Can I use a barrier for medical reasons?

[maryjk]

I would use the condom in addition to NFP. I would not have sex on my unsafe days. I would just have the condom as extra protection. I am 36, total abstinence is NOT an answer. I’m trying so hard to live a Catholic life, but ya know, sometimes it’s a real pain. I’ll talk to my priest anyways.

If you are not having sex on unsafe days, why do you need a condom?

 

[on_the_hill]

Given the moral dilemma, abstention seems to be the only solution.

I wouldn’t trust NFP.

My wife and I were using it–to actually get pregnant, not avoid–and despite the charting and record keeping, and despite a hormonal imbalance that would have required medication for her to get pregnant, she got pregnant when it wasn’t on the chart and the lab tests said she shouldn’t have been able to.

Granted–I’m probably wrong on this–the whole reason artificial birth control is sinful is because it prevents conception, whereas NFP still leaves a couple open to the possibility of conceiving. Is that not correct? If you’re using an NFP system that is 100% rock-solid effective, then you would not be open to conception. Therefore, NFP must leave open the possibility of conception.

If your objective is to prevent pregnancy, then don’t use NFP. Just abstain.

 

[Starrsmother]

Starrsmother,
I fear you have been misled–there was a huge reaction against Humane Vitae and unfortunately, some of the rebellious and sinful teachings are still in circulation.

In the case of AIDS or HIV+ condom use, what Pope Benedict said was that, for example, an HIV+ male prostitute who used a condom to protect his customers from getting the disease would be “making a first step towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

No one is permitted to give some sort of “dispensation” for committing an intrinsically evil act.

Using methotrexate to kill a baby in the Fallopian tube so end an etopic pregnancy is still abortion, and is still sinful. It is an immoral way of dealing with this type of pregnancy. The Fallopian tube can be removed, as before, but the methtrexate may not be used.

The priest is not permittted to give this kind of “permission.”

I will only respond to one or two of these things you mention for the sake of brevity. Firstly,perhaps my use of the word “dispensation” was a poor choice of wording. If so, I apologize and will try stating it differently. Maybe a better way would be to say that just as a priest may well advise a woman that she isn’t sinning if she uses birth control pills to treat certain bonafide medical conditions, 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–which is why I simply suggested to this woman that when she visits with her priest-which she absolutely should do-- that she be able and prepared to discuss it with him in a way that he will understand. It isn’t fair to the priest or the woman to expect any priest to have all kinds of medical understanding outside of his scope. And treatment for RA and the use of methotrexate for it is way outside his scope–unless he or a family member of his should happen to have this particular genetically based auto-immune disease. This woman is not in any way attempting to avoid a pregnancy, infact she seems to wish she could try for more kids right now–rather, she is attempting–with medical management-- to control a horrible disease process which can well end with her being too crippled to even care for the child she has–much less any more kids if she doesn’t follow her provider’s advice. Her rheumatologist’s advice is sound–and he is planning to treat her based on the most current and accepted knowledge of the disease and its treatment that exists today. Secondly, using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy is NOT the same as abortion. Our local hospital is Catholic, for that matter, and of course does not allow abortions (thank goodness) but we use methotrexate frequently–and there simply is NO issue!! The same is true of many other hospitals that are Catholic and Catholic clinicians, clinics and private practices that I am familiar with. Using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy while saving the tube is actually the BEST way to handle such a thing. An ectopic pregnancy is not viable—ever! It will ultimately end with the mom’s certain death however if not treated and early on (google it if you need more info)–and just as the church would not deny a woman a hysterectomy while pregnant if it were discovered that she had advanced uterine cancer, the Catholic church does not take a “stand back and watch the woman die” approach if she has the terrible misfortune of having a tubal pregnancy. I know this for a fact and with no doubt. I’m sure your intentions are only good and I respect that, and I also assure you that I am 100% pro-life. You just simply don’t understand what you are talking about in this particular circumstance. God bless!

