastic as a uterus–thus it cannot expand to accommodate a growing baby. Additionally, it doesn’t have the blood supply needed to feed and oxygenate a baby for 40 weeks. A tube WILL however, usually stretch enough and provide enough blood supply to allow an embryo to reach 10 weeks along or so–and then the tube ruptures, the woman feels a stabbing sort of pain on whichever side is involved, she bleeds out internally, and then she dies. By the way–the baby died the minute the tube ruptured or very shortly afterward. This is exactly the way it went and the way ectopic pregnancies were usually discovered 50 or 75 years ago.

If it is your stance is that it is better that the mother die in addition to the baby–who is already dead or at least dying–then we need discuss the issue no further. You believe what you believe. I happen to totally disagree with you–so no point in further shop-talk.

If you feel that in the above situation, the life of the mother at least should be salvaged,then there is little to no difference in how the embryo is removed from the woman’s body–as the death of the baby is the sad, but unavoidable side effect of either a salpingectomy or the use of methotrexate. In the former, the woman has invasive surgery with general anesthesia and all the risk entailed with that ==plus she loses one of the 2 fallopian tubes God gave her. In the second case, she goes to her provider’s office, gets a simple shot in the butt and then is followed by blood work for a week or so–to be sure she is no longer getting a positive pregnancy test—and 9 out of 10 times or more–it works well. If it were my own daughter (and I have 2)–I’d strongly suggest option 2–as to me, I think it’s strictly an argument in semantics to think option 1 is somehow holier than option 2. BOTH result in an equal and same end. Again, Jesus warned the pharisees about following the letter of the law without looking at the spiritual thinking behind the law. In this case, there isn’t even a “letter of the law” to follow yet–the church in its wisdom hasn’t yet taken a position as they feel they need to know more about the medical knowledge behind the second procedure prior to issuing a final decision.

The real question for the woman who started this thread has nothing to due with the use of methotrexate as an abortificant or for an ectopic pregnancy. Her question involved absolutely not getting pregnant during the time she’s being given oral methotrexate for a completely unrelated but recognized medical condition—RA! to that end–and because she has reservations and her provider may WELL have reservations about treating her without some assurance she won’t accidentally turn up pregnant–I suggested–and will suggest again-- that she speak with her priest or bishop and then advise her provider of whatever decision that her conscience and her priest or bishop lead her to. If you think your advice is better, more perfect, more enlightened or whatever than that of her priest or bishop, I’d suggest you post your e-mail or phone number here and perhaps she will choose to seek your wisdom in place of their’s!:banghead:

 

[Starrsmother]

You keep posting things that make me really question what you do know about medicine.

I have been on Methotrexate for 9 months with no change in sight. A co-worker has been taking it for 3 years. Not sure what you mean when you say weeks or months.

Makes you so sick? Again, I don’t know what you are talking about.

And no, I am not on a little dose. I take 20mg a week.

And if it was for only a few weeks, are you really telling me that a couple couldn’t abstain for a couple weeks, especially if the woman was “so sick?”

Abortion is abortion–whether one does it with saline, instruments or whatever. In my opinion, abortion is murder–in any situation, including in cases of rape or incest or in whatever. In abortion, you have a living baby inside a mother’s uterus which is where God planned for them to begin and grow and if other humans keep their hands off these babies, in 40 weeks you end up with a tiny person to add to your family. An ectopic pregnancy removal is very different than the murder of a viable human baby!

I think my above post to you re: abortion, should have been on the post above regarding whether methotrexate is a reasonable use for ectopic preegnancies. I apologize if it’s attached to your post incorrectly.

As to how long you’re on methotrexate–it’s not always the same. I try to get my ladies off of it and onto something like Humira shots asap–because --in my practice–most of my women don’t have the fabulous results with no side effects that you experience. They complain of upset stomachs, sometimes sore mouths and etc and then they don’t want to keep taking it. So, I work with them. I’m glad it has worked so well for you–it just hasn’t been my luck that it works so positively. I usually keep my ladies on it for a month or two–then flip then to Humira or Enbrel. But whatever works for you and your provider the best is exactly what you should do!

