The only thing that scares me about becoming Catholic...

[StGerardMajella]

What you have written on this thread has been demonstrated to be diametrically opposed to authentic Catholic teaching. Some would call it heresy.

Directing the original poster to consult their priest and medical doctor is most emphatically not opposed to Catholic teaching, nor is it heresy.

What you reject is not a matter that mature individuals, with any theological knowledge at all, could disagree on.

Nonsense. These matters are widely debated and cover the full spectrum of value judgments among many theologians.

My responses are directed to you - for it is you who express utter falsehoods and call them Catholic teaching. They are not.

It is a grave sin to reject converts outright on the basis of twisted legalism to advance one’s own personal political agenda.

It is also a grave sin to make false accusations against others.

You have proclaimed on this thread that there can be exceptions to intrinsic evils.

Re-read the thread. I have already answered this question multiple times now citing both the Catechism as well as the Bible.

In the interests of civility, I rest my case. I will pray for you.

 

[Rau]

Directing the original poster to consult their priest and medical doctor is most emphatically not opposed to Catholic teaching, nor is it heresy.

A rather selective recap of your posts I’d have thought? You also:

• argued that intrinsically evil acts can sometimes be moral acts, despite explicit doctrine to the contrary which has been shown to you;
• confused “killing” and “murder”, concluding murder is sometimes legitimate;
• claimed the Church teachings about intrinsic evils were mere “general principles”, and that specific circumstances could make and intrinsic evil permissible - despite explicit doctrine to the contrary which has been shown to you;
• dared to label yourself a “Traditional Roman Catholic”
  I could go on…

Nonsense. These matters are widely debated and cover the full spectrum of value judgments among many theologians.

Please identify a single theologian in good standing with the Church who argues that intrinsic evil is not always wrong to choose; name one who argues that murder is sometimes OK.

Re-read the thread.

Do so yourself. Then please describe an act of murder you could commit without sinning.

 

[underacloud]

Rau,

I think at this point the authentic Church teaching has been adequately presented. You should realise now that you are continuing an argument with someone who:
A) still contends that the Church teaching on contraception is a matter of Canon Law, making it relatively easy for anyone else reading to determine that she doesn’t know/understand the teaching,
B) suggests that the difference between “murder” and “killing” is mere semantic gamesmanship, thereby killing off (pardon the pun) any opportunity for sensible discussions of moral theology, where semantic precision is actually very important, and
C) has clearly indicated that her mind will not be changed.

Anyway, for anyone still in doubt, here is a useful overview of current and historical Church teaching on this topic: catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

I think the concluding section entitled “wishful thinking” aptly applies to the current discussion:

Wishful Thinking

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”

 

[StGerardMajella]

I could go on…

No, please don’t. Should you continue to level further defamatory statements and false accusations, it would only be harmful to your eternal salvation. I’d rather not have that on my conscience at the pearly gates.

Please identify a single theologian …

I’ve already rested my case. Game over.

A) still contends that the Church teaching on contraception is a matter of Canon Law, making it relatively easy for anyone else reading to determine that she doesn’t know/understand the teaching,

Re-read the thread. I stated that an individual contemplating a complicated medical situation should speak to a priest and their medical doctor, and not take advice from armchair theologians lest they place their very life in jeopardy with bad advice. Goodnight.

 

[underacloud]

Re-read the thread. I stated that an individual contemplating a complicated medical situation should speak to a priest and their medical doctor, and not take advice from armchair theologians lest they place their very life in jeopardy with bad advice.

Of course they should - unless it is in the deliberate hope of finding a priest who will give them advice that goes against Church teaching. That is disingenuous and cynical. And it’s the key aspect if your advice that people object to. Talking to a good and holy priest and an understanding and skilled doctor is of course excellent advice in itself.

But either way it doesn’t change the fact that you believe (or believed until repeatedly corrected) that Church teaching on this issue is a matter of Canon Law. You can redirect the conversation away from this all you like, but it is a matter of record now and undermines your credibility on this issue. What you are advocating is “wishful thinking” and “disobedience”.

