I am really struggling

[Justin_Mee]

I am a new Catholic (less than 1 year). As I understand the Church’s position on abortion, if the only choices one has is to save the mother or the baby or lose both, the choice should be to let both die. This will never be a choice I have to make anymore but it may affect my children. I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if she could be saved. I accept all the doctrines (what I can’t reason in my mind, I accept on faith). However, I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if I could save her. I would have to commit myself to the infinite mercy of God. If it is not a mortal sin to take a life in war, why is is a mortal sin to save one life at the expense of another? Does anyone else struggle with this?

 

[the_phoenix]

Once when my grandmother was giving birth, the doctor came out and told my grandfather, “We can save either your wife or the child. Which one do you want us to save?”

My grandfather made a phone call to a convent of cloistered contemplative nuns and asked them to pray. He then told the doctor, “Do your job and save them BOTH.”

Mother and child both lived.

 

[Timothy17]

I am a new Catholic (less than 1 year). As I understand the Church’s position on abortion, if the only choices one has is to save the mother or the baby or lose both, the choice should be to let both die. This will never be a choice I have to make anymore but it may affect my children. I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if she could be saved. I accept all the doctrines (what I can’t reason in my mind, I accept on faith). However, I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if I could save her. I would have to commit myself to the infinite mercy of God. If it is not a mortal sin to take a life in war, why is is a mortal sin to save one life at the expense of another? Does anyone else struggle with this?

War does not mean killing becomes de facto sinless. A soldier of conscience in any war is likely to come home and need to confess something; regular life without war is difficult enough on morality, and war only increases temptations, poor decisions/errors in judgement, etc. There is no sin if the war is a just war, and the normal rules of warfare are followed (i.e., no pureposeful slaughtering, killing of civilians or innocents, looting, raping, etc.), because soldiers are not, in fact, willfully killing their fellow man, as if that was his aim, purpose or agenda or as if he personally expected to benefit from doing so or as if he was seeking vengeance, etc. Soldiers fight wars to defend their rights or the basic rights of others, to defend justice, etc. Soldiers fight and kill only when necessary, and as a secondary consequence of their mission; not for sport. No General wins war by having his object killing lots of people: he wins by strategem and neutralizing the opposing forces to his mission, which is usually best done with a minimum of fighting and killing, as in war all direct conflict is dangerous and risky to the overall mission, due to the hazardous nature and infamously fast-changing nature of the tides of fortune in war.

I don’t think you have the teaching correct in regards to abortion. A doctor is always at liberty to attempt to save a life; but only if in so doing he is not risking, within reason, killing. A doctor, like anyone, certainly cannot consciously, by his action, willfully take a life. Medical interventions always involve risk: who’s to say in such a situation there couldn’t be an accident, and both parties unfortunately lose their lives, rather than at least one being saved?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I am a new Catholic (less than 1 year). As I understand the Church’s position on abortion, if the only choices one has is to save the mother or the baby or lose both, the choice should be to let both die. This will never be a choice I have to make anymore but it may affect my children. I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if she could be saved. I accept all the doctrines (what I can’t reason in my mind, I accept on faith). However, I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if I could save her. I would have to commit myself to the infinite mercy of God. If it is not a mortal sin to take a life in war, why is is a mortal sin to save one life at the expense of another? Does anyone else struggle with this?

I have never struggled with it because I have never heard of it. But I would find it “struggle-worthy”. The Church teaches that it is best when both mother and child die? Can you document that? My understanding is that the Church values human life from cradle to grave…er, womb to grave. The Church teaches that you should let your child die, and your grandchild too, rather than save your child? I am confident you are mistaken.

 

[Lutheranteach]

My wife’s uncle, who was a priest for 20-plus years was called when my wife’s sister was born because it looked like there may be some serious issues.My wife’s father called the uncle and told him if a decision had to be made he’d pick his wife over the baby. For years the uncle and my wife’s dad debated the ethics of that potential decision Once the uncle left the priesthood and married he told my wife’s father that it was then, and only then, he had any understanding of the issues being faced.

