Contraception in cases of life of the mother?

[1ke]

I know of two instances in which a priest of quite orthodox opinions gave advice making this not just allowable but encouraged.

You have either misunderstood the full context of these cases, or the priests went against Church teaching by giving advice that contraception could be used licitly.

Regardless of their perceived “orthodox-ness” a priest who tells someone contraception is morally allowed, and even encouraged, is NOT orthodox at all.

We have given you direct quotes from two papal encyclicals AND the Catechism. So, what part of “no” is unclear at this point?

 

[budgie2]

Sterilization and contraception are both equally mortal sins. One is not “better” than the other.

The fact of the matter is that sterilisation is usually a lesser sin than the contraceptive pill provided a woman has had ovaries removed and there is no risk of ectopic pregnancy. Vasectomy does not carry that risk at all. A sterilisation which is non-abortifacient does not kill a human being with a soul. Killing a human being with a soul is what the Church means by abortifacient. Sterilisation normally seriously damages the sexual organs and can prevent conception occurring prior to fertilisation.

As for the Church’s teaching on the contraceptive pill, I think it is allowed for medical reasons but this is not a true guideline. I do not know why a woman can take an abortifacient drug in the eyes of the Church. It is still a matter of conscience. A woman still has to live according to the Ten Commandments which include “Thou shalt not kill”.

 

[Seatuck]

I know of two instances in which a priest of quite orthodox opinions gave advice making this not just allowable but encouraged.

Very sad.

 

[kage_ar]

If a woman has a tubal pregnancy, and the child will not live, and will likely kill the mother, it is morally licit to surgically remove the tube

Correct

or even the embryo, knowing that the child will die. This is so because the intention is to save the life of the mother, not to kill the child, that is a forseeable, very unfortunate side effect, and because the doctor does nothing to directly kill the child.

Incorrect. By removing the embryo the proceudre becomes a direct abortion, always immoral, never permissable, intent has nothing to do with it.

Praying you find a holy and orthodox priest to instruct in the true teaching of our Church.

 

[Corki]

The fact of the matter is that sterilisation is usually a lesser sin than the contraceptive pill provided a woman has had ovaries removed and there is no risk of ectopic pregnancy. Vasectomy does not carry that risk at all. A sterilisation which is non-abortifacient does not kill a human being with a soul. Killing a human being with a soul is what the Church means by abortifacient. Sterilisation normally seriously damages the sexual organs and can prevent conception occurring prior to fertilisation.

As for the Church’s teaching on the contraceptive pill, I think it is allowed for medical reasons but this is not a true guideline. I do not know why a woman can take an abortifacient drug in the eyes of the Church. It is still a matter of conscience. A woman still has to live according to the Ten Commandments which include “Thou shalt not kill”.

That is not a “fact” at all. Direct sterilization is NEVER acceptable. The use of a precription contracteptive pill is occasionally acceptable. The Church’s teaching (read the CCC) is that one may take medication to treat a medical condidtion even if one of the effects of the medication is contraceptive. Birth control pills, for example, may licitlly be taken to control bleeding or to regulate irregular cycles. They must be part of the actual treatment, not just a way to avoid pregnancy. So, it is not licit to take birth control pills to avoid pregnancy due to a medical condition if the pills do nothing to treat the condition.

The only part of this teaching that is subject to interpretation is what should be done if a married woman is prescribed the pill for a medical condition. Some moral theologians have said that she should use NFP to the best of her ability to avoid the possibility of a blocked implantation should conception occur. Others have said that since any loss in such a case would be entirely unintentional, such caution might be noble but not morally required. The Church has not spoken definitively about this. One can not sin by accident, there must be intent. Abortion is no different in that respect. There are many things that women do that carry some risk to the unborn child; from eating fish to exercising, to continuing life saving medications, to driving a car. A woman can not possibly eliminate everything from her life that could remotely cause a miscarriage.

Direct sterilization is a serious sin that is never permissable. If a reproductive organ is damaged or diseased, it can be removed as part of the treatment. For example, a tumor might necessitate removal or the uterous or ovary. That is not direct sterilization since the surgury is done to remove a diseased organ not to render the whole person sterile.

