Chaste marriage and controlling menstrual cycle

[josiecoe]

My wife and I have been living in a chaste and happy marriage and we have a 5 year old daughter. We have been chaste since she was conceived almost 6 years ago, that is. My wife is in her mid 30’s and has incredible problems with her menstrual cycle, she is strongly considering having something inserted to control her periods.

Is this compatable with church teaching under these circumstances? Something tells me that it is a conflict. Please respond only if you know the answer for sure.

 

[fermat]

The answer to your question depends on your definition of chaste. Chaste truly means that you respect your sexuality and are not inappropriate with your marital relations. From the context of your post though, it sounds like you have been abstaining from relations, which means you don’t engage in the marital act.

Generally speaking, most contraceptives taken by women are also abortifacients, meaning they either induce an abortion, or they prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus, which is also an abortion. If you are currently abstaining, this does not present a problem because you are not going to have a fertilized ovum to abort. There is also the issue of contraception in general.

As a result, your wife can accept a medical treatment for her condition if you abstain from relations.

Now, if you meant chaste as only having appropriate relations, then you would need to move to abstinence.

In any case, you should consult your pastor as to your situation. He will know both of you and may be better able to speak to your situation.

 

[kage_ar]

An IUD is a form of artificial birth control. It WILL cause abortions. It is never morally justified.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

My wife and I have been living in a chaste and happy marriage and we have a 5 year old daughter. We have been chaste since she was conceived almost 6 years ago, that is. My wife is in her mid 30’s and has incredible problems with her menstrual cycle, she is strongly considering having something inserted to control her periods.

Is this compatable with church teaching under these circumstances? Something tells me that it is a conflict. Please respond only if you know the answer for sure.

I have trouble believing that you and your wife have been living a “chaste and happy marriage” if you lack certainty over relevant church teaching, and if you seem to be trying to “prove” something to your wife, in this aspect of your marriage.

Instead of talking to a saint, I get the feeling that I am talking to a devout person befuddled by the birth control rule.

My wife was irregular to the point that the periodicity of her periods was still apparent, but inside of that periodicity was a substantial variation in ovulation time.

Nonetheless, we used Natural Family Planning with spectacular results.

Initially we used both the basal thermometer and mucus method together, to learn our stuff.

After a year, we abandoned the basal thermometer method, and afterwards used the mucus method, only. With the mucus method, we could tell exactly when my wife was ovulating, despite her irregularity…

Catholics here unfamiliar with these terms should memorize them, read up on them, and apply them to your marriages, and teach it to your children.

Re your specific question, I doubt that anyone knows the answer. What’s natural, what’s unnatural? How much is modern non-periodicity a product of non-environmental factors versus modern chemistry in the environment – for example, a product of those estrogen - like compounds leaching off plastics into the water tables and oceans as non-point-source pollution; or a product of growth hormone in chickens and cows? Who knows? It is a slippery, slippery subject. For example, there’s a good chance that if your wife starts working in an office full of women, she’ll start having more regular periods. Apparently this happens because the endocrine systems of the women start naturally competing with one another, in the fertility department. That’s how naturally amendable the process is.

 

[Jermosh]

My wife and I have been living in a chaste and happy marriage and we have a 5 year old daughter. We have been chaste since she was conceived almost 6 years ago, that is. My wife is in her mid 30’s and has incredible problems with her menstrual cycle, she is strongly considering having something inserted to control her periods.

Is this compatable with church teaching under these circumstances? Something tells me that it is a conflict. Please respond only if you know the answer for sure.

It is morally allowed to use the “pill” for legtimate medical reasons, sex is still morally allowed within that marriage as well. It falls under double effect.

 

[fermat]

It is morally allowed to use the “pill” for legtimate medical reasons, sex is still morally allowed within that marriage as well. It falls under double effect.

True double effect requires that:

• the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
• the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
• the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

This cannot be a cause of double effect for the last reason. Having relations with your spouse could never outweigh the abortion that would result from that act. If an egg is fertilized and does not implant because of the contraceptives, that is an abortion.