 

[Timothy17]

My wife’s uncle, who was a priest for 20-plus years was called when my wife’s sister was born because it looked like there may be some serious issues.My wife’s father called the uncle and told him if a decision had to be made he’d pick his wife over the baby. For years the uncle and my wife’s dad debated the ethics of that potential decision Once the uncle left the priesthood and married he told my wife’s father that it was then, and only then, he had any understanding of the issues being faced.

A judge does not need to have a personal temptation to rape people to authoritatively say rape is wrong and ought not be done; in fact, we prefer judges who are personally disinterested in resolving questions of law, hence the whole reason we have and seek judges (3rd parties) for resolutions. I know, for example, that some of the things I do are wrong; and further, that by doing those things and exposing myself to them I risk rationalizing them, and therefore it becomes even more incumbent upon me to stop doing those things and avoid them. The Church’s teaching helps me know that. Scripture furnishes us with Abraham as the “father” of our faith exactly because he trusted in God and had faith.

 

[LilyM]

I am a new Catholic (less than 1 year). As I understand the Church’s position on abortion, if the only choices one has is to save the mother or the baby or lose both, the choice should be to let both die. This will never be a choice I have to make anymore but it may affect my children. I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if she could be saved. I accept all the doctrines (what I can’t reason in my mind, I accept on faith). However, I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if I could save her. I would have to commit myself to the infinite mercy of God. If it is not a mortal sin to take a life in war, why is is a mortal sin to save one life at the expense of another? Does anyone else struggle with this?

Are you aware of the Church’s teaching that if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the baby implants itself in the mother’s fallopian tubes rather than the womb) it is perfectly permissible to remove the portion of the fallopian tube where the baby has implanted? Even though the inevitable (though of course most unwanted) result is that that baby dies? Because if it isn’t, then both mother and child will certainly die?

Sounds like a cut-and-dried case of saving the mother, who can be saved in such situations, rather than being required to let both die!

Are you aware of St Gianna Beretta Molla? She was found, when pregnant with her fourth child, to have a life-threatening growth in her uterus. She had several choices - one of which was to have a complete hysterectomy, which was actually permissible under Church law even though it would (again as a most unwelcome and unwanted result) mean the death of the child. She chose to let her child live and instead opted for an operation simply to remove the tumour rather than the whole uterus.

Note carefully, at no point was it ever an option to let BOTH mother and child die. On the contrary it was a case where, even in the worst case, either child or mother would live, and the option was in fact chosen because it offered at least the potential for both mother and child to survive. Unfortunately in her case the operation wasn’t successful and she did not live long after the child was born.

Note carefully, again, none of this means all women are required to do as St Gianna did - hers was an unusually heroic choice, a heroic sacrifice as it turned out, hence her being specially recognised as a saint.

I am aware that Church teaching on abortion is very difficult for some to accept. Truth isn’t often easy - remember all the people who couldn’t accept and left Christ after He preached the Eucharist to them in John 6? It didn’t stop Him preaching it for a second, though, did it?

In this case, however, it sounds like you’re making it out to be something other than it really is. In regard respecting the life of the child in all circumstances, let me put it this way. Imagine that child, instead of being in the womb, was a toddler of two. Imagine further that mother and child were in a situation of famine, such that there was only enough food for either mother or child, but not both. In other words a case of the mother’s life or the child’s.

By your logic it would be perfectly permissible for the mother to eat all the food, deny any to the child and let her babe starve to death. Or worse, it might even be permissible for the mother to kill her child by some other quicker means to spare it the suffering of death by starvation and enable herself to live. What sane parent could possibly stomach either of these events occuring? What sane parent wouldn’t rather give the food to their child, even if it meant their own death?

 

[Justin_Mee]

Are you aware of St Gianna Beretta Molla? She was found, when pregnant with her fourth child, to have a life-threatening growth in her uterus. She had several choices - one of which was to have a complete hysterectomy, which was actually permissible under Church law even though it would (again as a most unwelcome and unwanted result) mean the death of the child. She chose to let her child live and instead opted for an operation simply to remove the tumour rather than the whole uterus.

This addresses my question. Assuming one of the “several choices” she had was to carry the child to term. If this is the Church doctrine, then in the rare case where a decision has to be made, it is not a sin to chose the life of mother/child.

 

[LilyM]

This addresses my question. Assuming one of the “several choices” she had was to carry the child to term. If this is the Church doctrine, then in the rare case where a decision has to be made, it is not a sin to chose the life of mother/child.

