Condoms during pregnancy

[TAS2000]

The post in question was very unspecific and also said that there were other options as well. It also DIDN’T say that it would be ok for the girl to go have sex while taking the pil for a medical reason. It simply said that medical treatments that have a contraceptive effect are allowed for health reasons. We all agree to this.

My example of the girl using the pill to prevent ovarian cysts because of the *potential *impact on her future fertility would not be permissible but it is.

Really? Prove it. I think it is far more likely that the real point here is that she is using a medical treatment for a current problem (the cysts) that has the unintended side effect of contraception. That would prove Felra’s point, not yours.

The use of the condom is not a contraceptive act.

I think this is the key here. If introducing an artificial barrier to the natural act is not contraceptive, then you are right. Just because she is not physically capable of getting pregnant at the moment doesn’t make a difference. The same could be said of an infertile woman, or just someone who isn’t currently ovulating. Saying that the circumstances define the morality of an action is what we call “relativism”. I think relying on Webster for your moral theology is shaky to say the least.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Why would the church have a position specifically on Braxton Hicks contractions, which are NOT harmful in and of themselves, and trying to prevent or encourage them?

Braxton Hicks are extremely painful, but I have never heard of semen causing them. In the last 2 months of pregnancy who the hell wants to have sex anyway? It’s not like a woman can enjoy it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Really? Prove it. I would love to see an authoritative statement from the magesterium about this. NOT someone’s opinions, even if they are a respected Theologian. As far as I know this is your opinion of what you have been told.

I would love to “prove” it to you with a letter from the Pope. If I told my wife that I was referencing this friend’s daughter’s medical condition in this forum, she would probably have a list of honey do’s a mile long in retaliation for discussing such a personal medical issue here! Especially since she doesn’t share my passion for understanding and teaching on behalf of the Church! But the following is an earlier post and this is situation involves a good Catholic family that wouldn’t cross the street if their Priest said it was wrong.

I have been told that there are even cases where the Church allows the use of the pill in certain medical conditions so long as the reason for the use of the pill is not to prevent pregnancy. In this case, a teen girl developed ovarian cysts every few months. It was feared by the doctors that the frequent occurance of the cysts would impact fertility and potentially render her infertile when she was married. Being a good faithful Catholic family, they took their case to the Church and it was approved. My wife (she had the conversations with the mother) tells me that there was also conversation with the girl by the Pastor that it was imperative that she remain chaste so that she wasn’t using this condition to essentially subvert Church teaching. Personally, I told my wife that I was torn over this decision as they were creating demand for a product that its most prevalent use was evil.

And personally, since Felra provided a link that said it was ok to use the pill to regulate the menstrual cycle, it is definitely easy for me to believe that the Church would allow this use as its purpose was to prevent potential damage to her ovaries and future fertility.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Saying that the circumstances define the morality of an action is what we call “relativism”. I think relying on Webster for your moral theology is shaky to say the least.

I’m not relying on Websters for theology. However, words have meaning only if people are using the correct definition. Otherwise, you have confusion. Contraception is the act with the intent of preventing pregnancy. This is clearing the context used by the Church since contraception is always wrong even though there are acceptable uses of using “vehicles” that have the unintended effect of being contraceptive.

Furthermore, Circumstances **definitely ** define the morality. Having a hysterectomy because you have uterine cancer is moral. Having one because you don’t want more babies is immoral. Or another example is lying to the Nazi’s because your basement is full of Jews is moral. Lying to your wife about the source of the lipstick on your collar is not.

 

[socalcarmelite]

I believe it states in the Cathechism that you can take the pill for medical reasons. I’ll find the quote later since I am at work. Why you would want to subject a teenager to woman problems until she is married is beyond me.

 

[felra]

LOL OK, I’ve agreed that intentions aren’t the right word and that conditions are. The conditions in this case are the wife is already pregnant and obviously open to life. The use of the condom is not a contraceptive act. I concede that we have to be very careful here to not open a Pandora’s Box. But I also think we need to be careful that just reacting “wrong/wrong/ALWAYS wrong” everytime the use of a contraceptive device comes up opens up to false teaching, disillusionment, and potentially even a scandal against the faith.

