Should we respectfully leave the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avocadomom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you and the OP said hey I don’t have the stuffing
to abstain its too hard cause I’m a weak human being we could all understand and sympathize.
Even as it is, we do understand and sympathize because…
Too many of us here have been in your shoes and have
already done these permutations. Don’t try to con an old con.
This! We’re all sinners. We all understand. Christ Himself begged three times that the cup His Father wanted Him to drink be passed on. He didn’t want to suffer! He recognized that it was not just the Apostles whose flesh was weak. His own was weak as well. The difference was that He overcame that weakness.

I’d be the first person to say that I’ve tried all those games. Bargaining. Wheeling and dealing. Persisting in false ignorance. Denying sin was actually sin. Playing the whole “God understands my addiction” thing. It’s nonsense. I’m not going to deny God’s mercy and understanding at all, but I’m likewise not going to deny His justice.

His justice comes from a place of mercy, after all. If I am unwilling to stand before Him and recognize my own lack of justification except through His son… why would I desire to be with Him for all eternity? I wouldn’t. Not really. If I can’t be honest with God, who will love me no matter how grave an evil I commit, with whom can I be honest?

Instead of the wheeling and dealing, I simply have resolved myself to accept the fact that I don’t want my cross. I don’t want to embrace it and I don’t want it at all. I want to hold onto resentment. I want to hold onto lust. I want to hold onto greed and selfishness and all manner of vice.

It’s all I can do to blurt out “I do not want to follow you Lord. Not really. But I pray that you help me want to want it.”
 
It’s really hard to tell someone nicely that they are ignorant. Perhaps some of these post come off as uncharitable to you, but instructing the ignorant *is *a spiritual work of mercy.

Sometimes a confessor may leave a penitent in a state of ignorance about a particular Church teaching --nd the Church permits that. But, should we all just sit quietly if that person later goes around spreading the idea that the sin isn’t really a sin? Is it really okay for that person to encourage others to commit the same sin that she committed in ignorance? It may be time to make that person aware that she acted in ignorance or was perhaps even misguided about the Church teachings.
One type of ignorance is not understanding the reasoning process of the Natural law.
Maybe people here can help me.

Here is a case: what’s the primary purpose, goal of hearing?
The Natural law tells us hearing is for:
  • survival - listening to any dangers around us
  • communication - listening to what people tell us

    These are two major goals/purposes/attributes of the hearing sense.
There is a guy traveling on train, looking out of the window with headphones on his head listening to a music. A conductor comes and wants to check the guy’s ticket. The guy can not hear the request so the conductor has to touch the guy to get his attention.

Question: Is it a sin to listen to music and not to use the hearing sense for its two major goals?

More extreme example. A car driver listens to a music while driving. The driver misses the horn of a motorcycle in the blind spot, changes lane and causes an accident.

Is it a sin to listen to a music for one’s pleasure and to eliminate the primary purposes of the hearing?
 
All due respect, but I think you’re comparing apples and oranges, i.e. Hysterectomy done for medical reasons and one done for sterilization purposes. I doubt you could find an ethical doctor who would do the latter anyway.
Further, you seem to have taken offense where none was implied. I don’t think the poster demonized hysterectomies at all. Simply pointed out that major surgery would be a pretty radical solution in this case.
The original quote unilaterally condemned all hysterectomies as “traumatic.” I am a hysterectomy patient, and I can attest that they are not necessarily traumatic. Far from it – I cannot describe what a blessed relief mine has been.

There was also no distinction made for therapeutic hysterectomies. It is, after all, a very low-risk surgery. It is also the second most common surgery in the United States. Only C-sections are performed more often.

Honestly, I have never heard of a hysterectomy being performed SOLELY for sterilization purposes – I even had my surgery done at a Catholic hospital. If sterilization surgery is desired for whatever reason, there are far less intrusive ways to go about it. Your average secular doctor would no doubt wish to do a vasectomy or tubal ligation rather than remove the entire uterus, especially if the uterus is otherwise healthy.

Nobody gets her uterus removed just for fun. But there are definitely reasons why it can be medically necessary. My health and quality of life were improved thousand-fold, and my life expectancy was very likely extended as well. 👍
 
The original quote unilaterally condemned all hysterectomies as “traumatic.” I am a hysterectomy patient, and I can attest that they are not necessarily traumatic. Far from it – I cannot describe what a blessed relief mine has been.

There was also no distinction made for therapeutic hysterectomies. It is, after all, a very low-risk surgery. It is also the second most common surgery in the United States. Only C-sections are performed more often.

