Risky pregnancy +

[theoaf]

Hi, my wife and I have been told that having more children would be potentially dangerous, and sterilization is being recommended. We asked our parish priest, who was unsure, but got back to us saying it would be permitted in the case of danger to the woman’s life (principle of double effect), per some unnamed theologan. He’s generally a good strong pro-life priest, but I think he is wrong here, because the morally illicit means is still not permitted, vs second effect.

followed up with a high-risk OB, who said women are regularly given exception for this reason, most extreme case being a pregnant woman with marfan’s syndrome and a weak aorta, 50% likely to hemorrhage internally - catastrophically.

So, I want to know what the church really teaches for sure. Can you all help with the answer?

the + is; are there ever cases where the RCC allows such things? or abortion? What does the Church reccommend for someone with an ectopic (ie tubal) pregnancy for instance?

 

[Philip76]

I reckon your priest is telling you the wrong thing. There are no times when using contraceptives for their contraceptive ability is allowed. The same goes for abortion.

 

[Philip76]

Just realised I only answered half of your question.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the principle of double effect comes into play. It is necessary to remove the inflamed portion of the woman’s fallopian tube, otherwise it will rupture and she will be at risk of death. The intention of this tube removal is to save the woman’s life. An unintended, but unfortunately unavoidable, consequence of this is the death of the developing embryo in the tube. But this procedure is not done with the aim of killing the child. It is done with the aim of removing the tube. If the tube removal could happen without the death of the embryo, it would be done that way. The death is unintended and unnecessary. This is why the procedure is allowed under the principle of double effect. I am sure someone else will clarify this and state it more clearly.

In the future it may be possible to remove the section of fallopian tube and transfer the embryo to the uterus or to an artificial uterus to complete its development. At this point, the risk of death for the embryo might be greatly reduced, and the result of an ectopic pregnancy may be less tragic all round. But at present, the only way to save the woman is to remove the tube and this, unfortunately, is probably going to kill the embryo.

An abortion is different. It involves the removal and killing of the embryo for the sake of ending the pregnancy. This is an act that is deliberately designed to kill the embryo. It is not a procedure in which the death of the embryo is an unintended but unavoidable consequence - the death is definitely intended and the procedure would be considered a failure if the embryo did not die. Part of the principle of double effect is that the act committed must not be evil in itself. Killing the innocent embryo is an evil act (killing an armed aggressor who is about to kill you would not be evil in this way, if I interpret this rule correctly).

 

[theoaf]

thank you philip76, very helpful

 

[1ke]

the + is; are there ever cases where the RCC allows such things? or abortion?

No.

Sterilization does not fall under the principle of double effect because the purpose of sterilizing is contraception, not treatment of a medical condition.

If, for example, your wife had to have her ovaries or uterus removed because they were diseased (cancer or something) then that is morally permissionable under Double Effect. The intent is not to prevent pregnancy but to cure cancer.

Your priest should have been taught this in seminary, and I’m sorry he wasn’t. See the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which is very clear. The Catechism is very clear too.

Conservative NFP is a morally acceptable means of postponing/preventing pregnancy.

What does the Church reccommend for someone with an ectopic (ie tubal) pregnancy for instance?

In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the moral option is to surgically removed the diseased tissue-- the tube. This is not sterilization. The operation is to treat the condition, not sterilize the mother or kill the baby. The outcome of removing the tube is infertility, or reduced fertility if she still has one working tube. The outcome also results in the foreseen but unintended death of the baby because at this time medical technology has no way to save the baby and transplant it into the womb. If there were such technology available, then all efforts would have to be made to save both mother and baby.

There is another method for treating tubals that is not moral. This method is an abortion. They give the mother pills that kill the baby. This is not morally acceptable.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Hi, my wife and I have been told that having more children would be potentially dangerous, and sterilization is being recommended. We asked our parish priest, who was unsure, but got back to us saying it would be permitted in the case of danger to the woman’s life (principle of double effect), per some unnamed theologan. He’s generally a good strong pro-life priest, but I think he is wrong here, because the morally illicit means is still not permitted, vs second effect.

Unfortunately, your priest seems to be a little confused with the concept of double effect. It can only apply if the primary intent is morally neutral or good, such as if your wife needed a hysterectomy or ovariectomy because of cancer.

theoaf:

followed up with a high-risk OB, who said women are regularly given exception for this reason, most extreme case being a pregnant woman with marfan’s syndrome and a weak aorta, 50% likely to hemorrhage internally - catastrophically.

So, I want to know what the church really teaches for sure. Can you all help with the answer?

I shudder to think how many woman and families have been given this information, when it’s obviously incorrect. I think that the only real solution for you here is to either trust in NFP or practice abstinence.

theoaf:

the + is; are there ever cases where the RCC allows such things? or abortion? What does the Church reccommend for someone with an ectopic (ie tubal) pregnancy for instance?

No, the Church never allows any of this as a end, and for abortion and contraception not even as a means. Ectopic pregnancy would be another example of double effect. Essentially, this boils down to intent. If you were doing this for another reason other than to not have children, double effect would possibly apply. But since it is the intent, it can’t.

 

[otjm]

Sterilization does not fall within the principle of double effect. The Church holds that sterilzation for the sake of sterilization (as iopposed to the result, for example, of dealing with a cancer in the ovaries, etc.) is objectively seriously wrong.

The principle of double evffect is hard for some people to understand, but is certainly not something new thought up since Vatican 2. It has been around in moral theology for a long time.

Many people are very scared, worried, and untrusting of NFP. NFP is being taught in China (no bastion of Catholic faith) because it works so well. Mother Theresa taught it to illiterate Hindus. When learned correctly and practiced faithfully, the risk of pregnancy is slightly higher than tha of a woman being permanently sterilized, but less than any form of birth control. Serious danger of major health risks and/or death because of another pregnancy is a very valid reason to have no more children.