 

[1ke]

I would use the condom in addition to NFP. I would not have sex on my unsafe days. I would just have the condom as extra protection. I am 36, total abstinence is NOT an answer. I’m trying so hard to live a Catholic life, but ya know, sometimes it’s a real pain. I’ll talk to my priest anyways.

Dee, I am sorry that “Starrsmother” has given you some false hope in this area.

any contraception is intrinsically evil-- this means there is no exception, no dispensation to be had, no situation in which it can be moral. No priest can give you permission for this.

Please put it out of your mind and move forward with moral options of NFP conservative use or prolonged abstinence.

 

[Xantippe]

“An ectopic pregnancy is not viable—ever! It will ultimately end with the mom’s certain death however if not treated and early on (google it if you need more info)–and just as the church would not deny a woman a hysterectomy while pregnant if it were discovered that she had advanced uterine cancer, the Catholic church does not take a “stand back and watch the woman die” approach if she has the terrible misfortune of having a tubal pregnancy. I know this for a fact and with no doubt. I’m sure your intentions are only good and I respect that, and I also assure you that I am 100% pro-life. You just simply don’t understand what you are talking about in this particular circumstance. God bless!”

The methotrexate to dissolve an embryo is not the equivalent of a hysterectomy for uterine cancer–it’s the equivalent of an abortion for a woman with uterine cancer. The removal of the fallopian tube is the equivalent of the hysterectomy.

Please do more research on Catholic medical ethics–you and your local Catholic hospital are doing wrong.

 

[Starrsmother]

I will only respond to one or two of these things you mention for the sake of brevity. Firstly,perhaps my use of the word “dispensation” was a poor choice of wording. If so, I apologize and will try stating it differently. Maybe a better way would be to say that just as a priest may well advise a woman that she isn’t sinning if she uses birth control pills to treat certain bonafide medical conditions, 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–which is why I simply suggested to this woman that when she visits with her priest-which she absolutely should do-- that she be able and prepared to discuss it with him in a way that he will understand. It isn’t fair to the priest or the woman to expect any priest to have all kinds of medical understanding outside of his scope. And treatment for RA and the use of methotrexate for it is way outside his scope–unless he or a family member of his should happen to have this particular genetically based auto-immune disease. This woman is not in any way attempting to avoid a pregnancy, infact she seems to wish she could try for more kids right now–rather, she is attempting–with medical management-- to control a horrible disease process which can well end with her being too crippled to even care for the child she has–much less any more kids if she doesn’t follow her provider’s advice. Her rheumatologist’s advice is sound–and he is planning to treat her based on the most current and accepted knowledge of the disease and its treatment that exists today. Secondly, using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy is NOT the same as abortion. Our local hospital is Catholic, for that matter, and of course does not allow abortions (thank goodness) but we use methotrexate frequently–and there simply is NO issue!! The same is true of many other hospitals that are Catholic and Catholic clinicians, clinics and private practices that I am familiar with. Using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy while saving the tube is actually the BEST way to handle such a thing. An ectopic pregnancy is not viable—ever! It will ultimately end with the mom’s certain death however if not treated and early on (google it if you need more info)–and just as the church would not deny a woman a hysterectomy while pregnant if it were discovered that she had advanced uterine cancer, the Catholic church does not take a “stand back and watch the woman die” approach if she has the terrible misfortune of having a tubal pregnancy. I know this for a fact and with no doubt. I’m sure your intentions are only good and I respect that, and I also assure you that I am 100% pro-life. You just simply don’t understand what you are talking about in this particular circumstance. God bless!

By the way–what do you think happens to the baby in the case of a tubal pregnancy where the entire tube is removed as once was the only option–and if such a situation were discovered prior to the tube rupturing and the mother’s death? Do you think they can put the embryo in saline until it’s old enough to survive or do you realize that the baby will also die with the removal of the tube? With methotrexate, the woman will be able to save the tube rather than have it removed–thus increasing her chances for future pregnancies. See what I mean?