Honestly, I have never heard of a hysterectomy being performed SOLELY for sterilization purposes – I even had my surgery done at a Catholic hospital. If sterilization surgery is desired for whatever reason, there are far less intrusive ways to go about it. Your average secular doctor would no doubt wish to do a vasectomy or tubal ligation rather than remove the entire uterus, especially if the uterus is otherwise healthy.

Nobody gets her uterus removed just for fun. But there are definitely reasons why it can be medically necessary. My health and quality of life were improved thousand-fold, and my life expectancy was very likely extended as well. 👍
The TOPIC of the thread was avoiding pregnancy. The person did not condemn hysterectomies, nor did she imply that they were never necessary. Only that as a form of birth control, one would be a pretty radical solution.

No one has said anything against hysterectomies for medical reasons. I don’t think anyone would have any issue with that. And no one suggested anyone would do it for fun.
The person simply said that the only 100% way of avoiding a pregnancy would be a hysterectomy, and that would be overkill.
You’re really over-reacting to nothing and might I say taking it way to personally…
Maybe you should go back and read the comment in context of the thread.
 
The quote I am responding to is this:
The only totally effective sterilisation would be a hysterectomy and that would be quite traumatic (as well as against Catholic teaching).
Hysterectomies are NOT traumatic.

Hysterectomies are NOT against Catholic teaching. If they were, why are they performed in Catholic hospitals?

Nobody’s out there having willy-nilly uterus removals solely for birth control, so I don’t think anybody needs to worry about that. If a health problem can only be remedied by the removal of a woman’s uterus, it’s pretty serious.

Again, let’s not demonize hysterectomies. They are not inherently evil or sinful.
 
Thank you for all your replies and opinions. Trust me, I am not taking anyone’s word as medical advice! I know everyone is just offering their perspective.

I can’t possibly reply to each post or comment on some of the tangents that my original post has taken. I’m sorry!

This morning I spent some time with three Protestant girlfriends doing a Bible study. These ladies are on fire for the Lord and have such passion for Christ’s role in their families’ lives. It is a passion and commitment I have rarely seen among my Catholic acquaintances (although I am sure some of you here are that way!) These are all very happily married women with fantastic husbands and kids, and all of them have used contraception and one’s husband had a vasectomy after their third child. They seem totally happy and guilt-free about it?

It’s hard for me to reconcile it being “so bad” for marriages and “evil” when I see very happy couples with strong marriages, who love the Lord, enjoying the benefits and safety of contraception to plan their families. They all know what my faith teaches and think it’s bizarre and controlling. We had a nice long chat about it and while I explained my perspective, their perspectives really made so much sense to me.

I am still not sure what I am going to do. I do love my Church and my faith. I want to obey, but I just can’t bring myself to do something that I think is going to put my life at increased risk, or harm my marriage. I have been open to life. I brought forth life from my body. I continue to try to raise holy, good children with my wonderful, supportive husband. I will continue to pray about this.
 
The quote I am responding to is this:

Hysterectomies are NOT traumatic.

Hysterectomies are NOT against Catholic teaching. If they were, why are they performed in Catholic hospitals?

Nobody’s out there having willy-nilly uterus removals solely for birth control, so I don’t think anybody needs to worry about that. If a health problem can only be remedied by the removal of a woman’s uterus, it’s pretty serious.

Again, let’s not demonize hysterectomies. They are not inherently evil or sinful.
.:okpeople:
Having a hysterectomy for the purpose of birth control (sterilization) would be decidedly against catholic teaching. That was the thread.
And no responsible physician would do one without medical indications, which nobody demonized…
Good grief
 
The quote I am responding to is this:

Hysterectomies are NOT traumatic.

Hysterectomies are NOT against Catholic teaching. If they were, why are they performed in Catholic hospitals?

Nobody’s out there having willy-nilly uterus removals solely for birth control, so I don’t think anybody needs to worry about that. If a health problem can only be remedied by the removal of a woman’s uterus, it’s pretty serious.

Again, let’s not demonize hysterectomies. They are not inherently evil or sinful.
I don’t think anybody meant to demonize hysterectomies, but just to point out that if you absolutely can’t risk pregnancy, there is one choice other than complete abstinence that is 100 percent effective and that is a hysterectomy.

You’re right, for reasons other than birth control they are not against Church teachings. But they can be traumatic. I’ve known a couple of folks who had quite a difficult time after their hysterectomies. It depends on a lot of things as to whether or not it’s traumatic.

