Healthy contraception ?

[snoopy]

After reading these posts, I’m almost scared to ask this, but I’ve often wondered: If an organ or body part is worn out, infected, or causing danger to one’s life, such as the appendix or a bad hip or a breast, etc. it is then morally lilcit to remove the worn out body part. Why should it be any different from an ovary or another reproductive part. If the reproduction part of a woman is worn out, why can’t it be removed? Would removal of a woman’s reproductive part because the rest of her body is worn out really make 2,000 years of Catholic teaching come crumbling down?

 

[johntkd]

setter:

I am not sure what road you are suggesting that couples head down but I do hear you recommending Catholic couples “be adult” and optionally morally licit in their “mutual decision” making. This will absolutley NOT save alot of problems down the road if they make morally illicit decisons for their married life together. To suggest or recommend to a Catholic couple immoral sin options as a “solution” to a challenge confronting their married life together is at best hellish advice. :tsktsk:

where on earth did you dig up that I suggested they be immoral?
dont put words in someones mouth

did you see into a crystal ball and something told you this what I meant?, did you read all the posts above mine and NOT see it was related to all the other posts?
or did you look at 2 or 3 words and make your snappy decision?

My post was not a directive at any one person, place or thing,
I was not trying to hurt someone feelings as was also stated earlier, there are several forms Of Lutherans, the church I was in did not believe in ABC,our “creed” was word for word the same we use In the Catholic church,same with the prayers,songs, etc.

To me being of a different religion is not grounds for label.
too many people dont face issues because of different religions and take the easy way out blaming a persons faith as the reason.
John

 

[johntkd]

snoopy:

After reading these posts, I’m almost scared to ask this, but I’ve often wondered: If an organ or body part is worn out, infected, or causing danger to one’s life, such as the appendix or a bad hip or a breast, etc. it is then morally lilcit to remove the worn out body part. Why should it be any different from an ovary or another reproductive part. If the reproduction part of a woman is worn out, why can’t it be removed? Would removal of a woman’s reproductive part because the rest of her body is worn out really make 2,000 years of Catholic teaching come crumbling down?

depends a lot on whom you ask, whom answers, etc.
all these people say Pray pray pray, and God will tell you the answer.
However when you feel that answer is to do something But it goes against Church teaching they will have tons to say.
against that.
and dont worry I wont slam you,I think all people deserve to be respected not Just catholic people.that just how I am.religion has nothing to do with respect for a fellow human…

John

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

snoopy:

After reading these posts, I’m almost scared to ask this, but I’ve often wondered: If an organ or body part is worn out, infected, or causing danger to one’s life, such as the appendix or a bad hip or a breast, etc. it is then morally lilcit to remove the worn out body part. Why should it be any different from an ovary or another reproductive part. If the reproduction part of a woman is worn out, why can’t it be removed? Would removal of a woman’s reproductive part because the rest of her body is worn out really make 2,000 years of Catholic teaching come crumbling down?

I am not sure of what you are asking. If, for example, a woman has a reproductive part that is infected or cancerous, etc. and needs to remove it in order to preserve her life, it is morally licit to remove it. The reason to remove it has to be because that organ needs to be removed, not to avoid further pregnancies. Now, your question:
“Would removal of a woman’s reproductive part because the rest of her body is worn out really make 2,000 years of Catholic teaching come crumbling down?” Can be answered by changing the “reproductive part” to any other part of the body (other than heart, brain, etc.) Lets use the appendix. Would it make sense to remove an appendix, that is not a threat to the person’s health, just because the rest of the body is worn out?
Basically, there are times when a woman may morally have her uterus, ovaries, etc removed due to the threats these organs may pose to her life, but it is never morally licit to remove these organs simply to avoid pregnancy.

 

[snoopy]

lifeisbeautiful:

I am not sure of what you are asking. If, for example, a woman has a reproductive part that is infected or cancerous, etc. and needs to remove it in order to preserve her life, it is morally licit to remove it. The reason to remove it has to be because that organ needs to be removed, not to avoid further pregnancies. Now, your question:
“Would removal of a woman’s reproductive part because the rest of her body is worn out really make 2,000 years of Catholic teaching come crumbling down?” Can be answered by changing the “reproductive part” to any other part of the body (other than heart, brain, etc.) Lets use the appendix. Would it make sense to remove an appendix, that is not a threat to the person’s health, just because the rest of the body is worn out?
Basically, there are times when a woman may morally have her uterus, ovaries, etc removed due to the threats these organs may pose to her life, but it is never morally licit to remove these organs simply to avoid pregnancy.