If she is on contraceptives for any reason, abstain.

 

[ryecroft]

Actually, I am in a very similar situation to your wife and I have consulted a Catholic Priest over the situation (back when we first got married and again when I was told I needed to find out for sure again)
Personally, we have to use artifical birth control (as I have on and off since I was 13) in order to keep me from having to get transfusions (because of the blood loss from 4-6 month long periods) and to help diminish the size of the ovarian cysts and tumors in my uterus. I also have kidney disease which also causes me to loose blood (generally fairly small amounts -hematuria).
This situation comes below the teaching of double effect. Because I would take the medication even if were not married or sexually active and because my situation is one of serious concern the reason for using it is for a good. The fact that it also controls whether I get pregnant or not is a secondary situation. I have been to many different OB /GYNs over my life time - even have a Catholic one and there is agreement that this is best for the time being.
It sounds like your wife would come under the the reasoning of double effect but I’m not sure what you’re talking about her having implanted. It has recently come up that there is something called “breakthrough ovulation” (which when we were going through NFP training we were told that this happens very, very rarely and shouldn’t make us worry) where they believe it is possible that another egg could be released and if there are sperm near by it would be fertilized - now since certain forms of birth control cause the lining of the uterus to come out in a period, if that fertilized egg comes to implant in that lining, it will not be able to - there by it is being said that it is an abortifacient. Many doctors seem to believe that life begins when that fertilized egg implants itself and begins growing.
On here I have been told that almost all forms of artificial birth control with hormones will cause this to happen. I highly reccomend that you speak with your doctor/OB GYN. The reason this does not happen with some forms of the pill is because since the pill came out the amount of estrogen in the pill has been diminished to generally nothing above 50 mcg - You should be able to find an OBGYN that will be willing to work with you and your wife so that she can get the help she needs and you can “enjoy each other” without feeling or wondering if youre in a state of sin.
God Bless!

 

[Jermosh]

True double effect requires that:

• the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
• the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
• the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

This cannot be a cause of double effect for the last reason. Having relations with your spouse could never outweigh the abortion that would result from that act. If an egg is fertilized and does not implant because of the contraceptives, that is an abortion.

If she is on contraceptives for any reason, abstain.

Its not an abortion, and it is permissible.

 

[ryecroft]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermosh
It is morally allowed to use the “pill” for legtimate medical reasons, sex is still morally allowed within that marriage as well. It falls under double effect.

True double effect requires that:

the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

This cannot be a cause of double effect for the last reason. Having relations with your spouse could never outweigh the abortion that would result from that act. If an egg is fertilized and does not implant because of the contraceptives, that is an abortion.

If she is on contraceptives for any reason, abstain.

Fermat, I agree with Jermosh - it is allowable and I know this because I am in an extremely similar situation - as far as the abortifacient nature of ABC - you seem to assume that every form of artificial birth control will cause an abortion - this simply is NOT true. If you’re looking for someone else to back this up, Fr. Serpa has an excellent post on almost this exact subject - I’m not sure what it’s under but as soon as I find it again (or if someone else on here knows where it is) I’ll put it on.
God Bless!

 

[fermat]

Quote:
Fermat, I agree with Jermosh - it is allowable and I know this because I am in an extremely similar situation - as far as the abortifacient nature of ABC - you seem to assume that every form of artificial birth control will cause an abortion - this simply is NOT true. If you’re looking for someone else to back this up, Fr. Serpa has an excellent post on almost this exact subject - I’m not sure what it’s under but as soon as I find it again (or if someone else on here knows where it is) I’ll put it on.
God Bless!

Please see if you can find that. We are all here to learn!

Peace,
f

 

[ryecroft]

Hi -
Sorry it took me so long to find it - I will quote it and then put the link - let me know if this is answer enough - it is the BEST answer I have ever seen because it explains about intention and - well here it is:

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

the link (I hope it will work) is:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618