As far as being performed in Catholic hospitals, sadly, that’s not a standard. Our local Catholic hospital doesn’t perform abortions but does recommend them (and has an abortionist on staff for high risk pregnancies) and also performs vasectomies and tube tying for no reason other than birth control.

In general, though, I suspect you’re right that nobody has a hysterectomy solely for birth control. But the person who posted it was making the point that it is the only sure-fire way to not get pregnant (short of not having sex.) In fact, I met a woman who had her tubes tied and three years later she was shopping for maternity clothing…nothing is guaranteed other than a hysterectomy.
 
This morning I spent some time with three Protestant girlfriends doing a Bible study. These ladies are on fire for the Lord and have such passion for Christ’s role in their families’ lives. It is a passion and commitment I have rarely seen among my Catholic acquaintances (although I am sure some of you here are that way!) These are all very happily married women with fantastic husbands and kids, and all of them have used contraception and one’s husband had a vasectomy after their third child. They seem totally happy and guilt-free about it?

It’s hard for me to reconcile it being “so bad” for marriages and “evil” when I see very happy couples with strong marriages, who love the Lord, enjoying the benefits and safety of contraception to plan their families. They all know what my faith teaches and think it’s bizarre and controlling. We had a nice long chat about it and while I explained my perspective, their perspectives really made so much sense to me.

I am still not sure what I am going to do. I do love my Church and my faith. I want to obey, but I just can’t bring myself to do something that I think is going to put my life at increased risk, or harm my marriage. I have been open to life. I brought forth life from my body. I continue to try to raise holy, good children with my wonderful, supportive husband. I will continue to pray about this.
I understand very much what you mean. I know a lot of people who are very prayerful and love the Lord with all their hearts and strive to follow Him, and disagree a lot with Church teachings. That is why I am Catholic, though. I figure if God is a God of truth and wants us to know truth, there must be some deposit of faith so we can find truth. So many people disagree on pretty much any issue, I can’t believe that finding what is true and right is about feeling like the Holy Spirit is telling you things are ok. (I don’t mean “you” specifically, I mean it generally.)

As far as your friends being happy and guilt-free, it’s because they do not believe it is wrong. But on some level you do, or at least you wonder. Because you DO love your Church and your faith. You might not find yourself so guilt-free. You might be interested to know, though, that I know of non-Catholics who agree with the Church on birth control. In fact, I know some who think NFP is wrong, that it all needs to be left to God completely.

I think the thing with birth control is this: God’s laws are about who we are as a fallen people. Look what has happened with birth control.First, sexual activity outside of or in addition to marriage had gotten much worse, because of the reduced risk of pregnancy. I remember growing up as “the pill” was becoming more popular, and the increasing pressure on me as a female. Guys did not want to date someone who wouldn’t be sexually active with him. Earlier on they were at least willing to wait a bit; after awhile men expected it after a date or two.

When my daughter was in fourth grade, they taught about sex. She and I had already had “the talk” and she mentioned that sex was supposed to be within a marriage. Almost all of her friends came from divorced homes, and they told her she was wrong. Sex was something you do after a date.

Then there is the whole abortion thing. About half (I think that was the statistic) of abortions come from folks using birth control that failed. In general, though, birth control gives us a different mindset, that we ought to be able to have sexual activity without the consequence of pregnancy, so if it does happen, just abort the “clump of cells.”

Maybe artificial contraception or sterilization for a non-fallen people would not have been a big deal. I don’t know. As a woman, I do know how it affected my dating life back in the day. This is important because it shows that sex became a bigger thing than people, that we have become so fixated on sexual pleasure that woman are “objects” in a big way. Just watch a little tv or look at ads, or see the porn addiction, you’ll see what I mean. I do know it has contributed as well to the willingness of woman to convince themselves that abortion is ok, too.

Of course, for some folks, none of this would happen as a result. But God’s laws are for all of us, not just some. He knows our fallen nature and has given us a Church to guide us, so we don’t just rely on our individuality (whether or not we think we can personally handle something) or rely on our feelings.

Having said all of that, if I or my daughter were in a place where to have a child would risk our lives…would I be able to be strong and/or encourage her to be and to live our Church teachings? I just don’t know. I want to say a resounding “yes!”, but not having been in that situation, and knowing how weak I can be, I just don’t know.