It is important to remember in St Gianna’s case that she had a separate disease (the tumour in her uterus) as well as being pregnant. One cannot directly abort a child (ie simply kill the child without otherwise medically treating or doing anything else to the mother’s body) for any reason.

One of St Gianna’s options, which was to have a direct abortion and then the hysterectomy, was thus unacceptable, because the abortion was in no sense treating the disease.

And, I believe, medical science makes it possible in some cases to ‘abort’ an ectopic pregnancy by breaking down its cells with certain drugs. Such is also impermissible, since the intent and act in such a case is primarily one of killing the baby rather than treating the body of the mother.

Pregnancy is not in and of itself a disease, so the mere removal of an embryo without doing anything else, albeit the embryo itself is causing health problems for the mother, is not therapeutic, the intent isn’t to treat the mother’s body.

One can, however, remove a diseased/malfunctioning fallopian tube, uterus or other part of the female reproductive tract when doing so will save the mother’s life, even if said diseased organ contains an embryo or fetus.

 

[excubitor]

As another poster pointed out. Doctors think they know which will die mother or baby if they do this or that. They seem to think they have control over who lives or dies. They have no such right or mandate to make these judgments. Both may survive, both may live, one may die and the other live. Nor does any husband have the right to choose to save the wife or the baby. How is he to know that the child may transform his life or become a great leader or artist or priest, touching the lives of thousands. How is he to know that the wife who he chooses to save may die anyway from other causes 2 months down the track.

All of these questions are in the purview of God alone and they are above the pay grade of every man including Doctors.

As for ectopic pregnancies. According to the statistics 2 out of 100 pregnancies are ectopic and require terminations en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy. That’s a projected maternal death rate of 2000 per 100,000 live births.
In Southern Sudan there are the worst maternal death rates in the world at about 2000 deaths per 100 000 live births. That means that 100 % of women in the Sudan die in childbirth because of ectopic pregnancies does it not?

NO. In fact only 2.5 percent of maternal deaths in the Sudan are caused by ectopic pregnancies. smj.org.sa/PDFFiles/Apr03/08Maternal.pdf

So clearly there are some major problems with the “certain death” prognosis of ectopic pregnancies. It seems to me that the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies clear themselves naturally without any kind of invasive intervention. In fact even the Wikipedia article suggests that half clear themselves, but if the Sudanese example is anything to go by then only 0.0025 % of ectopic pregnancies fail to clear themselves.

When we factor in the complications and loss in fertility caused by removing the ectopic pregnancy it begs the question whether we are causing more harm than good by intervening in ectopic pregnancy. In fact if you read the Wikipedia article, the vast majority of interventions for ectopic pregnancy are preventative. Also if the ectopic pregnancy pregnancy advances to such a stage that the fallopian tube ruptures then in a modern medical setting very few such women will die. As the Wiki article states " Death from rupture is rare in women who have access to modern medical facilities". The article also mentions numerous cases where the ectopic pregnancy is taken full term and the baby is delivered by a Caesarean section.

Childbirth is by nature a dangerous activity. It was made so by God when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden. By trying to remove all suffering from childbirth we are fighting the natural order and causing even greater grief upon ourselves. There are many wonderful things that can be done with improved nutrition, hygiene and medical procedures which has greatly reduced the maternal death rates in the developed world. However we can never completely remove the danger of maternal death and there are certain lines which we should not cross in trying to do so. One of those lines which we should not cross is the deliberate destruction of the offending embryo. I have a great misgiving also about the “removing the diseased tissue” approach which seeks to abstract away the destruction of the offending embryo. I cannot personally justify this even if the church seems to allow this approach.

Easy for me to say when I am not the one lying on the table with a doctor pointing the bone at me telling me I am going to die. But we all need to question our doctors and understand that their authority does not exceed that of God and the church. Besides there is no proof that you will die. You most likely will live and your baby also.

 

[Justin_Mee]

As another poster pointed out. Doctors think they know which will die mother or baby if they do this or that. They seem to think they have control over who lives or dies. They have no such right or mandate to make these judgments. Both may survive, both may live, one may die and the other live. Nor does any husband have the right to choose to save the wife or the baby. How is he to know that the child may transform his life or become a great leader or artist or priest, touching the lives of thousands. How is he to know that the wife who he chooses to save may die anyway from other causes 2 months down the track.

