Is ABC ever permissable

[Tomdstone]

I find it interesting that you have your hypothetical wife believing she shouldn’t refuse her husband but she is fine with the sin on contraception.

It is OK if you don’t like this hypothetical moral problem. It is a problem that came to my mind when I saw this lady who looked exhausted, but I don’t expect everyone would want to concern themselves with this particular hypothetical moral problem.

 

[JRKH]

Of course it is. I am presenting a hypothetical situation and asking about the morality of ABC in this hypothetical case. Many people are presenting workarounds which may be good solutions in some cases, but they do not fit the hypotheses that are given in this problem.

Actually you keep adding to the hypothesis.

Yep…
And that is generally the case with these kinds of scenarios. A certain set of incomplete circumstances are presented. After answers are given based on the given set of circumstances - the OP replies with … “ya but…”

In this case the OP never mentioned the husband in the scenario…(This in itself says something to me)…After being called on this fact and abstinence being advanced as a viable option…the OP wants to ADD that the husband is not willing to abstain…

Of course in this case there is need for marital counseling with the pastor.

I want to present a case where a woman is more or less exhausted and that more children would be detrimental to her health and would not be sustainable financially.

Well then she needs to talk with her husband about what is the best thing to do…
That has to be the first step…

Would she be allowed to use ABC in such a case or is she obliged to continue to have more children?

This is a false choice since it is incomplete. She can use ABC, Have more children, abstain, explore newer and more effective methods of NFP…The options are multiple, not just the two you present.

Would it be a mortal sin for such a woman to use ABC in order to protect her health so that she would not die or be placed in the hospital for exhaustion?

Again - this needs to be discussed with her husband, health-care professional, and pastor…

Wouldn’t it be detrimental to her family for her health to deteriorate so dramatically?

Yes it would…but you don’t seem to be hearing us - that there are more than just two options available…

This question came up when I did see a woman at an SSPX chapel with a very large number of children and another on the way. She looked terribly exhausted to me, although the older girls were doing a good job taking care of the younger ones.

She may well have been “terribly exhausted”. She may have had a cold, or this pregnancy might be especially difficult or any number of things…But note too that the older kids are pitching in…

I think that this may point out a big difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the EOC would allow the woman to use ABC in such a case, as long as she consulted with her local priest.

And the key phrase here is the very last one…“as long as she consulted with her local priest”. I do believe that this is what I said in my original posting…That they need to talk to their pastor about the issue…
But as others have pointed out…using ABC remains taboo…at least in so far as any self respecting Catholic layman can state on all such hypothetical scenarios.

Peace
James

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s just a guess, but I think that a family who attends a SSPX chapel isn’t too influenced by the teachings of the EOC.

I agree with you on that point. However, there has been a push in the RCC toward reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church and talk of a possible reunion in the future. I was pointing out that the EOC has economia, or leniency, in some cases which would seem to fit the situation here. Further, as I understand it, many EOC people do not believe that there is a moral difference between using ABC or NFP, when NFP is used to avoid having children.

 

[Steveabrous]

I want to present a case where a woman is more or less exhausted and that more children would be detrimental to her health and would not be sustainable financially. Would she be allowed to use ABC in such a case or is she obliged to continue to have more children? Would it be a mortal sin for such a woman to use ABC in order to protect her health so that she would not die or be placed in the hospital for exhaustion? Wouldn’t it be detrimental to her family for her health to deteriorate so dramatically?
This question came up when I did see a woman at an SSPX chapel with a very large number of children and another on the way. She looked terribly exhausted to me, although the older girls were doing a good job taking care of the younger ones.
I think that this may point out a big difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the EOC would allow the woman to use ABC in such a case, as long as she consulted with her local priest.

In other words you saw a woman coming out of an SSPX church with lots of children who looked tired. In your liberal arrogance you applied the tired old liberal assumptions that this must be being forced on her by her cruel husband who does nothing to help the poor woman who wishes for a better life. the cruel husband could care less how hard this is on the woman as long as she puts out for him. This is typical liberal arrogance that imagines a situation that does not exist and then insists the church change it’s stance on ABC.