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful answer. I really do appreciate not being slammed, as I think this is a legitimate question. Now, what if the womb was not cancerous, but merely worn out. Could the womb be removed just as the joints in a hip could be removed for instance?

 

[jrabs]

johntkd:

depends a lot on whom you ask, whom answers, etc.
all these people say Pray pray pray, and God will tell you the answer.
However when you feel that answer is to do something But it goes against Church teaching they will have tons to say.
against that.

John,
I think the answers provided in this thread have been consistent in presenting the church’s position against contraception. May not be what you want to hear, may not be what you believe, but it is consistent and posters have been providing the truth.

No sense leading the OP down a rosey path lined with errors and lies. Sometimes the truth is a tough cross to take. If he is on a Catholic forum, chances are he wants an honest Catholic answer - not a feel good one.

johntkd:

and dont worry I wont slam you,I think all people deserve to be respected not Just catholic people.that just how I am.religion has nothing to do with respect for a fellow human…

The information provided in the posts has been respectfully submitted.

 

[Jennifer_J]

snoopy:

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful answer. I really do appreciate not being slammed, as I think this is a legitimate question. Now, what if the womb was not cancerous, but merely worn out. Could the womb be removed just as the joints in a hip could be removed for instance?

If a symptom of the woman’s uterus being “worn out” is severe bleeding, prolapse or other medical issues, then it could be removed. It couldn’t be removed as a form of controling births. Also, when a joint is removed, it’s replaced with another mechanical joint, so the comparison is a bit off. You replace/repair the joints when there are medical reasons, not because you don’t want to bend your leg anymore.
Jennifer

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

snoopy:

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful answer. I really do appreciate not being slammed, as I think this is a legitimate question. Now, what if the womb was not cancerous, but merely worn out. Could the womb be removed just as the joints in a hip could be removed for instance?

Hey, I think they are legitimate too, and the Church does address a lot of this.
Ok, lets compare the joint removal with the removal of the womb. When the joints in a hip are removed because they are worn out it is done to try to help reverse the loss of movement and pain resulting from this wearing out, and they are usually replaced with artificial joints. The purpose is to help the hips regain function and to reduce pain (and it is only done if there has been loss of function or there is pain). Now, if the only problem with the womb is that it is worn out, how would removing it improve its functions etc? What would be the purpose of removing it?
You can also think of it this way, when I turn 90 (if I make it that far) most, if not all of my body parts will be worn out. I’d be very mad if my doctor started removing my body parts because they are simply worn out, what would be his justification?

 

[setter]

johntkd:

where on earth did you dig up that I suggested they be immoral?
dont put words in someones mouth

did you see into a crystal ball and something told you this what I meant?, did you read all the posts above mine and NOT see it was related to all the other posts?
or did you look at 2 or 3 words and make your snappy decision?

My post was not a directive at any one person, place or thing,
I was not trying to hurt someone feelings as was also stated earlier, …

The advice offered by a few posters on this thread is sprinkled and littered with straying advice. I have seen this approach before from both clergy and laity. It is a false gospel of compromise that leads others astray from the full acceptance of and submission to the truth. What is the Truth? The Truth, who is Jesus Christ incarnate, is as liberating from the oppression of sin as it is exclusive of sin.

The often used approach/technique (whether the person is conscious of this or not) of those who would lead others astray (however good the intentions) from authoritative Church teaching is to sprinkle bite size bread crumbs of little rationalizations (lies) and appeals to human reasonableness (God made in man’s image), along a path of compromise and deceit, until one has been convinced/convinces themselves that God would somehow make allowance, understand, in no way condemn the sin choice that they are considering.

I have observed that these wayward advisors go only so far as to connect the dots that lead to sin choice, but do not actually make a verbal recommendation of sin. It is more often couched in the guise of “pastoral solution” or laity misplaced compassion or reasonableness and of course the standard disclaimer after having led the other to the precipice of sin choice that “good luck and hopefully God will guide you in the right decision” or “all I did was make them aware of other/all the options”.

When directly questioned or confronted if such advice is sin, I have often observed that the one leading others to sin will never quite actually label the proposed sin choice as sin, but rather employ various tactics of evasion, invalid comparison, false accusations – scrupulosity, legalism, ‘you are not a moral theologian’, etc, --, appeal to compassion, impose limitations on the infinite justice of God, …

I have cited a few examples below.

Originally Posted by johntkd
Now to original poster, relize this! you and your wife need to sit down and talk this out, talk with a priest, whom can give you contact info for an experienced NFP teacher,thats option #1
after talking with this NFP teacher you may have to use other options anyways.depending on her medical condition.