…???

**
****“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. …The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” ****

Totally agree as it is from the Catechism. The only reason that I have been so persistent is to try to help this couple make informed decision and to understand the distinctions between the general teaching (contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is wrong) and that there may be an exception. In the very beginning, I advocated that they needed to do a sincere examination of conscience and to consult their Priest.
**
Yes, but how many Catholics (laity and clergy alike) focus their energies and efforts on the exception rather than the rules and depth of teaching behind them?

**
****Some rules apply in every case: - One may never do evil so that good may result from it;” ****

I totally agree. Again, contraception is wrong. But I believe that if we are talking about something other than contraception, we are doing a disservice to confuse the two.

P.S. I think it is intellectually dishonest and contrary to the intent of the Magisterium to use the above quote to shut down certain discussions.

Please do not misread and project passive-aggresive intentions on to me when I quote the CCC. That is uncharitable and presumptuous. :tsktsk:

**

Until I’m convinced in this situation that the couple’s use of a condom is contraception- the act to prevent pregnancy, we are not talking about something evil.

I am glad that you have set yourself up as the final arbitrator in this couple’s situation.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Yes, but how many Catholics (laity and clergy alike) focus their energies and efforts on the exception rather than the rules and depth of teaching behind them?

I agree that is a danger. But is also a danger when people take the black and white approach to something that is complex. (I am not advocating relativism. I’m only saying that the answer isn’t always clear.

Please do not misread and project passive-aggresive intentions on to me when I quote the CCC. That is uncharitable and presumptuous.

Absolutely not intended. I guess it was an attempt to again say that want appears evil may actually not be evil (concurrantly that which appears to be Holy can sometimes be actually evil) and reflected my sensitivity when people quote the Bible out of context to prove their point. We both agree that evil is evil and can’t be used to accomplish a good purpose. My apologies.

I am glad that you have set yourself up as the final arbitrator in this couple’s situation

Ouch! Actually, I should have said that until I am convinced that this is contraception, I will not believe (using my conscience dedicated to hearing and following God’s will!) that in this instance they would be committing an evil act contrary to God’s teaching. I do see the merits that abstinance could be redemptive and sacrificial and do urge the couple to consider this. I guess I’m just trying to articulate that, unless this is contraception, the choice is theirs to make in conformance with their conscience as they seek to discern God’s will.

 

[TAS2000]

Orion, you are using an incorrect argument. I can’t think of the official name for it, but you are confusing the actual subject of the matter. If circumstances dictate what is moral, then you are using relativism. Consider this (quickly though up example):
Murder is always evil.
Murder done in self defense or defense of Family not evil.

That is relativism. The act of murder IS always EVIL. If you are doing self defense or family defense, then it isn’t MURDER anymore by definition. Yes, the end is the same, the guy is dead, but the ACTS are very different.

CONTRACEPTION=EVIL
Medical treatment= NOT EVIL

That is really fast and dirty, but I hope you see the point.

 

[felra]

Actually, I should have said that until I am convinced that this is contraception, I will not believe (using my conscience dedicated to hearing and following God’s will!) that in this instance they would be committing an evil act contrary to God’s teaching. I do see the merits that abstinance could be redemptive and sacrificial and do urge the couple to consider this. I guess I’m just trying to articulate that, unless this is contraception, the choice is theirs to make in conformance with their conscience as they seek to discern God’s will.

And some might be under the sound opinion that is is simply a matter of “I want my cake and eat it too!”.

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

Actually, I should have said that until I am convinced that this is contraception, I will not believe (using my conscience dedicated to hearing and following God’s will!) that in this instance they would be committing an evil act contrary to God’s teaching. I do see the merits that abstinance could be redemptive and sacrificial and do urge the couple to consider this. I guess I’m just trying to articulate that, unless this is contraception, the choice is theirs to make in conformance with their conscience as they seek to discern God’s will.

