Can I use a barrier for medical reasons?

[Rau]

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

But I read LongingSoul to suggest otherwise. I hope she will elaborate or clarify.

 

[Corki]

But I read LongingSoul to suggest otherwise. I hope she will elaborate or clarify.

He may have inferred it but the link he gave referred to using Salpingostomy and/or Methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancy. Those were the “two options”. Condoms was the point of the OP but there is nothing equivocal about Church teaching in that regard.

 

[pamnbam]

Back then, the BEST outcome that could even be hoped for was that a woman would lose a tube and half of her future fertility

For what it’s worth, the female body does compensate upon the loss of one ovary/Fallopian tube, or both. A few months after removal, the woman tends to ovulate normally again on the leftover ovary. So removing a tube or part of a tube to treat an ectopic pregnancy would not necessarily have lasting effects on a woman’s future reproductive health (barring complications/scar tissue, etc.)

For the OP, research it yourself if you don’t believe those telling you; anyone else telling you that condoms are ok, even for your medical reason, is just not using sound Catholic doctrine.

 

[Starrsmother]

For what it’s worth, the female body does compensate upon the loss of one ovary/Fallopian tube, or both. A few months after removal, the woman tends to ovulate normally again on the leftover ovary. So removing a tube or part of a tube to treat an ectopic pregnancy would not necessarily have lasting effects on a woman’s future reproductive health (barring complications/scar tissue, etc.)

For the OP, research it yourself if you don’t believe those telling you; anyone else telling you that condoms are ok, even for your medical reason, is just not using sound Catholic doctrine.

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!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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!

It does not matter what the “full story” is. It is not allowed. Why do you insist on being anti Catholic?

What you are advocating is dishonest and disingenuous. Because you are taking advantage of the fact that some priests may not be in communion with the Church on this. But that does not make it right.

This is one of the most common and easiest question to answer.

It is simple. Here you go.

The Catholic Church does not allow for the use of condoms ever.

All the time I read and hear “but what if…” statements. As if the Church has never considered these situations.

 

[1ke]

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.

Why do you continue to deny the Church’s clear teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil by saying that a priest can “ok” condom use? He cannot.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

This was dealt with when this happened. Just as the media spins the theology of Francis they did the same with Benedict.

Benedict was speaking to the idea of levels of evil and gravity.

If you apply it to other theological issues it does not hold water.

A Rapist with AIDS who does not use a condom, decides to use one in the rape of his next victim. This shows a progression away from evil in his heart. The act of rape and the condom use are BOTH still grave matter. And in our faith we do not teach that we may do evil even if good can be achieved through it. God, being all good, cannot endorse in any way evil. So while the rapist is “growing” in the right direction, he is not morally unculpable in either sin, the rape, nor the misplaced love for neighbor of wearing the condom.

Or more simply, If I put the words “please” at the end of a bank robbery note, I am still robbing the bank.

 

[webmiesterph]

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

Yes, it is possible some people may consider it a sin. The question here is not whether “some” people consider it a sin, the question is whether the Catholic Church considers it as a sin or not.

 

[webmiesterph]

This was dealt with when this happened. Just as the media spins the theology of Francis they did the same with Benedict.

Benedict was speaking to the idea of levels of evil and gravity.

If you apply it to other theological issues it does not hold water.

A Rapist with AIDS who does not use a condom, decides to use one in the rape of his next victim. This shows a progression away from evil in his heart. The act of rape and the condom use are BOTH still grave matter. And in our faith we do not teach that we may do evil even if good can be achieved through it. God, being all good, cannot endorse in any way evil. So while the rapist is “growing” in the right direction, he is not morally unculpable in either sin, the rape, nor the misplaced love for neighbor of wearing the condom.

Or more simply, If I put the words “please” at the end of a bank robbery note, I am still robbing the bank.

This reminds me of what Jesus told Pontius Pilate “He who delivered me to you has the greater sin”. Here it doesn’t say that Pontius Pilate has no sin, only that sin can have different gravities, of which the greater one was to the ones who delivered Jesus to Pilate.