All of these questions are in the purview of God alone and they are above the pay grade of every man including Doctors.

As for ectopic pregnancies. According to the statistics 2 out of 100 pregnancies are ectopic and require terminations en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy. That’s a projected maternal death rate of 2000 per 100,000 live births.
In Southern Sudan there are the worst maternal death rates in the world at about 2000 deaths per 100 000 live births. That means that 100 % of women in the Sudan die in childbirth because of ectopic pregnancies does it not?

NO. In fact only 2.5 percent of maternal deaths in the Sudan are caused by ectopic pregnancies. smj.org.sa/PDFFiles/Apr03/08Maternal.pdf

So clearly there are some major problems with the “certain death” prognosis of ectopic pregnancies. It seems to me that the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies clear themselves naturally without any kind of invasive intervention. In fact even the Wikipedia article suggests that half clear themselves, but if the Sudanese example is anything to go by then only 0.0025 % of ectopic pregnancies fail to clear themselves.

When we factor in the complications and loss in fertility caused by removing the ectopic pregnancy it begs the question whether we are causing more harm than good by intervening in ectopic pregnancy. In fact if you read the Wikipedia article, the vast majority of interventions for ectopic pregnancy are preventative. Also if the ectopic pregnancy pregnancy advances to such a stage that the fallopian tube ruptures then in a modern medical setting very few such women will die. As the Wiki article states " Death from rupture is rare in women who have access to modern medical facilities". The article also mentions numerous cases where the ectopic pregnancy is taken full term and the baby is delivered by a Caesarean section.

Childbirth is by nature a dangerous activity. It was made so by God when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden. By trying to remove all suffering from childbirth we are fighting the natural order and causing even greater grief upon ourselves. There are many wonderful things that can be done with improved nutrition, hygiene and medical procedures which has greatly reduced the maternal death rates in the developed world. However we can never completely remove the danger of maternal death and there are certain lines which we should not cross in trying to do so. One of those lines which we should not cross is the deliberate destruction of the offending embryo. I have a great misgiving also about the “removing the diseased tissue” approach which seeks to abstract away the destruction of the offending embryo. I cannot personally justify this even if the church seems to allow this approach.

Easy for me to say when I am not the one lying on the table with a doctor pointing the bone at me telling me I am going to die. But we all need to question our doctors and understand that their authority does not exceed that of God and the church. Besides there is no proof that you will die. You most likely will live and your baby also.

On the other hand, if we reach the point of watching both mother and child die when one could be saved, we are dangerously close to cult status. We all read about parents praying over their child while he/she dies of a fully treatable condition. I think allowing an ectopic pregnancy to continue is playing Russian roulette with a life for zero chance of the child being delivered alive. I just can’t wrap my mind around this no matter how hard I try. I would save a life and beg for forgiveness of whatever sin I committed.

 

[Crash001]

I am a new Catholic (less than 1 year). As I understand the Church’s position on abortion, if the only choices one has is to save the mother or the baby or lose both, the choice should be to let both die. This will never be a choice I have to make anymore but it may affect my children. I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if she could be saved. I accept all the doctrines (what I can’t reason in my mind, I accept on faith). However, I don’t think I could stand by and let my daughter die if I could save her. I would have to commit myself to the infinite mercy of God. If it is not a mortal sin to take a life in war, why is is a mortal sin to save one life at the expense of another? Does anyone else struggle with this?

Justin…if this is your only hiccup, I think you’re in good shape as a Catholic. The first question that I would ask is, “Do you know a lot of people going through this circumstance, or are you grasping onto something hypothetical for you and just can’t let go?”

From everything I’ve read, this idea that doctors are having to decide to save mother or baby on a regular basis is just not the case. As another reader said, they always do their best to save both. Making that decision to save one or the other is generally for discussions in classes on moral teachings.

For example: What if I I were the conductor on a bullet training with some passengers going 300 MPH and up ahead the track split at the ‘y’, you had to go left or right. If I went left, the train would continue and then plunge off a bridge because the track was out and everyone would probably die. If I went right, it would hit a school bus filled with children that just got stuck on the tracks. Which is the right answer?