 

[maryjk]

And treatment for RA and the use of methotrexate for it is way outside his scope–unless he or a family member of his should happen to have this particular genetically based auto-immune disease.

No RA but I have Lupus. Also a medical condition where a rheumatologist would prescribe methotrxate. I also take Plaquenil.

This woman is not in any way attempting to avoid a pregnancy, in fact she seems to wish she could try for more kids right now–rather, she is attempting–with medical management-- to control a horrible disease process which can well end with her being too crippled to even care for the child she has–much less any more kids if she doesn’t follow her provider’s advice. Her rheumatologist’s advice is sound–and he is planning to treat her based on the most current and accepted knowledge of the disease and its treatment that exists today.

Actually she is attempting to avoid pregnancy. Just like I am.

But no one is saying she shouldn’t take the medication.

Secondly, using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy is NOT the same as abortion. Our local hospital is Catholic, for that matter, and of course does not allow abortions (thank goodness) but we use methotrexate frequently–and there simply is NO issue!! The same is true of many other hospitals that are Catholic and Catholic clinicians, clinics and private practices that I am familiar with.

Not sure why you are bringing this up?

No one is saying she shouldn’t take the medication.

Using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy while saving the tube is actually the BEST way to handle such a thing. An ectopic pregnancy is not viable—ever! It will ultimately end with the mom’s certain death however if not treated and early on (google it if you need more info)–and just as the church would not deny a woman a hysterectomy while pregnant if it were discovered that she had advanced uterine cancer, the Catholic church does not take a “stand back and watch the woman die” approach if she has the terrible misfortune of having a tubal pregnancy.

Again, the OP isn’t pregnant. And no one is saying that when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy we should just let her die.

I know this for a fact and with no doubt. I’m sure your intentions are only good and I respect that, and I also assure you that I am 100% pro-life. You just simply don’t understand what you are talking about in this particular circumstance. God bless!

Actually, it sounds like you don’t understand what you are talking about.

And to muddy the waters, maybe to cover that you don’t know what you are talking about, you are throwing in ectopic pregnancy and questions about whether she should take the meds or not.

 

[Xantippe]

I think the stuff Starrsmother was saying about ectopic pregnancy and methotrexate is helpful, because it shows how very dangerous methotrexate is to pregnancy if it is in fact used to destroy embryos. It’s no wonder that it causes horrible birth defects if the mode of operation is to dissolve the embryo.

Starrsmother said:

“Do you think they can put the embryo in saline until it’s old enough to survive or do you realize that the baby will also die with the removal of the tube?”

No, but two actions can have the same results (i.e. the death of the embryo), with one being allowable and the other being immoral.

There are lots of Catholic bioethicists working out there–please do more research on this. Here’s an article from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

That’s very basic of course, but the bottom line is that the stuff you are doing is very controversial in Catholic ethics.

I would suggest making contact with the NCBC center and talking to them about ectopic pregnancy.

(My husband works in Catholic ethics, but not specifically in bioethics.)

 

[1ke]

By the way–what do you think happens to the baby in the case of a tubal pregnancy where the entire tube is removed as once was the only option–and if such a situation were discovered prior to the tube rupturing and the mother’s death? Do you think they can put the embryo in saline until it’s old enough to survive or do you realize that the baby will also die with the removal of the tube?

It is unfortunate that medical technology does not exist that can assist the baby in gestating. The baby does die, but not because it is directly attacked, but because a legitimate medical intervention on the mother’s diseased tissue occurs. The baby’s death is unintended, and although foreseen is not willed and not desired and not directly caused.

With methotrexate, the woman will be able to save the tube rather than have it removed–thus increasing her chances for future pregnancies.

That is a direct abortion and not permissible. The Church has made this determination already and is very clear-- these drugs cannot be used to attack the pregnancy and leave the tube intact. It is a direct abortion, never permissible. See Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

See what I mean?

No, I don’t.

Do you mean to suggest solutions that are incompatible with Church teaching? Or were you not aware that the things you are suggesting are not permissible?