 

[StGerardMajella]

…but it is a matter of record now and undermines your credibility on this issue. What you are advocating is “wishful thinking” and “disobedience”.

The only thing I have advocated is for the individual to seek competent advice from a reputable priest and medical doctor, and not listen to the dangerous advice of armchair theologians. This is neither “disobedience”, nor is it “wishful thinking”.

I’ve also advocated for the respect and due care of potential converts, which is in the interest of Christian charity. Instead of browbeating potential converts with legalisms, we should be compassionate and understanding, providing direction in a kind, caring manner. The proper direction is to advise the potential convert to seek advice from a reputable priest and a competent medical doctor.

I’ve also been in complete accord that we may agree as to the commandments issued by our Creator, yet disagree on their applications to real life. This is exactly why Jethro advised Moses to create a system of tribunals to interpret religious law for the Israelites in the wilderness. This is not a new concept.

While I appreciate the drumbeat of posts and links to Church teachings, none of these adequately address the intricacies of real-life situations. Only a competent priest and a medical doctor can properly advise a potential convert on theological and medical matters, weighing evidence, and analyzing all variables. Then it is up to the convert to make rationale, life-affirming, and logical choices based on the advice and evidence at hand. And I have already pointed several situations where the law is contradicted by multiple exceptions, as in the case of self-defense as it relates to taking another person’s life.

To somehow suggest that theological and moral matters are always black-and-white is naive at best. For thousands of years, theologians of every stripe and color across the spectrum have debated these matters.

What is most troubling is that blind Pharisaic legalisms have crept into our theology, even to the point of discouraging potential converts. Worse yet, disagreements denigrate into personal attacks, false accusations, and innuendos (such as questioning a person’s adherence to their faith just because they have a valid counter-argument).

Christ was quite crystal clear about the dangers of legalism. Christ sought to have compassion on sinners, not to browbeat them and discourage them. We should do likewise.

 

[underacloud]

The only thing I have advocated is for the individual to seek competent advice from a reputable priest and medical doctor…

This is untrue. You have gone well beyond what you suggest here and attempted to espouse a teaching on contraception that is more “flexible” than the Church allows.

I’ve also advocated for the respect and due care of potential converts, which is in the interest of Christian charity. Instead of browbeating potential converts with legalisms, we should be compassionate and understanding, providing direction in a kind, caring manner. The proper direction is to advise the potential convert to seek advice from a reputable priest and a competent medical doctor.

As addressed, it is not wrong to inform potential converts of what the actual teaching is. It is ultimately unkind to do otherwise.

Only a competent priest and a medical doctor can properly advise a potential convert on theological and medical matters, weighing evidence, and analyzing all variables.

This is also untrue. Any Catholic or convert can read the Catechism. It is - despite what you would prefer - black and white on the issue of contraception. A kind priest can help them work through their own issues, but cannot give the sort of permission/exemption you suggest they can.

Medical issues we can leave for component doctors, but noting that for a faithful Catholic, contraception is not a moral option.

Also noting that there are circumstances in which medicines with unintended contraceptive effects can be licitly taken. Perhaps this factor is the source of your own confused understanding.

 

[Rau]

The only thing I have advocated is for the individual to seek competent advice from a reputable priest and medical doctor, and not listen to the dangerous advice of armchair theologians. This is neither “disobedience”, nor is it “wishful thinking”.

Indeed it is not - which is why no one has criticised such advice. The criticism has been directed at your false assertions about Catholic Teaching - which I summarised in Post #99. That reflects disobedience (or perhaps simply lack of knowledge) and wishful thinking - or what Pope St John Paul II called “creativity”, when he wrote:*"67…the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. *
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

I’ve also advocated for the respect and due care of potential converts, which is in the interest of Christian charity. Instead of browbeating potential converts with legalisms, we should be compassionate and understanding, providing direction in a kind, caring manner. The proper direction is to advise the potential convert to seek advice from a reputable priest and a competent medical doctor.