 

[Corki]

I have read that situations where the “life of the mother” is at stake can constitute a legitimate exception to the ruling against b.c. other than NFP, including for such phenomena as post-partum depression. Under such circumstances, the Pill may be allowable.

Are there, in fact, alternative perspectives on this from an observant Roman Catholic point of view? Can a faithful Catholic chose a form of birth control for its effectiveness, particularly the Pill, when the life of the mother is at stake?

Please note that I’m not asking a general question about the morality of birth control–that’s a separate thread–just for an interpretation of issue from a technical perspective.

Since I am not a clergyman or a degreed moral theologian, I don’t think L2P2 wants my opinion, but I throw this out for some of you more learned than I.

My understanding of the Orthodox position is that a couple, under spiritual direction, may be given permission to use birth control. This is not a blanket permission but a decision reached by the couple with their priest for serious reasons. Is this correct? I also understand that such permission is granted only for non-abortifacient contraception, such as barrier methods. Also correct?

While I can see no situation where a Roman Catholic could take “the Pill,” for contraceptive purposes, is there any room for an interpretation of HV or CC that would lead to a view closer to the Orthodox one?

 

[1ke]

My understanding of the Orthodox position is that a couple, under spiritual direction, may be given permission to use birth control. This is not a blanket permission but a decision reached by the couple with their priest for serious reasons. Is this correct? I also understand that such permission is granted only for non-abortifacient contraception, such as barrier methods. Also correct?

Not exactly. First, the Orthodox Churches are autonomous. They do not have one unified doctrine, with a single head. They base themselves on the first seven ecumenical councils, Tradition, and Scripture.

Officially, the canons of their faith call contraception a sin, a moral evil.

There are writings throughout the Orthodox Churches that establish this as a long-held teaching. In 1937 the Greek Orthodox church issued an encyclical condemning contraception as always a moral evil (probably as a response to what came out of Lambeth when the Anglicans began allowing contraception under “certain circumstances.”) This was around the same time as Casti Connubii reiterated the Catholic teaching on the matter.

But, they do not speak in unison on this issue. What is allowed, say, in the Greek Archdiocese in America or the Orthodox Church In America is not the same thing that is allowed in the Russian Orthodox, the Romanian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, etc, elsewhere in the world.

There are currently three positions held within Orthodoxy:

(1) Contraception AND natural family planniing/periodic abstinence are immoral
(2) Contraception is immoral and natural family planning is moral
(3) Non-abortive contraception can be used upon the approval of the priest or bishop

While I can see no situation where a Roman Catholic could take “the Pill,” for contraceptive purposes, is there any room for an interpretation of HV or CC that would lead to a view closer to the Orthodox one?

None at all.

The Church’s teaching is that contraception is *intrinsically *disordered-- by its very nature.

 

[Corki]

None at all.

The Church’s teaching is that contraception is *intrinsically *disordered-- by its very nature.

That’s more or less what I expected. I just wondered if anyone had explored the differences. Thanks.

 

[L2P2]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

I must say that my own individual conscience, formed by the magisterium on pro-life issues, thinks that there is a major tension between respect for the dignity of life (of the mother) and the teaching on b.c. as applied in HV. I would be particularly curious to find whether Benedict has written anything on this conundrum. Counseling a woman, as did the apologist, that she can “better protect” her children if she dies, is simply something I would never do.

I found an excellent book by a Benedictine monk, Philip S. Kaufman, called Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, that uses probabilism to address difficult issues like contraception when a couple receives medical advice that they should have no more children. He leans heavily on the the thought of Karl Rahner, the greatest Catholic theologian of the the 20th century (to my mind), to find that there is a role for the individual conscience, formed by the magisterium, on decisions about b.c.

Kauffman also cites a poll after Humanae Vitae was issued that indicates that 60% of American Catholic priests did not think all artificial contraception wrong. In an election, that would be a landslide.

 

[1ke]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

I must say that my own individual conscience, formed by the magisterium on pro-life issues, thinks that there is a major tension between respect for the dignity of life (of the mother) and the teaching on b.c. as applied in HV.