 

[webmiesterph]

TxDeeDee1028

I am in a very similar situation. Only up the amount of the medication.

You, like me, have two choices. Total abstinence or periodic abstinence. I have chosen periodic. Yes, it can be a long row to hoe. But I think total abstinence would be even more difficult.

And, no, a priest can’t give you permission to sin. So, yes, you could talk to a priest. But he can’t tell you to use a condom. And no, in doing that, he isn’t denying you your medication.

Honestly, if you are afraid that NFP won’t work, why would you trust condoms?

Beyond the sin, it is the effect of the use of a contraceptive that makes it more harmful. With condom use, the temptation to do it outside infertile days are stronger, making the risk for pregnancy even greater. NFP can be a contraceptive in itself if it is used in the wrong way, thus the morality of using NFP greatly lies in its intentions. Contraceptives often teach people to be afraid of having children, and this leads to negative effects in the family.

We might want to ask, are we using NFP because we see it as the Will of God (thus it is part of the love of God for us) not to have sex on certain days? Or are we using it because we are afraid of having another child, irregardless of his condition? These two situations look the same on the outside, but are completely different in the inside, and their effects are completely different as well. For the couple who uses NFP because they see it as the Will of God, a conception will be taken with much joy even if the baby is born with abnormalities, because they see it as having been in accordance with God’s Will and thus, is part of God’s plan. For the couple who use it out of fear, they become afraid of the suffering the child will bring and may opt for abortion, or may not raise the child in the same beautiful way because they don’t see it as God’s Will but rather as a scientific failure. The child can sense this big difference as he grows up. One has a positive effect on the family’s spiritual unity and the other a negative one.

The use of the condom in this aspect, may be a reflection of that fear. Beyond asking what is allowed by the church or what is considered sinful, is our intention which can really have an impact on one’s happiness and faith. Let us try our best not to be afraid. Faith will teach us that what we sense as our weaknesses and inabilities (e.g. I cannot be a good mother if I get pregnant), can be complemented through God’s love. You are a wonderful woman despite your condition, and you will always be no matter what sickness you might have, If we are using something because of fear instead of love for God’s Will, whatever the reason, it will not help us grow in our faith, and may in fact, make it weaker. We will feel more inadequate and end up following church teachings out of fear instead of love. This may make it harder for us to understand more deeply The Church’s teachings furthermore.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, when Jesus stood on the…whatever he was standing on…and Satan told him to jump, Jesus said don’t put God to the test.

Isn’t that substantially the same as risking a horrible outcome while having faith God will make it good?

I’m not meaning to be argumentative.

OK, I understand about not being argumentative

This is what Scripture says: 6 And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: *That he hath given his angels charge of thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: *Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Here we see the Devil tempting Our Lord. He tells Christ to jump off a building because God will hold Him up with angels.

But jumping off the building would be *wrong, *contrary to God’s law. What is Satan asking Christ to do? In a way, to prove the existence of God by expecting something from God.

This is putting God to the test, to ask something from God to prove Himself.

 

[Starrsmother]

No RA but I have Lupus. Also a medical condition where a rheumatologist would prescribe methotrxate. I also take Plaquenil. Actually she is attempting to avoid pregnancy. Just like I am.

But no one is saying she shouldn’t take the medication. Not sure why you are bringing this up?

No one is saying she shouldn’t take the medication. :shrug:Again, the OP isn’t pregnant. And no one is saying that when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy we should just let her die.
Actually, it sounds like you don’t understand what you are talking about.

And to muddy the waters, maybe to cover that you don’t know what you are talking about, you are throwing in ectopic pregnancy and questions about whether she should take the meds or not.

