Temporary contraception use after surgery

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0507
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
0

0507

Guest
Hi,

My wife recently experienced a rare and dangerous form of ectopic pregnancy called an ‘interstitial’ pregnancy. Thankfully we caught it early as it could have killed her. The baby could never have survived and was removed, together with one of her fallopian tubes (thankfully her fertility should be unaffected as we are only recently married and have not yet had children).

My wife is not Catholic although she is planning to convert. When we got married we agreed to not use contraception and only use NFP when we had good reason to do so.

For two months after the surgery the doctors say that it would be dangerous if she got pregnant again. It could seriously harm her health and her fertility and could put the baby at risk. They advised us to use contraception temporarily.

I know that the Holy Father has said in relation to the Zika Virus that well-cathechised couples could use contraception temporarily in emergencies, but the statement appears a little vague and many theologians have pushed back on the Pope. Personally, I am very orthodox and some of the things the Pope has said in the past I have not agreed with.

This whole experience has been very stressful for us, especially as we just got married, and I think it is reasonable if we use condoms for the next two months. But I am divided on this as some theologians have stated otherwise. Usually Church teaching is clear and lines up with what my conscience tells me is right. But I am having a very hard time with this one.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The introduction of a barrier such as a condom is intrinsically disordered. This is Church teaching.
2 months is not an unreasonable period of time to abstain. Even with a condom there is a chance of pregnancy. If it’s that dangerous… abstaining seems best all around. My wife and I have abstained for longer periods than that…including after our son was born.
 
Sooner or later in your marriage you will have to abstain for more than 2 months, likely after every kid is born at the least. There will be other times of illness, etc. Its not the end of the world.
 
Thanks for the responses so far. I should also point out that my wife is not actually Catholic. She is sympathetic to NFP and having a large family. But this is really a push for her. Remember, it takes two to abstain.

Thanks.
 
You say a pregnancy threatens the welfare of your wife.
No contraception is 100% effective anyway.
As a husband with responsibilities, think about that for a minute…

You might think that going without sex is intense suffering. In the larger scheme of things it is no big deal. It really is no big deal to abstain.
You do not want to live with the consequences of irresponsible behavior, trust me on that.
 
Last edited:
Please cite your source for the assertion, if I am understanding it correctly, that a priest can “give you permission” to use a form of contraception with the directly intended end of preventing conception.

A priest can never give you permission to prevent conception by artificial means.
0507 said:
I know that the Holy Father has said in relation to the Zika Virus that well-cathechised couples could use contraception temporarily in emergencies, but the statement appears a little vague and many theologians have pushed back on the Pope
Click to expand...
Again, I try not to be one these “sources please” people, but what exactly did the Pope say?

I can tell you that I have abstained for periods far longer than two months, and it wasn’t the end of the world. Nobody has to have sexual relations.

To use a bit of an analogy, comedian and activist Dick Gregory, a man for whom I had great respect, asked if it would be so hard for a white person to give up smoking cigarettes, if they knew that the next cigarette they smoked would turn them into a black person. Think about it, and you’ll see the analogy.

(This is assuming, of course, that being a black person is a bad thing. I don’t make that assumption.)
 
Some of these responses are extremely patronising and not what I expected from a Catholic Forum where people come to talk about very emotive issues.

Please if you feel like making such a response, take it elsewhere. Thanks.
 
No links here. You can find the Pope’s statement by Googling ‘Pope Francis Zika Virus Contraception’, It’s the first hit.

I don’t get the analogy at all. It’s a pretty weird ‘joke’, to be honest. I’m not making the case that I CANNOT abstain. Obviously.
 
Contraception is intrinsically evil. That means that no one, not even the Pope, can give one a pass.

If my spouse were recovering and medically fragile, I think going 8 weeks without sex is a very small sacrifice.
 
Everyone keeps assuming that it is ME that wants to engage in intercourse. But I keep saying that my SPOUSE wants to and that she is not Catholic. Please listen carefully.
 
In the Vatican document for confessors, we can all read that one spouse is not guilty if the other spouse chooses the sin of contraception.

If your wife trusts contraception (which does fail), and chooses to use it, that is her decision.

What ought not happen is a non-catholic spouse pressure the Catholic to violate their faith.
 
It’s not ‘pressure’. We are two grown adults who are having a discussion about what to do at the start of our marriage and after a traumatic event. Are people on here actually married? Do they talk to their spouse about these issues?
 
0507 said:
I don’t get the analogy at all. It’s a pretty weird ‘joke’, to be honest. I’m not making the case that I CANNOT abstain. Obviously.
Click to expand...
The analogy is that whether a person can give up something or not, is based upon what they have to motivate them.

Not you, but there are many people who say “I cannot abstain from sexual relations for a long time within my marriage, so I am going to use contraception”. What if they knew that the next time they contracept, they would die immediately afterwards and go to hell? That is the kind of analogy Mr Gregory was using. People (presumably white people who like being white people, and would not want to be black people) say they cannot give up cigarettes. Mr Gregory was asking if they would be able to give up smoking if they knew that the next cigarette would turn them into a black person. It wouldn’t do that, but what if it it could? Just a thought experiment to see what one’s priorities are, and just how much motivation someone needs.
 
I’m so sorry for your loss!! I have a good friend who went through this sad & scary experience too.

Please consult John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or books that explain it like “The Sinner’s Guide to NFP” or “Theology of the Body Explained.” Condoms are not respectful of your wife’s person because they disconnect her fertility from her complete gift of self in sex / you receive all of her but use a barrier to keep fertility out. Abstinence for two months or sex only during infertile times is the respectful route that honors her WITH her God-given fertility. Besides, condoms have a big failure rate. Two months may feel like a forever-long time to abstain but there are many time in marriage these things will happen.
 
I am married and I almost died from an ectpoic pregnancy that ruptured, so, yeah I get it.

Contraception is intrinsically evil. Catechism #2370

In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

Even in the hard cases:
Catechism #2399

The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6 You can read the text and the footnoted documents
 
The question is not whether we CAN abstain, but whether we SHOULD abstain.

I agree with Church teaching that contraception is disordered because it leads people - and society at large - to treat each other as sexual commodities. But Church teaching states that in marriage sex has a procreative and a unitive function.

My wife and I have no wish to deny the procreative function of sex. Ours is a special case. After two months we will not use it again. The Church fears that people will become habituated to contraception. That is why they teach against it. But that is not going to happen with us.

To the extent that the Pope’s Zika Virus comments make sense, it is insofar as they are saying this. I.e. that contraception is not, say, equivalent to abortion because the Church is concerned not so much about the act but rather the effects.
 
Again. THAT is not the issue. This penny moralising is pretty crude, to be honest.
 
0507 said:
The question is not whether we CAN abstain, but whether we SHOULD abstain.

I agree with Church teaching that contraception is disordered because it leads people - and society at large - to treat each other as sexual commodities. But Church teaching states that in marriage sex has a procreative and a unitive function.

My wife and I have no wish to deny the procreative function of sex. Ours is a special case. After two months we will not use it again. The Church fears that people will become habituated to contraception. That is why they teach against it. But that is not going to happen with us.

To the extent that the Pope’s Zika Virus comments make sense, it is insofar as they are saying this. I.e. that contraception is not, say, equivalent to abortion because the Church is concerned not so much about the act but rather the effects.
Click to expand...
This is only a part of the argument against contraception. It is not merely that it leads to the commodification of sex; it is also that it fundamentally violates what sex was given to us for. That the use of contraception would be temporary does not negate this.
 
That is not clear. The Church teaches that contraception is allowed in cases of rape. Yet abortion is not. There are differences here. Big ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top