Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[1ke]

woman who will more than likely/definitely develop serious health consequences if she were to become pregnant again (maybe the knowledge comes from previous pregnancies).

There are several women who post on here who have life threatening illnesses and who have used NFP for over 20 years to avoid. rayne89 and crohnie4life are two of them.

I suppose the worry I have with NFP is its not foolproof. I’m not Catholic so haven’t followed it rigidly anyway, but hormonal birth control does not suit me. I have done a sort of NFP (cervical mucus to know when I ovulate) for about 2 years but in a very relaxed way, sometimes not checking and then realising we’ve had intercourse in a fertile period. I’ve had two unplanned pregnancies and have welcomed each one as I would subsequent children

When one has a serious reason to avoid, then one uses NFP in a different way and that produces different results,

I have a friend who had twins and then another child 12 months later, she said “NFP does not work” for her. When pressed with which method she used and whether she’d taken a class she finally admitted she hadn’t. Grrrrr. I think there is a lot of anecdotal “NFP is risky” when you drill down you find out that the couple abandoned the method (that is what it is called when you have intercourse during a known fertile time or aren’t charting every day or in her case not even using an actual method).

You have no serious reason to avoid right now and so you have done “sort of” NFP. I would not term your children as “unplanned”… I mean why do we have to “plan” them?.. But rather that you let nature take its course. And there is no reason to feel badly about that.

 

[1ke]

I understand the church allows hysterectomies for reasons of health if Contraception is not the intent but a secondary consequence but in some ways this confuses me more.

I can understand the churches position on Contraception ONLY but if Contraception is the primary intent in order to prevent a health concern, I can’t see how that’s different to the above? The health of the woman is actually the primary concern?

It’s not just a vague “health of the woman” it is an actual diseased uterus that would medically indicate a husterectomy. Or diseased ovaries. An actual diagnosis such as endo, cancer, etc, or a ruptured uterus.**

Which leads me back to the question I ask myself and the reason for this thread… does the Catholic Church complicate things and push it’s disciplines/doctrines too far?

Disciplines and doctrines are two different things. I think that is the root of your issue-- not really understanding the difference.

Doctrines are truths. They are from God and cannot change. The immorality of contraception is a doctrine. It is a sin against the sixth commandment. It will never be anything other than a sin against the sixth commandment.

Disciplines are ways of doing things, some with the force of law others simply customs.

Advent wreaths in the liturgy (which have only been around a few hundred years and were actually Lutheran in origin) are a discipline in the sense that at one time it was not part of the liturgy in Advent, now it is, and at some point it may change again. There is no doctrinal issue.

All sorts of things are disciplinary in nature-- feast days, penance days, what color vestments the priest wears, these are all matters of governance.

No one claims they are doctrinal. No one claims they are directly from God. But the authority to make disciplinary decisions, including those binding on the faithful, IS from God.

 

[1ke]

So are you saying the church is OK for hysterectemy for contraceptive purposes if the preventing a pregnancy is to save a life from health problems caused by a subsequent pregnancy?

No what he was saying is that when there is a medical issue is it ok to treat it even if sterility results. The intent is not to prevent pregnancy, the intent is to remedy the diseased state.

 

[1ke]

But isn’t it better too be safe (take action now), than be sorry later?

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[pensmama87]

No what he was saying is that when there is a medical issue is it ok to treat it even if sterility results. The intent is not to prevent pregnancy, the intent is to remedy the diseased state.

Being fertile is not a diseased state.

 

[CatholicRaven]

I have a friend who had twins and then another child 12 months later, she said “NFP does not work” for her. When pressed with which method she used and whether she’d taken a class she finally admitted she hadn’t. Grrrrr. I think there is a lot of anecdotal “NFP is risky” when you drill down you find out that the couple abandoned the method (that is what it is called when you have intercourse during a known fertile time or aren’t charting every day or in her case not even using an actual method).

You have no serious reason to avoid right now and so you have done “sort of” NFP. I would not term your children as “unplanned”… I mean why do we have to “plan” them?.. But rather that you let nature take its course. And there is no reason to feel badly about that.

Right. If a couple were using condoms, and then skipped the condom for a couple nights and the woman got pregnant, they probably wouldn’t then blame the condoms for not being reliable, the way they often do with NFP. They would be aware that they had made that choice, not that “it didn’t work” for them. I wonder if some people are just confused or ignorant about what NFP is and requires? Or are people aware, but use NFP as a scapegoat because our culture has decided that every pregnancy that has not been specifically planned must be irresponsible if it was not caused by the failure of a birth control method?

When I was newly Confirmed and pregnant with my third child, my doctor at the time wrote on my chart that I had been using NFP when I specifically said I was not using any form of birth control or avoidance, including NFP. Before I returned to the Church, I wouldn’t have known what the letters even meant and wouldn’t have questioned it being on my chart. But I questioned her about it when I later saw it, and even after our discussion where she admitted she knew “no method” and “NFP” were not the same thing, she still didn’t change it (for that and a few other reasons, I ended up switching to another doctor).

Now, I’m not saying that I believe NFP is 100% certain all the time for every couple. There are probably some for whom NFP actually has resulted in a pregnancy when the couple is abstaining during fertile days… but first, I think if you dig a bit, as 1ke mentioned, you’ll find it’s rarer than most people think, and second, when it happens… well, that’s kind of the point of NFP, isn’t it? To leave room for God to grant the gift of life if that is His Will, and to trust in Him?

Not that it’s easy to do…

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Now, I’m not saying that I believe NFP is 100% certain all the time for every couple. There are probably some for whom NFP actually has resulted in a pregnancy when the couple is abstaining during fertile days… but first, I think if you dig a bit, as 1ke mentioned, you’ll find it’s rarer than most people think, and second, when it happens… well, that’s kind of the point of NFP, isn’t it? To leave room for God to grant the gift of life if that is His Will, and to trust in Him?

Not that it’s easy to do…

I do think some who struggle with NFP have a “grass is greener” attitude toward ABC and assume that ABC is 100% foolproof, and it’s NOT. Even an IUD won’t totally prevent all pregnancy; it does put women at higher risk for ectopic pregnancy, though, and of course that can have serious, even fatal consequences.

At least NFP has no side effects; even condoms can cause latex allergies, that can be life-threatening. Indeed, I suspect that if some feminist researcher had been the first to develop NFP and not the Catholic Church, the technique would be MUCH more socially acceptable.

ETA: BTW I have personally used hormonal medication also marketed as BC, to treat a medical condition (painful ovarian cysts). I know this is actually not prohibited by Church teaching. But, I actually found the side effects to be NOT worth the benefits.

 

[bitterhope]

I do think some who struggle with NFP have a “grass is greener” attitude toward ABC and assume that ABC is 100% foolproof, and it’s NOT. Even an IUD won’t totally prevent all pregnancy; it does put women at higher risk for ectopic pregnancy, though, and of course that can have serious, even fatal consequences.

At least NFP has no side effects; even condoms can cause latex allergies, that can be life-threatening. Indeed, I suspect that if some feminist researcher had been the first to develop NFP and not the Catholic Church, the technique would be MUCH more socially acceptable.

ETA: BTW I have personally used hormonal medication also marketed as BC, to treat a medical condition (painful ovarian cysts). I know this is actually not prohibited by Church teaching. But, I actually found the side effects to be NOT worth the benefits.

I’ve never used hormonal birth control but the dr has put me on progesterone during this pregnancy and I have not liked the side effects. I like the fact that it seems to be helping with the pregnancy so I keep it up, but if I were using it to prevent pregnancy it wouldn’t be worth it to me.

I agree that people often forget that no birth control is fool proof. That is why in very extreme cases many of us do abstain. It is a balancing act. Are the risks worth it or not? I have a sister in law that has been extremely successful with NFP for her entire marriage. Both of their kids were planned to the month. No surprises. Two children and the youngest is in her twenties. This sister in law is not Catholic either, but she doesn’t see a reason to deal with side effects when her birth control is working great for her without them. Not everyone enjoys such glowing results, but there are stories of people that do.

I know many people that have gotten pregnant while using various forms of ABC, but usually they are just as upset or more so than those that get pregnant using NFP. They blame their partner. They blame the condom. They blame the doctor. And usually once the shock eased, they become excited about their new baby coming. When a life threatening situation occurs a couple must take into account that every method whether hormonal or barrier or natural, they all have failure rates. It is up to them to choose what risks are worth it to them.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I’ve never used hormonal birth control but the dr has put me on progesterone during this pregnancy and I have not liked the side effects. I like the fact that it seems to be helping with the pregnancy so I keep it up, but if I were using it to prevent pregnancy it wouldn’t be worth it to me.

I agree that people often forget that no birth control is fool proof. That is why in very extreme cases many of us do abstain. It is a balancing act. Are the risks worth it or not? I have a sister in law that has been extremely successful with NFP for her entire marriage. Both of their kids were planned to the month. No surprises. Two children and the youngest is in her twenties. This sister in law is not Catholic either, but she doesn’t see a reason to deal with side effects when her birth control is working great for her without them. Not everyone enjoys such glowing results, but there are stories of people that do.

I know many people that have gotten pregnant while using various forms of ABC, but usually they are just as upset or more so than those that get pregnant using NFP. They blame their partner. They blame the condom. They blame the doctor. And usually once the shock eased, they become excited about their new baby coming. When a life threatening situation occurs a couple must take into account that every method whether hormonal or barrier or natural, they all have failure rates. It is up to them to choose what risks are worth it to them.

That’s true actually, I hadn’t thought about it like that before. No ABC is foolproof so if a woman is in that much danger, they should be abstaining anyway as having intercourse during the fertile period is always going to be a risk. Even tubal ligation and vasectomies have been known to fail.

I refuse to use hormonal BC anymore and my husband who is atheist agrees with me as he has seen the side effects.

 

[AiyanaS]

The ends do not justify the means.

Last I checked, the ends do justify the means in certain situations. For instance, if a pregnancy threatens a women’s life, like they miscarry at 11 weeks, thus the baby is too young to survive outside the womb, and it’s either the fetus is aborted or both the mother and baby die, the ends (aborting the fetus who will die eventually anyway and if not removed and left to die naturally will kill the mother by sepsis) do justify the means (mother lives).

Or, another example would be if someone is trying to stab you and your child, and you act in self defense by shooting the attacker through the skull and killing in him. In this case self defense of your child and yourself by killing the man trying to kill you (the end), does justifies the means of killing them.

 

[ricmat]

Last I checked, the ends do justify the means in certain situations. For instance, if a pregnancy threatens a women’s life, like they miscarry at 11 weeks, thus the baby is too young to survive outside the womb, and it’s either the fetus is aborted or both the mother and baby die, the ends (aborting the fetus who will die eventually anyway and if not removed and left to die naturally will kill the mother by sepsis) do justify the means (mother lives).

This link has a short article which describes the law of double effect - which is what you are referring to. And they use an example of an ectopic pregnancy.

Or, another example would be if someone is trying to stab you and your child, and you act in self defense by shooting the attacker through the skull and killing in him. In this case self defense of your child and yourself by killing the man trying to kill you (the end), does justifies the means of killing them.

The correct course of action should you ever have this happen is to act in self defense in a way such that you don’t kill the attacker. For example, you shoot the attacker in the foot, or the leg. If that is your intent, and because you’re not an expert marksman, you shoot the attacker through the skull or heart by accident, then that is morally acceptable. It is not acceptable to shoot somebody through the skull if you could defuse the situation in another way.

The “end” cannot be “I’m gonna shoot that sucker through the skull.” That end does not justify the means.

 

[Magdalen2013]

So are you saying the church is OK for hysterectemy for contraceptive purposes if the preventing a pregnancy is to save a life from health problems caused by a subsequent pregnancy?

Exactly – this came up in an RCIA class during the year I was converting. A mother with four children had been told by her doctors after her last pregnancy NOT to get pregnant again, and after discussing this with her priest, decided to have a hysterectomy. What did the priest say that convinced her to go ahead? The priest told her that her responsibility was to her husband and children, and they needed her to be alive to carry that out.

The Church does not require us to commit suicide to retain fertility – what it does require is that we consult our pastor when problems rise.

 

[Rau]

…
Anyway, Catholics don’t like contraception of any kind because they view it as frustrating the marital act. Though, honestly if you think about it, your still doing the physical act itself and separating procreation from pleasure, it doesn’t matter if you use rubber, surgery or having sex strictly on nonfertile days, all supposedly remove God from the equation as well, God is God and can make all of the above fail if He wanted. Also, abstinence for long periods basically just undermines the importance of sex in a marriage, and from what I’ve seen in my life can cause resentment and marital disfunction, especially when one spouse wants sex and the other is denying them sex.

Unless someone attacks me, this is my last post

I shan’t attack you. But the above misstates the situation. Contraception changes (rather than frustrates) the marital act - it eliminates part of its nature. NFP does not change the marital act at all - nothing is removed from it. The act on an infertile today is the same as on a fertile day. The probability of conception is different - but that is the nature of the way we are built.

 

[Rau]

Sorry for the confusion.

My understanding is that the church allows hysterectemies for things like cancer (ie a medical need) similar to your stealing analogy however they dont allow hysterectemies for contraception to prevent a serious medical situation arising. I suppose on your analogy it would be equivalent to someone taking the clothes before the accident occured but knowing it was going to occur. The end result is the same ie prevention of a medical problem (cancer or death from a pregnancy related medical issue) however the initial intent is different. I get confused as to me because the end result is for a medical need, I cant see how the two are different

A person fearful of a pregnancy is not morally entitled to prevent a pregnancy by surgery or drugs. Interfering with the marital act to eliminate its procreative nature is itself considered a moral evil, and moral evils may not be done even for the best of intentions. “The ends to do not justify the means”]

If avoidance of pregnancy is of great importance, sexual intercourse may be inappropriate for that person.

 

[Rau]

Last I checked, the ends do justify the means in certain situations. For instance, if a pregnancy threatens a women’s life, like they miscarry at 11 weeks, thus the baby is too young to survive outside the womb, and it’s either the fetus is aborted or both the mother and baby die, the ends (aborting the fetus who will die eventually anyway and if not removed and left to die naturally will kill the mother by sepsis) do justify the means (mother lives).

I don’t follow the scenario you are describing. But the teaching of the Church is that it is never justified to do moral evil to produce a good result. Directly attacking/killing an unborn is moral evil and is never justified. Ectopic pregnancy is perhaps a clearer scenario. Killing (murdering) the child (methotrexate injection) is immoral and unjustified, but removing the mother’s tube containing the child (which will surely see the child die) is moral. It is an act directed to the mother’s body as required to save here life. Note that the morality of the act is not judged by the balance of consequences - one option (the methotrexate injection) fails by the nature of what is done, not by its consequences.

Or, another example would be if someone is trying to stab you and your child, and you act in self defense by shooting the attacker through the skull and killing in him. In this case self defense of your child and yourself by killing the man trying to kill you (the end), does justifies the means of killing them

You’ve not applied the moral theology correctly. The act of self defence is a good act in itself, not an evil one. The end (preserving one’s life) is good, and so is the act done a moral good. Your concern no doubt is that killing seems inherently bad - how can we say that self-defence is not the ends justifying a “bad” means. But no, the means, what is done entails physical evil, but no moral evil.

Were we threatened with death by an evil person, and he tells us our death is only avoidable by an immoral act - such as going into the street and killing a random person - we could not claim such an act as self-defence since the act we do is morally evil. That would be a case where the ends (self preservation) do not justify the (morally bad) means.

 

[Rau]

…The correct course of action should you ever have this happen is to act in self defense in a way such that you don’t kill the attacker. For example, you shoot the attacker in the foot, or the leg. If that is your intent, and because you’re not an expert marksman, you shoot the attacker through the skull or heart by accident, then that is morally acceptable. It is not acceptable to shoot somebody through the skull if you could defuse the situation in another way.

The “end” cannot be “I’m gonna shoot that sucker through the skull.” That end does not justify the means.

While it is correct that we should use the minimal force required, it should be noted that:

• fine judgements are not easy in these situations and a great deal is at stake;
• there can be cases where it remains moral to resolve to use the death of the aggressor as the means of defence.

As you correctly say, we must not have in mind an “end” to kill someone (as might arise as a form of retribution), for that is an evil intention and renders the act immoral. But to choose death as a means (physical evil) for self-defence can be moral.

 

[AiyanaS]

I don’t follow the scenario you are describing. But the teaching of the Church is that it is never justified to do moral evil to produce a good result. Directly attacking/killing an unborn is moral evil and is never justified. Ectopic pregnancy is perhaps a clearer scenario. Killing (murdering) the child (methotrexate injection) is immoral and unjustified, but removing the mother’s tube containing the child (which will surely see the child die) is moral. It is an act directed to the mother’s body as required to save here life. Note that the morality of the act is not judged by the balance of consequences - one option (the methotrexate injection) fails by the nature of what is done, not by its consequences.

And what happens if a women ends up with 2 ectopic pregnancies, one after the other? There goes her chance at having children! As sad as it is having to remove a fetus directly, it saves the woman’s Fallopian tube and does not have her fertility decreased or eliminated entirely. There is also the possibility of transferring, or trying to transfer the fetus to the uterus and either it will stick or it won’t and if it does, great but if it doesn’t… well as horrible as it is going to sound, they were an ectopic pregnancy and were basically destined to die anyway. At least if you transfer them to the uterus you are trying to give them a chance.

Also, to clear up confusion on my previous point. In Catholic hospitals, there is a rule that an abortion, to remove a child after a mother miscarries, must be carried out after the fetal heartbeat is no longer there. This is a problem because infection can set into the mother if the fetus is not removed quick enough. Women have died or gone septic because the hospital prolonged giving the women the care she deserved because the hospital put there beliefs before the wishes of there patient.

It’s an issue of ethics and in medical care, you have to separate your views and beliefs and do what’s best by the patient and there wants for there life and body. It is ethically wrong to force your beliefs on another person. This actually happened in Ireland where a Hindu women had a miscarriage, wanted the baby removed, kept telling staff she was Hindu and didn’t believe in the Catholic views and went septic because the hospital refused to remove the already dying baby, which was under 20 weeks gestation, until the fetal heartbeat was gone, by which point the women died of septic shock. Doctors and medical staff have been fired for performing abortions on women and catholic hospitals stripped of there Catholic name for putting the life of the mother over the baby, who was going to die anyway.

This also isn’t an issue of, just don’t go too a Catholic hospital, some people just don’t have that option either because there country is Catholic or the only close hospital is a Catholic affiliated one.

 

[AiyanaS]

The correct course of action should you ever have this happen is to act in self defense in a way such that you don’t kill the attacker. For example, you shoot the attacker in the foot, or the leg. If that is your intent, and because you’re not an expert marksman, you shoot the attacker through the skull or heart by accident, then that is morally acceptable. It is not acceptable to shoot somebody through the skull if you could defuse the situation in another way.

The “end” cannot be “I’m gonna shoot that sucker through the skull.” That end does not justify the means.

If someone broke into my house with a gun or came into a mall and started shooting and tried to kill me or my family, that person is going to die. To me, my life and the life of my family and/or innocents is more important than the life of the atracker. Gun owners when going for training they are told to shoot to kill or at least try to stop attacker. They are told to aim for the chest. Aim for the attacker in the legs or arms will just anger them, plus, how intelligent does it really sound to aim for someone’s legs when a loaded gun is aimed at yours or a family members head?!

I don’t know where you live but the world is cold, cruel and unforgiving and the American justice system is just as corrupt, cold and unforgiving. In a situation, you shoot to kill for a dead man can’t testify against you, in the court of law you claim self defense and say you shot the attack intending to stop them and ended up killing them unintentionally. You never admit you tried to kill them, otherwise you, the victim, who the attacker tried to kill would go to jail. Plus, as I stated before, a dead man can’t testify, and there is method to that madness for in USA if an attacker is shot, but lives, they can come after you! And you could go too jail. I heard a story about that happening where a beaten and battered wife shot her husband when he tried to kill her and SHE went to jail. As horrible, twisted and wrong that is, that is how the American justice system works.

When your life is at stake, morality comes second, you do what you have to too save your backside, before you think about the affect that actions has on others. Because in this world, NO ONE cares, and your on your own and the only one who can look out for you best, is yourself! Because doing the right thing in this world can come back and bite you, you do what you have to to survive and protect those you care about.

So yes, the ends (you live), does justify the means (attacker dies).

 

[Rau]

And what happens if a women ends up with 2 ectopic pregnancies, one after the other? There goes her chance at having children!

Bad things happen. But Catholic theology does not accept the principle of consequentialism which essentially asserts that we can do anything so long as the balance of consequences is “favourable”. That’s the principle that allows me to (say) kill your innocent child if blackmailed by a person threatening to kill my 2 innocent children because the net outcome seems better. Is it moral to kill one child in the expectation that it saves two others? No. The most deeply held principle in Catholic moral theology is that some acts - abortion, murder, adultery, etc. - are always wrong to choose, regardless of motivation or circumstances.

There is also the possibility of transferring, or trying to transfer the fetus to the uterus and either it will stick or it won’t and if it does, great but if it doesn’t…

Were there such a medical procedure, that would be a moral act.

Also, to clear up confusion on my previous point. In Catholic hospitals, there is a rule that an abortion, to remove a child after a mother miscarries, must be carried out after the fetal heartbeat is no longer there.

I don’t have any medical knowledge on this issue. But removing a dead child is not an abortion. Killing the child is a (direct) abortion. An operation which indirectly sees the death of the child is sometimes called an “indirect abortion” and is not immoral.

It’s an issue of ethics and in medical care, you have to separate your views and beliefs and do what’s best by the patient and there wants for there life and body.

It is ethical to recognise that where mother and baby are concerned, the doctor has 2 lives in his care.

 

[Rau]

If someone broke into my house with a gun or came into a mall and started shooting and tried to kill me or my family, that person is going to die. To me, my life and the life of my family and/or innocents is more important than the life of the atracker.

It is correct that you owe a greater duty to protect your own life.

So yes, the ends (you live), does justify the means (attacker dies).

This is simply to corrupt the expression - to butcher its meaning - which was explained to you earlier (post #97).