Contraception and Unbelieving Spouse

[Royalist]

So OP’s wife refuses all of the possible methods to reduce the chance of pregnancy, including the morally lict ones involving periodic abstinence, and insists on the one method (male condoms) which requires his direct involvement?

This seems a bit unreasonable.

 

[NHLove777]

So OP’s wife refuses all of the possible methods to reduce the chance of pregnancy, including the morally lict ones involving periodic abstinence, and insists on the one method (male condoms) which requires his direct involvement?

This seems a bit unreasonable.

No…She is willing to use an IUD. That’s her first choice. She won’t use female barrier methods because she doesn’t believe they are effective. She won’t use NFP because she doesn’t believe it’s effective. I think a lot of women feel that way about both, which is why most use birth control pills, “the shot,” etc. She would use the shot, the patch, or an IUD…They all work the same way (biologically).

My concern with all of those is that they could all cause an abortion of a fertilized egg…It’s rare, but it could still happen, and if it did, most of the time I would never know about it. In some rare instances, fertilization does occur, as well as implantation, and the hormones from these methods kills the child then as well, except this time development is further along.

 

[NHLove777]

This is my understanding as per my spiritual education and as per my conscience. You would also be in error to second guess the advice of your Priest.

We cannot control the actions of our spouse although we are expected to air our feelings and objections all the same, which I assume you have done.

You are trying to assume a degree of control you don’t have and that is a dangerous path.

Your Priest is right.

I understand his logic, as well as your own, but if one can mitigate evil, one should. The idea that it’s somehow worse to engage in bad behavior rather than stand by and watch while worse behavior occurs is very confusing. My motivation wouldn’t be for evil, it would be to prevent evil. I think the Church is really sending a lot of mixed signals here.

 

[thewanderer]

I understand his logic, as well as your own, but if one can mitigate evil, one should. The idea that it’s somehow worse to engage in bad behavior rather than stand by and watch while worse behavior occurs is very confusing. My motivation wouldn’t be for evil, it would be to prevent evil. I think the Church is really sending a lot of mixed signals here.

It sounds to me that you are having trouble understanding the idea that the ends do not justify the means. In other words, it doesn’t matter how well-intentioned your actions are, or how much good will come out of them, if the means you use are immoral then the action itself will still be immoral. Do you think you could elaborate on what part of this you find especially confusing? Maybe some of us can help clear it up, at least a little

No…She is willing to use an IUD. That’s her first choice. She won’t use female barrier methods because she doesn’t believe they are effective. She won’t use NFP because she doesn’t believe it’s effective. I think a lot of women feel that way about both, which is why most use birth control pills, “the shot,” etc. She would use the shot, the patch, or an IUD…They all work the same way (biologically).

My concern with all of those is that they could all cause an abortion of a fertilized egg…It’s rare, but it could still happen, and if it did, most of the time I would never know about it. In some rare instances, fertilization does occur, as well as implantation, and the hormones from these methods kills the child then as well, except this time development is further along.

I want to make sure that you understand the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. The death of a child, even if caused by human intervention, is only an abortion if the death of the child was intended, otherwise, it is a miscarriage. Since you have already made it clear that your wife is very pro-life and would never consent to an abortion or even consider it, it would be impossible for these contracpetives to cause her to have an abortion. They may cause her to have a miscarriage, which is still a terrible thing, but it is not the same as an abortion at all.

 

[Ana_v]

I want to make sure that you understand the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. The death of a child, even if caused by human intervention, is only an abortion if the death of the child was intended, otherwise, it is a miscarriage. Since you have already made it clear that your wife is very pro-life and would never consent to an abortion or even consider it, it would be impossible for these contracpetives to cause her to have an abortion. They may cause her to have a miscarriage, which is still a terrible thing, but it is not the same as an abortion at all.

The mixed signals/confusion that the OP alludes to can be understood if we consider how much effort the Church in America put forward to oppose the Obama Administration’s HHS Mandate, not only because it mandates health insurance coverage of contraceptives but also because, among those contraceptives are “abortion-inducing drugs” (and let’s not presume that all women who use the Pill or disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, intend an abortion … many of them don’t know that there is a possibility, however remote, that the Pill can prevent the implantation of a newly conceived life).

