Non Catholic Spouse and Birth Control

[Burdock]

Do you believe that there is any act at all which is always wrong to choose? Perhaps murdering a child? Abortion?

The Church teaches that some acts are ALWAYS wrong to choose - and contraception is one of those. I understand you may disagree.

Very difficult, but there may be circumstances where abortion may need to be considered.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So you are saying that if you contracept you will not get to heaven, what nonsense.

It is not for me to say, and it certainly is not nonsense. Certainly murderers and rapists can attain heaven. So I am sure contraceptors are not out. But one need repentance and to be free from mortal sin. This has been the teaching of God from the beginning of time. I could not call myself a Practicing Catholic, worthy of being in communion with God forever, if I knowingly and purposefully practiced contraception. This is the teaching of the Church. What may be nonsense to you is the very words of salvation to others. The Church tells us how to attain heaven. And gives us the vehicles to do that. And She does this with the full guidance and wisdom of God Himself. We also have the examples of the saints. Those Holy men and women who have attained heaven and have showed others how to attain heaven. These Men and women sacrificed mentally and physically, to the point of even volunteering their lives and bodies to horrible abuse. No one should presume God’s mind or mercy and justice. Have you noticed that we live in a time when we do not argue about things like Bible alone or salvation through faith alone, but rather how our salvation and our genitals must be reconciled? Don’t you find that alarming?

 

[Burdock]

It is not for me to say, and it certainly is not nonsense. Certainly murderers and rapists can attain heaven. So I am sure contraceptors are not out. But one need repentance and to be free from mortal sin. This has been the teaching of God from the beginning of time. I could not call myself a Practicing Catholic, worthy of being in communion with God forever, if I knowingly and purposefully practiced contraception. This is the teaching of the Church. What may be nonsense to you is the very words of salvation to others. The Church tells us how to attain heaven. And gives us the vehicles to do that. And She does this with the full guidance and wisdom of God Himself. We also have the examples of the saints. Those Holy men and women who have attained heaven and have showed others how to attain heaven. These Men and women sacrificed mentally and physically, to the point of even volunteering their lives and bodies to horrible abuse. No one should presume God’s mind or mercy and justice. Have you noticed that we live in a time when we do not argue about things like Bible alone or salvation through faith alone, but rather how our salvation and our genitals must be reconciled? Don’t you find that alarming?

I have left the church as I cant adhere to this teaching. I do not believe t he at contraception is wrong or evil. I dont see that the example of onan spilling his seed and c god being angry is meant to bectaken that we should not contracept today

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have left the church as I cant adhere to this teaching. I do not believe t he at contraception is wrong or evil. I dont see that the example of onan spilling his seed and c god being angry is meant to bectaken that we should not contracept today

And that is your prerogative. As a Catholic, I would disagree. I would also think that there is more to the teaching than you are citing. But it sounds like this is peripheral in your faith journey anyway.

 

[Alix1912]

I too do not find the passage in the Old Testament about Onan to mean no contraception of any kind.

Also if you are really going to go down that route…if the Onan situation was wrong…well he did not use an artificial method of contraception…he simply withdrew, he used knowledge of his own body to prevent conception. How is that different than using NFP to plan around ovulation and avoid getting pregnant. If what Onan did was wrong then NFP should be too. It is using knowledge of a woman’s cycle to avoid pregnancy.

 

[pensmama87]

I too do not find the passage in the Old Testament about Onan to mean no contraception of any kind.

Also if you are really going to go down that route…if the Onan situation was wrong…well he did not use an artificial method of contraception…he simply withdrew, he used knowledge of his own body to prevent conception. How is that different than using NFP to plan around ovulation and avoid getting pregnant. If what Onan did was wrong then NFP should be too. It is using knowledge of a woman’s cycle to avoid pregnancy.

Onan changed the act.

NFP does no such thing. Women are temporarily infertile due to God’s design. Neither partner alters themselves or what they do together.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

In “Salt of the Earth” Pope Benedict XVI was pressed by the interviewer, Seewald, what a couple should do when faced with a dilemma concerning contraception. He responded:

“I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one’s spiritual director, with one’s priest, because they can’t be projected into the abstract.”

I’d advise the couple to take that advise and consult a spiritual director. There are numerous factors to weigh and I don’t believe it is possible to solve a concrete moral dilemma by treating it in the abstract.

 

[Kelfa28]

In “Salt of the Earth” Pope Benedict XVI was pressed by the interviewer, Seewald, what a couple should do when faced with a dilemma concerning contraception. He responded:

“I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one’s spiritual director, with one’s priest, because they can’t be projected into the abstract.”

