Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does contraception cure bodily disease? You are saying a couple can take abortifacient contraception and still continue knowingly to have marital relations although it will render the marital act non procreative and can possibly kill a concieved child. Would the Pope approve of this? I think not. Now like I said earlier, there maybe someone with a mass on their uterus and it may have to be removed, but that is not a contraceptive act, but the consequences of removing the entire mass, that is what the Pope is talking about when he says cure bodily disease, not known contracepted acts.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Here the Pope is not talking about the act of contraception, for no good intentions can make an intrinsically evil act, a good act.
Click to expand...
Here’s an example.

First scenario: A couple is using withdrawal to avoid conception. This is intrinsically evil because they are attempting to contracept.

Scenario 2: A couple is engaged in the marital act. They have no intention of thwarting that act, but the toddler in the next room starts crying. Dad pulls out and the parents go to check on the baby. By the time they return to bed, the mood has passed and they do not complete the act.

Two scenarios, same action. One is contraceptive in intent, one is not. They are not both sinful.
 
Last edited:
Ron Conte is a good theologian, I enjoy reading his works. I don’t agree with everything he says(like ordination for female deacons) but if that’s who you are talking about, he is spot on this issue. This one is common sense and I have been backing it with reason. If you instruct your parishioners that it’s ok to have relations while taking abortifacient contraception,while many will be taking it for the most mundane reasons, and in effect many concieved children will be killed in the womb.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
1)it renders the act non procreative, which every sexual marital act must be
Click to expand...
This is not correct and is a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches about being open to procreation. Sterility/infertility is not a barrier to marital relations.
 
Last edited:
Being sterile, infertile, is not a contracepted act. Those that are sterile and infertile still must be open to conception.
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower378 said:
Being sterile, infertile, is not a contracepted act.
Click to expand...
Drugs that cause temporary sterility being used for legitimate medical purposes is not being done to prevent pregnancy. Neither are the testes or uterus/ovaries being removed for medical reasons.

And your (1) I quoted remains an incorrect justification for your point.
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower378 said:
Being sterile, infertile, is not a contracepted act. Those that are sterile and infertile still must be open to conception.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering what you would say to a woman who has had her uterus removed, but the ovaries and fallopian tubes remain in place. This places her at a very high chance of conceiving a child, but that child having no viable place to implant and develop. In your opinion, is this couple required to abstain permanently because of the medical situation? Hysterectomy, a permanent and sterilizing procedure, is often used to treat endometriosis. Before such a drastic step is taken, however, hormonal therapy (a temporarily sterilizing measure) is often tried. Both treatments result in sterilization. Both treatments increase the risk of having a child conceived who has no place to implant and grow. The removal of the uterus, however, increases that chance much, much more than taking hormones does.
 
Last edited:
The removal of ovaries testicles I already explained if the good consequences outweighing the bad one can rid the body of disease as Pope Paul wrote in the Encyclical.

If a side effect of a drug is sterility then one would have to weight the consequences. Much different than abortifacient contraception where a child already concieved can perish.
 
If the circumstances mean the offspring could easily die, then as St.Thomas says no, they shouldn’t have relations until another option is found.
 
Ron Conte is in no way a proper Catholic theologian and is not regarded as such by actual scholars. Much of his claims are not Church doctrine in any way, shape or form and should not be repeated as such. There are many new Catholics, Catholics with scrupulosity issues and non-Catholics who do not know better who you would be doing a great disservice to by promoting his errors as Church teaching.
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower378 said:
If the circumstances mean the offspring could easily die, then as St.Thomas says no, they shouldn’t have relations until another option is found.
Click to expand...
By your logic, any person who suffers from an illness that increases the chance of miscarriage should abstain throughout the course of the illness. There are many such illnesses and they are commonly the causes of infertility and miscarriage.

I have a friend who has suffered 15 miscarriages. The best that medicine has come up with is that she has a genetic incompatibility with her husband and continued miscarriage is the likely outcome of continued conceptions. Should they abstain because of this situation and the likelihood of continued loss of life?

I’m sure that St. Thomas was aware that advanced age is associated with increased loss of life and harm to the child, yet he does not speak out against marital relations toward the end of the childbearing years. I gave birth to a child at the age of 41 and then had three miscarriages, finally giving birth to another child at the age of 45. Since I did not have a history of miscarriage, it is clear that those losses were due to my age. Am I, therefore, guilty of their deaths because I chose not to abstain when I knew there was a significant risk of loss?

Do you see where your logic leads? Any infertile couple with known risk factors for miscarriage can be viewed as responsible for the loss of life associated with their condition. Rather than being applauded for their willingness to allow what God wills, even if it brings suffering, it casts suspicion upon them and their motives for continuing sexual relations when the outcome is likely continued loss of life.

