Non Catholic Spouse and Birth Control

[Rau]

And the contrary argument:

Actually, it should read:

“Take Drug - To Avoid Stroke, Heart Attack, Post-Partum Depression, Suicide, Serious Medical Injury, Death - Secondarily, Pregnancy Avoided.”

You continue to close your eyes to the fact that what you list in RED is the **Motivation **for the act (of contraception), while the Contraception itself is the MEANS. The Church states explicitly that such (good) motivation does not make the evil means of contraception ‘good’.

The wife wants children if death would not result. She is not using contraception nor undergoing a tubal ligation for selfish, self-interest, nor material reasons.

Yet, she chooses to contracept…that is the means she chooses…the motivation to contracept does not matter - this is explicit in church teaching.

The whole point of the Church’s teaching against contraception is to promote the growth of the family unit. As it stands right now, she can no longer have children as pregnancy is a death wish. She is only pursuing these routes to avoid her own demise.

You make it sound as though it is “contraception” or “suicide” - pick one! It is not so. Abstinence - partial or complete is available.

How can one advocate that one may use contraceptives “for medical reasons” to avoid rather trivial illnesses, even “acne”, but you cannot use it to avoid the more grave medical conditions of stroke, heart attacks, suicide, even death that would surely result from a pregnancy? The logic does not follow.

One may take medication anytime to cure medical conditions. Such medication to “improve skin complexion” with the added consequence of sterilising sexual relations is debatable indeed, and I have not advocated such a course. Contraception does not avoid strokes and the like - it aims to prevent pregnancy, which is a **MEANS **to avoid medical risks. Do you agree that the ends do not justify the means?

If we follow your logic, the wife would be left with no other choice aside from abstinence.

Subject to medical advice about treatments, that may be correct.

This runs contrary to Church teaching as well. A marriage is the spiritual, mental, psychological, and (yes) sexual union of souls, male and female. The husband and wife become one. They are obligated to each other.

They are not obligated to have sex in the face of medical risks.

To deny the wife the ability to express her love to her husband would be issuing the verdict of separation most assuredly leading to divorce, to the complete detriment of the family, leading to further negative consequences: the break-up of the family, the negative effect on the family members (including young children), depression, anxiety, turmoil, even suicide.

They are not denied any right to express love. Circumstances might mean their sexual expression is limited, possibly severely. What a dim view of marital love you have if you insist abstinence (which may in fact be partial, not total) assuredly leads to marriage breakdown! Would you pass the same sentence on a couple where the husband (say) lost sexual function through an injury?

Approaching these matters from a legalistic twisting and turning of the Catechism…

I and others have pointed you to the Catechism which teaches the nature of intrinsic evils - always wrong to choose. It is you who close your eyes to what is taught, and argue in complete disregard for what the Catechism states!

…What you have done here is taken a portion of the Catechism and issued an all-encompassing edict that does not necessarily apply to this particular circumstance.

Why do you believe that the Church specifically identifies those acts that are “intrinsically evil” and declares that they may never, not in any circumstance whatsoever, be moral?

 

[Burdock]

Your misunderstanding has been explained thoroughly by previous posters. I can try again.

In short:

One may use medical treatements that have a secondary contrapetive effect (if the good effect outweighs the bad).

One may not use medical treatements that have an intended contraceptive effect.

In this case, the contraception is directly intended. It is the very means to “treat” the medical condition (which is not an existing condition, but a forseen issue). It is not permitted (no exceptions).
I find it very disturbing that the church wouldcnot allow a woman in these circumstances not to contracept. Every situation is different, she should not be expected to abstain for the rest of her life, Things are NOT always black and white.where is the compassion

Perhaps not this *particular *case, but one identical in the key elements:

Yes, if one looked hard enough (or sometimes not hard at all), they will find a priest who will “allow” contraception in such a case. The fact is that Church teaching is clear on the matter, regardless of whether individual priests adhere to it.