 

[Rau]

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!

I’m sorry but what you advise presumes that there are circumstances where condoms during sex are ok. There are none. No priest or bishop can change that. No Bishop or Priest has any latitude whatsoever in this matter. I put these questions to you earlier, but you have not replied:
1). Do you agree your opinions are in conflict with Catholic Church teachings?
2). Can you point to any catholic teaching, reference or authority that states that circumstances exist whereby it is acceptable for husband and wife to use condoms during sex?

 

[webmiesterph]

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.

Hi Starmother, I am glad we agree on many things, of course, our purpose of discussion here is not to prove who is right or wrong, but hopefully, help both of us towards becoming more loving towards Jesus in our brother.

Keeping the Fallopian tube is often times one way of being more open to life. God’s Will however, is not always about being open to life in this way alone. If He wills that we die for our brother, should we do it? If he calls for a woman to become celebate and become a nun, does it mean she is less open to new life? Our trust in God’s plan may mean that we have to give up even our own fertility, but we are still open to other means of entering family life. Adoption, is one for instance.

If the method we choose to become “open to life” is not in accordance to God’s Will, it will not have the spiritual benefits we hope it will have, even if the physical outcome is the same of somewhat even better.

 

[Starrsmother]

Hi Starmother, I am glad we agree on many things, of course, our purpose of discussion here is not to prove who is right or wrong, but hopefully, help both of us towards becoming more loving towards Jesus in our brother.

Keeping the Fallopian tube is often times one way of being more open to life. God’s Will however, is not always about being open to life in this way alone. If He wills that we die for our brother, should we do it? If he calls for a woman to become celebate and become a nun, does it mean she is less open to new life? Our trust in God’s plan may mean that we have to give up even our own fertility, but we are still open to other means of entering family life. Adoption, is one for instance.

If the method we choose to become “open to life” is not in accordance to God’s Will, it will not have the spiritual benefits we hope it will have, even if the physical outcome is the same of somewhat even better.

I’m happy if we agree on some things too–if we do, thanks and God bless–if not, that’s okay too! Y’know, I was on another forum thread tonight–unless it was an earlier post on this thread–and someone actually posted that the church categorically denounced condom use–even as a cover for a vag-probe during a pelvic ultrasound. I read that, read it again, through up my hands in disgust, and had decided to just no longer mess with this particular thread if some people were actually going to argue such silliness as that! When things get too crazy. I usually back out as I tend to already spend way too much time arguing with real women’s health pros in the Seattle fertility clinics over subjects like why it is NOT okay to do in vitro to get a woman pregnant–a first wrong—and then complicate it by suggesting she “weed out” 3 or 4 of her babies. Now, believe me, as a Catholic women’s health provider–THOSE turn into some fist fights! So to me, to argue with someone who just truly doesn’t get the picture and will never get the picture about something like a condom on a vag probe or that a methotrexate shot and removing a tube with an intact pregnancy within it are exactly the same thing, gets a little tiring and trite to me! Also, I’m also pretty that some of these people wouldn’t change their mind if Jesus slapped them up side the head with a lead rosary! And moreover, they don’t really want to hear and understand anything so why offend them? To me it’s not worth it.

Y’know–in my opinion, I wish no baby was ever aborted. I wish every baby came into a home with a mom and Dad. I don’t believe in artificial contraception–and even managed to import a little computerized device to demonstrate to my ladies-- a device that’s available in Ireland but our FDA won’t approve-- which basically let’s a woman pee on a stick every morning, and as it’s sensitive to LH ( a hormone that goes up when a woman is within 24 hours of ovulating), can be used with something like a 98% success rate along with NFP to either prevent a pregnancy or to help get pregnant! And those numbers are right up there with the efficacy of OCP’s! So, I am NOT the enemy here!