I’m not a Thomist and cannot speak to the scope of his argument about menstruation, but I know a priest who is. I will ask his opinion of this when I see him on Saturday.

To deliberately seek this outcome is sinful; to accept it as an effect of the illness or treatment for an illness is not.
 
Last edited:
I understand the real possibility of a slippery slope and that’s what Pup7 and I were arguing about. This is definitely a grey area of which I have concerns.
 
In my opinion, in those situations it really depends on circumstance. Thanks for sharing.
 
goout said:
40.png
QContinuum:
I’m not Catholic, so did not want to invalidate your poll responses.

In any case, my preferred answer is not included:

“Contraception is, itself, a neutral thing. Whether it is used morally or not, depends on the context.”
Click to expand...
And this is the source of endless confusion.
Contra-ception is never morally neutral.

Everyone…
substances are morally neutral.
Acts can be morally evaluated.

Contra-ception is an act, not a substance.
Click to expand...
I’d be careful with that - as NFP is a form of contraception.

(There’s no hyphen, by the way.)
 
babochka said:
40.png
LittleFlower378:
If the circumstances mean the offspring could easily die, then as St.Thomas says no, they shouldn’t have relations until another option is found.
Click to expand...
By your logic, any person who suffers from an illness that increases the chance of miscarriage should abstain throughout the course of the illness. There are many such illnesses and they are commonly the causes of infertility and miscarriage.

I have a friend who has suffered 15 miscarriages. The best that medicine has come up with is that she has a genetic incompatibility with her husband and continued miscarriage is the likely outcome of continued conceptions. Should they abstain because of this situation and the likelihood of continued loss of life?

I’m sure that St. Thomas was aware that advanced age is associated with increased loss of life and harm to the child, yet he does not speak out against marital relations toward the end of the childbearing years. I gave birth to a child at the age of 41 and then had three miscarriages, finally giving birth to another child at the age of 45. Since I did not have a history of miscarriage, it is clear that those losses were due to my age. Am I, therefore, guilty of their deaths because I chose not to abstain when I knew there was a significant risk of loss?

Do you see where your logic leads? Any infertile couple with known risk factors for miscarriage can be viewed as responsible for the loss of life associated with their condition. Rather than being applauded for their willingness to allow what God wills, even if it brings suffering, it casts suspicion upon them and their motives for continuing sexual relations when the outcome is likely continued loss of life.

I’m not a Thomist and cannot speak to the scope of his argument about menstruation, but I know a priest who is. I will ask his opinion of this when I see him on Saturday.

To deliberately seek this outcome is sinful; to accept it as an effect of the illness or treatment for an illness is not.
Click to expand...
I will out myself.

I have been diagnosed as having a “hostile uterus”. Yep, that’s a thing. No egg will implant, I will likely never have children as a result, and I deal with this on a daily basis. I am almost 45. I am watching the curtains close.

Walk around with that moniker and see how it feels. Deal with that every month and see how disheartening it is. I was a late life baby and my sister had two healthy kids late in life (by choice - I was a surprise LOL). I have not given up hope, but I am learning to accept that God has another plan for me after prolonged and literal crying on the shoulder of a priest who will remain close to my heart.

St Thomas knew nothing about female physiology: advising avoiding sex during a period so offspring aren’t harmed isn’t valid. It doesn’t make him lacking in other areas; no one understood physiology back then. They also didn’t know what germs were or how you caught and transmitted disease. Doesn’t lower my respect for him.

Your story gives me a sliver of hope. Thank you for sharing.
 
Last edited:
I have mixed feeling about that. NFP is certainly avoidance of pregnancy, but it seems the conscious cooperative effort in the planning can actually increase intimacy and understanding in a relationship. And it’s not actively blocking fertilization. Though it does seem a little like cheating.

Even so, avoiding the pill is a good thing. The pill is essentially tricking your body into thinking its pregnant which may lower libido and affect partner choice. It also slightly increases your chance of breast cancer. And physical barriers are just blatant attempts at blocking fertilization. Never was comfortable with that.
 
Please.
Ron has no more qualifications than I do.
He does make some very good points now and then but is a mixed bag.
Use at your own risk.
 
Escabrosa said:
The pill is essentially tricking your body into thinking its pregnant which may lower libido and affect partner choice. It also slightly increases your chance of breast cancer.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, it dramatically lowers the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer.

The slight increase in the risk of breast cancer is less emphasized these days as there hasn’t been a huge correlation between an increase in the rate and women on OCPs - or even Mirena, implants, and Depo-Provera, all of which use similar hormones. It’s still there, but we’re watching to see how that continues to change.

Modern OCPs are a far cry from their predecessors - which were far more dangerous in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top