Originally Posted by johntkd
depends a lot on whom you ask, whom answers, etc.
all these people say Pray pray pray, and God will tell you the answer.
However when you feel that answer is to do something But it goes against Church teaching they will have tons to say.
against that.

Originally Posted by mikew262
NFP is the best way to go. I think Abstinence is unreasonable, but is another possible solution. However, if some form of contraception is their choice, try to minimize the harm by using non-abortion causing methods. In my mind, abortion is a much greater evil than contraception.

Originally Posted by mikew262
I gave some real world advice. Some of it was within Catholic Doctrine, some wasn’t. Of course as a Catholic, we wish him to take the choice that is Catholic blessed. However, he should be aware of all the options. I’m sure he is an intelligent man and can figure it out. The options I gave him, he probably has thought about. … He can take or leave my advice, as well as anybody else who answers him. Hopefully, God will lead him and her to the right decision.

Originally Posted by mikew262
Everybody who has posted here is well meaning (including me). Some of my advice strayed from the official “Catholic” position, and I got blasted for it. I expected it, but I thought you needed some unbiased advice as well.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” **Mark 9:42 **

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” **Mark 7:13-15 **

 

[Jennifer_J]

setter:

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

This is not a Catholic quote by any stretch of the imagination
samueljohnson.com/road.html

It’s also incorrect theologically.

Here’s GK Chesterton on the matter but I’ll bet there’s other, better examples.
chesterton-library.net/aquinas.txt
<<To understand the medieval controversy, a word must be said of the Catholic doctrine, which is as modern as it is medieval. That “God looked on all things and saw that they were good” contains a subtlety which the popular pessimist cannot follow, or is too hasty to notice. It is the thesis that there are no bad things, but only bad uses of things. If you will, there are no bad things but only bad thoughts; and especially bad intentions.
Only Calvinists can really believe that hell is paved with good intentions.That is exactly the one thing it cannot be paved with. But it is possible to have bad intentions about good things;
and good things, like the world and the flesh have been twisted by a bad intention called the devil. But he cannot make things bad; they remain as on the first day of creation. The work of heaven alone was material; the making of a material world.The work of hell is entirely spiritual.>>

 

[mikew262]

setter:

The advice offered by a few posters on this thread is sprinkled and littered with straying advice. I have seen this approach before from both clergy and laity. It is a false gospel of compromise that leads others astray from the full acceptance of and submission to the truth. What is the Truth? The Truth, who is Jesus Christ incarnate, is as liberating from the oppression of sin as it is exclusive of sin.

The often used approach/technique (whether the person is conscious of this or not) of those who would lead others astray (however good the intentions) from authoritative Church teaching is to sprinkle bite size bread crumbs of little rationalizations (lies) and appeals to human reasonableness (God made in man’s image), along a path of compromise and deceit, until one has been convinced/convinces themselves that God would somehow make allowance, understand, in no way condemn the sin choice that they are considering.

I have observed that these wayward advisors go only so far as to connect the dots that lead to sin choice, but do not actually make a verbal recommendation of sin. It is more often couched in the guise of “pastoral solution” or laity misplaced compassion or reasonableness and of course the standard disclaimer after having led the other to the precipice of sin choice that “good luck and hopefully God will guide you in the right decision” or “all I did was make them aware of other/all the options”.

When directly questioned or confronted if such advice is sin, I have often observed that the one leading others to sin will never quite actually label the proposed sin choice as sin, but rather employ various tactics of evasion, invalid comparison, false accusations – scrupulosity, legalism, ‘you are not a moral theologian’, etc, --, appeal to compassion, impose limitations on the infinite justice of God, …

I have cited a few examples below.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” **Mark 9:42 **

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” **Mark 7:13-15 **

The original poster asked for some advice, I gave some, you gave some, other folks gave some. If you have some more useful advice to give to this husband and wife, go for it. However, in your last couple of posts you have done nothing, but be critical and rude. You already made it clear you don’t agree with me, and thats fine, you don’t have too. However, its time to leave it alone, and be quiet if you don’t anything else useful to say. Are you showing off or something? Geez!

 

[St.Eric]

It is permissible to take medication on the advice of a doctor for a health condition. If the prescribed medication has a secondary effect of contraception, the medication is still permissible if the primary reason for taking it is to treat another condition. In other words, if one were to take the medication for the purposes of contraception, that would be wrong. If it is a side effect while treating a seperate condition, then it is permissible.

 

[johntkd]

setter:

I have cited a few examples below.