No, I actually do know what I’m talking about–though perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in expressing it. The reason I spoke of methotrexate being used in ectopic pregnancies was not to muddy any water, but rather to vividly explain why a woman could not/should not use methotrexate for RA without using some other means of preventing a pregnancy from occurring while she is on the drug–that the two things are tied together. What happens to an embryo in the case of it being ectopic is exactly what will happen to an embryo that is an intrauterine pregnancy if methotrexate is given in either case. In an ectopic situation, what happens is expected and what you want to happen and if a woman for any reason did not end up with the ectopic pregnancy being sloughed (and there is certainly always that chance), then you would still have to go in and remove the tube. It’s simply a way of HOPEFULLY ending an ectopic situation while saving the woman’s tube–if it works. If for any reason it doesn’t work, you know that then you will still have to end the ectopic–but by the more invasive and sadder method of removing her entire tube However, in an intrauterine pregnancy, if the woman is given methotrexate and for any reason the pregnancy isn’t sloughed–which as I stated before would very likely happen any way (and in which case, technically there would be no visible problem) but if for any reason, the pregnancy survived after the methotrexate, you’ve just bought yourself a world of big problems! The issue indeed is NOT whether or not someone with RA should or should not use methotrexate. The issue is whether it is reasonable to be on meethotrexate while allowing any possibility of a pregnancy to occur. I would never put a woman on methotrexate in the first place–knowing what can happen-- without being certain she wasn’t going to come back to me accidentally pregnant. Most providers wouldn’t do so either. That’s a really good way to get yourself sued!

As to whether or not this woman is attempting to avoid a pregnancy-again, perhaps I chose poor wording. Of course you are correct technically that she is attempting to avoid a pregnancy at this time–but in my mind at least there’s a huge difference between someone who doesn’t want to get pregnant simply because she only wants 2 kids spaced just so, for instance or is in college and doesn’t want to deal with a new baby or a situation such as that and a woman like the one who posted the question who uses NFP, expressed a wish to have further children, is dealing with a serious medical condition, and for that reason should not turn up pregnant–at least at the present time and while on certain meds being prescribed as treatment for her illness. The difference to me is a question of using common sense.

 

[webmiesterph]

It is unfortunate that medical technology does not exist that can assist the baby in gestating. The baby does die, but not because it is directly attacked, but because a legitimate medical intervention on the mother’s diseased tissue occurs. The baby’s death is unintended, and although foreseen is not willed and not desired and not directly caused.

That is a direct abortion and not permissible. The Church has made this determination already and is very clear-- these drugs cannot be used to attack the pregnancy and leave the tube intact. It is a direct abortion, never permissible. See Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

No, I don’t.

Do you mean to suggest solutions that are incompatible with Church teaching? Or were you not aware that the things you are suggesting are not permissible?

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.

 

[maryjk]

No, I actually do know what I’m talking about–though perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in expressing it. The reason I spoke of methotrexate being used in ectopic pregnancies was not to muddy any water, but rather to vividly explain why a woman could not/should not use methotrexate for RA without using some other means of preventing a pregnancy from occurring while she is on the drug–that the two things are tied together. What happens to an embryo in the case of it being ectopic is exactly what will happen to an embryo that is an intrauterine pregnancy if methotrexate is given in either case. In an ectopic situation, what happens is expected and what you want to happen and if a woman for any reason did not end up with the ectopic pregnancy being sloughed (and there is certainly always that chance), then you would still have to go in and remove the tube. It’s simply a way of HOPEFULLY ending an ectopic situation while saving the woman’s tube–if it works. If for any reason it doesn’t work, you know that then you will still have to end the ectopic–but by the more invasive and sadder method of removing her entire tube However, in an intrauterine pregnancy, if the woman is given methotrexate and for any reason the pregnancy isn’t sloughed–which as I stated before would very likely happen any way (and in which case, technically there would be no visible problem) but if for any reason, the pregnancy survived after the methotrexate, you’ve just bought yourself a world of big problems! The issue indeed is NOT whether or not someone with RA should or should not use methotrexate. The issue is whether it is reasonable to be on meethotrexate while allowing any possibility of a pregnancy to occur. I would never put a woman on methotrexate in the first place–knowing what can happen-- **without being certain she wasn’t going to come back to me accidentally pregnant. **Most providers wouldn’t do so either. That’s a really good way to get yourself sued!

