Contraception debate for irregular circumstances

[Catholic80]

I want to start off by saying that I am against all contraception and agree that it sterilizes the marital union, thereby refusing openness to life.

My sister brought up some interesting points, however, that aren’t being addressed through NFP. For instance, many women have menstrual irregularities, making NFP very hard to practice. Also, there are couples, where after having children, the woman developed a complication making pregnancy severely detrimental to her health, or even life threatening to both mother and child (high risk for miscarriage), or another woman my sister knows who found out (after marriage) she has a severe genetic condition which makes pregnancy very dangerous to both her and child. And then, there is a combination of the two… a woman having menstrual irregularities with a risk of medical complications if pregnancy occurs.

As a single person, it is hard for me to “argue” against contraception because I get the retort, “Well, this matter doesn’t affect you! You don’t understand.” I am truly sympathetic and understanding of how a married couple need to come together frequently. And to say, “well, if conceiving a child would truly be harmful, then you need to abstain,” is harsh and uncompassionate.

There really isn’t a lot of talk about married couples encountering these issues and what they should do in these circumstances. Can any of you shed some light on the matter, on what a couple should do who are wanting to be intimate, but it would be extremely dangerous for the woman to conceive?

 

[Rhuarc]

It doesn’t matter how harsh it sounds, they should and must abstain. Contraception is never the answer, chastity is.

 

[edwest2]

I want to start off by saying that I am against all contraception and agree that it sterilizes the marital union, thereby refusing openness to life.

My sister brought up some interesting points, however, that aren’t being addressed through NFP. For instance, many women have menstrual irregularities, making NFP very hard to practice. Also, there are couples, where after having children, the woman developed a complication making pregnancy severely detrimental to her health, or even life threatening to both mother and child (high risk for miscarriage), or another woman my sister knows who found out (after marriage) she has a severe genetic condition which makes pregnancy very dangerous to both her and child. And then, there is a combination of the two… a woman having menstrual irregularities with a risk of medical complications if pregnancy occurs.

As a single person, it is hard for me to “argue” against contraception because I get the retort, “Well, this matter doesn’t affect you! You don’t understand.” I am truly sympathetic and understanding of how a married couple need to come together frequently. And to say, “well, if conceiving a child would truly be harmful, then you need to abstain,” is harsh and uncompassionate.

There really isn’t a lot of talk about married couples encountering these issues and what they should do in these circumstances. Can any of you shed some light on the matter, on what a couple should do who are wanting to be intimate, but it would be extremely dangerous for the woman to conceive?

As far as some complications, most doctors have been taught that the birth control pill is the only remedy. There are Catholic doctors out there that can provide alternative treatments.

stlouisreview.com/article/2010-05-26/catholic-doctor-says

Click on the two links for NaPro and Creighton Model.

I also recommend:

catholicpediatrics.com/articles/alternatives-adolescent-birth-control-pills

For other problems that occur before or after the first child, I suggest women contact:

aaplog.org/ and onemoresoul.com/

Even if there is not a doctor near them, I think they should make a phone call, or, if possible, travel to one.

The encyclical Humanae Vitae does say that the Church allows for therapeutic procedures as long as there is no other motive involved.

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)"

Full document here: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[LJN21]

Contraception is fool proof either. I know a woman who went against the Church’s teaching and use contraception after he first pregnancy because she found out a second would be very high risk and possibly kill her. She is currently 27 weeks pregnant. Abstinence is the only way to 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy.

 

[po18guy]

It doesn’t matter how harsh it sounds, they should and must abstain. Contraception is never the answer, chastity is.

How right you are! Marital relations are not necessary to sustain one’s life, as breathing is, but some would have us think so.

 

[Glennford]

I’ll just say that those situations are indeed addressed by the Church. I’ve been involved in another NFP thread and doing reading on the topic and all of those answers are available. In short, NFP is a medical technique that can do certain things and there are some things it cannot do. It’s not a Catholic cure-all for any reproductive problems. Some people are visited with serious medical issues which render them unable to enjoy sexual relations in marriage for long periods. The types of issues you mention happen, as well as a host of diseases that render one or the other partner incapable of sex. In all of these cases, the Church asks couples who really care about serving God to make heroic sacrifices, and reminds them that God does not ask us to endure that which cannot be endured, rather He offers us exactly those graces newcessary to overcome in these tough situations.

 

[JRKH]

In an open forum - or in open conversation for that matter - one is obligated to uphold Catholic teaching. This is as it should be.
That said though…the best advice is to tell them that if they feel strongly about there simply being no other option they should talk privately with their priest and whatever that outcome of such counseling should likewise remain private.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I want to start off by saying that I am against all contraception and agree that it sterilizes the marital union, thereby refusing openness to life.

My sister brought up some interesting points, however, that aren’t being addressed through NFP. For instance, many women have menstrual irregularities, making NFP very hard to practice. Also, there are couples, where after having children, the woman developed a complication making pregnancy severely detrimental to her health, or even life threatening to both mother and child (high risk for miscarriage), or another woman my sister knows who found out (after marriage) she has a severe genetic condition which makes pregnancy very dangerous to both her and child. And then, there is a combination of the two… a woman having menstrual irregularities with a risk of medical complications if pregnancy occurs.