So the Church (as well as Protestant organizations) made sure to emphasize the capably-abortive function of hormonal contraceptives … for the purpose of sparing themselves from having to materially cooperate with the distribution of these drugs and devices to employers, yet the OP is being told that it is permissible to materially cooperate with his spouse’s use of contraception even if it is foreseeable that, should she conceive, she might lose their baby over it! Doesn’t it at least seem inconsistent?

I suppose one could argue that the former (proliferation of contraceptives) is more serious than the latter (cooperation with a contracepting spouse), since the latter depends ultimately on agents who make contraception accessible in the first place (afterall Jesus said to Pilate that he who delivered Him up to Pilate had the greater sin), yet the point remains that the Catholic entitites wanted to have nothing to do with servicing contraception, but a spouse is told he can have something to do with it, so long as it’s indirect!

I am NOT recommending that the OP use contraception himself (correct: the ends doesn’t justify the means). I am simply dilineating the reason why I can understand his frustration toward the advice he has been given regarding the Pill.

To the OP: have you and your wife discussed the difference between “perfect use” efficacy rates of of NFP, and “typical use” (also called “actual use”) efficacy rates?

Perfect use tells you the efficacy of the method-itself (measured by correct and consistent use).

Typical use tells you the efficacy of the method as *practiced *(which of course includes the failures rates of those who use the method incorrectly and/or inconsistently).

Is she also aware that by NFP, we don’t mean the calendar rythym method, but rather fertility-symptom awareness methods?

 

[Gliggle]

Hi I know you are getting a lot of advice, lol so I hope you aren’t saturated yet, but not long after browsing this thread I stumbled across this article and was surprised at its relevance so thought I would link it.

twotlj.org/G-1-28-B.html

Also, philosophically, I find the whole pill vs condom thing very confusing too: however it seems to me that if we are called to be open to life, then it is better to be open to short life than no life. Part of being Catholic is knowing that this life is just a prelude, and it is a mistake to put human value on human life. Humans value life in terms that are different to God; for them a worthy life is “Beautiful”, “Successful”, “Comfortable” “Long”. We have no way of knowing what God values in each human soul, but it probably has very little to do with how long it lives on Earth.

Either way I know I thank God that I am not in your situation, it is a really tormenting quandary. Praying for you!

One more thing, I think Contra Mundum has given you the best advice on this page and you should definitely take it

 

[thewanderer]

The mixed signals/confusion that the OP alludes to can be understood if we consider how much effort the Church in America put forward to oppose the Obama Administration’s HHS Mandate, not only because it mandates health insurance coverage of contraceptives but also because, among those contraceptives are “abortion-inducing drugs” (and let’s not presume that all women who use the Pill or disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, intend an abortion … many of them don’t know that there is a possibility, however remote, that the Pill can prevent the implantation of a newly conceived life).

So the Church (as well as Protestant organizations) made sure to emphasize the capably-abortive function of hormonal contraceptives … for the purpose of sparing themselves from having to materially cooperate with the distribution of these drugs and devices to employers, yet the OP is being told that it is permissible to materially cooperate with his spouse’s use of contraception even if it is foreseeable that, should she conceive, she might lose their baby over it! Doesn’t it at least seem inconsistent?

I suppose one could argue that the former (proliferation of contraceptives) is more serious than the latter (cooperation with a contracepting spouse), since the latter depends ultimately on agents who make contraception accessible in the first place (afterall Jesus said to Pilate that he who delivered Him up to Pilate had the greater sin), yet the point remains that the Catholic entitites wanted to have nothing to do with servicing contraception, but a spouse is told he can have something to do with it, so long as it’s indirect!

I am NOT recommending that the OP use contraception himself (correct: the ends doesn’t justify the means). I am simply dilineating the reason why I can understand his frustration toward the advice he has been given regarding the Pill.

To the OP: have you and your wife discussed the difference between “perfect use” efficacy rates of of NFP, and “typical use” (also called “actual use”) efficacy rates?

Perfect use tells you the efficacy of the method-itself (measured by correct and consistent use).

Typical use tells you the efficacy of the method as *practiced *(which of course includes the failures rates of those who use the method incorrectly and/or inconsistently).

Is she also aware that by NFP, we don’t mean the calendar rythym method, but rather fertility-symptom awareness methods?