 

[Burdock]

Your misunderstanding has been explained thoroughly by previous posters. I can try again.

In short:

One may use medical treatements that have a secondary contrapetive effect (if the good effect outweighs the bad).

One may not use medical treatements that have an intended contraceptive effect.

In this case, the contraception is directly intended. It is the very means to “treat” the medical condition (which is not an existing condition, but a forseen issue). It is not permitted (no exceptions).

Perhaps not this *particular *case, but one identical in the key elements:

I find it very disturbing that the church does not allow contraception in cases like this. Things are NOT always black and white. Where is the compassion. To expect the couple to abstain for the rest of their marriage is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, if one looked hard enough (or sometimes not hard at all), they will find a priest who will “allow” contraception in such a case. The fact is that Church teaching is clear on the matter, regardless of whether individual priests adhere to it.

 

[sailor28]

The OP is Lutheran, not Catholic. She is not bound by Catholic teaching and she has not posted since Monday. It seems that posters have forgotten that.

Again, the best course of action would be to not take advice from people on the internet for something that is such a major issue in your marriage. Especially advice from people who are holding you to a set of rules which you do not believe in.

The truth is that even for Catholics the teaching on birth control is a pastoral failure. The majority of priests don’t uphold this teaching, perhaps many do as the ideal but most would agree there are situations where birth control is acceptable and necessary for the preservation of the marriage. The teaching is not coherent. You can take what you read here and then continue to form your conscience. It is unfortunate but the church lost it’s credibility among the faithful with this teaching. Especially when it decided on the term intrinsically evil and connected it to contraception.

With that, I am going to step aside to avoid the flaming arrows. I will bow out because I know what is coming next and I am not interested in going back and forth about it.

 

[Rau]

…The truth is that even for Catholics the teaching on birth control is a pastoral failure. The majority of priests don’t uphold this teaching, perhaps many do as the ideal but most would agree there are situations where birth control is acceptable and necessary for the preservation of the marriage. The teaching is not coherent. You can take what you read here and then continue to form your conscience. It is unfortunate but the church lost it’s credibility among the faithful with this teaching. Especially when it decided on the term intrinsically evil and connected it to contraception.

With that, I am going to step aside to avoid the flaming arrows. I will bow out because I know what is coming next and I am not interested in going back and forth about it.

Yes, how dreadful that someone might disagree with your opinion. Is to disagree to fire a “flaming arrow”? Your assertion concerning “most priests” would seem to be at least a flaming dart.

 

[Burdock]

The fact is that most catholics do not c follow this teaching anyway. There is nothing in the bible to suggest contraception is wrong let alone evil.

 

[TexasCatholic13]

The fact is that most catholics do not c follow this teaching anyway. There is nothing in the bible to suggest contraception is wrong let alone evil.

Most Catholics do not follow it because the teaching from the clergy on the matter is absolute rubbish and many inside the clergy do not even believe what the church teaches.

 

[Rau]

The fact is that most catholics do not c follow this teaching anyway. There is nothing in the bible to suggest contraception is wrong let alone evil.

From which you conclude…what?

Nothing in the Bible says it is good either. The Bible does not address IVF, or cloning either. What conclusion do you draw?

 

[underacloud]

The OP is Lutheran, not Catholic. She is not bound by Catholic teaching and she has not posted since Monday. It seems that posters have forgotten that.

Again, the best course of action would be to not take advice from people on the internet for something that is such a major issue in your marriage. Especially advice from people who are holding you to a set of rules which you do not believe in.

No, that hasn’t been forgotten. Please see posts #67 and #73 regarding the fact that she is not Catholic.

And she has posted since Monday. I suspect she may still be reading? Nonetheless, I’m continuing to post, and presumably Rau too, because some posters are promoting misunderstandings regarding Church teaching and it’s important that such misunderstandings are corrected, for the sake of others who may be reading.

With that, I am going to step aside to avoid the flaming arrows. I will bow out because I know what is coming next and I am not interested in going back and forth about it.