I’d advise the couple to take that advise and consult a spiritual director. There are numerous factors to weigh and I don’t believe it is possible to solve a concrete moral dilemma by treating it in the abstract.

And Priest worth his salt would give the correct advice. That contraception is always wrong and that is the Church’s teaching on the matter.

Believe me…I’ve gone to my Parish Priest several times with different questions over the issue…especially while my husband and I were in RCIA.
I’ve also been the the Parish Priest at a neighboring Parish…one who is a bit more on the “liberal” side of things.

Their answers have always been the same, under any and every circumstance, and have never wavered from Church teaching.

If I couldn’t accept that…i’d be out Priest shopping until I found a Priest that would say contraception (in my particular situation) is okay.

 

[underacloud]

Burdock;12926255:

This is one of the reasons I have decided c to leave the church, I converted in b 2011, I have been told on these forums that im wrong c to have a coil, it is for medical reasons and that at52 I should be open b to life, my husband is not a catholic, I have gone back to the protestant church. The catholic church seems to be obsessed with sexual matters

May I ask what medical condition a coil (IUD) treats?

I can’t comment on Burdock’s case, but yes some doctors do prescribe IUDs to treat female fertility issues. There are IUDs now that have the hormone progestin and act in similar ways to other progestin-based hormonal contraceptives. And because the hormone is delivered locally, as opposed to generally, it may be preferable in some cases (eg treating heavy menses).

My wife was suggested this option to treat her issues (Endo and PCOS), but we preferred not to take it due to the other effects of IUD - which may include preventing a fertilised egg from implanting. The exact mechanisms of all IUDs remains somewhat unclear, so we were not comfortable with that option. I’m not saying all people should come to the same conclusion as my wife and I did. We had other options that were medically similar but we were more comfortable with. If the hormonal IUD is the best medical option, and it legitimately treats a medical condition as opposed to being used for contraception, then it may be morally licit.

 

[sailor28]

If the original poster wants advice from a Catholic source on these matters, you should consult a qualified Catholic priest that can advise on the proper course of action according to Church teaching. After taking the priest’s counsel into advisement, you and your husband need to make your own private decisions regarding next steps forward.

There are clearly medical and psychological factors that are highly unique to your individual situation. Your questions can be easily taken out of context and responders do not necessarily have the medical, psychological, nor theological training to be giving advice on these matters.

Too often we hear these rather harsh “black or white” responses that go against the spirit and teaching of the Church as to what is and is not “moral”. If you want the Catholic perspective, you need to consult a professional, and a qualified Catholic priest should be able to give you straight, direct answers.

Excellent response!! It is definitely wise to seek advice in person from a priest that you know. The answers here on CAF are legalistic and sometimes not healthy. This can result in damage to marriages.

 

[Rau]

Excellent response!! It is definitely wise to seek advice in person from a priest that you know. The answers here on CAF are legalistic and sometimes not healthy. This can result in damage to marriages.

This is true in connection with complex circumstances or courses of action where the moral principles at issue are not easily identifiable.

But where that is not the situation, and where the proposed course of action is an intrinsic evil (eg. To abort, to contracept, to bear false witness, etc) proper advice from a priest will not be to go ahead with it. Wise counsel may be provided, but will not include permission to commit intrinsic evil. I believe this is the point made by Corki (#41) and Hoodier Daddy earlier.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Contraception - in Catholic moral teaching - is an “intrinsic evil”. That means it is always wrong to choose, no matter the circumstances. This is indeed “black and white”. No colour can be added - hence it is not difficult for anyone to confidently provide this answer to a person who asks.

Here is the contrary argument:

Please understand the core issue here - Avoiding death. This is not a scenario where a healthy young couple uses contraception for their own selfish ends.

This is a woman who has had children, but can no longer do so due to very serious, life-threatening medical issues. For her to get pregnant could easily lead to serious injury, major mental health issues, even death. The core issue isn’t avoiding pregnancy because she doesn’t want children. She needs contraception or tubal ligation to avoid death, which is a completely different type of scenario. If she were to get pregnant, and lose her life as a result, her family would definitely face severe consequences and hardship.

This falls under the category of utilizing contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons and to preserve the health of the wife who is paramount to the family unit. Some will disagree with that statement, which is why I would highly recommend that a qualified Catholic priest evaluate the situation. I don’t buy the argument that this is a “black and white” issue, but I do believe it is an issue that needs a compassionate, educated, and competent priest to evaluate.

