Contraception in cases of life of the mother?

[L2P2]

I found an old thread from the “Ask an Apologist” section that I wanted to open up for discussion.

The questioner asks whether, in situations where the life of the mother is at risk due to another pregnancy, birth control other than NFP is allowable:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104551

The apologist answers unequivocally, “no,” effectively interpreting the proscription of b.c. in the same light as that on abortion.

A potential problem with this: NFP, despite assertions to the contrary, is not as effective as the Pill, and the life of the mother has value from a pro-life point of view.

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.

 

[sam93990]

I believe your asking: “is ok to take contraception to avoid pregnancy for high risk individuals”
Is that correct? If so then…

If your life may be at danger because you may become pregnant then the answer would be “not to engage in sexual activity”. Avoiding the possibility of a dangerous pregnancy.

If you do become pregnant and you are in danger then it is necessary for the mother to persevere and take that chance. Faith in the Lord can help us overcome anything. Self sacrifice to save the life of our children is necessary to follow GOD’s laws.

We must as mothers… sacrifice ourselves and our happiness as Blessed Mother did for us. She sacrificed herself in sense…meaning she sacrificed her right as a mother to allow the Lord to be crucified. The Lord Sacrificing his own Life for ours. We as parents as well must sacrifice our lives for our children…no matter the cost. If the Lord did it why shouldn’t we.

Sincerely your sister in Christ
God Bless you!

 

[1ke]

I found an old thread from the “Ask an Apologist” section that I wanted to open up for discussion.

The questioner asks whether, in situations where the life of the mother is at risk due to another pregnancy, birth control other than NFP is allowable:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104551

The apologist answers unequivocally, “no,” effectively interpreting the proscription of b.c. in the same light as that on abortion.

The apologist responded accurately. Contraception is intrinsically disordered. Intrinsic-- belonging to a thing by its very nature. That means it can never be used morally.

Now, let’s be clear, it is not “birth control” that is immoral-- in the sense of spacing, planning, or avoiding children for a time or indefinitely due to a just reason. It is contraception, specifically, that is immoral.

It is immoral because it does not preserve the unitive and procreative elements of the marital act. ** Each act **of intercourse must be BOTH unitive AND procreative.

A potential problem with this: NFP, despite assertions to the contrary, is not as effective as the Pill, and the life of the mother has value from a pro-life point of view.

The morality of NFP and immorality of contraception is not based on the “effectiveness” of the method. That is completely irrelevant.

NFP- which is simply *periodic *abstinence-- is not an alternative to contraception. It is an alternative to *complete *abstinence. A couple is free to choose complete abstinence if they feel that is prudent.

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.

I don’t know where you “read” this, because that is absolutely not true. Care to provide your source? Wherever you read it, it was not from an authentic Church document. Church teaching is crystal clear-- there is no way to interpret Church teaching in any way other than contraception being intrinsically disordered and never morally allowable.

Are there, in fact, alternative perspectives on this from an observant Roman Catholic point of view?

No.

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?

No.

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.

I don’t see any distinction at all between these two things.

A Catholic may never contracept.

A Catholic who has a serious reason to avoid pregnancy may abstain from sexual intercourse. They may do so completely or periodically using only the infertile time of the woman’s cycle. The choice is theirs regarding the amount of abstaining they feel called to do.

 

[Tony_Souza]

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 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.

The connection is this: if a woman cannot survive another pregnancy, nor would her child, it may be morally licit to take measures to avoid pregnancy. My mother was in a very similar situation after the birth of my younger brother. After talking at length with their pastor, and several other authorities on the subject, she had a hystorectomy. It was not a sin because the object was to preserve her life, not to contracept. That was simply a foreseeable, very unfortunate side effect of the procedure.

 

[1ke]

The connection is this: if a woman cannot survive another pregnancy, nor would her child, it may be morally licit to take measures to avoid pregnancy. My mother was in a very similar situation after the birth of my younger brother. After talking at length with their pastor, and several other authorities on the subject, she had a hystorectomy. It was not a sin because the object was to preserve her life, not to contracept. That was simply a foreseeable, very unfortunate side effect of the procedure.