And some might be under the sound opinion that is is simply a matter of “I want my cake and eat it too!”.

 

[Orionthehunter]

TAS2000:

Orion, you are using an incorrect argument. I can’t think of the official name for it, but you are confusing the actual subject of the matter. If circumstances dictate what is moral, then you are using relativism. Consider this (quickly though up example):
Murder is always evil.
Murder done in self defense or defense of Family not evil.

That is relativism. The act of murder IS always EVIL. If you are doing self defense or family defense, then it isn’t MURDER anymore by definition. Yes, the end is the same, the guy is dead, but the ACTS are very different.

CONTRACEPTION=EVIL
Medical treatment= NOT EVIL

That is really fast and dirty, but I hope you see the point.

I absolutely see and agree with your point as it is my point. I’m not convinced that in this situation they are committing contraception (she is already pregnant). They are only contemplating using a device that is most often used for contraception (just as using the pill to regulate menstrual cycle is using a device most often used for contraception which Felra pointed out to my surprise is ok w/ the Church). Relativism is when the individual gets to choose what is right or moral based on their own perceptions of Truth or their own selfish interests. I don’t advocate that. If the Church were to determine that this is contraception, I’d determine it to be wrong as it is a virtue to be obedient. I’m just having a rational, intellectual problem seeing how this is contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy) when she is already pregnant. I’m dedicated to finding the Truth and willing to abide to it. But words and their definition is critical to finding the Truth. Please help me get behind my hang-up that the definition of contraception is more than committing an act to prevent pregnancy and you’ll convince me.

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

I absolutely see and agree with your point as it is my point. I’m not convinced that in this situation they are committing contraception (she is already pregnant). They are only contemplating using a device that is most often used for contraception. … I’m dedicated to finding the Truth and willing to abide to it. But words and their definition is critical to finding the Truth. Please help me get behind my hang-up that the definition of contraception is more than committing an act to prevent pregnancy and you’ll convince me.

Maybe that’s your hang up, wanting to see this couple’s desire for sexual inimacy while the wife is pregnant through the medical/biological lens of contraception. Contracpetion is an act against the *procreative good *of our human sexuality. This procreative good can either be fertile or non-fertile, but either way, it is the procreative potential that the use of a condon violates/frustrates/defrauds. One must emcompass the *theology *of marital act the marital act, the scaramental sign and meaning of the marital embrace, to fully appreciate why condom use during periods of infertilty, no matter what the intention, is illicit.

From a gut level, common sense point of view: How can a couple “become one in the flesh” when an artificial barrier is put into place in the marital embrace? This to me would be like attempting a passionate kiss with your wife while placing plastic wrap between the lips–hardly a warm fuzzy there.

Also, applying your logic, then really anytime that a couple is using a condom, but the couple is not fertile (as naturally occurs during the menstral cycle), they would not be objectively commiting the sin of contraception (intentions aside).

 

[Orionthehunter]

Contracpetion is an act against the *procreative good *of our human sexuality. This procreative good can either be fertile or non-fertile, but either way, it is the procreative potential that the use of a condon violates/frustrates/defrauds. One must emcompass the *theology *of marital act the marital act, the scaramental sign and meaning of the marital embrace, to fully appreciate why condom use during periods of infertilty, no matter what the intention, is illicit.

I’m still with you and in agreement.

From a gut level, common sense point of view: How can a couple “become one in the flesh” when an artificial barrier is put into place in the marital embrace? This to me would be like attempting a passionate kiss with your wife while placing plastic wrap between the lips–hardly a warm fuzzy there.

Sexual intimacy is only one of many ways that they are one flesh. This is also accomplished in their parenting, being best friends to one another, holding hands watching movies, crying over the death of a loved one, praying together, and just plain living a sacramental life together. I don’t think this is pertinent. (Still like ya tho’ Felra)

Also, applying your logic, then really anytime that a couple is using a condom, but the couple is not fertile (as naturally occurs during the menstral cycle), they would not be objectively commiting the sin of contraception (intentions aside).

