Question regarding girlfriend's ability to conceive

[timotheos]

Hello,

We’ve talked about NFP, but she is unsure about it: her understanding is that one slip, one pregnancy, and she’s dead. Unfortunately I haven’t done all my homework, but it sounds as if the pregnancy itself could kill her, not only the labor.

First off, you need to know if this information is accurate or hyperbole. Check with a good OB/GYN doctor, preferably a practicing Catholic one if possible. What is the reason for this dire assessment? The state of obstetrical care is much better today than even ten years ago.

Second, perhaps the prior chemotherapy has decreased or even eliminated her fertility, by means of ovarian damage. This is a relative consideration to be taken seriously, but is not an absolute barrier to fruitful marriage by any means. I know of a couple with a similar story who have their 7th child now.

Relax, do your homework, you have plenty of time to pray and figure things out.

God bless, Tim

 

[shannyk]

Marriage is more involved than our culture would lead us to believe. It is not merely a religious or civil license for two people to live together and have sexual intercourse. If it were, then the Church would have no issue with two men “marrying” each other or a man and a woman “marrying” only for a year. No, marriage is in fact a permanent sacrament which has as it’s primary purpose the begetting and raising of children. This sounds shocking to modern ears, but it is how Catholics understand this vocation. To “deny” someone marriage because they intend to contracept and exclude the possibility of biological children is no more cruel than denying someone a new job if such a person intends to stay home and avoid coming to work. Even if such a person had valid reasons for staying home (a serious health condition, for example), it’s equally true the employer can not be expected to hire and pay a person for work they cannot do. Likewise, we can pity a woman for whom pregnancy would pose such a serious health risk, and we can urge her to seek medical solutions that would restore her health and her capacity to assume the vocation for which she desires, but we cannot accuse the Church of being evil for truthfully pointing out that the sacrament of marriage, by definition, involves an openess to children.

great post!

 

[chevalier]

WHAT? when did anyone ever propose that in this thread? Maybe I missed something…
Anyway, the Church does NOT “deny” marriage to anyone based on their physical disability to have children. A man may morally choose not to marry a woman with such a disability, but the Church does not do this. where would you ever have gotten that idea?

The Church does say that all marital acts must be ordered to, and physically open to, life. So, no contraception or sterilization. Indefinite continence, or periodic continence are the only moral means of avoiding pregnancy. IMO, as a faithful, practicing Catholic, it would be unwise to marry a person whom you KNEW intended to contracept, no matter the reason.

Basically put, withholding the consent to the openness to offspring (in terms of a right), which is not limited to merely tolerating intercourse on infertile days, does invalidate. A mutual agreement not to *use *that right *but still conferring it *would not invalidate (at least not of itself). I suggest these couple of articles to shed some light on the validity of consent:

cormacburke.or.ke/taxonomy/term/17,41

 

[tafan]

Is it just me, or does the “pregnancy causing cardiac arrest” sound fishy? I would get other doctors’ opinions. To my knowledge, pregnancy does not put extra strain on a woman’s heart. I could be wrong, but it just sounds strange.

 

[prolifewife]

Is it just me, or does the “pregnancy causing cardiac arrest” sound fishy? I would get other doctors’ opinions. To my knowledge, pregnancy does not put extra strain on a woman’s heart. I could be wrong, but it just sounds strange.

It can, if you are sick enough prior to getting pregnant. The OP’s girlfriend does indeed sound like she could be one of these persons.

OP: I have many health issues which could make pregnancy very difficult and/or life threatening. Our desire to have a child to love and raise for God is so great that we are willing to take that chance (at least with the first pregnancy) and so do not use NFP. But, if after that first pregnancy we found it to be too risky for my life, then we would use NFP. I would feel confident enough using NFP indefinitely if need be. It can be done!

 

[flyingfish]

Basically put, withholding the consent to the openness to offspring (in terms of a right), which is not limited to merely tolerating intercourse on infertile days, does invalidate. A mutual agreement not to *use *that right *but still conferring it *would not invalidate (at least not of itself). I suggest these couple of articles to shed some light on the validity of consent:

cormacburke.or.ke/taxonomy/term/17,41

Frankly speaking I don’t see how you can say this and at the same time holding that Josephite marriages are valid.

If marrying while intending to abstain 100% of the time does not withhold consent to the openness to offspring (a mutual agreement not to use the right given), then why wouldn’t marrying while intending to abstain 50% of the time (only the fertile days) invalidate (also, right conferred, but chosen not to be used at all times).

If simply wanting to be abstinent throughout the entire marriage means being open to life (an essential requirement without which you can’t consent to a marriage), then general use of NFP would qualify as well.

I mean, I can see you meant to say one person consents only on infertile days while the other might want the fertile days as well. So this one sided decision you say would invalidate, but in other cases you argued that generally people who together intend to only have sex on the infertile days for the entire duration of the marriage are not open to life. But people who intend to never have sex period are?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Frankly speaking I don’t see how you can say this and at the same time holding that Josephite marriages are valid.

If marrying while intending to abstain 100% of the time does not withhold consent to the openness to offspring (a mutual agreement not to use the right given), then why wouldn’t marrying while intending to abstain 50% of the time (only the fertile days) invalidate (also, right conferred, but chosen not to be used at all times).

The percentage isn’t relevant as far as validity is concerned. The key difference is that when “intending to abstain” = “intending not to ask your spouse to pay the marital debt”, the marriage is valid, whereas when “intending to abstain” = “intending not to honor your spouse’s requests for you to pay the marital debt”, the marriage is invalid.

Thus, a Josephite marriage of the first kind is valid, whereas a Josephite marriage of the second kind is invalid.

 

[Seatuck]

Is it just me, or does the “pregnancy causing cardiac arrest” sound fishy? I would get other doctors’ opinions. To my knowledge, pregnancy does not put extra strain on a woman’s heart. I could be wrong, but it just sounds strange.

Even in a “normal” pregnancy the increased fluid volume and added vascular structure of the placenta put strain on a woman’s heart.

If the heart is already compromised then the risk is higher.

 

[chevalier]

I would have to repeat myself at this point.