Originally Posted by johntkd
Now to original poster, relize this! you and your wife need to sit down and talk this out, talk with a priest, whom can give you contact info for an experienced NFP teacher,thats option #1
after talking with this NFP teacher you may have to use other options anyways.depending on her medical condition.

for someone whom uses big words you sure seem to have problems with the more known words CAN YOU NOT SEE THE DEPENDING ON HER MEDICAL CONDITION Part or are you blind to that, you obviously like to pick on people but have you ever used NFP? some people are actually heaven forbid in your mind unable to use NFP due to medical conditions.
she may need a hysterectomy for many reasons other than BC
or is that to hard to associate that with in my post?
again dont label someone till you have the facts.

depends a lot on whom you ask, whom answers, etc.
all these people say Pray pray pray, and God will tell you the answer.
However when you feel that answer is to do something But it goes against Church teaching they will have tons to say.
against that.

Not all church teachings are biblical, or sinful to not follow again you probably have no clue to this but i will give one huge example right now, pre marriage classes, taught by the church, made a church law to have to attend one to be married in the church.
not sinful to not attend, and a bishop can actually choose to not have it in his area… thats one example, the church allows for hyterectomys if they are for medical reasons. you have posted against this teaching therefore with your accusations of me you in turn are also doing the same things, I just took your posts to be short of what they actually meant.

you seem really good at quoteing scripture, now quote the scripture that forbids birth control in the bible? you cant because it is not there, its a church definition of a scripture that makes it impossible to procreate, we all know that short of sterilization, ABC do not make it impossible to procreate. see i can quote scripture as well, does it make me right to define as i want, NO does it make the church right to define as they want? No.
scripture also tells us to be wary about the teachers of the word.
according to the church I am supposed to put God before My family, thats a noble teaching, how many of us can do that, i couldnt, if i was asked to kill my family by God or face hell, I would face hell.does that make me anti church, or a sinner.
I dont think so.it makes me Human,

the road to hell is paved many ways including Gossiping, false witness and judging people,good intentions, bad intentions and just plain rottenness.

none of these threads were telling anyone to do anything harmful.
my telling OP to sit down and talk with spouse is fact,to avoid possible future problems, you were asked early on if you were married and you replied that it didnt matter, howevere it does if you are not married you would have no idea on the ramifications
married people are NOT two people they are one, that is the reason for sitting down and talking, if that is leading them astray
then I am guilty as charged so is the church,etc.Because we all believe a married couple is one,and its also in scripture ever seen it?

sorry if this post got a little harsh I just hate when someone labels me or says i am meaning Bad when in reality i am not in any way shape or form doing so…

I am sure many women on this forum are unable to use NFP due to medical circumstances,that make it impossible to define when fertile,etc, if so or if you know someone whom is this way post what they do…

Thanks
John

 

[TZiggy]

Faithful,

There has been much posted here. I hope you can weed thru the chaff.
Bottom line: God has allowed you an opportunity to seek his will. This is an invitation to grow. God’s interest is in your acceptance of his invitation. The outcome, he already knows. He’ll never leave you to do this on your own. As you embark on this journey, you’ll come to recognize his presence as a response to prayer. You’ll become painfully aware how fragile we are without his grace. You’ll learn to pray from the heart. Once you have learned what it is he’s teaching you, your cross will be lifted. On that day, you’ll realize the wisdom with which you have been entrusted…and another journey will begin.

BE NOT AFRAID!

 

[1ke]

johntkd:

for someone whom uses big words you sure seem to have problems with the more known words CAN YOU NOT SEE THE DEPENDING ON HER MEDICAL CONDITION Part or are you blind to that, you obviously like to pick on people but have you ever used NFP? some people are actually heaven forbid in your mind unable to use NFP due to medical conditions.
she may need a hysterectomy for many reasons other than BC
or is that to hard to associate that with in my post?
again dont label someone till you have the facts.

John, your origional post implies the “other option” is contraception, not hysterectomy for medical reasons.

Yes, I use NFP.

And, if a woman cannot use NFP, then complete abstinence would be her option.

johntkd:

Not all church teachings are biblical, or sinful to not follow again

All church teachings are Apostolic, and they are all authoritative. Yes, we are bound to follow the teaching authority of the church. We are also bound to follow church disciplines set forth by the authority of the church.

johntkd:

you probably have no clue to this but i will give one huge example right now, pre marriage classes, taught by the church, made a church law to have to attend one to be married in the church.

not sinful to not attend, and a bishop can actually choose to not have it in his area…

First, your example is of a discipline, not a doctrine. The Church’s teaching on contraception is a doctrine. It is not changeable, and it cannot be disregarded.