Jesus warned the pharisees more than once that for them to follow the letter of the law right down to the last dotted “i”–as they did-- but to not allow the meaning or spirit of the law to be in their heart or sink into their minds was hypocritical and reprehensible. Anyway you look at it, a baby dies in a tubal pregnancy. Period. It’s not a maybe thing–or a 99.9 % thing–it’s a 100% thing–absolutely for sure!. The next question is whether it is alright to save the mother. The answer of course, is yes–at least I think most folks on this thread agreed with that–though maybe I’m wrong there too and some of these folks think the woman should just be allowed to bleed to death! I don’t pretend to know anymore–and frankly,I don’t really care WHAT they think! So, to get into a squabble about what is to me, plain scrupulosity-- about whether a dead baby must die by only a surgical or a medical means–but either way it’s a dead baby— seems like a “Pharisee-approach” to me. Particularly I feel this way if a woman hopes to save her tube and have more pregnancies in the future! Why unnecessarily rip out her tube? Because we can? Okay, if a person feels that way–let them. I do not and would never take such a crass attitude with a woman who is already having to deal with the death of her baby! AND, I’m not going to argue it further!

And as to anyone who questions whether church law allows putting a condom on the end of a vag-probe as a sterile barrier during an ultrasound–anyone who thinks that is somehow against church law-- is just, well–is just not someone that I’m going to waste 5 seconds more of my life arguing with!! They need education more than they need to argue with me, for sure!! :banghead:

 

[LongingSoul]

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. *

What I’m saying is that the Catholic bio ethics position as per Edward Furtons booklet that I cut and pasted into an earlier post, is that Catholic institutions using the 2 debated options on the basis that it doesn’t constitute direct abortion, are within the scope of Catholic teaching on the subject. If it so happens that the debate is definitively resolved and the Magisterium speaks specifically against the 2 procedures, then practicioners will be acting contrary to Church teaching. I put this forward as I did not think Starrsmother was addressed accurately here with the current position put forward in the guidelines to the medical community.

 

[LongingSoul]

But I read LongingSoul to suggest otherwise. I hope she will elaborate or clarify.

No I didn’t say that the subject of contracepting was unaddressed. I was talking of the 2 proceedures that are debated in treating ectopic pregnancy. The condom issue was a separate subject.

 

[St_Francis]

What I’m saying is that the Catholic bio ethics position as per Edward Furtons booklet that I cut and pasted into an earlier post, is that Catholic institutions using the 2 debated options on the basis that it doesn’t constitute direct abortion, are within the scope of Catholic teaching on the subject. If it so happens that the debate is definitively resolved and the Magisterium speaks specifically against the 2 procedures, then practicioners will be acting contrary to Church teaching. I put this forward as I did not think Starrsmother was addressed accurately here with the current position put forward in the guidelines to the medical community.

Yes, I went ahead and read the whole article. I appreciate your linking it, and it was totally relevant to the discussion. I look forward tk Rome’s decision in this matter.

 

[Rau]

Yes, I went ahead and read the whole article. I appreciate your linking it, and it was totally relevant to the discussion. I look forward tk Rome’s decision in this matter.

Yes, I read it also, though it wasn’t evident to me that Rome is necessarily going to do anything. It seems that at present, the treatment in question fails the test to be licit. The contrary argument is not so much that it doesn’t target the embryo, but that it is actually ok to do so in certain circumstances, with the benefit being to avoid an operation and to save a tube. This seems a hard case to make given the current teaching.

 

[1ke]

And as to anyone who questions whether church law allows putting a condom on the end of a vag-probe as a sterile barrier during an ultrasound–anyone who thinks that is somehow against church law-- is just, well–is just not someone that I’m going to waste 5 seconds more of my life arguing with!! They need education more than they need to argue with me, for sure!! :banghead:

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.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m happy if we agree on some things too–if we do, thanks and God bless–if not, that’s okay too! Y’know, I was on another forum thread tonight–unless it was an earlier post on this thread–and someone actually posted that the church categorically denounced condom use–even as a cover for a vag-probe during a pelvic ultrasound. I read that, read it again, through up my hands in disgust, and had decided to just no longer mess with this particular thread if some people were actually going to argue such silliness as that! When things get too crazy. I usually back out as I tend to already spend way too much time arguing with real women’s health pros in the Seattle fertility clinics over subjects like why it is NOT okay to do in vitro to get a woman pregnant–a first wrong—and then complicate it by suggesting she “weed out” 3 or 4 of her babies. Now, believe me, as a Catholic women’s health provider–THOSE turn into some fist fights! So to me, to argue with someone who just truly doesn’t get the picture and will never get the picture about something like a condom on a vag probe or that a methotrexate shot and removing a tube with an intact pregnancy within it are exactly the same thing, gets a little tiring and trite to me! Also, I’m also pretty that some of these people wouldn’t change their mind if Jesus slapped them up side the head with a lead rosary! And moreover, they don’t really want to hear and understand anything so why offend them? To me it’s not worth it.

Y’know–in my opinion, I wish no baby was ever aborted. I wish every baby came into a home with a mom and Dad. I don’t believe in artificial contraception–and even managed to import a little computerized device to demonstrate to my ladies-- a device that’s available in Ireland but our FDA won’t approve-- which basically let’s a woman pee on a stick every morning, and as it’s sensitive to LH ( a hormone that goes up when a woman is within 24 hours of ovulating), can be used with something like a 98% success rate along with NFP to either prevent a pregnancy or to help get pregnant! And those numbers are right up there with the efficacy of OCP’s! So, I am NOT the enemy here!

Jesus warned the pharisees more than once that for them to follow the letter of the law right down to the last dotted “i”–as they did-- but to not allow the meaning or spirit of the law to be in their heart or sink into their minds was hypocritical and reprehensible. Anyway you look at it, a baby dies in a tubal pregnancy. Period. It’s not a maybe thing–or a 99.9 % thing–it’s a 100% thing–absolutely for sure!. The next question is whether it is alright to save the mother. The answer of course, is yes–at least I think most folks on this thread agreed with that–though maybe I’m wrong there too and some of these folks think the woman should just be allowed to bleed to death! I don’t pretend to know anymore–and frankly,I don’t really care WHAT they think! So, to get into a squabble about what is to me, plain scrupulosity-- about whether a dead baby must die by only a surgical or a medical means–but either way it’s a dead baby— seems like a “Pharisee-approach” to me. Particularly I feel this way if a woman hopes to save her tube and have more pregnancies in the future! Why unnecessarily rip out her tube? Because we can? Okay, if a person feels that way–let them. I do not and would never take such a crass attitude with a woman who is already having to deal with the death of her baby! AND, I’m not going to argue it further!

And as to anyone who questions whether church law allows putting a condom on the end of a vag-probe as a sterile barrier during an ultrasound–anyone who thinks that is somehow against church law-- is just, well–is just not someone that I’m going to waste 5 seconds more of my life arguing with!! They need education more than they need to argue with me, for sure!! :banghead:

No one on this thread is arguing that. What YOU are arguing is that it is prudent advice to find a priest who will “allow” condom use. Not only is that wrong advice as you well know but it is also evil.

Please address the questions posed to you about condoms.

I think what we are seeing here is a manifestation of the crisis in the Church with healthcare and healthcare workers. If the frontlines (you) cannot even hold basic Catholic tenets then we are doomed.

What makes me want to bang my head is the idea that you keep evading, distracting and employing tactics that are dishonest, antiCatholic and unsound. And then refuse to back them up!!!

That wall is a wall of your own making. Do you really thing that if you come on a Catholic site and give anti Catholic advice that people will just take your word for it!?