I’m not intending to be assaulting anyone with flaming arrows. Just wanting to promote authentic Catholic teaching on a Catholic forum. Those who wish to disagree with the teaching are free to do so - that is their choice. I just want the teaching to be clear and misunderstandings to be corrected.

 

[StGerardMajella]

The Church teaches the importance of responsible parenthood.

Precisely. Which is exactly why the life of the mother takes precedence. She must do everything she can to stay in good health for the sake of her family.

You make it sound as though it is “contraception” or “suicide” - pick one! It is not so. Abstinence - partial or complete is available.

Natural family planning would be a death sentence if she makes a simple error in calculating her cycle. Abstinence could quite easily lead to divorce. You have painted her into quite a box.

What a dim view of marital love you have if you insist abstinence (which may in fact be partial, not total) assuredly leads to marriage breakdown!

Abstinence cannot be partial, as it could result in the wife’s death. See above.

Do you agree that the ends do not justify the means?

I agree that it appears quite hypocritical to permit contraception for the treatment of acne, but not for the prevention of death. A priest should advise.

Why do you believe that the Church specifically identifies those acts that are “intrinsically evil” and declares that they may never, not in any circumstance whatsoever, be moral?

Protecting her health and well-being is not “inherently evil” as you infer.

It is you who close your eyes to what is taught, and argue in complete disregard for what the Catechism states!

We can agree to disagree. I believe that your interpretation of the Catechism is entirely misguided in not taking into account the personal circumstances of the wife, which is exactly why I have recommended that the original poster seek advice and counsel from competent authorities.

or more specifically, to direct her to seek advice that might be looser than what the Church actually teaches.

I trust well-trained, competent Catholic priests over anonymous post on public forums from individuals who proclaim to have tremendous insights into the Catechism. Call me a skeptic.

 

[Rau]

… Those who wish to disagree with the teaching are free to do so - that is their choice. I just want the teaching to be clear and misunderstandings to be corrected.

I sometimes think it is not misunderstanding that is at issue. Some posters fervently want the Church position to be something different and perhaps soothe that need by asserting that it is so. But they do so in the face of black and white Church statements to the contrary. And they repeat themselves no matter how clearly and undeniably their error is exposed. Is this misunderstanding or is it really dissent, without the honesty to simply say, “yeah, I understand what the Church says, and I think it’s wrong”? How many debates would quickly wind up with folks agreeing to disagree if that honest statement would be made?

 

[Rau]

We can agree to disagree.

Indeed, but let’s be honest about it. We don’t really disagree about what the Church DOES teach. We can both read. You’ve been shown the text from the Catechism, and from a papal encyclical, and a black and white, on-point statement from Father Serpa ("…there are no exceptions"). You simply reject them all!

 

[underacloud]

I trust well-trained, competent Catholic priests…

No you don’t.

 

[underacloud]

Is this misunderstanding or is it really dissent, without the honesty to simply say, “yeah, I understand what the Church says, and I think it’s wrong”? How many debates would quickly wind up with folks agreeing to disagree if that honest statement would be made?

To be fair, I think sailor28’s position is this.

And to be fair, it is a difficult teaching. Many Catholics struggle with it or abandon it altogether. That doesn’t make it wrong, but I do understand the difficulties people face. At times, my wife and I would certainly have preferred the teaching was different.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Indeed, but let’s be honest about it. We don’t really disagree about what the Church DOES teach. We can both read. You’ve been shown the text from the Catechism, and from a papal encyclical, and a black and white, on-point statement from Father Serpa ("…there are no exceptions"). You simply reject them all!

Your misinterpretation of the Catechism has been quite thoroughly refuted at every turn. We can let the readers read the thread for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

No you don’t.

Yes, I do. No priest would advocate that a woman purposely endanger her health, nor the unity of her family, despite your opinions to the contrary.

 

[Rau]

To be fair, I think sailor28’s position is this.