 

[St_Francis]

Abortion is abortion–whether one does it with saline, instruments or whatever. In my opinion, abortion is murder–in any situation, including in cases of rape or incest or in whatever. In abortion, you have a living baby inside a mother’s uterus which is where God planned for them to begin and grow and if other humans keep their hands off these babies, in 40 weeks you end up with a tiny person to add to your family. An ectopic pregnancy removal is very different than the murder of a viable human baby!

How so? Why is it wrong to use methotrexate when the baby is in the womb but not when the baby is outside the womb?

BTW, *all *your references to the mother’s dying in cases of ectopic pregnacy are mere red herrings, because not one person here has advocated not treating the mother at all.

 

[on_the_hill]

So let me get this straight: it’s a sin to use a drug to clear an ectopic pregnancy. It is not a sin to use surgery to clear an ectopic pregnancy.

What if they could remove the Fallopian tube clear the ectopic pregnancy and put the tube back in. Would that be a sin?

 

[KellyPalmer]

Abortion is abortion–whether one does it with saline, instruments or whatever. In my opinion, abortion is murder–in any situation, including in cases of rape or incest or in whatever. In abortion, you have a living baby inside a mother’s uterus which is where God planned for them to begin and grow and if other humans keep their hands off these babies, in 40 weeks you end up with a tiny person to add to your family. An ectopic pregnancy removal is very different than the murder of a viable human baby!

I think my above post to you re: abortion, should have been on the post above regarding whether methotrexate is a reasonable use for ectopic preegnancies. I apologize if it’s attached to your post incorrectly.

Statistically speaking, there are plenty of mothers who went in for elective abortions (no medical indications) whose baby’s were unknowingly not viable. Many aborted babies would have died on their own before they were born at 40 weeks. It’s no more legitimate to murder a non-viable human baby than a viable one. Directly killing a baby is murder/abortion regardless.

 

[St_Francis]

So let me get this straight: it’s a sin to use a drug to clear an ectopic pregnancy. It is not a sin to use surgery to clear an ectopic pregnancy.

There are apparently is a sufficient number of orthodox Catholic theologians who believe that a methotrexate injection, since it (if this is true) works on the outer lining which implants rather than on the baby, is morally acceptable because it falls under the principle of double effect (according to them).

(I posted my problems with this above)

What if they could remove the Fallopian tube clear the ectopic pregnancy and put the tube back in. Would that be a sin?

Since this is not possible, the morality of it has not been considered.

 

[BettyBoop416]

This is one of those threads that should be required reading for anyone considering conversion to Catholicism. Or better yet, make this the first lesson for RCIA. Let those poor, potential converts get a taste of what their signing up for.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My point exactly. Too bad Pope Francis hasn’t come here for advice --he’d know that he was always getting it right! 'Nuff said.

You know, you would not get nearly the same amount of guff if you would clarify and amend your position on the use of condoms. If you either took back what you said or flat out admitted you were wrong, not only would people give you credibility, you would also earn respect.

Imagine if you came clean and just said, “you know, I was offering advice that was wrong.”

Imagine if we saw more than pride, evasion and dissention from you on this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is one of those threads that should be required reading for anyone considering conversion to Catholicism. Or better yet, make this the first lesson for RCIA. Let those poor, potential converts get a taste of what their signing up for.

LOL! The Truth is sometimes bitter. Perhaps a cup of sugar should be offered at RCIA classes. Nobody said it would be easy:shrug:
But as you can see from our modern situations, walking around on eggshells worrying about offending some people is not the position that has been working!

As Pope francis is showing us, sometimes it is better to just come out and say it rather than beat around the bush. He does not shy from his words no matter if they offend staunch conservatives or liberals. He just preaches the Gospel. It is up to the world or individuals to either take it, leave it, or twist it into their own agendas.