Again - fine advice. But you go a step further and proclaim directly the reverse of what the Church teaches. There is a name for that, and it is not Christian Charity.

I’ve also been in complete accord that we may agree as to the commandments issued by our Creator, yet disagree on their applications to real life.

There can be debate about whether something one contemplates doing (or has done) would be an act of a particular kind (eg. murder), but once it is evident that it is (eg. direct killing of an innocent person) - the matter becomes black and white. It is always wrong.

And is the Church’s authority in proclaiming the divine law deserving of any deference or do we simply disagree with it when dissatisfied? You have characterised Church Teaching as mere “principles” which can be jettisoned given appropriate circumstances.

While I appreciate the drumbeat of posts and links to Church teachings, none of these adequately address the intricacies of real-life situations.

Which is another way of saying there is no such thing as “intrinsic evil”. The Church teaches the opposite.

And I have already pointed several situations where the* law is contradicted *by multiple exceptions, as in the case of self-defense as it relates to taking another person’s life.

In fact, the teaching of the Church is not contradicted at all. As the CCC states, "2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder… " You see - “not an exception”. Why? Because killing an aggressor is not murder - there is no moral evil in the act. Killing and murder are not synonyms. The former lacks moral content, and the latter is explicitly intrinsic evil - never acceptable.

To somehow suggest that theological and moral matters are always black-and-white is naive at best.

Noone suggested it. What has been asserted - what the Church teaches as “black and white” - is that intrinsically evil acts are “always wrong to choose”, regardless of the circumstances or the motivation to do them.

…personal attacks, false accusations, and innuendos…

What can be said about a line of argument that is in direct opposition to crystal clear Church teaching?

Christ sought to have compassion on sinners… We should do likewise.

Indeed. Christ forgives sinners who desire foregiveness and calls on them not to sin again. He does not tell them - “it’s OK to sin, I realise your situation is difficult…”

 

[underacloud]

Indeed. Christ forgives sinners who desire foregiveness and calls on them not to sin again. He does not tell them - “it’s OK to sin, I realise your situation is difficult…”

Not only that, but Jesus was very willing to have disciples leave him because his teachings were too hard. See John chapter 6, especially verses 60-70.

Being Catholic (or Christian generally) isn’t easy. It is not supposed to be. But we are all called to walk the narrow road that leads to life.

 

[Listener]

There are a few items that are not being discussed here. Contraceptives were pretty much barrier methods until the 20th century. Before that, no one had the ability to give women pills or to implant devices that prevented pregnancy.

When Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, he declared that these methods could be used to cure bodily diseases. In general, the Church has no problem with medical devices.

In this particular case, we don’t know whether or not the doctor implanted this device for a medical reason. If the doctor implanted the device to control bleeding that was ruining this woman’s health, this would be fine with the Church. Remember that the device is implanted in her arm, so it is not any way a physical device that comes between her and her husband like some other contraceptives would.

Now, suppose that she had her tubes tied instead. If she confessed that, her priest would NOT require her to have her tubal ligation reversed.

I’m sure she was not guilty of anything when she had this device implanted. She had it done for a very serious reason. Since you don’t have to have a tubal ligation reversed, would you be required to have a medical device removed? I have no idea. This would be a good question for her to ask her priest. I don’t know much about these devices, but I think they expire on their own in a few years.

Now for another question. Suppose she asks her doctor to remove the device, and the doctor says it is not in her best interest and refuses to remove it? Suppose she decides to have the device removed, but the doctor doesn’t have an open appointment for another three months? Suppose the doctor is going to remove the device, but he charges $500 and she doesn’t have the money?

There are plenty of questions here where she could use the advice of a priest, and she absolutely needs the advice of a doctor, since she can’t remove the device herself.

Honestly, I think that if some of the people on these forums had lived at the time of Christ, they would be telling Jesus that it is absolutely forbidden to pull that ox out of the pit on the Sabbath!