And to be fair, it is a difficult teaching. Many Catholics struggle with it or abandon it altogether. That doesn’t make it wrong, but I do understand the difficulties people face. At times, my wife and I would certainly have preferred the teaching was different.

I guess I have no difficulty distinguishing the “fact” of the teaching from whether or not I like it / believe it is logical, fair / difficult etc. I can read - and what is written is clear about he nature of intrinsic evil. Logically, if a person believes the following can be OK:

• contraception (ie interfere with marital act to prevent pregnancy);
• abort a baby to avoid risk to mother;
• “murder an innocent to save the nation” (as per the example in the CCC)

then they are saying “I reject the idea that there are intrinsic evils. I prefer the consequentialism approach - the approach that says I can do anything so long as the balance of outcomes is favourable”. For that is the argument that says the “specific circumstances” at hand determine the morality of these cases.

PS. End of lecture. I know you know this Underacloud.

You will note that the other poster does not reference the CCC or anything else authoritative to prosecute their view.

 

[underacloud]

Yes, I do. No priest would advocate that a woman purposely endanger her health, nor the unity of her family, despite your opinions to the contrary.

You clearly don’t trust Fr Serpa.

We can let the readers read the thread for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Fair enough. We are going around in circles now and I’m happy to leave it here.

Best wishes.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No you don’t.

I agree, this find a priest thing is really a bad argument. If you want well educated priests opinions, try the ones who wrote the Catechism. Or the ones who are Bishops of Rome. Etc. If I go to a priest who says cheating on my wife is understandable and ok, that does not mean I am free to sin, just because someone who wears a collar told me it was ok. There is a HUGE misunderstanding of what a priest is and is not here.

It is foolhardy to say your immortal soul and theology is tied to a priest who just happens to agree with what you want him to agree with therefore YOU deem him a competent priest. That is not following a God or a Church or even a logic. That is following a man and following your weakness.

ABC is not and has not ever been Holy. It is not the answer. And it is not the “only option so God or just some guy in a collar will understand.” It is an evil. plain and simple. It is a proven and decided evil. You can certainly reject that teaching, but don’t you dare to suppose that your theology surpasses the Holy Spirit, and The Church.

I am often shocked at the level of defense this gets on this site. And I wonder if the motive is more than a justification and guilt and more of a dubious quality.

It would be nice if the mods could clarify just how much of some of this is questioning and discussing or proselytizing and trying to lead others away from Holiness.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What has been cited is the CCC. Popes. And a wise priest from this site.

What has not been cited is one iota of evidence from the other side. Because it does not exist. Just people with their own theology and own opinions. I don’t think that is good enough to stake my eternal soul on…

As for all the accusations about the majority of priests supporting ABC. I would like to see some proof. Like I said before, I probably confessed to about a hundred priests and only 1 ever said it was ok. But according to some I guess he was the competent one.

 

[Rau]

Your misinterpretation of the Catechism…

On this topic, no interpretation is required, because the statements are black and white. The CCC and relevant encyclicals are all online - perhaps you could quote from those to point to support for your “interpretation”?

…No priest would advocate that a woman purposely endanger her health, nor the unity of her family, despite your opinions to the contrary.

Correct. I believe he would advise her to seek the best medical advice, and to avoid, by moral means, becoming pregnant. Here is Father Serpa’s advice in a medically dangerous situation. Was he advocating that she endanger her life?

Question
*When I had my last child , a hole was found and repaired in my uterus. Thankfully no harm to my son or me. I was told on the operating table not to get pregnant again. My husband is terrified that if I become pregnant I will die. Are there any exceptions to birth control specifically condoms in such an extreme case? *
Response by Father Serpa
I suggest that you get a second medical opinion–preferably from a doctor who is a practicing Catholic. There are no exceptions regarding contraception.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=442173

StGM - let me ask you - if a pregnant woman were to find herself in grave danger of death caused by the continuation of her pregnancy, would the Church view it as a moral course for her to abort the child? Why/Why not?