It is very arrogant for you to expect the church that has stood for 2000 years to change it’s stance on birth control because you imagine an unrealistic hypothesis.

the only thing you know is a woman has a lot of kids. If you would get off your (im)moral high horse for a moment and actually talk to these people you would most likely see the situation is not as you imagine and that the married couple is in agreement about ABC and having children, or it is the woman who insists on not using ABC. The reality is that that many children is as much a burden on the father as the mother. Especially the financial stress.

Your hypothesis is not worth considering unless you can factually support it.

 

[maryjk]

It is OK if you don’t like this hypothetical moral problem. It is a problem that came to my mind when I saw this lady who looked exhausted, but I don’t expect everyone would want to concern themselves with this particular hypothetical moral problem.

The reason we don’t concern ourselves, as you put it, is because it is hypothetical.

And as we are answering your question, you toss in more conditions.

You question sounds like that of a child. “But, what if. And this too. But what if that happens.”

It comes down to what Corki posted.

“Using contraception is objectively wrong, its use is grave matter”

 

[JRKH]

It is the same if a Catholic marries a Protestant or someone that doesn’t follow a religion. Contraception is a sin for the Catholic and not for the other spouse.

A loving spouse wouldn’t ask their partner to sin.

AMEN Mary…

I find it interesting that you have your hypothetical wife believing she shouldn’t refuse her husband but she is fine with the sin on contraception.

I wouldn’t say that the OP has gone this far…Rather that the wife is accepting that there is no other viable alternative (in her case) not that she is particularly happy about it…

Just a thought…

Peace
James

 

[Tomdstone]

In other words you saw a woman coming out of an SSPX church with lots of children who looked tired. In your liberal arrogance …

Someone presents a moral problem, and the solution is found by attacking the person as an arrogant liberal. Would this be an ad hominem type of response?

 

[JRKH]

Someone presents a moral problem, and the solution is found by attacking the person as an arrogant liberal. Would this be an ad hominem type of response?

You beat me to it…I was going to suggest that the reply lacked charity…

Peace
James

 

[Tomdstone]

You question sounds like that of a child.

I said it was OK if you would rather not respond to the moral point in question. However, your answer here appears to be an ad hominem attack where you attack the person who is concerned about the morality of a certain act rather than respond to the conundrum which he has brought up.

 

[Tomdstone]

Your hypothesis is not worth considering unless you can factually support it.

Then why respond to the question if it is not worth considering ? I don’t expect many people to be interested in the moral dilemma which I have tried to present here.

 

[Lapey]

Waiting for the return of the Blue Horizon…any word?

 

[JRKH]

I said it was OK if you would rather not respond to the moral point in question. However, your answer here appears to be an ad hominem attack where you attack the person who is concerned about the morality of a certain act rather than respond to the conundrum which he has brought up.

Here I don’t think that we have an ad-hominem attack, saying that the question sounds like that of a child indicates (to me) more of an assessment of the spiritual maturity of the one asking.

Just a thought

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

OK things are getting a bit testy here…

Let’s get back on topic.

Tom you’ve made your scenario…and received many consistent and interrelated replies.
Do you feel like the question in the OP has been answered?

If so - them perhaps it’s best if we all just move on…

If not - feel free to propose a new question or a new scenario…Though I can tell you now that the answers are likely going to be the same or highly similar on the basic subject of ABC…of course the particulars of a given scenario might illicit interesting takes on a given moral or ethical or spiritual situation…

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

I want to present a case where a woman is more or less exhausted and that more children would be detrimental to her health and would not be sustainable financially.

The answer is the same no matter what the “hypothesis”. Contraception is always a moral evil and is never moral. Never. Ever. Never. Why is that not clear?

Would she be allowed to use ABC in such a case or is she obliged to continue to have more children?

This is a false dichotomy. She cannot use contraception, as that has already been established: it is a moral evil, an intrinsic evil.

She is not obliged to continue to have more children.

Would it be a mortal sin for such a woman to use ABC in order to protect her health so that she would not die or be placed in the hospital for exhaustion?