But if you need to know why birth control is wrong, just consider a few things I said. And read Humanae Vitae. 🙂

I would suggest…don’t leave the Church over this. Keep praying. In the end, if you end up going against Church teachings, stay with the Church and keep thinking and praying about it. And don’t tell people it’s OK to go against Church teachings. (I’m not saying you have or are; I rather suspect you would not, actually.) Just keep working it through. Whether or not you are with the Church doesn’t change God’s teachings, but if you leave the Church, it is almost like a way to convince yourself you are right and the Church, with all it’s years and depth and brilliant minds, is wrong. Sometimes we can’t make ourselves believe Church teachings, but we can do our best to live them. If you go against them and later believe the Church was right, you are there to talk to a priest…and staying shows you are continuing to give the Church a chance.
 
Thank you for all your replies and opinions. Trust me, I am not taking anyone’s word as medical advice! I know everyone is just offering their perspective.

I can’t possibly reply to each post or comment on some of the tangents that my original post has taken. I’m sorry!

This morning I spent some time with three Protestant girlfriends doing a Bible study. These ladies are on fire for the Lord and have such passion for Christ’s role in their families’ lives. It is a passion and commitment I have rarely seen among my Catholic acquaintances (although I am sure some of you here are that way!) These are all very happily married women with fantastic husbands and kids, and all of them have used contraception and one’s husband had a vasectomy after their third child. They seem totally happy and guilt-free about it?

It’s hard for me to reconcile it being “so bad” for marriages and “evil” when I see very happy couples with strong marriages, who love the Lord, enjoying the benefits and safety of contraception to plan their families. They all know what my faith teaches and think it’s bizarre and controlling. We had a nice long chat about it and while I explained my perspective, their perspectives really made so much sense to me.

I am still not sure what I am going to do. I do love my Church and my faith. I want to obey, but I just can’t bring myself to do something that I think is going to put my life at increased risk, or harm my marriage. I have been open to life. I brought forth life from my body. I continue to try to raise holy, good children with my wonderful, supportive husband. I will continue to pray about this.
You are not alone. I’ve seen NFP and the Church’s teaching to do a real damage to a young family and it seems there are many more like that.
Keep praying…
 
One type of ignorance is not understanding the reasoning process of the Natural law.
Maybe people here can help me.

Here is a case: what’s the primary purpose, goal of hearing?
The Natural law tells us hearing is for:
  • survival - listening to any dangers around us
  • communication - listening to what people tell us

    These are two major goals/purposes/attributes of the hearing sense.
There is a guy traveling on train, looking out of the window with headphones on his head listening to a music. A conductor comes and wants to check the guy’s ticket. The guy can not hear the request so the conductor has to touch the guy to get his attention.

Question: Is it a sin to listen to music and not to use the hearing sense for its two major goals?

More extreme example. A car driver listens to a music while driving. The driver misses the horn of a motorcycle in the blind spot, changes lane and causes an accident.

Is it a sin to listen to a music for one’s pleasure and to eliminate the primary purposes of the hearing?
There are many things that are essentially multipurpose faculties limited only by how they could fail you personally at any given moment.

Some faculties though, sexual expression being one, rely on singular dedication to protect the integrity of the faculty for the sake of its natural primal and divine purpose.

An example that I’ve used that some people find a bit crude, but it demonstrates the importance of primary purpose… is the integrity of your toothbrush.

It is an instrument that could serve a lot of purposes by its makeup. You could scrub down the shower or clean the toilet bowl with it or how great is if for getting into the floor tile grouting. You might say but if we sterilize everything before, after and around the act, the integrity of the toothbrush is unaffected. It’s still fine for cleaning your teeth?

However, as Catholics we know the importance of respecting what is holy and sacred without compromise so that it continues through the generations to come to serve humanity, physically and spiritually.

Many people will continue to contrast Catholic and Protestant beliefs on contraception not realising that until 1930 Protestant and Catholic were completely aligned on the intrinsic evil of contraception. The problem was that at the Anglican conference, the concession was made that while contraception is evil, people could use their own consciences to decide if they had grave reasons to use it. That resolution concluded "The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."

In that short time, most Protestants by dint of unassisted conscience passed from generation to generation, have come to believe that contraception is part and parcel of not just conjugal sex… but of sterile pre marital sex.

Is there really any question about the damage that contraception and sexual gluttony have wrought on the world? Sexual freedom has become so esteemed that the consequences are regarded as necessary collateral damage. Abortion would have to be the most horrible genecide that the contraceptive, anti life mentality has produced. The number of anti-life acts perpetrated in human abbatoires around the world due to this mentality will mark our generation as one of the most evil that ever lived.