Secondly, if your bishop requires you to do a certain thing for pre-marriage preparation, then yes you are bound to do as directed unless you get permission not to. If a bishop chooses not to have classes, that is his perogative because he has that latitude pastorally in how to carry out Canon Law. The sin lies in obeying or disobeying authority.

johntkd:

thats one example, the church allows for hyterectomys if they are for medical reasons.

Of course they do. No one has indicated otherwise. The OP did not state that his wife was considering a hysterectomy for medical reasons, he states that she wants to use contraception. They are not the same thing.

johntkd:

you seem really good at quoteing scripture, now quote the scripture that forbids birth control in the bible? you cant because it is not there, its a church definition of a scripture that makes it impossible to procreate

Are you now stating that the Church lacks the authority to interpret scriptures properly and to teach doctrine authoritatively. The Catholic church does not subscribe to “scripture alone”, that is protestant theology.

johntkd:

we all know that short of sterilization, ABC do not make it impossible to procreate.

This is first, not true, and second, irrelevant. The Church teaches that contraception is gravely disordered and never permissable.

johntkd:

see i can quote scripture as well, does it make me right to define as i want, NO does it make the church right to define as they want? No.

Well, you didn’t quote any scriptures, so I’m not exactly sure what you are talking about. But, I agree that you cannot define it as you want. But, the Church has absolute authority to interpret scriptures.

johntkd:

none of these threads were telling anyone to do anything harmful.
my telling OP to sit down and talk with spouse is fact,to avoid possible future problems, you were asked early on if you were married and you replied that it didnt matter, howevere it does if you are not married you would have no idea on the ramifications
married people are NOT two people they are one, that is the reason for sitting down and talking, if that is leading them astray
then I am guilty as charged so is the church,etc.Because we all believe a married couple is one,and its also in scripture ever seen it?

I am married, and I agree that couples must discuss serious matters such as this.

johntkd:

I am sure many women on this forum are unable to use NFP due to medical circumstances,that make it impossible to define when fertile,etc, if so or if you know someone whom is this way post what they do…

If a person is unable to use NFP, then their other option is complete continence.

You have not stated anywhere that contraception is gravely immoral. Do you agree that it is gravely immoral and should never be used or recommended?

 

[puzzleannie]

the title of this thread is an oxymoron

there is no such think as any means of contraception that is healthy, all are destructive and threatening to a woman’s health and all are destructive to the health of the marriage. Surgical sterilization for either a man or woman carries a high risk of complications.

Abstinence, periodic especially with precision through use of NFP, or permanent is the only way of avoiding or delaying preganancy that does not pose a threat.

 

[mikew262]

setter:

A reference to the primacy of subjective personal experience as the paramount criteria to speaking with authority in matters of faith and morals? Disclosure of personal information is not relevent to the discussion at hand.

Sure it’s relevant. It defines your prospective; however if you prefer not to answer for whatever the reason, that’s fine.

 

[jrabs]

mikew262:

Sure it’s relevant. It defines your prospective; however if you prefer not to answer for whatever the reason, that’s fine.

Not if you are trying to live within the guidelines of the church. The truth still remains the truth - it is unwavering.

 

[setter]

This is not a Catholic quote by any stretch of the imagination
samueljohnson.com/road.html

I never claimed as such. Your point?

My use of this oft quote was to make evident that however good and noble one’s intention may be, good intentions do not, cannot make bad (evil) ends good and the end does not justify the means.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

It’s also incorrect theologically.

Here’s GK Chesterton on the matter but I’ll bet there’s other, better examples.
chesterton-library.net/aquinas.txt

<< If you will, there are no bad things but only bad thoughts; and especially bad intentions.

Only Calvinists can really believe that hell is paved with good intentions.That is exactly the one thing it cannot be paved with. But it is possible to have bad intentions about good things;
and good things, like the world and the flesh have been twisted by a bad intention called the devil. >>
According to The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002, GK Chesterton and myself are both guilty of being culturally illiterate in our respective adaptations for this quote, which in it’s theological application would refer strictly to sins of ommission.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Merely intending to do good, without actually doing it, is of no value. 1

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
bartleby.com/59/3/roadtohellis.html

 

[mikew262]

jrabs:

Not if you are trying to live within the guidelines of the church. The truth still remains the truth - it is unwavering.

I think everybody knows what the guidelines are. However, if you are married, you do have a little better appreciation of what this person is going through. So, yes to a certain degree, it is relevant.