The Catechism is written to guide ordinary people. It is not an advanced text for theologians.

The Catechism doesn’t address specific, unique situations such as the one explained in the original post. Just as legal matters are not black and white, neither are matters surrounding private medical issues and moral consequences.

No priest needs to know any details about the couple, the specifics of the circumstances or medical issues, etc. Any faithful Catholic priest will tell her what the Church teaches - the contraception is intrinsically immoral - never to be approved.

Here is the contrary argument:

The Church allows contraceptives to be used for medical reasons, such as the treatment of acne. The logic follows that if contraceptives can be utilized to treat less serious illnesses, they can be utilized to prevent the more grave matters of serious injury and death resulting from pregnancy. Why? Because the life of the mother is paramount, and her death would have disastrous consequences for the family, ever the more so when compared to avoiding say, “acne”. Preventing death or serious injury is even graver than preventing illness.

That’s the contrary argument. And a qualified, competent priest can judge and evaluate whether the intended use of the contraceptives are for legitimate medical reasons - such as preventing death.

In this particular case, the woman is trying to avoid death and serious injury - She would not be using contraceptives because she isn’t “open to life” or because she doesn’t like or want more children.

Encouraging the endangerment of the life of a woman with a history of severe pregnancy complications is not Catholic teaching. Neither is the encouragement of separation and divorce.

Ah, so you believe a priest might be able to say that, in these dreadful circumstances, it would be OK to use ABC to preserve the marriage?

I am stating that there are mitigating issues not to recommend abstinence. The goal here is to preserve the family from being destroyed — which is a very Catholic value, I might add.

 

[sailor28]

This is true in connection with complex circumstances or courses of action where the moral principles at issue are not easily identifiable.

But where that is not the situation, and where the proposed course of action is an intrinsic evil (eg. To abort, to contracept, to bear false witness, etc) proper advice from a priest will not be to go ahead with it. Wise counsel may be provided, but will not include permission to commit intrinsic evil. I believe this is the point made by Corki earlier.

Yes, if you read this thread you can see that individuals that believe what you do have had their chance to express their opinions on the matter.

I am expressing my opinion which is obviously different from yours. In this particular case and in many other regarding birth control individuals, Catholic or not, should seek advice from a priest they know in their real life. Again, the advice given here is often legalistic and unhealthy for marriages. We have met here before Rau and I am not interested in engaging you any further on this subject. Actually, I am going to put you on my ignore this and I hope you will do the same. You have a high need to police my posts even though clearly in this thread your position has been well represented.

 

[underacloud]

This falls under the category of utilizing contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons and to preserve the health of the wife who is paramount to the family unit. Some will disagree with that statement, which is why I would highly recommend that a qualified Catholic priest evaluate the situation. I don’t buy the argument that this is a “black and white” issue, but I do believe it is an issue that needs a compassionate, educated, and competent priest to evaluate.

As posted above, this type of situation has been evaluated by a compassionate, educated, and competent priest - Fr Serpa - and his answer is indeed “black and white”.

Fr. Vincent Serpa: “There are no exceptions regarding contraception.”

As has been explained, you misunderstand the teaching that “contraception” may be used to treat medical conditions.

 

[StGerardMajella]

As posted above, this type of situation has been evaluated by a compassionate, educated, and competent priest - Fr Serpa - and his answer is indeed “black and white”.

I have already provided a link where he also states that contraceptives may be used for medical purposes.

In this particular case, the woman in question is seeking to use contraception - or tubal ligation - to avoid death and serious medical injury. The fact that it also results in avoiding pregnancy is secondary ---- Just as in the use of using contraception for cases of “acne” is primary and the contraceptive effects are secondary.

Preventing death and serious injury are far graver circumstances than preventing “acne” or other less severe illnesses.

Fr. Serpa has not addressed this particular case as far as I am aware. It would be intriguing to obtain evaluations from multiple Catholic priests on this matter.

As has been explained, you misunderstand the teaching that “contraception” may be used to treat medical conditions.

I have not misunderstood. These are complex matters, and this particular case is highly unique and unusual for a whole host of reasons. You cannot paint with a broad, sweeping brush without evaluating individual circumstances.

 

[underacloud]

I have already provided a link where he also states that contraceptives may be used for medical purposes.

In this particular case, the woman in question is seeking to use contraception - or tubal ligation - to avoid death and serious medical injury. The fact that it also results in avoiding pregnancy is secondary ---- Just as in the use of using contraception for cases of “acne” is primary and the contraceptive effects are secondary.

Preventing death and serious injury are far graver circumstances than preventing “acne” or other less severe illnesses.

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).

Fr. Serpa has not addressed this particular case as far as I am aware.

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

Question: Are there any exceptions in extreme cases?

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?

Answer:

Hi,

I suggest that you get a second medical opinion–preferably from a doctor who is a practicing Catholic. There are no exceptions regarding contraception.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

It would be intriguing to obtain evaluations from multiple Catholic priests on this matter.

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.

 

[Rau]

Yes, if you read this thread you can see that individuals that believe what you do have had their chance to express their opinions on the matter.

I am expressing my opinion which is obviously different from yours. In this particular case and in many other regarding birth control individuals, Catholic or not, should seek advice from a priest they know in their real life. Again, the advice given here is often legalistic and unhealthy for marriages.

I believe you hold the opinion that the Church is wrong in teaching that some acts are “intrinsically evil”, that is, some acts are “always wrong to choose”. I do not know what you would wish it to teach instead, and I do not know why the word of a priest, objectively in conflict with the clear teaching of the Church, would carry any weight! From where does a priest acquire authority and knowledge of morality?

 

[Rau]

I have already provided a link where he [Fr Serpa] states that contraceptives may be used for medical purposes.

In this particular case, the woman in question is seeking to use contraception - or tubal ligation - to avoid death and serious medical injury. The fact that it also results in avoiding pregnancy is secondary ---- Just as in the use of using contraception for cases of “acne” is primary and the contraceptive effects are secondary.

The hypothetical sequence of actions / goals is as follows:

Take Drug → to Interfere with the marital act / Prevent Pregnancy → to Avoid Medical Risks.

The sequence in RED is the definition of Contraception. In keeping with the Church teaching, Fr Serpa has stated clearly (as set out in the recent post by underacloud) that there are no situations where contraception becomes “OK”.

What I highlighted in Green is the person’s Intention / Goal / Motivation for the act in red. The Church explicitly states two critical things that determine the morality of this circumstance:

1. Contraception is an intrinsically evil act;
2. A good Intention can not make an intrinsically evil act moral.

See: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
especially paras: 1753, 1756

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation…

*1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit… *

The thing being done - “contraception” (the part in red above) - is the problem, not the motivation (avoid high risk medical situation). To act morally, the woman must choose a different means. to achieve her good intention.

Why then are there any medical scenarios where using a medication or surgery that has the effect of rendering sex infertile are OK? The reason is that in those cases, the ACT is not itself “contraception”. Rather, the act **directly **treats a medical condition (with potentially a contraceptive side-effect). Example: medically required hysterectomy; various hormone therapies. In the scenario you consider, that is not the situation - the contraceptive effect is not a side-effect - but the very **means **to achieve the end.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention”. The end does not justify the means.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Take Drug → to Interfere with the marital act / Prevent Pregnancy → to Avoid Medical Risks.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

How would advice leading to divorce and its demonstrably family-destroying results be considered charitable? The Church does not advocate nor promote divorce.

Approaching these matters from a legalistic twisting and turning of the Catechism denies the spirit of the Catechism as well as Christ’s message of love and compassion. It’s not unlike the accusation Christ made against the Pharisees for their legalistic twisting of Mosaic Law to suit their own self-interests, contrary to the Creator’s intentions. These matters simply cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Even in legal matters, there are multiple arguments and opinions regardless of the stated law. 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. Nor does your interpretation take into account the complexities and complications of the situation.

Compassion for the wife, as well as quality advice from a competent priest is the correct and proper alternative.

 

[underacloud]

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.”

Here the contraception is the *means *to acheive the medical benefits. It is not allowed, as per Humanae Vitae:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

The whole point of the Church’s teaching against contraception is to promote the growth of the family unit.

Actually, no, although that may be one important tangent. The Church teaches the importance of responsible parenthood. The teaching about contraception is specifically about the *means *to achieve this, not the end result. I suggest a thorough reading of Humanae Vitae to help you understand the teaching better.

Compassion for the wife, as well as quality advice from a competent priest is the correct and proper alternative.

Compassion - of course.

Quality advice from a competent priest - yes, this has been provided in this thread; advice from Fr Sepra in a situation identical in the key elements. The OP can seek advise from a priest, but the correct teaching has been explaned to her in this thread (with multiple quotes from the Catechism, Humanae Vitae, apologists, and priests).

It is false compassion to provide an incorrect answer to the OP’s question…or more specifically, to direct her to seek advice that might be looser than what the Church actually teaches. You mean well, but providing (or implying) incorrect advise is misguided compassion.