So you would accept someone using condoms as a way to avoid pregnancy, but you wouldn’t accept NFP?

The only way to ensure there is NO way to get pregnant is total and complete abstinence. Or to have your ovaries or uterus removed.

As to whether or not this woman is attempting to avoid a pregnancy-again, perhaps I chose poor wording. Of course you are correct technically that she is attempting to avoid a pregnancy at this time–but in my mind at least there’s a huge difference between someone who doesn’t want to get pregnant simply because she only wants 2 kids spaced just so, for instance or is in college and doesn’t want to deal with a new baby or a situation such as that and a woman like the one who posted the question who uses NFP, expressed a wish to have further children, is dealing with a serious medical condition, and for that reason should not turn up pregnant–at least at the present time and while on certain meds being prescribed as treatment for her illness. The difference to me is a question of using common sense.

Common sense? You are telling someone to use condoms to avoid pregnancy. Sorry, but that is laughable.

When I was prescribed methotrexate, I was told to not get pregnant. I didn’t have to have my birth control method approved by my doctor. That said, are you a doctor? I wonder, since you are prescribing methotrexate.

 

[on_the_hill]

I guess I see this from a very different perspective.

A neighbor had been told by her doctor that if she were to get pregnant her life would be at risk. She wanted another child and took the risk. Several months into her pregnancy she died, leaving a husband and three young children. This was about ten years ago and the family hasn’t recovered. So far the out come has been drugs, truancy, and trouble. The father remarried but the marriage ended unhappily. They are Christian and have a strong support network, but simply aren’t managing without their mother/wife.

Granted, she chose to get pregnant and take the risk. And, this is not a situation where the OP’s life is endangered. Nonetheless, I think we have to consider the temporal (is that the right word?) possibilities.

 

[on_the_hill]

Common sense? You are telling someone to use condoms to avoid pregnancy. Sorry, but that is laughable.

When I was prescribed methotrexate, I was told to not get pregnant. I didn’t have to have my birth control method approved by my doctor. That said, are you a doctor? I wonder, since you are prescribing methotrexate.

1. Is NFP more effective than condoms at avoiding pregnancy?
2. Not to fight starsmother’s battles, but I don’t think she’s the one doing the prescribing.

 

[WiccanWoman]

When I was prescribed methotrexate, I was told to not get pregnant. I didn’t have to have my birth control method approved by my doctor. That said, are you a doctor? I wonder, since you are prescribing methotrexate.

She says in post #5:

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–even in such cases as where where one of the parties is HIV positive and thus unprotected intercourse could result in the other party being exposed to a nearly fatal illness.

 

[webmiesterph]

OK, I understand about not being argumentative

This is what Scripture says: 6 And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: *That he hath given his angels charge of thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: *Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Here we see the Devil tempting Our Lord. He tells Christ to jump off a building because God will hold Him up with angels.

But jumping off the building would be *wrong, *contrary to God’s law. What is Satan asking Christ to do? In a way, to prove the existence of God by expecting something from God.

This is putting God to the test, to ask something from God to prove Himself.

The big difference in this verse is that Satan was the one that asked Jesus to jump off the building. If it was God who asked Jesus to jump off the building, will Jesus still reply the same way?

We may think that this is a crazy request that God probably wouldn’t ask us to do, but He does. God asked Moses to sacrifice Isaac, for instance, and He also willed that Jesus be crucified. Both requests are as crazy as Satan’s request to jump off the building, yet they didnt complain and say “I will not tempt/test my God”, but instead they followed.

This is quite interesting because in Moses’ experience, it was God who was testing Moses and not Moses testing God.

Going back to our question in this case, we ask: Is it God who is enlightening our Methotrexate user to use a Condom or is it Satan, disguised as wisdom, who is merely tempting her to do it? Is her RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis), use of methotrexate, and NFP, a way for her to test God, or it is it God testing her for her faith in Him and/or His church’s teachings?