That’s why the Church is so steadfast and committed to protecting the integrity of the human sexual faculty.
 
Church teaching is very clear. One does not contracept/vasectomy/ etc
to avoid pregnancy. Abstinence and NFP are all that
is offered. It’s not a matter of conscience. Those
are simply facts. And it is kind of ridiculous to accuse those
who cite facts of being arrogant when at the same time
trying to convince all and sundry that some priest
contradicted Church teaching in your special case
is not arrogant.
Look, I’m not trying to tell you whether you should
do this or that. I’m just asking you and the OP to
be reasonably honest in your motives and stop
trying to convince people there are loopholes here
for special cases.
In what you and the OP are putting out here- what is
the difference in what happened last week in Argentina
when some woman claimed the Pope gave her special
permission to receive the Eucharist while in an invalid
marriage- supposedly because she is a special case?
Again the Catechism is quite clear and it’s not arrogance
to state clearly that in either situation the Catechism says
no. It does NOT say “no except when…”
If you and the OP said hey I don’t have the stuffing
to abstain its too hard cause I’m a weak human being
we could all understand and sympathize.
But your attempts to state teaching is wrong or those
who follow it arrogant or you are a special conscience case
is just not honest in my opinion.
Too many of us here have been in your shoes and have
already done these permutations. Don’t try to con an
old con.
That you for your post it made me laugh. No one that knows me would ever describe me as a con, but rather an open book that states her opinion and beliefs never thinking I am right, or pushing my views on anyone, but nice try. You have a lovely,manipulative way of writing, but you would if you are a con.

If you bothered to read all my post which you were obviously not charitable enough to do before you so nicely inferred I am a liar, you would have read that I NEVER claimed to right, that I NEVER said the Church should changes its teachings, or that I knew better than anyone else. I did nothing but tell her to listen to her priest someone like you.

I hope you feel good about yourself on Sunday sitting in Mass. Maybe when you get to heaven you will get extra points for your ways. I won’t know because I won’t be there. Maybe you could say a pray for me to God, or is it the Church now. Last I heard cons like you were sinners like the rest of us. Enjoy your judging, God must be amuse with your wit. I would bet you have run a few people out of the Church.
 
Even as it is, we do understand and sympathize because…

This! We’re all sinners. We all understand. Christ Himself begged three times that the cup His Father wanted Him to drink be passed on. He didn’t want to suffer! He recognized that it was not just the Apostles whose flesh was weak. His own was weak as well. The difference was that He overcame that weakness.

I’d be the first person to say that I’ve tried all those games. Bargaining. Wheeling and dealing. Persisting in false ignorance. Denying sin was actually sin. Playing the whole “God understands my addiction” thing. It’s nonsense. I’m not going to deny God’s mercy and understanding at all, but I’m likewise not going to deny His justice.

His justice comes from a place of mercy, after all. If I am unwilling to stand before Him and recognize my own lack of justification except through His son… why would I desire to be with Him for all eternity? I wouldn’t. Not really. If I can’t be honest with God, who will love me no matter how grave an evil I commit, with whom can I be honest?

Instead of the wheeling and dealing, I simply have resolved myself to accept the fact that I don’t want my cross. I don’t want to embrace it and I don’t want it at all. I want to hold onto resentment. I want to hold onto lust. I want to hold onto greed and selfishness and all manner of vice.

It’s all I can do to blurt out “I do not want to follow you Lord. Not really. But I pray that you help me want to want it.”
Exactly. Absolutely. Unfortunately I don’t
think that point of honesty has yet been reached
on this thread but I wouldn’t expect it of an
online forum.
But someone had to say it. 🙂

In the meantime as various posters post their “unique”
inability to carry the heavy cross of no sex or
give us images of happy joyful guilt free Protestant
ladies all on the pill and full of Christian fellowship ready to support
the next oppressed Catholic woman with fav birth control devices,
we can wonder why
people don’t just dump their crosses on the side
of the road and hitch a ride in Joel Olsteen’s convertible?
I mean in for a penny in for a pound right?
If we just dump the Catholic Church and it’s backward
controlling way of the Cross Jesus will prepare us a 10.5 million
dollar mansion next door, right?
joelosteen.com/Pages/Home.aspx
 
I find your post rather odd. But I will try to explain.