Stop baning your head against the wall of doctrine and the Church of Our Lord. Your Lord.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m happy if we agree on some things too–if we do, thanks and God bless–if not, that’s okay too! Y’know, I was on another forum thread tonight–unless it was an earlier post on this thread–and someone actually posted that the church categorically denounced condom use–even as a cover for a vag-probe during a pelvic ultrasound. I read that, read it again, through up my hands in disgust, and had decided to just no longer mess with this particular thread if some people were actually going to argue such silliness as that! When things get too crazy. I usually back out as I tend to already spend way too much time arguing with real women’s health pros in the Seattle fertility clinics over subjects like why it is NOT okay to do in vitro to get a woman pregnant–a first wrong—and then complicate it by suggesting she “weed out” 3 or 4 of her babies. Now, believe me, as a Catholic women’s health provider–THOSE turn into some fist fights! So to me, to argue with someone who just truly doesn’t get the picture and will never get the picture about something like a condom on a vag probe or that a methotrexate shot and removing a tube with an intact pregnancy within it are exactly the same thing, gets a little tiring and trite to me! Also, I’m also pretty that some of these people wouldn’t change their mind if Jesus slapped them up side the head with a lead rosary! And moreover, they don’t really want to hear and understand anything so why offend them? To me it’s not worth it.

Y’know–in my opinion, I wish no baby was ever aborted. I wish every baby came into a home with a mom and Dad. I don’t believe in artificial contraception–and even managed to import a little computerized device to demonstrate to my ladies-- a device that’s available in Ireland but our FDA won’t approve-- which basically let’s a woman pee on a stick every morning, and as it’s sensitive to LH ( a hormone that goes up when a woman is within 24 hours of ovulating), can be used with something like a 98% success rate along with NFP to either prevent a pregnancy or to help get pregnant! And those numbers are right up there with the efficacy of OCP’s! So, I am NOT the enemy here!

Jesus warned the pharisees more than once that for them to follow the letter of the law right down to the last dotted “i”–as they did-- but to not allow the meaning or spirit of the law to be in their heart or sink into their minds was hypocritical and reprehensible. Anyway you look at it, a baby dies in a tubal pregnancy. Period. It’s not a maybe thing–or a 99.9 % thing–it’s a 100% thing–absolutely for sure!. The next question is whether it is alright to save the mother. The answer of course, is yes–at least I think most folks on this thread agreed with that–though maybe I’m wrong there too and some of these folks think the woman should just be allowed to bleed to death! I don’t pretend to know anymore–and frankly,I don’t really care WHAT they think! So, to get into a squabble about what is to me, plain scrupulosity-- about whether a dead baby must die by only a surgical or a medical means–but either way it’s a dead baby— seems like a “Pharisee-approach” to me. Particularly I feel this way if a woman hopes to save her tube and have more pregnancies in the future! Why unnecessarily rip out her tube? Because we can? Okay, if a person feels that way–let them. I do not and would never take such a crass attitude with a woman who is already having to deal with the death of her baby! AND, I’m not going to argue it further!

I read the article, and the current situation is that there are two schools of thought among orthodox Catholic moral theologians about whether methotrexate and salpingostomy are moral procedures. I have acknowledged the Church’s position on this, which is that it is undecided and therefore currently permissable.

However, you are writing as if the question is settled, as if those who opine that these are moral acts are correct. The judgement has not yet been made; it may go against your point of view. I suggest that you take that into consideration in your comments.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t believe in artificial contraception–and even managed to import a little computerized device to demonstrate to my ladies-- a device that’s available in Ireland but our FDA won’t approve-- which basically let’s a woman pee on a stick every morning, and as it’s sensitive to LH ( a hormone that goes up when a woman is within 24 hours of ovulating), can be used with something like a 98% success rate along with NFP to either prevent a pregnancy or to help get pregnant! And those numbers are right up there with the efficacy of OCP’s!

We don’t have this product in Australia either but now that you mention it, I intend to do more investigating. Back in the late 70’s/early 80’s, my Dad was president of the local chapter of Knights of the Southern Cross and I remember there being a big issue with what sounded like this exact product being found sound, but not being approved for use in Australia. The story was that the pharmaceutical companies had the sway to prevent it as it would have affected their profits from the Pill. Nothing ever came of the fight though. I wonder if this is the same technology and if the forces that are suppressing it really are the pharma companies??