 

[Rau]

There are a few items that are not being discussed here. Contraceptives were pretty much barrier methods until the 20th century. Before that, no one had the ability to give women pills or to implant devices that prevented pregnancy.

When Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, he declared that these methods could be used to cure bodily diseases. In general, the Church has no problem with medical devices.

In this particular case, we don’t know whether or not the doctor implanted this device for a medical reason. If the doctor implanted the device to control bleeding that was ruining this woman’s health, this would be fine with the Church. Remember that the device is implanted in her arm, so it is not any way a physical device that comes between her and her husband like some other contraceptives would.

Now, suppose that she had her tubes tied instead. If she confessed that, her priest would NOT require her to have her tubal ligation reversed.

I’m sure she was not guilty of anything when she had this device implanted. She had it done for a very serious reason. Since you don’t have to have a tubal ligation reversed, would you be required to have a medical device removed? I have no idea. This would be a good question for her to ask her priest. I don’t know much about these devices, but I think they expire on their own in a few years.

Now for another question. Suppose she asks her doctor to remove the device, and the doctor says it is not in her best interest and refuses to remove it? Suppose she decides to have the device removed, but the doctor doesn’t have an open appointment for another three months? Suppose the doctor is going to remove the device, but he charges $500 and she doesn’t have the money?

There are plenty of questions here where she could use the advice of a priest, and she absolutely needs the advice of a doctor, since she can’t remove the device herself.

Honestly, I think that if some of the people on these forums had lived at the time of Christ, they would be telling Jesus that it is absolutely forbidden to pull that ox out of the pit on the Sabbath!

The Church has no problem with curing the body - by medically sound means. I don’t understand the discussion and questions here about medical treatments which have a contraceptive side-effect. Hysterectomy (medically required) comes to mind. What problem or dilemma concerns you ??

 

[underacloud]

In this particular case, we don’t know whether or not the doctor implanted this device for a medical reason. If the doctor implanted the device to control bleeding that was ruining this woman’s health, this would be fine with the Church.

Absolutely. This is an important point to clarify.

Now, suppose that she had her tubes tied instead. If she confessed that, her priest would NOT require her to have her tubal ligation reversed.

I’m sure she was not guilty of anything when she had this device implanted. She had it done for a very serious reason. Since you don’t have to have a tubal ligation reversed, would you be required to have a medical device removed? I have no idea. This would be a good question for her to ask her priest. I don’t know much about these devices, but I think they expire on their own in a few years.

The rods are usually very easy to remove, and I believe that is the key reason that one would get it removed in this case vs having a tubal ligation reversed, since that’s a more serious imposition.

I’m not sure but I think the rod is to be removed at the end of the ~3 year term regardless, so it has to come out at some point. I could be mistaken.

If having the rod removed proved to be a great imposition, then I’m sure one could apply the same logic regarding a tubal reversal, but I just don’t think it’s the case.

There are plenty of questions here where she could use the advice of a priest, and she absolutely needs the advice of a doctor, since she can’t remove the device herself.

Yes, definitely. As discussed, it is good advice in itself to consult with a priest and work with your doctor (within the moral framework described by the Church).

 

[Listener]

The Church has no problem with curing the body - by medically sound means. I don’t understand the discussion and questions here about medical treatments which have a contraceptive side-effect. Hysterectomy (medically required) comes to mind. What problem or dilemma concerns you ??

I am somewhat familiar with this stuff, but I am not up on the methods. Back in the 1970’s, a devout Catholic doctor who was the father of 12 children gave me a hysterectomy. A few months before the operation, he gave me a shot. I think it was deep-provera. This shot stopped my periods and made me infertile. Why did he do that? He wanted to build up my system so I wouldn’t get more run down by bleeding too much before my hysterectomy.

The same types of things are done today, but they have implantable devices that secrete hormones that essentially do the same thing as the shot that the doctor gave me.

Now let’s pretend that back then I was a Protestant looking to join the Catholic Church. Maybe someone would have said to me, “Oh no! You’re on birth control! That will never do!”