I’m hoping one of the Catholic.com apologists can jump in and clarify where I cannot. This is why we have the Magisterium, as provided by God and in place for over 2000 years, to help us make those decisions.

My two cents…

 

[Ockham]

Does anyone else struggle with this?

You are spending time and energy worrying about a situation that is most likely never going to occur. My advice is to spend your time praying and making your way to Heaven. God’s will be done.

 

[Angelic_Rose]

Hopefully the doctors would be able to save both— I’ve heard of plenty of stories where doctors say there is no hope and God is wonderful and saves both lives.

I’m not a mother, but I can’t think of ever letting my baby die just to save my life. That baby has trusted me since the day he or she was conceived and I’m not going to give up on them.

I would trust my husband and other family and friends to care for any other children I may have should I die in the process, but I’d be more than willing to give up my own life for my unborn child. I truly believe that is what a good mother does.

 

[Justin_Mee]

Hopefully the doctors would be able to save both— I’ve heard of plenty of stories where doctors say there is no hope and God is wonderful and saves both lives.

I’m not a mother, but I can’t think of ever letting my baby die just to save my life. That baby has trusted me since the day he or she was conceived and I’m not going to give up on them.

I would trust my husband and other family and friends to care for any other children I may have should I die in the process, but I’d be more than willing to give up my own life for my unborn child. I truly believe that is what a good mother does.

Let’s assume you have 3 kids at home ages 3, 5 and 9. Let’s further assume your husband died last month. You’re on welfare and the last time you saw your family was at your brothers robbery trial. They still won’t speak to you because they think you’re too ‘uppity’ because you graduated from high school. Any change of opinion?

 

[excubitor]

On the other hand, if we reach the point of watching both mother and child die when one could be saved, we are dangerously close to cult status. We all read about parents praying over their child while he/she dies of a fully treatable condition. I think allowing an ectopic pregnancy to continue is playing Russian roulette with a life for zero chance of the child being delivered alive. I just can’t wrap my mind around this no matter how hard I try. I would save a life and beg for forgiveness of whatever sin I committed.

Clearly, you did not read my previous post where I argued that there is almost no chance of the woman dieing in an ectopic pregnancy. I quoted from Wikipedia and I gave statistics from developed nations. If the embryo dies in the fallopian tube without the intervention of medical doctors then that is an act of God whose right and privilege it is to decide these matters.

Besides you may not willfully sin. It is utterly wrong to do something intrinsically sinful that good may result. This willful attitude of sin now and repent later is fraught with danger because you probably will not repent. You will always for the rest of your life feel justified in your sinful deed. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit to sin willfully like this.

 

[moon1234]

This is a very simple question and has a very simple answer. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances whether it be surgical or chemical.

The direct killing of the unborn child is ALWAYS forbidden. A life threatening situation in which an operation must be performed which, AS A SECONDARY EFFECT, could cause the death of the unborn child is permitted ONLY when the procedure is done to affect the primary cause.

What this simply boils down to is that a doctor or the mother may never do any procedure which has as it’s primary purpose the effect of causing the death of the child.

Taking the eptopic pregnancy example. Most doctors today would simple prescribe an abortifacient to terminate the pregnancy. This would end the eptopic pregnancy and save the fallopian tube. However, this would be immoral under Catholic doctrine as the primary purpose of the procedure is the chemical murder of the unborn child. If the woman was to have the fallopian tube surgically removed to prevent it from bursting, even though this would cause the death of the unborn child, this would be morally licit as the primary purpose of the surgery is to prevent the tube from exploding and not to kill the child. The death of the unbord child is the unintended secondary effect.

I hope this makes it much easier for you to discern when and what procedures are morally licit and which are not. It simply boils down to any procedure is allowed as long as the primary purpose of the procedure is NOT to cause the death of the child. I guess this should be prefaced by saying the surgery would need to be for a life threatening situation. A tummy tuck would NOT be grounds for allowing the death of an unborn child.

 

[excubitor]

This is a very simple question and has a very simple answer. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances whether it be surgical or chemical.