I did not in any way mean to imply that it is ridiculous or odd to be confused on this topic, I was just trying to get a better idea of where the OP needed help clearing up his understanding. It is hard to help someone understand something unless you know what it is that is confusing them.

 

[Ana_v]

I did not in any way mean to imply that it is ridiculous or odd to be confused on this topic, I was just trying to get a better idea of where the OP needed help clearing up his understanding. It is hard to help someone understand something unless you know what it is that is confusing them.

That’s okay – it’s just I didn’t think the OP was confused in regards to the ends doesn’t justify the means, and why he cannot *himself *use contraception, but rather the question of is a barrier method more grave than a hormonal method that can induce abortion? Both are contraceptive acts, but I assume they can be ranked in terms of gravity. I was concerned because the OP has seemingly been scandalized by the priest he sought advice from. I feel bad about this because there is only so much a person can do online.

I think the most moral thing to do is to abstain from marital relations, wherether continuously (until the spouse is open to conceiving) or periodically (NFP).

But it would be difficult for spouses to mutually agree to this, when one is obstinate about contracepting.

 

[LongingSoul]

The mixed signals/confusion that the OP alludes to can be understood if we consider how much effort the Church in America put forward to oppose the Obama Administration’s HHS Mandate, not only because it mandates health insurance coverage of contraceptives but also because, among those contraceptives are “abortion-inducing drugs” (and let’s not presume that all women who use the Pill or disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, intend an abortion … many of them don’t know that there is a possibility, however remote, that the Pill can prevent the implantation of a newly conceived life).

So the Church (as well as Protestant organizations) made sure to emphasize the capably-abortive function of hormonal contraceptives … for the purpose of sparing themselves from having to materially cooperate with the distribution of these drugs and devices to employers, yet the OP is being told that it is permissible to materially cooperate with his spouse’s use of contraception even if it is foreseeable that, should she conceive, she might lose their baby over it! Doesn’t it at least seem inconsistent?

I suppose one could argue that the former (proliferation of contraceptives) is more serious than the latter (cooperation with a contracepting spouse), since the latter depends ultimately on agents who make contraception accessible in the first place (afterall Jesus said to Pilate that he who delivered Him up to Pilate had the greater sin), yet the point remains that the Catholic entitites wanted to have nothing to do with servicing contraception, but a spouse is told he can have something to do with it, so long as it’s indirect!

I am NOT recommending that the OP use contraception himself (correct: the ends doesn’t justify the means). I am simply dilineating the reason why I can understand his frustration toward the advice he has been given regarding the Pill.

To the OP: have you and your wife discussed the difference between “perfect use” efficacy rates of of NFP, and “typical use” (also called “actual use”) efficacy rates?

Perfect use tells you the efficacy of the method-itself (measured by correct and consistent use).

Typical use tells you the efficacy of the method as *practiced *(which of course includes the failures rates of those who use the method incorrectly and/or inconsistently).

Is she also aware that by NFP, we don’t mean the calendar rythym method, but rather fertility-symptom awareness methods?

I don’t think the OPs main issue is the pill as in his second post he said…

*I appreciate the suggestions. My wife is a doctor so she is aware of all of the health issues related to contraception. As I mentioned in my first post she doesn’t use birth control pills and won’t because they may have abortifacient properties. I don’t know enough about the issues you mentioned regard condom use to argue against it, but as I am sure you know, almost anything not natural has some health concerns, including things like laundry detergent. Even still, I don’t think condoms are very hazardous to the health.

As far as NFP is concerned, a catholic family member suggested it to her and she made it clear she will never go for that. It’s not really very effective for many women.*

But his understanding of the Churchs position on contraception makes him confused about why condoms aren’t allowed…

Additionally, although I am willing to follow the Church’s teachings on this, I truly find the Catholic position on contraception very poor and contradictory (NFP is allowed but condom use isn’t?). I have read Humanae Vitae and while many good points are made on many issues, the opposition of condom use for married couples is really not well thought out in my opinion.

OP, the Churchs teaching on sexual intercourse is that it be reserved to purposes of procreation and the unity of marriage. These purposes cannot be separated without misusing this act. Using condoms is to use the sex act for the single purpose of human satisfaction by interfering in the natural and divine communion according to Gods plan.