As a single person, it is hard for me to “argue” against contraception because I get the retort, “Well, this matter doesn’t affect you! You don’t understand.” I am truly sympathetic and understanding of how a married couple need to come together frequently. And to say, “well, if conceiving a child would truly be harmful, then you need to abstain,” is harsh and compassionate.

There really isn’t a lot of talk about married couples encountering these issues and what they should do in these circumstances. Can any of you shed some light on the matter, on what a couple should do who are wanting to be intimate, but it would be extremely dangerous for the woman to conceive?

Arguments that are outside the norm are always brought up to test Church teaching. But one must remember that the Church’s teachings are written to represent the “norm” - not every possible permutation of circumstances.
In an open forum - or in open conversation for that matter - one is obligated to uphold Catholic teaching. This is as it should be.
That said, the best advice to give to someone actually in an abnormal situation is to tell them they should talk privately with their priest and whatever the outcome of such counseling should likewise remain private.

Peace
James

 

[Glennford]

That said, the best advice to give to someone actually in an abnormal situation is to tell them they should talk privately with their priest and whatever the outcome of such counseling should likewise remain private.

Wow, I’d like to hear that explained. Sounds to me like someone is trying to say “psst…here’s how you get a pass…”

In point of fact, getting bad advice from a bad priest does not mean the law doesn’t apply to someone, if it is a teaching they can reasonably look up for themselves. In this case, as I noted above, it is.

Also, your post was so creepy I think I have to take a shower now.

 

[JRKH]

Wow, I’d like to hear that explained. Sounds to me like someone is trying to say “psst…here’s how you get a pass…”

Why would you assume that recommending a person speak to a priest is an attempt to “get a pass”.
It appears, based on your next remark that you are assuming a “bad priest”.

In point of fact, getting bad advice from a bad priest does not mean the law doesn’t apply to someone, if it is a teaching they can reasonably look up for themselves. In this case, as I noted above, it is.

Fine they can look it up…And if they still have questions they can talk to their priest.

Also, your post was so creepy I think I have to take a shower now.

Such comments as this do nothing to advance the conversation and are offensive…At least I find it so…

Peace
James

 

[Glennford]

at said, the best advice to give to someone actually in an abnormal situation is to tell them they should talk privately with their priest and whatever the outcome of such counseling should likewise remain private.

Why should it remain private? It’s a public teaching of the Church. To say it should remain private implies very strongly that there can be a contradiction that should remain secret.

I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

Creepy, creepy.

 

[Allegra]

Creighton model NFP adjusts for irregular cycles. I don’t know why people think it doesn’t? Telling someone the truth is not neccessarily without compassion. Lots of people do awful things under diress. THey are still awful things. It is not harsh or cruel to tell them not to make a choice that will harm them or others.

 

[anon70069040]

I know why the church are against contraception. But can someone just explain to me again, what the problem with it is?

 

[davidv]

I know why the church are against contraception. But can someone just explain to me again, what the problem with it is?

Sexual relations are designed by God for the two-fold purpose of unity of the spouses and the procreation of children. Contraception is a violation of this purpose. That is why? Do you understand it?

 

[anon70069040]

Right. And how do you know what god didn’t also design it to also be a form of pleasure? Many animals in nature often solely use it for pleasure, such as dolphins, now the church claims they lack a conscioussness and were created by god, yes? So logically it is natural to practice sexual intercourse without intent to conceive and therefore contraception isn’t some sort of mortal sin, but a human solution to a natural phenomenon?

 

[TrueLight]

Why should it remain private? It’s a public teaching of the Church. To say it should remain private implies very strongly that there can be a contradiction that should remain secret.

I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

Creepy, creepy.

The point is you can disagree without being intentionally offensive, especially when you are new to a forum, and especially when it has been brought to your attention. You haven’t even had a chance to learn the forum rules/dynamics yet.

 

[Glennford]

Shoot the messenger. Good tactics.

 

[JRKH]

Why should it remain private? It’s a public teaching of the Church. To say it should remain private implies very strongly that there can be a contradiction that should remain secret.

Private council should remain private…Is that a concept so hard to understand?

I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

And this advances the conversation how??

Creepy, creepy.

I have expressed to you that I find this offensive since it is clearly directed at me. I ask once again that you stop.

Peace
James

 

[Glennford]

Private council should remain private…Is that a concept so hard to understand?

It is hard to understand. Any question, any, asked on this public forum could instead be asked of a priest. The 594th question about the 37th different variety of masturbation is retained here for public discussion, but this one gets booted privately to a priest…why? The likely outcome in every parish I have been at is that the questioner will be pivately counseled to artificially contracept. So, I find it creepy that this question is the one that has to be submerged.

 

[JRKH]

It is hard to understand. Any question, any, asked on this public forum could instead be asked of a priest. The 594th question about the 37th different variety of masturbation is retained here for public discussion, but this one gets booted privately to a priest…why? The likely outcome in every parish I have been at is that the questioner will be pivately counseled to artificially contracept. So, I find it creepy that this question is the one that has to be submerged.

Well hang around awhile and you will find any number of people told to talk to their priests about various difficult questions…

Peace
James