But the long and short of it is that the manifestation of this deletion is variable. From no outwardly noticeable signs to some signs, to heavy signs. During the time my daughter was failure to thrive we had so many fears that it was “turner syndrome” or a variation of down syndrome or any number of scary diseases. As she got better we still searched for answers. We found it by having a full genetic makeup done and then my wife and I being tested to see if it was a De Novo case or genetic in nature. As you can see, I had the deletion and had no real signs. Maybe a little smallness when I was young. Now I am a beast of a man.😉

But the reality of prayerfully discerning to be open to life. ALL life. Has produced my other two children who probably do not have the deletion. (Though we have not tested them as there is no need to.) The deletion is so variant that it really is not predictable as to how or even if it will manifest itself. Adding to that the idea that 10 years ago this was not even known about and it just seemed silly to act as if it was such a HORRIBLE thing to have these sweet children.

When I see comment such as yours I wonder not how we made peace with it, but how the world makes peace with it’s throwaway mentality about life. Perhaps my son born after my second daughter will grow up to be a priest. Perhaps my daughter born after my second daughter will be a wonderful mother, either to her children or to some nuns. Perhaps my next child will be a senator? I really don’t know. But here is what I do know. That my daughter with this deletion is the closest thing to a saint I have ever seen. From an early age she has had incredible holiness. Honestly I have never seen anything like it. Currently she has a deep connection with St Kateri Tekawitha, who had GI issues as well. In addition to the little bit of clumsiness my daughter has (Tekawitha means “she who bumps into things”)

What i am curious about is how we live in a world that takes the next newest genetic deletion or intolerance, or disease and proclaims life to be regrettable, to be something not to strive for, to be something regarded. And on this day after JPII was Sainted. And how he taught us about the dignity of every human not only through things like Theology of the Body but also through living out the last years of his pontificate showing us the less than perfect, the suffering, and the sick but yet the world still cannot seem to hear him echo Jesus.

But most of all, how can you be at peace saying such a thing to a person about their children?

NFP is the exception. Not the norm. It CAN be used for serious reasons. And I am told all the time that it is to each couple to decide what makes those reasons serious enough. So you presume more than the Church.

Not only that but your apparent tone would seem to indicate that many people should not breed. The least of which would be the poor and the persecuted. I am glad our Church does not agree.
Hello

I did some research on that gene, as genealogy interests me. The reason I stated what I did was because I came across some stats suggesting that 75% of people born with this gene will suffer with some form of developmental delay, amongst other forms of health issues.

May I ask if you and your wife have good health? I know you have stated your wife was very ill during pregnancies, but is she generally healthy? The reason I ask is that I am not. Thus I know what a cross it is to watch life pass you by as you cannot participate in it: to miss events, to spend months housebound, to miss out on a career and financial security because your brain is sharp but your body does not co-operate, to have to leave mass three times during the Christmas ceremony because you are so sick, to basically have your whole life be dictated by what your body can do. I also know what it is like to have pain so great that you wish for God to take you. People who have spent most of their life healthy simply cannot understand what it is like to be as sick as this. It’s a bit like the way I can sympathise with an alcoholic; however I can’t say I truly understand what it is like to be one.

So for me, wanting to avoid wouldn’t be about wanting a so-called ‘perfect’ child, it would be about not wanting to knowingly bring a child into the world who would suffer endlessly. It wouldn’t be about me seeing the kids as ‘defective’. There are many Down’s Syndrome children in my country for instance. However I do not see them as defective. I’m certainly not saying your children shouldn’t be here. What I was wondering was how you could be at peace with knowing they could suffer through a lot of health problems. That is all.

I just wouldn’t want to get pregnant knowing that my child could have serious health problems. If I got accidentally pregnant then I would see it as a blessing and God’s wish, but my point is that I would try to avoid.

You may consider that position anti-life, but to me it is prudent. I have been sick off and on for 18 years (since I was a young teenager) and I would not want to risk a child having to live through that. Of course, there is never a way to guarantee perfect health, but I personally would not be comfortable being sexually active without the use of NFP in such a case.

This is just my opinion. I was curious as to your reasons, and you provided them. Fair enough…
 