 

[underacloud]

Now let’s pretend that back then I was a Protestant looking to join the Catholic Church. Maybe someone would have said to me, “Oh no! You’re on birth control! That will never do!”

Right, that sort of thing happens a lot too - and such misunderstandings require similar clarification - which is why it is important that the true Church teaching is presented.

 

[Rau]

I am somewhat familiar with this stuff, but I am not up on the methods. Back in the 1970’s, a devout Catholic doctor who was the father of 12 children gave me a hysterectomy. A few months before the operation, he gave me a shot. I think it was deep-provera. This shot stopped my periods and made me infertile. Why did he do that? He wanted to build up my system so I wouldn’t get more run down by bleeding too much before my hysterectomy.

I know nothing about such medical procedures so can’t comment, and CAF is probably not the place to conduct that discussion.

The same types of things are done today, but they have implantable devices that secrete hormones that essentially do the same thing as the shot that the doctor gave me.

Now let’s pretend that back then I was a Protestant looking to join the Catholic Church. Maybe someone would have said to me, “Oh no! You’re on birth control! That will never do!”

The “fact” of a sterilisation, or a “mutilation” is physical evil. The same is true of the taking of a life. The “moral” question to be determined is whether these acts are “moral evil”. When a woman has a medically required hysterectomy, she is not choosing sterilisation - she is choosing to cure her body. Such is a “good” act. The loss of her womb (or any body part) is a physical evil, but physical evils are permissible as a means. This is why it is permissible (when necessary) to consciously choose to kill an aggressor in the course of self-defence. Killing an aggressor is not moral evil - moral evil is directly killing an innocent person.

The Church’s teaching about “contraception” is about a moral act. It is no more about the pill itself than teaching about murder is about guns. It is not about devices or drugs - which some people may loosely call “birth control”. It is about the moral act that persons may do, and in which these devices may play a part. The moral evil of murder cannot be recognised in one man shooting another dead, and the moral act of contraception cannot be recognised solely by observing a woman swallow a hormonal pill.

Contraception (the moral act) is defined as directly acting to thwart the procreative aspect of conjugal relations. If that is what one does, then that is a moral evil. The moral evil can’t be made to go away by any arguments about the motivation to do this act, or various circumstances. This is what it means to say contraception is “intrinsically evil”.

The young married woman for whom pregnancy is a grave health risk has options to safeguard her life. It is an unfortunate fact that the moral ones may not be palatable and do have undesirable consequences. But consequences do not have primacy in determining the permissibility of acts - at least not in Catholic Theology. Primacy rests in the act itself - is it morally good or morally evil. There are 3 conditions that must be met for an act to be moral:

1. The act itself (sometimes called the moral object) must be good (not morally evil);
2. The motivation (or “Intention”) must be good;
3. The consequences must be favourable - that is, the act does more good than harm.

Intrinsically evil acts are those that fail test 1.

What we’ve seen in this thread is an attempt to claim that the act takes on a different nature by virtue of the good Intention (stay healthy (by avoiding the grave consequences of pregnancy)) - ie. to describe the contraception as actually a health preservation measure. Yet the contraceptive act itself actually delivers nil heath benefit. Its function stops at “thwarting the procreative nature of conjugal relations” - and in this we recognise explicitly the moral evil as taught by the Church.

Here is an analogy. We know that to directly kill a baby in a pram is morally evil - the intrinsic evil of murder. Now - if our family is held hostage by an evil person who (we believe) will kill them in 1 hour unless we go into the street and kill a baby in a pram, are we at liberty to reason that killing the baby is now the good act of defence of others? No - we may not, because killing the innocent in the pram is intrinsically evil. On the other hand, it may well be permissible to kill the hotage-taker, for he is and aggressor (not innocent) and to kill an aggressor is not intrinsically evil.

 

[rusty20]

(With the possible * exception of sterilization methods…) I think it helps to remember that there is only one way of ensuring (100%) that a couple avoids pregnancy: abstinence.

To suggest that a couple use artificial contraception to avoid pregnancy when a pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother is highly problematic. What happens if the artificial contraception fails? The failure rate is small, sure. But there’s still a chance. Almost everyone knows of a friend that got pregnant while on birth control or while using condoms.

I can’t imagine having to suffer through a scenario where a pregnancy resulting from making love to my future wife would be threatening her life. Then I would be faced with the question of whether or not we ought to make love. But I know what the ultimate answer has to be. How could I possibly consider doing an action that would put my wife’s life at risk? If my wife is advised that she will likely die if she gets pregnant again, how could I possibly suggest making love, given that fact?

I just think that’s something people need to keep in mind as they consider Church teaching in light of these tougher situations. Getting on the pill doesn’t remove the risk of a life-threatening pregnancy any more than using NFP does. Only abstinence can do that.*

 

[StGerardMajella]

I just think that’s something people need to keep in mind as they consider Church teaching in light of these tougher situations. Getting on the pill doesn’t remove the risk of a life-threatening pregnancy any more than using NFP does. Only abstinence can do that.

Here is how that plays out in real life, in the form of a real life comedy of errors. Have a sense of humor:

Doctor: If your wife get pregnant again, she will surely die from medical complications.

Church: Abstinence is the only answer.

Wife: Good grief.

Husband: Not on my watch. I’ll walk. See you in divorce court, honey.

Psychologist: But divorce would mean enormous harm to the family, especially the young children. Permanent psychological scars for life!

Wife: Yeah, that doesn’t sound so swell. Divorces can get ugly.

Church: Abstinence is the only answer. Or you could roll the dice with NFP.

Doctor: NFP is a death sentence if you get pregnant, medically speaking.

Psychologist: Separation, divorce, harm to the spouses and children, or Russian Roulette with NFP. Not really great options for the family, eh?

Church: But NFP is very effective. So much better than contraception.

Husband: Fine. We’ll do NFP.

Doctor: If you make a mistake with NFP, and your wife gets pregnant, your wife will surely die from medical complications!

Wife: Ugh.

Husband: Fine, we’ll do NFP, and since it is so effective, I’ll wear protection or the wife will take the Pill as an abundance of caution. That way we don’t kill any embryos, but still protect the life of my wife.

Church: No can do. NFP only. Or abstinence. Good luck.

Husband: I’ll walk. See you in divorce court, honey.

Ending Option 1:
Then, a magical poof cloud descends upon the husband. He sees the errors of his ways. He realizes that contraception is “intrinsically evil”, and decides to live the life of a monastic celibate but still in a loving relationship with his wife. They can’t have relations, but for the next 50 years, they will live a celibate life for the sake of the family. They live happily ever after. The End.

Ending Option 2:
They get divorced. Wife goes bankrupt, kids are scarred for life. Husband remarries. The End.

Ending Option 3:
Wife practices NFP, makes a mistake on timing, gets pregnant and promptly dies from medical complications. Husband goes off the deep end. Children are left without their mother, and are scarred for life. Family files for bankruptcy protection. The End.

Ending Option 4:
The husband and wife practice NFP. As an abundance of caution, the husband wears protection, and the wife takes the Pill. While not 100% foolproof, this option beats divorce and death from pregnancy, while still keeping the marriage intact. Plus, if anyone at the Church condemns them, they’ll convert to another Christian faith that won’t condemn them to eternal hell fire for taking rational actions to protect the life of the mother. The End.

Honestly, I think that if some of the people on these forums had lived at the time of Christ, they would be telling Jesus that it is absolutely forbidden to pull that ox out of the pit on the Sabbath!

Yep.

 

[bitterhope]

Here is how that plays out in real life, in the form of a real life comedy of errors. Have a sense of humor:

Doctor: If your wife get pregnant again, she will surely die from medical complications.

Church: Abstinence is the only answer.

Wife: Good grief.

Husband: Not on my watch. I’ll walk. See you in divorce court, honey.