She is not “protecting her health” do not try to stretch from preventing pregnancy to “protecting health” as these are two different things.

Please refrain from continuing with this false dichotomy.

Regarding contraception the answer is: NO. She cannot contracept to prevent pregnancy.

Wouldn’t it be detrimental to her family for her health to deteriorate so dramatically?

Repeat:

She **cannot **contracept.

She **can **space children.

I think that this may point out a big difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the EOC would allow the woman to use ABC in such a case, as long as she consulted with her local priest.

Yes, sadly the EO have been led astray from the Truth.

 

[1ke]

It is the same if a Catholic marries a Protestant or someone that doesn’t follow a religion. Contraception is a sin for the Catholic and not for the other spouse.

This is in error. Contraception is an intrinsic evil, it is grave matter for everyone on the planet.

It is only “not a sin” in the sense of the Protestant not knowing or understanding the Truth and therefore *possibly *being ignorant of the moral law.

You cannot say it is “not a sin” as in “it is OK” for the Protestant to contracept.

 

[Steveabrous]

Someone presents a moral problem, and the solution is found by attacking the person as an arrogant liberal. Would this be an ad hominem type of response?

What I object to is the obvious answer to this “Moral problem” which is the Catholic church is wrong on thier stance on birth control. Why? Because some sspx woman with 15 kids might have a husband who wont stop having sex with her and doesn’t lift a finger to help her. In otherwords a situation that is extremely rare if exists at all and because of this fictitious situation the Real Catholic church should change its position on birth-control in the real world? When the reality is the secular world wants to have sex without consequences and do not like it when the mean old Catholic church tells them its wrong.

This is the same tactic used by the secularist concerning abortion using the what if a woman is raped, molested, or thier life is in danger. Again, extremely rare cases if they happen at all in the modern world. Yet because of this hypothetical the Christian world stood silent in ,large part, and watched as billions were aborted, and not for those reasons. Why? because we were afraid to offend anyone. And as a result of not wanting to offend anyone we lost our culture and the culture war.
We loose these arguments because we allow the secular world to frame the debate with these ridiculous hypotheticals and are afraid to call their bluff. Not me. Not anymore.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My God. My God. My sweet and merciful God. Why do you give people over to such blatant ignorance and laziness?

Ever hear of Humanae Vitae???

That’s the same damned thing!

There are three criteria for committing a mortal sin: 1) It must be grave matter (contraception is CLEARLY grave matter - in that respect you are correct), 2) the parties involved must know it is grave matter, and 3) the parties involved must have full consent of the will (i.e, they must not be forced to do it by a gunman or force of habit or the demonic or psychological illness or somesuchthing).

If any couple uses ABC knowing 2) and having 3), they have committed a mortal sin.

Show me the money my friend, show me the money !
In other words get me an exact quote from a papal document that denies what I have said.

If you think what I have stated and what the poster stated are the same thing then one of us hasn’t actually been trained in these matters. Words are extremely important in this matter if one wants to actually understand what the Church actually teaches.

The poster does seem to want to correctly understand because he rightly finds himself in a logical contradiction.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What you are inferring here is not Church teaching.

Dorothy I invite you also to show us the money.
Please give up to us the actual Papal documents that support your as yet unproven opinion that I am mistaken.

 

[maryjk]

This is in error. Contraception is an intrinsic evil, it is grave matter for everyone on the planet.

**It is only “not a sin” in the sense of the Protestant not knowing or understanding the Truth and therefore *possibly ***being ignorant of the moral law.

You cannot say it is “not a sin” as in “it is OK” for the Protestant to contracept.

How about I say, for them, as they believe, it is not a sin.

Regardless, a loving spouse would never ask their partner to sin. Never.

 

[maryjk]

I said it was OK if you would rather not respond to the moral point in question. However, your answer here appears to be an ad hominem attack where you attack the person who is concerned about the morality of a certain act rather than respond to the conundrum which he has brought up.

There is another option.

Stop adding conditions when you present a hypothetical situation.