I disagree. There is no inconsistency at all. If there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, one may do so. The Church does not insist that the couple continue having children, disregard the mother’s health, or have sex with any specific frequency or at all.

One may avoid pregnancy by abstaining either periodically or completely. If abstaining periodically, one may use modern methods of NFP that accurately identify the post-ovulatory time of a woman’s cycle. Newer methods also incorporate fertility monitors. If a couple feels compelled to refrain even during the post-ovulatory phase of the cycle that is their choice.

Contraception is never a moral choice.

I would be particularly curious to find whether Benedict has written anything on this conundrum.

There is no conundrum.

Counseling a woman, as did the apologist, that she can “better protect” her children if she dies, is simply something I would never do.

That is NOT what the Apologist said at all. The apologist went on at length about abstaining periodically or permanently. The apologist stated that IF they became pregnant anyway (which could also happen using contraception by the way) they should trust in God and recognize that we are not the master’s of our own lives. She pointed out that other things could happen that take the mother away prematurely (like getting hit by a bus!) so we must always be mindful that our time here is limited and not our own.

The apologist at NO TIME indicated that the woman get pregnant and purposely put herself in a position of being in danger.

I found an excellent book by a Benedictine monk, Philip S. Kaufman, called Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, that uses probabilism to address difficult issues like contraception when a couple receives medical advice that they should have no more children.

This book is not authentic Catholic teaching and should be discarded. It is false to assert such a position. There is nothing “probable” about the Church’s teaching on contraception. To attempt to apply probablism is to attempt to rationalize that which you desire to do. Church teaching is not ambiguous on this matter. It is clear and it is definitive.

He leans heavily on the the thought of Karl Rahner, the greatest Catholic theologian of the the 20th century (to my mind),

Karl Rahner was censured by the Vatican. His writings should not be used as the basis for forming one’s conscience. Since you have already started down this road it is clear that you are quite desparate to rationalize that which you desire to do in any way possible.

However, the sure norm for conscience formation is actual church teaching, not censured theologians. And, actual Church teaching is that contraception is intrinsically disordered and sin against the sixth commandment.

to find that there is a role for the individual conscience, formed by the magisterium, on decisions about b.c.

This is a false conclusion based on faulty reasoning and a disregard for Church teaching. Do not follow these men on the path to perdition. Our call from Christ is to walk the path of holiness.

Kauffman also cites a poll after Humanae Vitae was issued that indicates that 60% of American Catholic priests did not think all artificial contraception wrong. In an election, that would be a landslide.

That is completely irrelevant. The Truth is not decided based on opinions or polls.

 

[Bluegoat]

If the mother is really worried about the possibility of pregnancy, she does not need to go on the Pill, she needs to not have sex, at all. No birth control measure besides sterilization can prevent conception 100% of the time. The Pill is usually recorded at about a 95-97% effectiveness rate if it is taken perfectly.

Many people find themselves in the position of having to be celibate - I am not sure why married couples seem to think that they are immune to this possibility.

 

[L2P2]

This book is not authentic Catholic teaching and should be discarded.

Who decided this? You? Please cultivate some humility and re-think your tone. I am going to offer up my answer to your ad feminam attack as to why I am asking the question, but I will say that your posts here have intemperate and uncharitable.

Karl Rahner was censured by the Vatican. His writings should not be used as the basis for forming one’s conscience.

You make an error of fact and the graver error of impugning the reputation of one of the great thinkers of Roman Catholicism. Karl Rahner himself was never censured (unlike, say, Hans Kung, with whom you may be confusing him), and he was professor of Catholic theology at Munster until the end of his career.

Some of Rahner’s ideas, to be sure, received criticism from the Vatican, but that is often the case with truly important theologians because the magisterium develops in dialogue with theologians at Catholic universities. His work is taught in all mainstream Catholic theology departments today in the U.S., and I was a student of one of his students about 15 years ago. Only schools run by Opus Dei, the SSPX, or other radical traditionalists would be less likely to assign him and even there they would acknowledge his importance.

I’m not to use him as the basis for forming my conscience? I think major Catholic theologians are crucial to read in the formation of conscience. Way more important, I would add, than Catholic Answers.

I would encourage you to read the new Catholic Encyclopedia article about Rahner. I can’t post it here for copyright reasons.