This is incorrect.

A hysterectomy is morally licit when it is medically necessary due to disease of the uterus. The uterus or ovaries can be removed when damaged or diseased.

It is NOT morally licit to have a hysterectomy to prevent pregnancy– this is direct sterilization and is expressly prohibited by Church teaching. It is a sin against the Sixth Commandment.

In a case where pregnancy has life-threatening consequences the morally licit option is to abstain-- completely or periodically.

 

[budgie2]

I found an old thread from the “Ask an Apologist” section that I wanted to open up for discussion.

The questioner asks whether, in situations where the life of the mother is at risk due to another pregnancy, birth control other than NFP is allowable:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104551

The apologist answers unequivocally, “no,” effectively interpreting the proscription of b.c. in the same light as that on abortion.

A potential problem with this: NFP, despite assertions to the contrary, is not as effective as the Pill, and the life of the mother has value from a pro-life point of view.

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.

The fact of the matter is that if a woman is unable to live according to the Church’s teaching on birth control she would be better to have a sterilisation or for her husband to have sterilisation than take the contraceptive pill as the pill is an abortifacient. I believe the Church’s teaching is wrong about the contraceptive pill.

 

[1ke]

The fact of the matter is that if a woman is unable to live according to the Church’s teaching on birth control she would be better to have a sterilisation or for her husband to have sterilisation than take the contraceptive pill as the pill is an abortifacient.

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

I believe the Church’s teaching is wrong about the contraceptive pill.

What teaching would that be?

 

[L2P2]

** Each act **of intercourse must be BOTH unitive AND procreative.

The last sentence is simply inaccurate because it would proscribe marital relations for women who are post-menopausal, as well as, for that matter, use of NFP. Casti Conubii, the papal encyclical of 1930, allowed for non-procreative marital relations quite directly:

“*n matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Consult the Vatican website for the full encyclical.*

 

[L2P2]

Thank you all for comments.

I have a number of specific items to address in response to the posted replies, but I am waiting for comments that come specifically from a member of a religious order who is schooled in moral theology.

 

[Corki]

The last sentence is simply inaccurate because it would proscribe marital relations for women who are post-menopausal, as well as, for that matter, use of NFP. Casti Conubii, the papal encyclical of 1930, allowed for non-procreative marital relations quite directly:

“*n matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Consult the Vatican website for the full encyclical.*

That sentence is indeed correct. Marital relations are not rendered non-procreative when a woman is post menopausal or, for that matter, when either spouse is sterile. You are confusing procreativity with fecundity.

See the CCC (bolding mine):

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is 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

 

[Corki]

Thank you all for comments.

I have a number of specific items to address in response to the posted replies, but I am waiting for comments that come specifically from a member of a religious order who is schooled in moral theology.

You should send a post to the Ask the Apologist forum. These other forums are not staffed by religious that respond to particular threads. Posters also do not bear credentials as to their education. But if you ask for Fr. Serpa in your post to the AAA forum, that should meet your requirements.

 

[Seatuck]

The last sentence is simply inaccurate because it would proscribe marital relations for women who are post-menopausal, as well as, for that matter, use of NFP. Casti Conubii, the papal encyclical of 1930, allowed for non-procreative marital relations quite directly:

“*n matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Consult the Vatican website for the full encyclical.*

No,you misunderstand. Each and every marital act must be both procreative and unitive in character. Even if there is infertility. The husband must freely give the gift of his body to his wife who in turn receives his gift and gives her own. Your paragraph there is part of the meaning of “unitive” but not entirely. The couple must form the one flesh union for instance. No barriers between them. Not chemical or otherwise . "Subordinate to the primary end is the procreative. The marital act must retain the character of being procreative. Husband gifting his wife with that part of himself that is part of the creative process and wife does the same. Each giving his/part of self as they are able holding nothing intentionally back. So if menopause has happened for instance then sexual relations still retains the procreative character - the intrinsic nature of the act from the paragraph above - because nothing his being intentionally held back during intercourse. Does that help you see it?