The direct killing of the unborn child is ALWAYS forbidden. A life threatening situation in which an operation must be performed which, AS A SECONDARY EFFECT, could cause the death of the unborn child is permitted ONLY when the procedure is done to affect the primary cause.

What this simply boils down to is that a doctor or the mother may never do any procedure which has as it’s primary purpose the effect of causing the death of the child.

Taking the eptopic pregnancy example. Most doctors today would simple prescribe an abortifacient to terminate the pregnancy. This would end the eptopic pregnancy and save the fallopian tube. However, this would be immoral under Catholic doctrine as the primary purpose of the procedure is the chemical murder of the unborn child. If the woman was to have the fallopian tube surgically removed to prevent it from bursting, even though this would cause the death of the unborn child, this would be morally licit as the primary purpose of the surgery is to prevent the tube from exploding and not to kill the child. The death of the unbord child is the unintended secondary effect.

I hope this makes it much easier for you to discern when and what procedures are morally licit and which are not. It simply boils down to any procedure is allowed as long as the primary purpose of the procedure is NOT to cause the death of the child. I guess this should be prefaced by saying the surgery would need to be for a life threatening situation. A tummy tuck would NOT be grounds for allowing the death of an unborn child.

I hope you will review my previous posts where I argue that the fallopian tube will almost certainly not burst and the body will naturally pass the embryo through the fallopian tube before that happens. Also in a modern medical setting with expert surgeons it is highly unlikely that the woman will die if the fallopian tube does burst.

To remove a fallopian tube because something “might” happen is not only indirectly causing the death of the embryo but is also mutilating the woman’s reproductive system and reducing the chances of a future pregnancy.

I am not in favour of it. I wish that the church would stand up to medical science on this issue and start asking them some hard questions. Namely. How many of these procedures are merely preventative and not essential? This argument for ectopic pregnancy is one of the main ways that pro-choice worm their way into legitimizing abortion. Once we intervene to save the mother and indirectly kill the baby we might be inclined to find many other excuses to save the mother and indirectly kill the baby.

 

[moon1234]

Your claim is incorrect. An embryo WILL DIE if the pregnancy is eptopic. The mother will most likely die if the fallopian tube is not removed before it burts. The Chuch has even given this as an example of a legitimate procedure.

By your own logic a woman could not have uterine cancer surgery while pregnant. She should die first or be terminally ill before any type of intervention is allowed. This is not Catholic teaching.

Your creeping relativistic moralism argument is a canard. The moral ethics are pretty sound and easy to understand. A mother is allowed to treat her body as long as the treatment is not for the express purpose of killing the child. If she is treating her illness and the death of the child is a secondary effect then it is morally licit.

Any treatment for the primary purpose of killing the unborn innocent child is always immoral and considered murder. A woman’s body will sometimes abort a child while treating a bad sinus infection with Antibiotics. Would you rather the woman wait until she was on deaths bed before using any kind of life saving techniques?

The point here is that there is a clear and well defined teaching from the Church on this topic. Many people try to twist the teaching to suite their needs. Just follow the teaching, pray about your situation and make the choice that is most in line with your comfort and the Catholic Church.

 

[Justin_Mee]

Your claim is incorrect. An embryo WILL DIE if the pregnancy is eptopic. The mother will most likely die if the fallopian tube is not removed before it burts. The Chuch has even given this as an example of a legitimate procedure.

By your own logic a woman could not have uterine cancer surgery while pregnant. She should die first or be terminally ill before any type of intervention is allowed. This is not Catholic teaching.

Your creeping relativistic moralism argument is a canard. The moral ethics are pretty sound and easy to understand. A mother is allowed to treat her body as long as the treatment is not for the express purpose of killing the child. If she is treating her illness and the death of the child is a secondary effect then it is morally licit.

Any treatment for the primary purpose of killing the unborn innocent child is always immoral and considered murder. A woman’s body will sometimes abort a child while treating a bad sinus infection with Antibiotics. Would you rather the woman wait until she was on deaths bed before using any kind of life saving techniques?

The point here is that there is a clear and well defined teaching from the Church on this topic. Many people try to twist the teaching to suite their needs. Just follow the teaching, pray about your situation and make the choice that is most in line with your comfort and the Catholic Church.

This is a statement that I fully understand and can rationalize. I was really having trouble with the “no for any reason” explanations.