 

[JReducation]

Who decided this? You? Please cultivate some humility and re-think your tone. I am going to offer up my answer to your ad feminam attack as to why I am asking the question, but I will say that your posts here have intemperate and uncharitable.

You make an error of fact and the graver error of impugning the reputation of one of the great thinkers of Roman Catholicism. Karl Rahner himself was never censured (unlike, say, Hans Kung, with whom you may be confusing him), and he was professor of Catholic theology at Munster until the end of his career.

Some of Rahner’s ideas, to be sure, received criticism from the Vatican, but that is often the case with truly important theologians because the magisterium develops in dialogue with theologians at Catholic universities. His work is taught in all mainstream Catholic theology departments today in the U.S., and I was a student of one of his students about 15 years ago. Only schools run by Opus Dei, the SSPX, or other radical traditionalists would be less likely to assign him and even there they would acknowledge his importance.

I’m not to use him as the basis for forming my conscience? I think major Catholic theologians are crucial to read in the formation of conscience. Way more important, I would add, than Catholic Answers.

I would encourage you to read the new Catholic Encyclopedia article about Rahner. I can’t post it here for copyright reasons.

Fr. Rahner was never censured by the Vatican. Some of his opinions came into debate with other theologians at the Vatican. But that’s healthy, because it helps to clarify some answers and raises other healthy questions. Some of his responses were found to be confusing or lacking. But the same thing has happened with Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. John Duns Scotus challenged both of them on their theology on the sinlessness of Mary. John Duns Scotus’ argument prevailed in the end. He proved that Mary was conceived without sin. That does not mean that Bonaventure and Aquinas were censured. They became two of the great theological lights in the Church. We have to be careful when a theologian is challenged and when a theologian is censured. It’s not the same thing.

Our Holy Father Benedict uses many Rahnerian ideas in his work on Jesus Christ. He, Rahner and Kung were very close friends and colleagues. Kung was Father Ratzinger’s boss at the seminary and at the university when Ratzinger was professor. Even today, Fr. Kung remains in good standing with the Catholic Church. His license to teach Catholic theology was taken away. But right after his election, Pope Benedict invited him to visit the Vatican. They spoke at great length and agreed to disagree. The Holy Father then encouraged Kung to take the lead of a commission to study the philosophical unity between Catholics and non Catholics in Germany. It’s an ecumenical project. I don’t know the details, because the press release that I gave didn’t offer any.

We have to be very careful not to confuse the meaning of terms.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The answer to the original question asked by L2P2 is kind of tricky. I’ll try to explain it as best I can.

1. Using the pill to avoid concetion is always morally wrong. There is no way around that. However, there is a concept in moral theology called “objectivity”. Moral theology speaks objectively. This means that a theologian who is not in contat with the person or theologian cannot make a statement about the specific case, because he does not know it. He can only teach what applies universally. That is why the Church always uses such phrases as “objectively evil” or “objectively disordered” or “objectively immoral” Observe the inclusion of the word “objectively”. The Church is saying that the use of the pill is universally immoral. However, the Church is not saying to what degree an individual is culpable of grave sin. That has to be determined by the individual with his confessor and God. None of us are privy to this determination.
2. Using medication to solve a health problem, such as using the pill to regulate a woman’s cycle, is not objectively immoral. The prescription is being provided to fix a problem with her cycle, not to interrupt conception. Whether such use does interrupt with conception and to what percent, I can’t answer that. I’m not an OB/GYN. But the intent there is not to avoid pregnancy. It is to fix another problem. It’s like some people use Klonopin for anxiety, but others use it for seizure disorder. Originally, it was developed for anxiety disorder. But doctors found that it works to control seizures. The same has happened with marijuana. Some people use it for recreation. However, som doctors have found it useful for treating vision problems.

The answer is that you can use the pill for reasons that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. If a pregnancy is a threat to a woman, the best solution is abstinence. Objectively speaking, there is no way that from this distance anyone can answer anything else. The matter has to be taken up by the patient, with the full medical facts in hand, who must them go to the confessor and get a final ruling. Once the confessor gives the ruling, then it becomes the confessor’s moral duty to answer before God. The individual is released of that duty, until her next confessor tells her otherwise. If a confessor released a woman to use the pill, I would strongly suggest that she mention this to her new confessor. He may have another perspective that is reasonable and jstifiable.