Couples may postpone a pregnancy and in doing so may have intercourse on non fertile days but they may not hold back parts of themselves on fertile days in order to postpone a pregnancy.

 

[Seatuck]

Did you read Humana Vitae?

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[L2P2]

That sentence is indeed correct.:

Fecundity and procreativity are synonyms. It is simply that the encyclical and the catechism emphasize different aspects of current teaching.

Again, anonymous posters are great, and I love hearing their opinions, but I would like to respond to a member of a Catholic order.

 

[Corki]

Fecundity and procreativity are synonyms. It is simply that the encyclical and the catechism emphasize different aspects of current teaching.

Again, anonymous posters are great, and I love hearing their opinions, but I would like to respond to a member of a Catholic order.

No they are not. Fecundity and fertility are closer to being synonymous. Every marital act must be both procreative and unitive. Those are the aspects of the marital act. Fecundity is a gift, as the CCC says, an end of marriage. Not **every **marriage experiences that gift. Try the CCC starting at paragraph 2366.

Also Humanae Vitae, especially secton 12:

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is 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.

 

[1ke]

If you’re going to quote Casti Connubii to me, you better quote all the relevant paragraphs, and in context. I am quite familiar with this encyclical and Humanae Vitae.

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.
2. **But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. **
3. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."
4. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: **any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. **
5. As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.[47]
6. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
7. We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children.
8. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. “Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you.”

 

[1ke]

Humanae Vitae:

12.** This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is 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. **
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—**and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. **We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

**Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. **

1. If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. **In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. **

 

[Seatuck]

Fecundity and procreativity are synonyms. It is simply that the encyclical and the catechism emphasize different aspects of current teaching.

Again, anonymous posters are great, and I love hearing their opinions, but I would like to respond to a member of a Catholic order.

You should call up your Diocese and ask for an appointment with a moral theologian if this topic pertains to you specifically. Otherwise a phone consultation will do. Or you can email the NCBC.They’ve answered some questions for me.

ncbcenter.org/

Church teaching is crystal clear on this topic. It’s isn’t a matter of opinion when you are shown clear evidence of the church teaching within her documents. I understand the desire to have an official of the church plainly say it though. However, the answer should not differ- contraception is evil. The church isn’t going to allow it under any circumstances.

WRT to the pill - that is allowed for medical treatment not contraception although it is understood it may act as a contraceptive . Medical treatment such as a hormone imbalance or such. Most NFP only doctors are able to work a treatment plan that avoids contraception and so it is better to go that route. However we understand that some women do not have access or even understand there options and we shouldn’t hold that against them. The church is not allowing the pill because a pregancy might be dangerous to the mother. That is the main point I’m making. It is a treatment for a physical disease that is present not to prevent one that might arise from a pregnancy.

 

[yablabo]

I found an old thread from the “Ask an Apologist” section that I wanted to open up for discussion.

The questioner asks whether, in situations where the life of the mother is at risk due to another pregnancy, birth control other than NFP is allowable:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104551

The apologist answers unequivocally, “no,” effectively interpreting the proscription of b.c. in the same light as that on abortion.

A potential problem with this: NFP, despite assertions to the contrary, is not as effective as the Pill, and the life of the mother has value from a pro-life point of view.

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.

**CASTI CONNUBII (On Christian Marriage)
Pope Pius XI

Encyclical promulgated on 31 December 1930**

1. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: “As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,”[19]and this is also ***expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law"The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."***20]

Since the primary end of marriage is procreation and education of children, a husband and wife could never do anything (and call it licit) to void this. That may mean that the husband and wife must practice abstinence (since that would not void, but only leave in potential the procreation and education) in order to preserve the life of the wife.

– Nicole

 

[L2P2]

WRT to the pill - that is allowed for medical treatment not contraception although it is understood it may act as a contraceptive.

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