I have a terrible problem that is hurting my marriage, my family life and my spiritual life. I feel like there are no good answers. I am extremely torn and feel like our family might just be at a point where the only thing we can do is leave the Church for a while.
I definitely sympathize with your situation, and I hope that you won’t leave the church.
I had my fourth child last year. She is still nursing and I am not cycling yet. Therefore, NFP is not a super reliable way for me to avoid pregnancy.
For now, while you are breastfeeding, NFP may not be reliable (or it may be – my wife and I had good success with NFP during breastfeeding, but I know that that is not true for all couples). But is there any reason to believe that NFP will not be reliable after your cycles return? For most couples who are properly instructed, it is very reliable, but I do know that there are some couples who just can’t get it to work reliably for them. (And if you fall into that latter category, then you might try learning a different NFP method to see if it would work better for you. Sympto-Thermal never worked for us, so we switched to a hybrid of Billings and CCL mucus-only, and it works great for us.)
We became pregnant right after we married and would really love to be a couple again, instead of two ships passing in the night just trying to get everything done for four tiny kids. We would love to be able to take a weekend away once in a while or just have peaceful dinners as a family vs. baby needing to nurse, toddler melting down, preschooler whining and tired, older child needing help with homework… This is infinitely worse when I am pregnant or postpartum, my husband is a single dad with some hired help. In other words, we are tired and ready to have a bit more freedom and flexibility in our world.
I think that it gets a bit easier as the kids grow out of the baby and toddler phases. It may seem like this difficult time will never end, but believe me, it is over all too soon. Before long your youngest will be 3 or 4, and you may find yourself sadly wondering how these kids grew up so fast, and where all your babies went. 😦
So, with those two things in mind my husband would like to get a vasectomy. I won’t like - it sounds wonderful. However, we are both Catholic and we know it’s a sin. I have told him that I do not want him to do it, as I fear he will burn in hell for it. He says he will do anything to protect me and our marriage.
A vasectomy is permanent. That means no changing your mind 5 or 10 years down the road, no matter how your circumstances may change. Obviously you and your husband know this, but just something to keep in mind.
He says there is fundamentally no difference between using NFP to avoid pregnancy and using a vasectomy - both are purported to have the same “failure” rate.
But there IS a fundamental difference between NFP and vasectomy. One says that we will make the sacrifice of putting this great gift aside for a time, because we have a very serious reason to do so. The other says we will artificially strip this gift of its natural consequences, so that we can enjoy this gift whenever we want.

The fact that the failure rates may be similar is not really relevant, because the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception and NFP has nothing to do with failure rates.
I will be very honest with you and say that I do not truly believe that we will be punished by God for prayerfully discerning that we need to not have more pregnancies and using modern medicine to achieve it.
But would there be a problem if you replaced “modern medicine” with “modern methods of fertility awareness”?

(to be continued…)
 
(continued)
BUT, I do think there is value in being obedient to The Church, even if The Church is wrong on this point. If I am to call myself a Catholic, I need to abide by the “rules” whether they are reasonable or not.
I grant you that following the “rules” can be difficult in your situation. But in what way are they unreasonable?

Are the rules also unreasonable when they say that husbands and wives should be faithful to each other, even if they are physically separated for months at a time (e.g., a military deployment)? Are the rules unreasonable when they say that an unmarried man or an unmarried woman should be abstinent 100% of the time? Are the rules unreasonable when they say that a husband should be faithful to his wife even if she is in a coma?

Your situation IS difficult, and I don’t mean to belittle that fact. But there are other difficult marital/relationship situations too. Do you think that the rules are unreasonable in all of those situations?
My husband says that everyone at Mass is using contraception and not thinking twice about it, and that The Church needs to be flexible in cases like ours.
Suppose you caught one of your children in some bad behavior, and he or she made the excuse that all the other kids are doing it. What would you say to that child? Would you excuse his or her behavior, on the grounds that everyone else is doing it?
I’ve told my husband that The Church would say we can do two things: Use NFP and hope that it does not fail and that we never make an error, or abstain for the next 20ish years (I am 33.)
I do understand your predicament, and I admit that it is a tough one. But unless you are one of those couples for whom NFP just doesn’t work, I don’t see why you can’t use NFP. My wife and I have at least two serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. We use NFP, and it works for us. We have to abstain about 14 days out of every 28 to 30-day cycle, which is often difficult to do. But overall, we don’t feel deprived, and it is possible to make up for lost time once the abstinence is over!
At this point I almost wonder if we wouldn’t be happier elsewhere. It just seems like we are in this small division of people who really, really can’t get pregnant (but would be fine with more children), really care about following the doctrine, and don’t want to burn in hell.

My husband says if I believe God would throw us in Hell for using contraception under these circumstances, then God is evil and most of the world is going to burn. I just don’t know…
I would recommend focusing less on whether or not you will go to hell, and more on trying to do God’s will. In other words, it may be easier to follow the “rules” for a positive reason, than for a negative one.
 
Hello

I did some research on that gene, as genealogy interests me. The reason I stated what I did was because I came across some stats suggesting that 75% of people born with this gene will suffer with some form of developmental delay, amongst other forms of health issues.