But from this distance and this being CAF, not a moral theology classroom, no one has the right to speak authoritatively on the issue. The best that can be done is to cite what the Church says on using the pill to avoid pregnancy. The answer would be, No. You cannot do it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tjm190]

As a catholic with no opposition to contraception, I obviously see no objection to the use of contraception for medical reasons although you must remember that you do still run the risk of pregnancy while using the pill. If the health risk is truly serious, then adding a condom to the equation for near certainty of preventing pregnancy should be considered.

 

[1ke]

I did not confuse Rahner and Kung.

I did believe some of his writings had been censured. I will have to go back and research that some more. It appears to be incorrect based on your reply so I apologize.

However, the book regarding “faithfully” dissenting based on “probablism” is problematic. This is NOT Church teaching no matter how you slice it.

There has been clear teaching in encyclical after encyclical, and reiterated in the Catechism, and yet you still want to put forward that you can form your conscience using all sorts of acrobatics by giving weight to books on being a “faithful dissenter” while putting no weight on the fact that **every **Church document presented to you says contraception is intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful.

 

[1ke]

I’m not to use him as the basis for forming my conscience?

What I said was that the sure norm for forming one’s conscience is Church teaching as articulated in the Magesterium of the Church. That is the primary source of conscience formation and must be the first place we look and it must be the last word on faith and morals.

Any writings by others must be measured against the Church’s teaching. If they advise something that is against a defined Church teaching, then yes they are to be discarded. One cannot use them to form one’s conscience.

I think major Catholic theologians are crucial to read in the formation of conscience. Way more important, I would add, than Catholic Answers.

No one has asked you to form your conscience based on the writings of Catholic Answers. You asked for Church documents, and we gave them to you.

 

[Seatuck]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

I must say that my own individual conscience, formed by the magisterium on pro-life issues, thinks that there is a major tension between respect for the dignity of life (of the mother) and the teaching on b.c. as applied in HV. I would be particularly curious to find whether Benedict has written anything on this conundrum. Counseling a woman, as did the apologist, that she can “better protect” her children if she dies, is simply something I would never do.

I found an excellent book by a Benedictine monk, Philip S. Kaufman, called Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, that uses probabilism to address difficult issues like contraception when a couple receives medical advice that they should have no more children. He leans heavily on the the thought of Karl Rahner, the greatest Catholic theologian of the the 20th century (to my mind), to find that there is a role for the individual conscience, formed by the magisterium, on decisions about b.c.

Kauffman also cites a poll after Humanae Vitae was issued that indicates that 60% of American Catholic priests did not think all artificial contraception wrong. In an election, that would be a landslide.

How did you get from wanting to follow church teaching to following a dissident? You’re kidding right? The church has always taught the minority opinion in the world. We are to live in the world but not be of the world. Of course a bunch of people are disagreeing.

 

[JReducation]

There seems to be a problem here. The fact that a theologian is allowed to speculate does not mean that the Church is allowed to follow the opinion of the theologian unless that opinion is consistent with the teaching of the Church.

Now, the Church does not require theologians to reiterate what has already been written and taught. That would be redundant and it would not be theology, it would be catechesis. The Church does want theologians to think and to examine faith in under the microscope of reason. She wants theologians to find and explain what we may have missed or misunderstood. However, when a theologian puts an opinion on the table that is in conflict with Church teaching, those who read it may think about it, but they may not accept it as an alternative to what the Church teaches. They are to see it for what it is, someon’s opinion. A scholar’s opinion is not dogma.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

As a catholic with no opposition to contraception, I obviously see no objection to the use of contraception for medical reasons although you must remember that you do still run the risk of pregnancy while using the pill. If the health risk is truly serious, then adding a condom to the equation for near certainty of preventing pregnancy should be considered.

Please do not do this. If this is your personal position, no one can stop you from having it. But you are still morally bound to teach what the Church teaches. You cannot morally give such advice, especially not on a Catholic forum or to another Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF