Moral dilemma; please help!

[Rascal]

I was not able to read the entire thread, but I didn’t see anyone point out that contraceptives are not 100% effective either. So if your (or your wife’s) motivation for taking contraceptives is to not be pregnant becuase of her medical condition, contraceptives is not a better answer. NFP can be 99% effecitve as the best contraceptive.

SInce you perhaps have less confidence with the NFP rules you learned, perhaps it would be better to review your charts of when you conceived with your teachers. They can perhaps show you where you may have misinterpreted some signs. Or you can retake the class to refamiliarize yourself with the rules. If you want to increase the effectiveness even more, you can use the more “conservative” rules as taught by CCL.

God bless.

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear bear06,

Thank you for the very kind response. I still don’t understand something, though. We are willing to make an exception to Paul’s teaching because of illness. I have no problem with that. What I don’t understand is why we are unwilling to make an exception to the avoidance of ABC (and I’m not talking about abortifacients). That’s why I’m trying to figure out whether the teaching against ABC is infallibly declared, because wouldn’t it have to be in order for us to give it more weight than Scripture?

Alan

Hey Alan,

Here are some links for you.
catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp
catholic-pages.com/morality/

Let me know if you’d like more!

 

[bear06]

javelin:

I agree, but also know that** viewpoint means everything** here. If someone really views the Church that way, no well-formed theological argument is going to flip some magic switch to change an opinion born of emotional experiences. It will take a lot of time and patience to work on building trust again between the person and the Church before that view changes. The dilemma is what to do through that time. While I understand the argument that nothing should ever be compromised, I also wonder if simply letting her make the choice now and seeing where it leads might be the only way. When it doesn’t give her what she is really seeking, maybe only then will she see the wisdom of the Church. I’m beginning to think she needs to “get burned” a little before she will see the danger of “playing with fire”. I will be very watchful, of course, to see that the fire is controlled (and pray that God is with me). But that may be the only way. Her heart is pretty hard on this issue right now.

Still searching,
javelin

Javelin,

The analogy of playing with fire is wrong. It’s more like playing with poison. A little poison may not kill you but it can make you very sick for life - or it can kill you! It is impossible to control what the poison will do in someone since everyone may tolerate it differently.

Once again, please look to the spiritual here. God has promised us that if we place our trust in Him he will do what’s best for us. We only lose when we try and control, fix, etc. the situation outside of him.

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear pittsburghjeff,

That kind of gets us back to where we were. If we are to recommend abstinence, we have to disregard Paul’s teachings. If we are to recommend ABC, we have to disregard Church’s teachings. If we obey the Church and the Bible at the same time, we have to ignore javelin’s doctor’s warnings and his wife’s intuition and risk creating orphans.:banghead:

Alan

I’m sorry for this barrage of replies. I have very bad morning sickness and I have to take one post at a time because I never know when I have to stop reading!

You can keep going round and round about this but the Church is the final interpreter of Scripture and I believe that her decisions are declared infallible. The Church doesn’t interpret this passage the same as you. Period. Many people have many interpretations of what they think something means but to protect us from our sometimes very wrong interpretations, God gave us the Church.

God, backed up by the Church, says that ABC (especially the pill) is wrong for 2 main reasons that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. is goes against Natural Law as God designed it.
2. it will more than likely result in the death of a child

PEOPLE SEEM TO BE INGNORING THE FACT THAT #2 IS A LIKELY RESULT.

How many times did Satan tempt Christ to save himself? I don’t mean to sound hysterical but this is exactly what is happening. How can you save yourself by denying God?

 

[bear06]

Here’s one last article. Please note the breakdown of the family.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/11-12-98/Morality6.html

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pittsburghjeff:

Alan,

Let me take one more stab at this. Paul was telling spouses, in general, not to deprive eachother of sexual relations. He meant sexual relations as God intended them.

Of course when he said “deprive” Paul was not specifically referring to contraception. Paul could not have envisioned the contraceptive culture and technology as we know it. But that does not change what Paul meant when he was telling them to have sexual relations.

Even if Paul was not specifically thinking about contraception when he wrote the words in question, having contraceptive sex with one’s spouse does not fulfill his commandment to have sexual relations with one’s spouse.

Contraceptive sex is just one more way that “Satan temps us through our lack of self-control”. To say that we are contracepting to avoid some other sexual sin really does not make sense. It is the same type of argument as someone who would encourage masturbation to avoid fornication. All sexual sins are interrelated. They all stem from the same mentality - the mentality that reduces sex to a mere pursuit of mutual pleasure and shuts God’s life-giving love out of the act.

Dear pittsburghjeff,

Your way of looking at this is fascinating, and is the first time I’ve understood someone’s explanation such that, if true, would explain why ABC is bad based on 1 Cor 7. Perhaps you are right about Paul’s intent, but I’m a bit hesitant to actually cross over and support the “ABC is bad” camp just yet because it is so not-obvious to me that he actually meant that. For now, I’m going to lay low a while and see if I can digest your story. Also, bear06 sent me some links that I started to read but haven’t read through yet, that may help me see this.

There is one question still open, though, and I don’t think your explanation addresses it. If contraceptive sex does not fulfill a husband’s obligation, then how can NFP or abstinence not be a sin?

Alan

 

[felra]

Princess_Abby:

What would happen if you took this stance with your wife and simply said, "Jean, if you feel like the pill is your only recourse, that is your decision and I cannot stop you. I will not condone it nor will I use anything artificial myself. I will periodically ask you to please reconsider your position. I will not deny my body to you, but I will offer myself to you with the same totality of when we began using NFP.

If your spouse chooses beyond any doubt to use birth control, obviously you can’t take away their freedom and stop it. But YOU have the freedom to disagree. If he/she refuses to abstain, you should not deny yourself to them. But you are morally obligated to ask your spouse to reconsider their position periodically–whether that be her agreeing to abstain or to go off birth control and practice NFP.

Remember that you are the spiritual leader of your family.

Abby

As head of household myself, I would take exception to this advice. In no way could I consider giving myself over to the marital act if I had knowledge that my spouse was using a form of ABC that has the potential to act as an abortifacient. For me, this would implicate my complicity in the disposal/death of an unborn baby, however early in the child’s development. For me, this would be annologous to providing ammunition to a gun that my unstable wife may inadvertently use to shoot someone with. I would draw the line in the sand at this point of engaging in contraceptive intercourse with abortifacient ABC, because ultimately I am responsible only for my actions ( whether active or passive) as they result in a consequence of serious sin.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

I’m sorry for this barrage of replies. I have very bad morning sickness and I have to take one post at a time because I never know when I have to stop reading!

Dear bear06,

Well, now, are congratulations in order?:dancing:

If so, and you don’t mind me asking, when? Is this your first?

Alan

 

[Princess_Abby]

Felra,

I can understand your position. But you can’t stop your spouse from swallowing poison, and denying yourself to them is also sinful. I’ll get out my Christopher West book and quote something to you, or perhaps find a link from EWTN.

Abby

 

[kage_ar]

Sometimes these forums stun me, there seems to be an idea that if a couple stops having sex that the husband will run out and find someone else. Let’s give Christian men some credit! Christian marriage is about so very much more than sex.

Second point, using Paul’s teaching to say that abstaining by agreement for any reason other than prayer is somehow sinful seems to me a bit odd…

After a baby is born, most doctors suggest abstaining for some weeks. After many surgical procedures, doctors advise abstaining for some weeks (when I had a hip replaced, my doctor said nope for 16 weeks - complicated surgery with limits on mobility to assure healing). Are these reasons sinful? Health of either person, physical or mental, the other spouse could show selfless love by abstaining.

My prayers are with you both!

 

[javelin]

Several people have brought up the abortive function of oral contraceptives. This is something I have heard about many times, but have yet to see any clinical evidence for.

Is there any form of oral contraceptive that is ***not ***also abortive? Are there statistics or clinical scientific data about particular oral contraceptives and their abortive effects?

Trust me that I would never consent to having relations with my wife if she chose to take contraceptives that were also abortive. I don’t believe she would want to, either, but I will need some better evidence than hearsay to support a position that ALL oral contraceptives can also cause abortion.

If that claim were true, it may just push her to a permanent solution – sterilization. I certainly don’t want to go there, but in her current mindset it is a possibility. It would at least handle the “contraception isn’t 100% effective” argument pretty well, and wouldn’t require her to add more chemicals to her body.

Peace,
javelin

 

[bear06]

Alan,

Yes, congratulations are in order even though I don’t feel so congratulatory at the moment. If all turns out well, this will be our 8th child (6 th still with us since we lost 1 to an ectopic and one to a later miscarriage).

Javelin,

Here’s some articles on the pill as an abortifacient. Let me know if you need more.

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/97rlpbru.htm
nostradamus.freehomepages.com/estrogen2.htm
epm.org/articles/26doctor.html
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html
w-cpc.org/sexuality/chemical.html
members.tripod.com/~CHERYL51/index-3.html

 

[jegow]

*Even a local priest she confided in said it would be OK if decided after serious prayer, etc. *
*
Really quick, I would first ask yourself if the priest gave you sound advice. It is unfortunate but sometimes priests do not have answers that reflect that of Holy Mother Church.
*
Please don’t respond with arguments trying to prove the Church’s position that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.

Well, no offense but if you are wanting to be a good Catholic in this matter, you are going to have to listen to what the Church teaches (and for this it does - Humanae Vitae - for exp.) and do not wait around until someone gives you an opinon that will give justification for birth control. Look I know it is not easy, however, the Church is quite clear on birth control - it’s not good, period. NFP is actually what the Church recommends in your case now, and again, no offense but it isn’t what you should have been using then in the begininngs of your marriage.

Remember marriage has that vow ‘for good times and bad’ and ‘in sickness and in health’ - They are in there because life is guarenteed to get rough. This is no matter what vocation we have - life brings its challenges and we have the free choice, from God, to choose to live by the Church or not when we deal with those. And since you said, “I know it is wrong, which is why there is a dilemma in the first place.” I would hope that you think about this a bit.

That as a husband it is great that you are striving to be a good husband to your wife. Remember though that one of the callings in the vocation of marriage is the santification of your spouse. It really is one of the most important things with the sanctification of the family. Why would any spouce want to be accountable for the prevention of the sanctification of their spouse. Which I am sure you do not want to be preventitive. So don’t ignore that fact that the Church says that birth control is wrong. The Church is there to help us get to heaven, to get sanctified, its wisdom is there for a reason. Maybe you and your spouse need to sit down and perhaps read what the Catechism says about this and talk about it with each other. It certainly might be rough to do but I think you need to start there.

What I really need is advice on how to weigh its wrongness with the other perils in the situation, and how to be a good husband to my dearest wife.

One thing to think about when ‘weighing’ any wrongness is first to see if that wrong thing can even be weighed again. If something is morally wrong, like intentionally killing someone, it is always going to be wrong. Kind of like candle can be lit or extinguished but it can not be both at the same time. Birth control, can not be good (or OK) and bad at the same time - sorry but it does not work that way.

I hope that this sheds a little light on a tough topic. I am no scholar so I hope that I am not too confusing. If this seems like a rather merciless reply, sorry, I don’t intend it to be but I think you need to hear as much truth about this as I could try and say.

jegow

 

[baltobetsy]

bear06:

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/97rlpbru.htm

This fabulous article is written by MY doctor! A visit with him is like a session with a spiritual director. He is simply amazing, and a real conduit of God’s grace.

Betsy

 

[jegow]

Trust me that I would never consent to having relations with my wife if she chose to take contraceptives that were also abortive. I don’t believe she would want to, either, but I will need some better evidence than hearsay to support a position that ALL oral contraceptives can also cause abortion.

Contraceptives have one thing in common, to control birth (hence the name birth control). Any contraception, oral or not has the same ‘end’, to control birth. It is not good either way. On one hand there are contraseptives that prevent life or conception and on the other there are contraceptives that are able to get rid of life if one such thing like conception actually happens. No one has an excuse to use any of them. They do not support life. I don’t want to sound like a broken record though,or the mean guy either, sooo.

If you have a Catechism look up # 2370

or it is also in # 14 of Humanae Vitae here:
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

You’ll maybe see where I am coming from.

Like I said in my first responce, that call of sanctifying your spouse comes to light when thinking of this.

jegow

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear jegow,

Welcome to the forum. There are a lot of great people here. (Some might not think I’m one of them but my wife and children love me anyways!)

jegow:

Contraceptives have one thing in common, to control birth (hence the name birth control). Any contraception, oral or not has the same ‘end’, to control birth. It is not good either way.

If controlling birth were intrinsically evil because they both achieve the end of controlling birth, then abstinence and NFP, when used for controlling pregnancy, would be evil too, would they not?

On one hand there are contraseptives that prevent life or conception and on the other there are contraceptives that are able to get rid of life if one such thing like conception actually happens. No one has an excuse to use any of them. They do not support life.

Thank you for agreeing that some artificial methods prevent conception, while some are abortifacients.

I assume you are implying that “because they do not support life” that is the reason that “no one has an excuse to use any of them?”

Unless I am mistaken about your logic, then I ask again, how does NFP for pregnancy prevention, or abstinence, support life any more than, for example, condoms and spermicide? They all seek to prevent pregnancy through avoiding conception. Since none support life, wouldn’t it follow from what you said that no one has an excuse to use any of them?

I don’t want to sound like a broken record though,or the mean guy either, sooo.

I believe that, and I will not be offended if you repeat yourself or others. I hate to sound like a broken record, too, but sometimes I have to ask the same question 100 times and 100 different ways before I apparently get my question across, or hear a reasonable answer. Sometimes I give up. :banghead:

To be fair, at least one poster told me of an Old Testament story where a dude got punished for “spilling his seed.” In that particular case, however, his responsibility specifically was to impregnate the woman, so when he took action to avoid it, he was indeed shirking his responsibility. In the case at hand, I don’t hear anybody saying that javelin is morally obligated to get his wife pregnant, so that example does not apply in this case. Besides, like it or not, abstinence also results in seed either spilling or dying, so what’s the big diff?

I’m not picking on you about the abstinence and NFP thing; I know you didn’t say anything about those but I’ve been going around with others about this. If you don’t think NFP and abstinence are just as wrong, then why not?

Disclaimer: see my disclaimer in my signature.

Alan

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

Besides, like it or not, abstinence also results in seed either spilling or dying, so what’s the big diff?

Alan,

You’re once again forgetting Natural Law here. I just found this article on New Advent which I thought might be helpful. It’s in the middle of a bunch of others so I will just cut and paste.​

Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing–prevent pregnancy.

Because you don’t judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as NFP, but the ways they go about it are very different.

Humanae Vitae defines contraception as “every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (14). Such an action actively eliminates or witholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because “every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” (11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, “a lie in the language of the body.”

If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice NFP is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman’s cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God’s gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure.

One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring “serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (16). Thus it is not, as some have accused, “contraception Catholic style.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear bear06,

Thank you for the information.

bear06:

This is sinful because “every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, “a lie in the language of the body.”

This is weird reasoning. It’s also true that walking has two ends; it gets exercise, and it gets you from point A to point B. By this same logic I might conclude that riding from point A to B in a car, or walking on a treadmill for exercise, is “a lie in the language of the body.”

Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God’s gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure.

OK, this brings me back to a point I made once before. NFP doesn’t render it impossible to conceive and is therefore licit. NFP advocates constantly point to the ineffectivess of ABC. Therefore, ABC does not make it impossible either and is only illicit by this reasoning if the user “really thinks” it will 100% prevent pregnancy. NFP education teaches them otherwise, so if they’ve heard NFP promotions then ABC (non-abortive) is not illicit by this reasoning.

One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring “serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (16). Thus it is not, as some have accused, “contraception Catholic style.”

This is the first I’ve heard of that. Even if true, though, how does it apply to the case at hand? Practically everyone is telling javelin he has to practice abstinence or NFP, and not ABC. If contraception is bad if it is a practice of convenience, and NFP is only good if it is not a practice of convenience, then that doesn’t say anything against ABC if it is for a serious issue, which in this case it most definitely is.

I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be obstinate. I simply have yet to hear a coherent reason explaining why NFP or abstinence is any more moral than non-abortive ABC. I appreciate everyone’s concern, but every reason given so far is without merit. Of course, the Church has authority to make arbitrary rules, but if that’s what these rules are – arbitrary – I wish she’d just admit that instead of using all this fancy language to justify her beliefs. If she would say, “this is what we teach, it is revelation and we really cannot explain why in any human terms,” then I would quit asking. Barring that, since she seems to write libraries on this subject trying to explain it, I will seek until I find, or I might go to my grave wondering if this teaching is truly from God.

Alan

 

[javelin]

jegow:

Really quick, I would first ask yourself if the priest gave you sound advice.

I don’t know, which is why I’m still searching in places like these forums. I trust him, though, which is a place to start.

Please don’t respond with arguments trying to prove the Church’s position that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.

Well, no offense but if you are wanting to be a good Catholic in this matter, you are going to have to listen to what the Church teaches (and for this it does - Humanae Vitae - for exp.) and do not wait around until someone gives you an opinon that will give justification for birth control.

Wasn’t saying “Please” good enough?

Why are you assuming that I’m going to just “wait around until someone gives [me] an opinon that will give justification for birth control”?

jegow:

Look I know it is not easy,

Do you, really?

jegow:

however, the Church is quite clear on birth control - it’s not good, period.

Not true, at least so far as I have learned. Taking medication that may cause infertility is morally licit if it is to treat a legitimate medical condition or illness. How we must respond to that in sexual practice is unclear.

jegow:

NFP is actually what the Church recommends in your case now, and again, no offense but it isn’t what you should have been using then in the begininngs of your marriage.

What should we have been using then in the beginnings of our marriage? Are you saying we should not have been practicing NFP?

jegow:

And since you said, “I know it is wrong, which is why there is a dilemma in the first place.” I would hope that you think about this a bit.

I am, which is why I’m here and why I’m trying to find a way to meet my wife’s medical needs in a way that is not morally objectionable.

jegow:

… So don’t ignore that fact that the Church says that birth control is wrong.

If I had even an inkling of doing that, my wife would be doing anything she wanted already and I wouldn’t be searching for wisdom here.

jegow:

Maybe you and your spouse need to sit down and perhaps read what the Catechism says about this and talk about it with each other. It certainly might be rough to do but I think you need to start there.

Maybe you need to sit down and read this entire thread, think about what is really going on, and post again after you realize you are preaching to the choir.

jegow:

One thing to think about when ‘weighing’ any wrongness is first to see if that wrong thing can even be weighed again. If something is morally wrong, like intentionally killing someone, it is always going to be wrong.

Wrong again (I think ). Killing while acting in a “just war” is not morally objectionable, I believe. It is also not morally objectionable to do something that is immoral if it is the least immoral choice in a situation.

Jegow, I appreciate your good intentions, but I wrote that I didn’t want arguments that birth control was wrong for a very good reason – I already believe that it is. Mostly, I didn’t want people assuming that I don’t believe that so they wouldn’t feel the moral obligation to “correct” or “enlighten” me. As with most moral issues, this is not just black and white, although the grey area here is smaller than others, I believe.

So please don’t patronize (“if you are wanting to be a good Catholic…”), but contemplate the *whole *question, engage in the discussion with humility, charity, and love, and be open to what the Spirit is saying.

I will now apologise for the pointedness and sarcasm in this response. I’m not meaning to attack you personally, just defend against things you seem to be implying. I hope you continue to participate.

Peace,
javelin

 

[felra]

Princess_Abby:

Felra,

I can understand your position. But you can’t stop your spouse from swallowing poison, and denying yourself to them is also sinful. I’ll get out my Christopher West book and quote something to you, or perhaps find a link from EWTN.

Abby

Abby,

I respectfully disagree with your above comment. To quote Christopher West in “The Good News About Sex and Marriage”, pg. 127, “Abstinence could harm a marriage if it were done for the wrong reasons. But when a couple choose to abstain from sex out of fidelity to their wedding vows, it only serves to strengthen their marriage”; pg. 129, “You also have the option of refraining from intercourse as long as your husband [wife] insists on contracepting.”

I am applying the fundamental principle of Christian morality, that one ought not to do evil so that good may come of it, by refusing to participate in an act of contraceptive intercourse, that by design can act as an abortifacient, despite the proposed good of “marital stability”. This is holding myself to integrity in living out what I profess as the seamless garment of being a pro-life Catholic from the moment of conception to natural death.

Practicing contraceptive intercourse in the Catholic sacrament of marriage is living a lie, no matter what the reason. The compassionate response to these difficult situations is to embrace the Cross of Christ in dying to self and refusing the “solution” of participating in contraceptive intercourse. Not always easy, not always “reasonable” by human standards, but why settle for less when Christ has already made provision for me to live integrity in my sacred marriage vows, come what may?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church #2363 specifically addresses this issue to me as spiritual head of household, “The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.” Wow! This is my higher calling in Christ as head of household and as explicitly supported by the Church. By God’s grace I would hope to keep my marriage bed “undefiled”, even if my wife would chose contraception/sterilization. Again, I alone stand before Christ accountable for my actions.

I hope that this helps explain my position.

Felra