May I ask if you and your wife have good health? I know you have stated your wife was very ill during pregnancies, but is she generally healthy? The reason I ask is that I am not. Thus I know what a cross it is to watch life pass you by as you cannot participate in it: to miss events, to spend months housebound, to miss out on a career and financial security because your brain is sharp but your body does not co-operate, to have to leave mass three times during the Christmas ceremony because you are so sick, to basically have your whole life be dictated by what your body can do. I also know what it is like to have pain so great that you wish for God to take you. People who have spent most of their life healthy simply cannot understand what it is like to be as sick as this. It’s a bit like the way I can sympathise with an alcoholic; however I can’t say I truly understand what it is like to be one.

So for me, wanting to avoid wouldn’t be about wanting a so-called ‘perfect’ child, it would be about not wanting to knowingly bring a child into the world who would suffer endlessly. It wouldn’t be about me seeing the kids as ‘defective’. There are many Down’s Syndrome children in my country for instance. However I do not see them as defective. I’m certainly not saying your children shouldn’t be here. What I was wondering was how you could be at peace with knowing they could suffer through a lot of health problems. That is all.

I just wouldn’t want to get pregnant knowing that my child could have serious health problems. If I got accidentally pregnant then I would see it as a blessing and God’s wish, but my point is that I would try to avoid.

You may consider that position anti-life, but to me it is prudent. I have been sick off and on for 18 years (since I was a young teenager) and I would not want to risk a child having to live through that. Of course, there is never a way to guarantee perfect health, but I personally would not be comfortable being sexually active without the use of NFP in such a case.

This is just my opinion. I was curious as to your reasons, and you provided them. Fair enough…
I understand your position actually. It’s one every
parent bites their nails over when they conceive.
In my case the reason my first child was born dead
was the doctors had already given up on him. I had
refused to abort the pregnancy and as time passed
I was told the child would most likely be born
blind, developmentally delayed. The doctors and others
thought it was a blessing that he died. They failed to
realize that child was the same child to me blind
and developmentally delayed as he would have been
healthy.
Outside of those parameters many people choose birth
control over bringing children into a world of suffering whether
or not that is disability, wars, over population, etc etc.
Not sure we have the right to stop life as a way
of stopping potential pain.
 
I understand your position actually. It’s one every
parent bites their nails over when they conceive.
In my case the reason my first child was born dead
was the doctors had already given up on him. I had
refused to abort the pregnancy and as time passed
I was told the child would most likely be born
blind, developmentally delayed. The doctors and others
thought it was a blessing that he died. They failed to
realize that child was the same child to me blind
and developmentally delayed as he would have been
healthy.
Thanks for understanding my position. I am sorry that the doctors failed to do their jobs properly. 😦
 
I know that some will say if we only obeyed the teaching then we would be happier and have more peace. Believe me, I have really thought about that and prayed about it. A ton. We could use a conservative form of NFP after my baby weans (I am not interested in weaning prematurely), but to be honest I am so fertile, I know both my husband and I would panic every month. He has said that it would ruin sex for him to know that we were doing things in a way that was “open to life” when in fact we are not open to getting pregnant. Obviously if I did get pregnant we would never abort, but it really might destroy our family.

His solution is to get a vasectomy, be tested every 6 months, and use condoms on top of that. I don’t know. If that sends people to hell, then most people in the developed world are headed south. That seems ridiculous. I hope God knows my heart, my intentions, my prayers, my family and has mercy on us.
Your fear of using NFP in your situation is very understandable. But you said yourself in your first post that NFP and vasectomy have similar failure rates, so it’s not as if NFP is ineffective, especially if you use it very conservatively. My advice would be to try to heed the words of St. John Paul II, “Be not afraid!” (But I also know that is sometimes easier said than done!)
 
… You have a lovely manipulative way of writing, but you would if you are a con…If you bothered to read all my post which you were obviously not charitable enough to do before you so nicely inferred I am a liar,
Those words were directed at another poster, but is it just a co-incidence that you levelled just the same accusations at me? Honestly, I have no idea how my posts could have earned that response!
…you would have read that I NEVER claimed to [be] right, that I NEVER said the Church should changes its teachings, or that I knew better than anyone else. I did nothing but tell her to listen to her priest…
OK, no problem. But now that you have learned of the teaching of the preponderance of priests of the Church (which the OP already knows about), as written down in the Catechism, would you repeat that advice? If so, could you please explain why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top