Not at all. One is not permitted to use a contraceptive vehicle and rationalize it by saying they think they are infertile at the time. This is why the Church teaches Natural Family Planning. Short of a Priest or someone better credentialed than all of us on this thread (unless Felra you are a canon lawyer in your other life ), I need to be convinced that this act as described in the beginning is ARTIFICIAL contraception as defined in the catechism “The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love”

Please do so keeping the following in mind (in all cases I’m referring to sex between sacramentally married adults):

1. It is ok to have a hysterectomy and then have sex even though the procreative potential is eliminated.
2. It is ok to be on the pill for certain very limited acceptable medical reasons and have sex even though the procreative potential is reduced. I think this is true but my only direct knowledge is of a teen girl whose use of the Pill for her medical condition is acceptable to the Church and while I don’t know if her permission was conditional that she be chaste, I know her Pastor did tell her that. I suppose there is more clarity in a link provided earlier by Felra. Shoot me if I took the time to read the entire link would provide an answer.
3. Why is it not ok to use a condom in this situation when the procreative potential is non-existent when she is already pregnant? Maybe in this situation they are practicing “natural” contraception which to me is what is happening when a couple has sex when pregnant. “Natural” contraception is encouraged by the Church in Natural Family Planning.

I know it seems like I’m splitting hairs but intellectual nuance and its resolution is also the pursuit of the Truth, a calling for all of us imbued with the gift of intelligence by God.

 

[Listener]

This is certainly an interesting question. It reminds me of those logic puzzles you read that go something like, "You have just arrived on an island. All of the natives always lie and all of the visitors always tell the truth. A native says something, a visitor says something else, etc. and the final question is whether or not a statement is true.

Here is where I am having trouble with the question in this thread. Suppose a couple did use one. Then let’s say they go to confession and tell the priest that they had used birth control. It seems to me that this statement would not be truthful. They were not using birth control because a baby was already there! If the definition of birth control is something that prevents conception, how can you call it birth control if you have already conceived?

It would seem that it would be better to abstain, but suppose that the husband doesn’t consider abstaining as an option? In this case, you would be protecting a baby, not preventing one from being conceived.

I think that this question is a real brain teaser!

 

[jennstall]

Orionthehunter:

Based on these comments, you should also believe that “an act of intercourse” where a woman is taking the pill for menstrual cycle regularity (your link said this was right which surprises me) or prevention of ovarian cysts is also a “contracepted act of intercourse” and thus should be against Church teaching.

Additionally, since using the pill in the case you use and the one I use is not a “contracepted act of intercourse”, I’m having a hard time understanding how using a condom in this case (and potentially only in this case) when conception is already impossible.

Let me take a whack at it

The way I see it, if the pill is being taken for medical reasons, it is protecting her life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, whether she is having sex or not. It’s protecting her while she sleeps. It’s protecting her while she reads. It’s protecting her while she works. Basically, it’s protecting her as long as she’s breathing. It is also protecting her when she is having sex and a side effect of its medicinal use is that it contracepts. My guess is that if the woman were susceptible to a disease only during the sexual act, and not during any other time, then the pill would not be considered an acceptable treatment by the Church. Abstinence would be the only acceptable treatment.

The condom only protects during the act of intercourse. Unlike breathing, the act of intercourse can be abstained from.

Do you see a difference?

 

[TAS2000]

Orion, here it sounds like are with us in the argument:

One is not permitted to use a contraceptive vehicle and rationalize it by saying they think they are infertile at the time.

This is exactly the point. Whether or not the lady is physically able to get pregnant at the moment doesn’t effect whether the act is contraceptive. Otherwise, every time that in a woman’s cycle that she is not fertile, the same would apply.
But here you seem to be having problems again:

I need to be convinced that this act as described in the beginning is ARTIFICIAL contraception as defined in the catechism “The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love”

My CCC doesn’t have a definitions section, so I’m not sure where you are citing this from, but you have to read more than one part to get the whole picture. First of all, I don’t believe the church ever says that ONLY artificial contraception is wrong. I believe there are references to all types being wrong. So what makes this contraception?

From the CCC, 2366-2370:
"each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" - pretty hard with an artificial barrier in the way.
*"based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the **unitive significance AND the procreative *significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."- you can’t seperate the two, even if the woman is infertile at the moment, and a condom would be a seperation.
“The morality of the behavior… must be determined by objective criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation”- The act of placing an atrificial barrier in the process doesn’t respect the total meaning of the act.
“every action which…proposes whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid…by an objectively contradictory language, namely that of not giving oneself totally to the other"- by blocking the natural outcome with the condom, the couple is not giving totally, nor open to procreation, regardless of her current fertility.

Thus, the church does not ONLY describe contraception as our dear friend Webster does, as a mear blockage to conception, but as a frustration of the natural process of the act, which includes both unitive and procreative elements. The fact that the woman is pregnant is essentailly irrelevant (except in as much as it is the reason that sex is medically hazardous at the moment). The fact that they want to introduce a physical barrier to frustrate the natural conclusion of the act is against the total meaning of the marital union, and therefore, contraceptive. Not as the medical definition, but as the thelogical definition.

 

[RichT]

Just remember that John Kerry is a catholic. Ask your catholic doctor of he is Pro-Choice as well, cause he is definitely wrong in suggesting the use of a condom.

 

[felra]

Sexual intimacy is only one of many ways that they are one flesh. This is also accomplished in their parenting, being best friends to one another, holding hands watching movies, crying over the death of a loved one, praying together, and just plain living a sacramental life together. I don’t think this is pertinent. (Still like ya tho’ Felra)

True, but the moment of marital embrace is a consummate moment in which spouses renew and express the sacramental sign of their nuptial vows in a very particular way. Introduction of a condom (for whatever reason) into the marital embrace speaks a contradictory language-“I love you, I give myself totally to you, receive all of me …but, I will not give you my fertility (seed)”. This double talk that seeks to withhold under the guise of wanting to share in the initiative aspect of conjugal love seems plain and evident enough to me.

This is why the Church teaches Natural Family Planning. Short of a Priest or someone better credentialed than all of us on this thread (unless Felra you are a canon lawyer in your other life ), I need to be convinced that this act as described in the beginning is ARTIFICIAL contraception as defined in the catechism “The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love”

I believe that the above quote “contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love”, proves that a husband’s use of a condom during the period of his wife’s pregnancy is absolutely an ARTIFICIAL contraception of the marital act. Objectively, the husband is artificially acting against, attempting to block his fertility (seed) from being transmitted/deposited into his wife as a completion of the marital act. How can there be a “giving oneself totally to the other”, if part of one’s self (husband’s seed=fertility) is isolated, kept apart, and deposited/disposed of elsewhere? I do not need to have credentials behind my name and a collar to figure this one out that there is a contradictory language being spoken there—saying “I love you, I give all my self to you”, but then run off to dispose of the part of yourself that was withheld.

“Conjugal love involves totality, in which all the elements of the person enter-…It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands* indissolubility and faithfulness *in definitive self giving; and it is open to fertility.” (CCC 1643)

“Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely of not giving oneself totally to the other.” (CCC 2370)

1. Why is it not ok to use a condom in this situation when the procreative potential is non-existent when she is already pregnant? Maybe in this situation they are practicing “natural” contraception which to me is what is happening when a couple has sex when pregnant. “Natural” contraception is encouraged by the Church in Natural Family Planning.

The procreative potential of the conjugal act is still present during the wife’s pregnancy (the husband is not naturally infertile, i.e., “they” are not pregnant). The husband is fertile, the wife is naturally infertile, but she is not sterile, hence the procreative potential exists, but is not currently able to actualize (as in other periods of natural infertility). To consider labeling a couple as practicing “natural” conception during pregnancy is a misnomer and shows a lack of understanding of the sacramental language and fecundity of marital conjugal love.