 

[Rau]

HOWEVER–having stated my position on abortion:
An embryo attached inside a woman’s fallopian tube is never–not EVER–going to live. It is a situation incompatible with life. A tube is not as elastic as a uterus–thus it cannot expand to accommodate a growing baby. Additionally, it doesn’t have the blood supply needed to feed and oxygenate a baby for 40 weeks. A tube WILL however, usually stretch enough and provide enough blood supply to allow an embryo to reach 10 weeks along or so–and then the tube ruptures, the woman feels a stabbing sort of pain on whichever side is involved, she bleeds out internally, and then she dies. By the way–the baby died the minute the tube ruptured or very shortly afterward. This is exactly the way it went and the way ectopic pregnancies were usually discovered 50 or 75 years ago.

If it is your stance is that it is better that the mother die in addition to the baby–who is already dead or at least dying–then we need discuss the issue no further. You believe what you believe. I happen to totally disagree with you–so no point in further shop-talk.

If you feel that in the above situation, the life of the mother at least should be salvaged,then there is little to no difference in how the embryo is removed from the woman’s body–as the death of the baby is the sad, but unavoidable side effect of either a salpingectomy or the use of methotrexate. In the former, the woman has invasive surgery with general anesthesia and all the risk entailed with that ==plus she loses one of the 2 fallopian tubes God gave her. In the second case, she goes to her provider’s office, gets a simple shot in the butt and then is followed by blood work for a week or so–to be sure she is no longer getting a positive pregnancy test—and 9 out of 10 times or more–it works well. If it were my own daughter (and I have 2)–I’d strongly suggest option 2–as to me, I think it’s strictly an argument in semantics to think option 1 is somehow holier than option 2. BOTH result in an equal and same end. Again, Jesus warned the pharisees about following the letter of the law without looking at the spiritual thinking behind the law. In this case, there isn’t even a “letter of the law” to follow yet–the church in its wisdom hasn’t yet taken a position as they feel they need to know more about the medical knowledge behind the second procedure prior to issuing a final decision.

The real question for the woman who started this thread has nothing to due with the use of methotrexate as an abortificant or for an ectopic pregnancy [agreed - you raised this, Starrsmother!]. Her question involved absolutely not getting pregnant during the time she’s being given oral methotrexate for a completely unrelated but recognized medical condition—RA! to that end–and because she has reservations and her provider may WELL have reservations about treating her without some assurance she won’t accidentally turn up pregnant–I suggested–and will suggest again-- that she speak with her priest or bishop and then advise her provider of whatever decision that her conscience and her priest or bishop lead her to. If you think your advice is better, more perfect, more enlightened or whatever than that of her priest or bishop, I’d suggest you post your e-mail or phone number here and perhaps she will choose to seek your wisdom in place of their’s!:banghead:

**Starrsmother **- I do understand your reasoning and philosophy. But it is uniquely yours, not the Church’s. Elements of what you state - eg. it doesn’t matter how you save the mother are utterly contradicted by the Church.

Starrsmother:

Or is it simply that you feel that the truth has been revealed to yourself above such folks as our priests and bishops…

I say again - it is **you **who claims to have access to the revealed Truth, above the Church.

Once again you debate with obfuscation (scurrilously), raising the spectre of allowing women to die of ectopic pregnancy for want of treatment. No one has suggested that it is right to provide no intervention in case of ectopic pregnancy and allow the woman to die. No-one. And again you vary your argument for consultation with a Priest to the proper purpose of assisting with examining conscience, from your originally stated purpose of seeking a “dispensation” to wear a condom while having sex with husband… ***“I’ll bet you’ll be dispensed” *** to quote you.

Any by all means good people must make decisions in life after examining their conscience. But consciences don’t inherently know what is right on all subjects - they had to become informed. A Catholic should rely on the Church (including consultation with Priests for education and explanation of) knowledge of what is right. But Priests are bound to follow Church Teaching too. But some folks just develop their own philosophy. And if the Church teaching doesn’t produce the same result, they figure that maybe they’re just falling into the trap of following the letter of the law, and so they’re free to do the opposite!