We may have different answers to these questions and perhaps will never agree even with a long discussion.

 

[webmiesterph]

I guess I see this from a very different perspective.

A neighbor had been told by her doctor that if she were to get pregnant her life would be at risk. She wanted another child and took the risk. Several months into her pregnancy she died, leaving a husband and three young children. This was about ten years ago and the family hasn’t recovered. So far the out come has been drugs, truancy, and trouble. The father remarried but the marriage ended unhappily. They are Christian and have a strong support network, but simply aren’t managing without their mother/wife.

Granted, she chose to get pregnant and take the risk. And, this is not a situation where the OP’s life is endangered. Nonetheless, I think we have to consider the temporal (is that the right word?) possibilities.

I feel sorry for this family. I love the story of St. Gianna Molla. She was asked to have an abortion, and being a doctor, she knew that she would most probably die if she did not have one. She chose not to have one and she died shortly after childbirth.

 

[St_Francis]

I will only respond to one or two of these things you mention for the sake of brevity. Firstly,perhaps my use of the word “dispensation” was a poor choice of wording. If so, I apologize and will try stating it differently. Maybe a better way would be to say that just as a priest may well advise a woman that she isn’t sinning if she uses birth control pills to treat certain bonafide medical conditions, most priests will re-assure a woman in the same way that she is not sinning by using condoms if placed on methotrexate–

The use of a medicine (methotrexate or the Pill) *as medicine *is moral, for a proportionate reason.

The use of a condom to prevent conception is intrinsically wrong and is wrong here as well, since it is being used to prevent conception.

if they understand the situation–

One can certainly understand the situation, but the situation does not change the immorality of the act.

This woman is not in any way attempting to avoid a pregnancy,

But the actuon of using a condom would in fact be for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy.

infact she seems to wish she could try for more kids right now–rather, she is attempting–with medical management-- to control a horrible disease process which can well end with her being too crippled to even care for the child she has–much less any more kids if she doesn’t follow her provider’s advice. Her rheumatologist’s advice is sound–and he is planning to treat her based on the most current and accepted knowledge of the disease and its treatment that exists today.

DeeDee’s illness does warrant her use of a medication, whose side effect is abortifacient.

Secondly, using methotrexate to end a tubal pregnancy is NOT the same as abortion.

It is the same
It is the same: Some say that cutting out a section of the tube with a baby inside is no different than using methotrexate because, in either case, the baby ends up dying. **Yet the difference in how the baby dies is, in fact, critical. There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes. **We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being, though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life that comes with trying to properly address a life-threatening medical situation.

…An ectopic pregnancy is not viable—ever!

First of all, not all ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tubes. This site details ectopic pregnancies in which both mother and child survived; I have not been able to look through to see if any were pregnancies in the Fallopian tubes.

Secondly, the unborn child is alive altho implanted outside the womb. When you talk of “dissolv[ing] an ectopic or ‘tubal’ pregnancy,” you are talking about “dissolving” a living human being.

Thirdly, there is an acceptable moral alternative to using methotrexate to “dissolve” an unborn child, which is removal of the Fallopian tube affected.

It will ultimately end with the mom’s certain death however if not treated and early on (google it if you need more info)–and just as the church would not deny a woman a hysterectomy while pregnant if it were discovered that she had advanced uterine cancer, the Catholic church does not take a “stand back and watch the woman die” approach if she has the terrible misfortune of having a tubal pregnancy.

Right, which is why women are allowed to be treated for medical problems during pregnancy, even if the unfortunate and unintended side effect of the treatment is the death of the baby, which is completely different from directly killing the unborn child.

I know this for a fact and with no doubt.

History is littered with the errors caused by people who “knew things for a fact and with no doubt.”

I’m sure your intentions are only good and I respect that, and I also assure you that I am 100% pro-life. You just simply don’t understand what you are talking about in this particular circumstance. God bless!

I believe that you are completely sincere. I also see that you have been misled.