IS Contraception allowed in extreme situations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Precious_Lamb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my personal opinion (I am not an orthodox Catholic), you should follow the advice of your medical professional. But to answer your question, the only thing I am aware of – which does not mean there might not be something I am not aware of – that could provide an “exception” is based on epikeia. Here is what Thomas Aquinas says about epikeia; it is not a full treatment.

newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm

From my heart, God doesn’t want you to die. Please listen to your doctor. Make sure you do something that is as close to 100% safe as possible in accordance with the direction of your licensed medical professional. God bless you.
You sound very sincere and your reply is very heartfelt. She can do that by trusting in her God and using the tools he has given her . You are right God doesn’t want her to die he wants her to have eternal life and live with him forever.
 
Hi, I’m new here 🙂

My husband and I have lost 6 pregnancies. The last one the doctor had to “cauterize” things as I was bleeding to death. He told me that technically, I can still conceive but if I do, both the baby & me will die so I either stay celebate or find some contraception.
What do we do? We are firm in the faith and believe in following the rules, no contraception. But somewhere I thought {wishful thinking?} that in extreme cases like this, the allowance to contracept was allowed? Help?
PS: if you know of a letter {? encyclicl?} from one of the Popes please specify it for my husband’s curiosity?
Sincere thanks~ heart: ❤️
Sorry to hear your story but the bottom line is that there are no circumstances at all where contraception is permitted.
 
I feel for you. I was in a similar situation. Due to serious medical problems while pregnant, after baby number 1 the doctors said not to have another. During baby number 2, the only problem I had put me in ICU for a week, and I wore a heart monitor after that, but in the end it was okay. The doctors told me to not get pregnant again. Baby number 3, I became very ill during the pregnancy, and it continued and worsened for a year after. I was unable to care for my kids, was forced to leave home and move in with relatives. I weighed only 98 pounds and almost died. I think my baby was about a year and a half before I was able to care for the kids by myself. The doctor told my husband that this had to be it, I wouldn’t survive another pregnancy. That’s when we went to a priest to talk about options. We were using the natural family planning before (and got pregnant). He told us there were no other options. Period. I was heartbroken for many different reasons. I had always dreamed of having a big family, but even I knew at that point, I couldn’t go through another pregnancy and my kids needed me. so we either had to go against the Church teaching, or not have sex. It was so difficult and we shed many tears. One would hurt our relationship with God, the other would hurt our relationship with each other.

I will pray for you while you make your decision.
 
I just remembered something
This may or may not help. Another thing to consider in this light is the internal forum (private discussion with a priest who can act as spiritual judge but again I urge that you follow the direction of your medical professional regardless)

ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001a/021601/021601j.htm

Exception to birth control ban raises questions

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
NCR Staff
Rome

A Spanish bishop raised eyebrows in late January by stating that religious women living in war zones or other places where there is danger of rape can legitimately use oral contraceptives to protect themselves from pregnancy.

Despite skeptical reactions from some quarters, one of Rome’s foremost Catholic moral theologians says the bishop did nothing more than re-state official church policy that dates back at least 40 years.

The Catholic church generally bans the use of contraceptives on the grounds that human sexuality should be “open” to the creation of life.

Despite that position, Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla of Segorbe-Castellón said in late January that sisters who face a danger of rape, such as missionaries in war zones, may use the pill as “self-defense against an act of aggression,” according to the Madrid-based newspaper El País.

Reig, president of the Family and Life subcommittee of the Spanish bishops’ conference, was speaking at a news conference to promote a Feb. 4 “day in defense of life.”

Reig said use of contraception by religious women as a defense against rape “changes the nature of the moral act,” rendering it no longer an illicit attempt to “go against conception.” Reig declined, according to the report, to say whether other Catholic women should be able to use birth control in the same context.

Media outlets around the world immediately began asking church officials for comment, in most cases eliciting dubious responses.

A spokesperson for the Irish bishops, for example, told a reporter, “As far as we’re concerned, there has been no dispensation given by the Vatican. And until we hear differently, we’ll continue to follow the official line, which is the Catholic church officially forbids artificial contraception.”

A spokesperson for the Vatican press office told the London Daily Telegraph that there is no “official dispensation” for nuns.

Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said.

Referring to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document of Pope Paul VI that reiterated the church ban on birth control, Johnstone said the document “prohibits the inhibition of procreation in the context of free sexual intercourse.”

“What happens in rape is not free,” Johnstone said, explaining the logic of the 1960s-era Vatican statement. “It can be regarded as an unjust attack, and thus the woman is justified in using chemical means in repelling the effects of the attack.”

Johnstone noted that although the Vatican exception for the Congo pertained specifically to nuns, from a moral point of view “it makes no difference whatsoever” if the woman is in religious life. Hence, he said, other women in grave danger of rape would have the same liberty.

Johnstone said some moral theologians have applied the Congo precedent in the case of women with a well-founded fear of spousal rape, arguing they too have the right to use contraception.

This is a “conservatively based argument,” Johnstone said, that is generally accepted. “There might be some very rigid people who would oppose it, but if you accept church teaching, it seems quite a reasonable way to settle a conflict situation.”

Johnstone said, however, that fear of rape must be immediate and personal. He said he once worked in a Catholic hospital in Washington, and when women there heard about the Congo precedent, they jokingly suggested that since rape is always theoretically possible in a major city, they should be able to use birth control freely.

“Obviously one has to be careful about how far this goes,” Johnstone said.

The reasoning applies only to the use of oral contraceptives that inhibit a sperm cell from fertilizing an ovum. It does not justify use of the so-called “morning after” pill, Johnstone said, taken after unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of an embryo in the uterus.

“At that stage,” Johnstone said, “Catholic teaching holds that you have a human being entitled to the right to life.”

Johnstone acknowledged that this codicil to Catholic moral thought is not well-known.

“Whenever this comes up, I always have trouble convincing people that the Vatican actually said it,” he told NCR. “But it’s there.”
 
Hi there,
I’m in a very similar situation as you are - and I have spoken to a Priest about this situation - he is a friend of the family and knows that if I get pregnant again, currently, I would have to choose between both the fetus and myself more than likely not living and abortion. I was told by this Priest that in these types of situations, the Church is not unfeeling - and told me I was allowed to use birth control -he said it has more to do with intent - and because my intent is that I don’t want to die trying to have a child, and not that I just don’t ever want children, it is allowed. I was warned about certain types of b.c. that are considered abortifacients - that this would not be a desirable method. I’m hoping that with my kidney and gynecological problems, that some sort of further advance might be made. The last time I was pregnant, I had to have multiple transfusions because I couldn’t stop bleeding. I don’t ever want to go through that again and I can’t believe that God would want me to choose between being intimate with my husband and dying. Good luck to you - as I’m sure we all will, I’ll say a prayer for you.
 
Hi there,
I’m in a very similar situation as you are - and I have spoken to a Priest about this situation - he is a friend of the family and knows that if I get pregnant again, currently, I would have to choose between both the fetus and myself more than likely not living and abortion. I was told by this Priest that in these types of situations, the Church is not unfeeling - and told me I was allowed to use birth control -he said it has more to do with intent - and because my intent is that I don’t want to die trying to have a child, and not that I just don’t ever want children, it is allowed. I was warned about certain types of b.c. that are considered abortifacients - that this would not be a desirable method. I’m hoping that with my kidney and gynecological problems, that some sort of further advance might be made. The last time I was pregnant, I had to have multiple transfusions because I couldn’t stop bleeding. I don’t ever want to go through that again and I can’t believe that God would want me to choose between being intimate with my husband and dying. Good luck to you - as I’m sure we all will, I’ll say a prayer for you.
Sorry but your priest is wrong. There are absolutely NO circumstances where contraception is allowed. If health is at risk then abstention is the ONLY alternative.
To say “I’m sure God would not want me to choose between being intimate with my husband and dying” is simply wanting God to do your will and refusing to obey his will.
That may be too blunt to hear but that’s it.
 
Sorry but your priest is wrong. There are absolutely NO circumstances where contraception is allowed. If health is at risk then abstention is the ONLY alternative.
To say “I’m sure God would not want me to choose between being intimate with my husband and dying” is simply wanting God to do your will and refusing to obey his will.
That may be too blunt to hear but that’s it.
See my post above. Vatican approved contraception when there was a risk of rape for some nuns in Africa. Bishops, theologians say this would apply to any serious risk for rape and to any woman, nun or not, and in any environment where the risk for rape is serious.

Maybe risk of death is another exception the Vatican would approve of. I don’t know.

Some contraception is more reliable than others. I urge reliance on your medical professional. God speaks through them too.
 
See my post above. ** Vatican approved contraception when there was a risk of rape for some nuns in Africa. **Bishops, theologians say this would apply to any serious risk for rape and to any woman, nun or not, and in any environment where the risk for rape is serious.

Maybe risk of death is another exception the Vatican would approve of. I don’t know.

Some contraception is more reliable than others. I urge reliance on your medical professional. God speaks through them too.
I would like to see your source for this because my understanding was that such a report was not correct.
 
See my post above. Vatican approved contraception when there was a risk of rape for some nuns in Africa. Bishops, theologians say this would apply to any serious risk for rape and to any woman, nun or not, and in any environment where the risk for rape is serious.

Maybe risk of death is another exception the Vatican would approve of. I don’t know.

Some contraception is more reliable than others. I urge reliance on your medical professional. God speaks through them too.
Some points.
  1. No one has ever been able to produce this 1960’s Vatican Statement .
  2. Even if they were, there was a bit of turmoil going on regarding the churches position on contraception and it took a bit to iron out hence the Humana Vitae document.There were many false reports in the media for several years that the church was going to allow contraception. We can’t go by media reports , we have to have the Vatican documentation.
  3. There is a world of difference between rape by an unjust non spousal aggressor and conjugal relations as far as meaning. Contraception damages the meaning and the “goods” of marital relations. God has already put in place a system that allows us to plan pregnancy. The Church understands that there are many reasons to postpone a pregnancy and risk of death is certainly one of them.
    Since there is no sacramental meaning or “good” to the relations between rapist and victim it is possible that contraception could be allowed. Prevention of conception after a rape is permitted by the churches moral theology. However you have to look more deeply into it. We have to make sure a conception hasn’t taken place first before administering medicines , treatments etc that might harm the innocent child.
 
Hi there,
I’m in a very similar situation as you are - and I have spoken to a Priest about this situation - he is a friend of the family and knows that if I get pregnant again, currently, I would have to choose between both the fetus and myself more than likely not living and abortion. I was told by this Priest that in these types of situations, the Church is not unfeeling - and told me I was allowed to use birth control -he said it has more to do with intent - and because my intent is that I don’t want to die trying to have a child, and not that I just don’t ever want children, it is allowed. I was warned about certain types of b.c. that are considered abortifacients - that this would not be a desirable method. I’m hoping that with my kidney and gynecological problems, that some sort of further advance might be made. The last time I was pregnant, I had to have multiple transfusions because I couldn’t stop bleeding. I don’t ever want to go through that again and I can’t believe that God would want me to choose between being intimate with my husband and dying. Good luck to you - as I’m sure we all will, I’ll say a prayer for you.
I am sorry that your priest lied to you. I hope it was out of ignornace on his part, for his sake.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that for an action to be moral the object, the intent, and the circumstances must ALL be moral. Contraception is never a moral means of avoiding pregnancy.

I urge you to reconsider natural family planning-- perhaps the Marquette model which uses recent advances in ovulation detection.
 
Urband legend.

There is no such approval from “the Vatican.”
It was reported by John Allen of National Catholic Reporter. John Allen’s reporting is considered excellent. Please read the whole article. The specific case is one that happened already in Africa.
 
We have to make sure a conception hasn’t taken place first before administering medicines , treatments etc that might harm the innocent child.
But the Connecticut Bishops ultimately disagreed with your conclusion there at least with respect to Plan B (first they agreed with you but then they said it wouldn’t be intrinsically evil at least for Plan B; they did seem to also say that their moral finding may be subject to further scientific developments, new data about how Plan B works)

The Vatican hasn’t disputed the report. And it’s not just media reporting it, people are on record saying it such as Fr. Brian Johnstone of that prestigious Roman academy. It is conspiracy to suggest that he and others are all feeding lies to the media about it. And the Spanish Bishop and others today are reiterating the essence behind that past Vatican approval.
 
It was reported by John Allen of National Catholic Reporter. John Allen’s reporting is considered excellent. Please read the whole article. The specific case is one that happened already in Africa.
The Nation Catholic Reporter is not a media source for accurate reflection of the Faith. It is (literally) Catholic in name only.

Find the document from the Vatican or it is just an urban legend.
 
The Nation Catholic Reporter is not a media source for accurate reflection of the Faith. It is (literally) Catholic in name only.

Find the document from the Vatican or it is just an urban legend.
If you doubt the reporting, write to the priest mentioned in the report. I believe he’s still alive. He’s one of the on record sources. There’s no report disputing that this is what he and the other sources are saying.
 
But the Connecticut Bishops ultimately disagreed with your conclusion there at least with respect to Plan B (first they agreed with you but then they said it wouldn’t be intrinsically evil at least for Plan B; they did seem to also say that their moral finding may be subject to further scientific developments, new data about how Plan B works)

The Vatican hasn’t disputed the report. And it’s not just media reporting it, people are on record saying it such as Fr. Brian Johnstone of that prestigious Roman academy. It is conspiracy to suggest that he and others are all feeding lies to the media about it. And the Spanish Bishop and others today are reiterating the essence behind that past Vatican approval.
I’m pretty sure the protocol is to check for pregnancy and ovulation. I believe we are still waiting for the Vatican to reply to the question.
 
I’m pretty sure the protocol is to check for pregnancy and ovulation. I believe we are still waiting for the Vatican to reply to the question.
Here’s some background on the whole controversy (the bishops support that protocol; they just decided it was morally okay to comply with the law).

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10582

The Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center(NCBC) has released a statement to help clarify the Connecticut Catholic Bishops’ decision on the Connecticut legislation mandating contraceptive treatment for rape victims. Meanwhile, Human Life International has also weighed in on the deicison saying it contains “extremely egregious errors” and has asked the bishops to reverse their resolution.

The legislation has been controversial because the state’s Catholic bishops have allowed the use of the “Plan B” contraceptive as required by the law. “Plan B” works by preventing ovulation, but may also render a woman’s womb hostile to a fertilized egg if she has already ovulated.

The center’s statement describes the situation as “a complex moral matter” which “does not lend itself to brief explanation.” It notes that Catholic hospitals have always provided emergency contraception for the victims of sexual assault. However, to protect any newly conceived children from unintentionally being aborted, medical staff administered ovulation tests to confirm whether or not a embryo could be present.

An Unethical Law

The Connecticut law allows for a pregnancy test, which would detect a conception that had taken place before the sexual assault. The law does not allow for an ovulation test, which would indicate the possible presence of an embryo conceived immediately before, during, or after the assault.

The NCBC statement objected to the exclusion of the ovulation test on medical and ethical grounds. It argued the ovulation test established whether the treatment was necessary. When not administered, “the physician would have to administer a drug preventing ovulation even if ovulation had already occurred.”

Debate About Plan B’s Effects

According to the NCBC, the ethical objections center on the possibility that medical treatment will prevent the embryo from implantation in the uterus. The statement declares “to intend and to do such a thing is immoral.” However, the statement noted significant scientific debate over whether emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, actually has that effect in the womb.

In the absence of scientific consensus, the NCBC acknowledged the reasonableness of the Connecticut bishops’ decision that “the administration of a contraceptive medication in the absence of an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.”

On the other side of the debate is Fr. Tom Euteneuer, the president of Human Life International (HLI). In a letter that he wrote to the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut, Fr. Tom asserts that Plan B’s ability to cause a chemical abortion is certain.

“The truth is that there is absolutely no doubt about how the Plan B pills work. Just ask the manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals, whose product insert states: “This product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).” (My italics.) It’s that third item that makes Plan B an abortion-causing drug. The same can be said for every chemical contraceptive,” he wrote.

He also cited Dr. Chris Kahlenborn whose research indicates that Plan B only works to halt ovulation half the time.

The president of HLI also took issue with the assertion that the Vatican has not spoken definitively on the Plan B issue by citing a document from the Pontifical Academy for Life from 2001. Since, as Fr. Euteneuer argues from the manufacturer’s description, Plan B can prevent an embryo from implanting, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the Academy’s teaching that, “from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill.”

Both Fr. Tom and the NCBC attacked the Connecticut legislation for its lack of a conscience clause protecting all parties involved.

The NCBC declared that “it is immoral to violate one’s conscience, including the corporate consciences of health care agencies, and the unwillingness of the state to allow an exemption of conscience makes the law unjust and onerous.”

HLI’s president urged those who defend life to pray for the downfall of the culture of death and “to pray for the bishops, above all, who are usually the target of attack by the culture of death and are often surrounded by compromisers.”

Now here’s the bishops’ view in their own words (one of them here, but I believe the bishops made a joint decision)

bishoploriblog.org/?p=45

Indeed, the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil to administer Plan B without first giving an ovulation test or that those who do so are committing an abortion. [emphasis the bishop’s]

Sorry I didn’t mention it was specifically the ovulation test at issue if anyone was confused by that.
 
It was reported by John Allen of National Catholic Reporter. John Allen’s reporting is considered excellent. Please read the whole article. The specific case is one that happened already in Africa.
Produce the Papal or Curia document or cease saying “the Vatican” took such action.
 
Produce the Papal or Curia document or cease saying “the Vatican” took such action.
I agree with you. Quoting something from the media is NOT a reliable source for anything.

If jfhh cannot produce the Vatican document he should stop saying the “reported” issue was approved by Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top