Your statement “the procreative potential is non-existent when she is already pregnant” reflects a one sided assessment, i.e., because the wife is naturally infertile does not render the procreative potential of the marital act null and void (only if both were infertile would there be no procreative potential). Just because a condition is rendered inactive does not remove/eliminate the procreative potential of the marital act.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Introduction of a condom (for whatever reason) into the marital embrace speaks a contradictory language-“I love you, I give myself totally to you, receive all of me …but, I will not give you my fertility (seed)”. This double talk that seeks to withhold under the guise of wanting to share in the initiative aspect of conjugal love seems plain and evident enough to me.

If you are correct, please reconcile this with a woman using the pill for non-contraceptive purposes? Isn’t she also witholding her fertility?

I believe that the above quote “contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love”, proves that a husband’s use of a condom during the period of his wife’s pregnancy is absolutely an ARTIFICIAL contraception of the marital act.

I have asked repeatedly to address how this is contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy) when the pregnancy already exists. I’m willing to consider your conclusion but you keep avoiding this question. It appears to me that you are expanding the definition of contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy as it says in the catechism) to any act changes the nature of the congugal act itself. And if this is the Church’s intent when defining artificial contraception, they should have said “to change the nature of the congugal act” instead of “to prevent conception”. While meritorious, it still seems to me to be an attempt to expand specific Church teaching to support an individual agenda.

If there is a Church teaching that says that the congugal act is to be always natural, we have been looking and referring to the wrong section of the catechism and canon law. If this exists, I welcome the clarity.

I do not need to have credentials behind my name and a collar to figure this one out that there is a contradictory language being spoken there—saying “I love you, I give all my self to you”, but then run off to dispose of the part of yourself that was withheld.

I am obediant to the Church and its legitimate authorities. I’m also on the look out for people distorting Church teaching. As someone involved in my parish’s ecumenical and RCIA activities, I deal with misperceptions of Church teaching and such misperceptions (well intentioned or not) adversely impact the effort of the Church to bring more people home to the Catholic Church. I believe that I am just as committed to the Church as you are and I have reached a rational contrary conclusion. In such situations, I’m called to follow my conscience in absence of clarity from such a credentialed source.

I’ve expressed numerous times that I’m willing to change my position if ANYONE would address directly how this is artificial contraception as defined by the Catechism. The following is directly taken verbatum from the glossary- “CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love.” To me, the operative words in the definition are “to prevent conception.” In this limited situation that is the subject of the thread, the couple is not trying to prevent contraception as conception has already taken place.

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely of not giving oneself totally to the other.” (CCC **2370 **

I totally agree if you would just focus on my question on how this is an act to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The procreative potential of the conjugal act is still present during the wife’s pregnancy (the husband is not naturally infertile, i.e., “they” are not pregnant). The husband is fertile, the wife is naturally infertile, but she is not sterile, hence the procreative potential exists, but is not currently able to actualize (as in other periods of natural infertility). To consider labeling a couple as practicing “natural” conception during pregnancy is a misnomer and shows a lack of understanding of the sacramental language and fecundity of marital conjugal love.

Your statement “the procreative potential is non-existent when she is already pregnant” reflects a one sided assessment, i.e., because the wife is naturally infertile does not render the procreative potential of the marital act null and void (only if both were infertile would there be no procreative potential). Just because a condition is rendered inactive does not remove/eliminate the procreative potential of the marital act.

Now you are getting into a medical/biological argument. If someone with medical/biological credentials would say that there was even the most remote “potential” that a second pregnancy could occure in this situation, I would concede all of my arguments as they would then be practicing contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy). Otherwise, they are not.

I anticipate the comment that we shouldn’t look to the medical/biological community for our morals. I am not looking to them to define our morals. However, God reveals the Truth both in his revelation through Scripture, Tradition & the Teaching of the Magisterium and in the Laws of Nature. If the Laws of Nature tell us that something is so (it is impossible to become pregnant with a second child if pregnant with a child after a certain point in the development of the in vitro baby), then we can rely on this Truth. And the essence of my argument is that if this is a Truth, by definition, this is not contraception. And any expansion of this definition, may be a distortion.