Psychologist: But divorce would mean enormous harm to the family, especially the young children. Permanent psychological scars for life!

Wife: Yeah, that doesn’t sound so swell. Divorces can get ugly.

Church: Abstinence is the only answer. Or you could roll the dice with NFP.

Doctor: NFP is a death sentence if you get pregnant, medically speaking.

Psychologist: Separation, divorce, harm to the spouses and children, or Russian Roulette with NFP. Not really great options for the family, eh?

Church: But NFP is very effective. So much better than contraception.

Husband: Fine. We’ll do NFP.

Doctor: If you make a mistake with NFP, and your wife gets pregnant, your wife will surely die from medical complications!

Wife: Ugh.

Husband: Fine, we’ll do NFP, and since it is so effective, I’ll wear protection or the wife will take the Pill as an abundance of caution. That way we don’t kill any embryos, but still protect the life of my wife.

Church: No can do. NFP only. Or abstinence. Good luck.

Husband: I’ll walk. See you in divorce court, honey.

Ending Option 1:
Then, a magical poof cloud descends upon the husband. He sees the errors of his ways. He realizes that contraception is “intrinsically evil”, and decides to live the life of a monastic celibate but still in a loving relationship with his wife. They can’t have relations, but for the next 50 years, they will live a celibate life for the sake of the family. They live happily ever after. The End.

Ending Option 2:
They get divorced. Wife goes bankrupt, kids are scarred for life. Husband remarries. The End.

Ending Option 3:
Wife practices NFP, makes a mistake on timing, gets pregnant and promptly dies from medical complications. Husband goes off the deep end. Children are left without their mother, and are scarred for life. Family files for bankruptcy protection. The End.

Ending Option 4:
The husband and wife practice NFP. As an abundance of caution, the husband wears protection, and the wife takes the Pill. While not 100% foolproof, this option beats divorce and death from pregnancy, while still keeping the marriage intact. Plus, if anyone at the Church condemns them, they’ll convert to another Christian faith that won’t condemn them to eternal hell fire for taking rational actions to protect the life of the mother. The End.

Yep.

I’m very glad my husband isn’t such a jerk as to only love me and want me for sex. Abstinence hasn’t ended our marriage.

 

[MonteCristo]

I’ve been following this discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents:

The Catholic Church clearly says that contraception is not allowed. Period. Modern society changes, but the Word of God does not.

 

[Rau]

Here is how that plays out in real life, in the form of a real life comedy of errors. Have a sense of humor:

Doctor: If your wife get pregnant again, she will surely die from medical complications.

Church: Abstinence is the only answer.

Wife: Good grief.

Husband: Not on my watch. I’ll walk. See you in divorce court, honey.

Psychologist: But divorce would mean enormous harm to the family, especially the young children. Permanent psychological scars for life!

Wife: Yeah, that doesn’t sound so swell. Divorces can get ugly.

Church: Abstinence is the only answer. Or you could roll the dice with NFP.

Doctor: NFP is a death sentence if you get pregnant, medically speaking.

Psychologist: Separation, divorce, harm to the spouses and children, or Russian Roulette with NFP. Not really great options for the family, eh?

Church: But NFP is very effective. So much better than contraception.

Husband: Fine. We’ll do NFP.

Doctor: If you make a mistake with NFP, and your wife gets pregnant, your wife will surely die from medical complications!

Wife: Ugh.

Husband: Fine, we’ll do NFP, and since it is so effective, I’ll wear protection or the wife will take the Pill as an abundance of caution. That way we don’t kill any embryos, but still protect the life of my wife.

Church: No can do. NFP only. Or abstinence. Good luck.

Husband: I’ll walk. See you in divorce court, honey.

Ending Option 1:
Then, a magical poof cloud descends upon the husband. He sees the errors of his ways. He realizes that contraception is “intrinsically evil”, and decides to live the life of a monastic celibate but still in a loving relationship with his wife. They can’t have relations, but for the next 50 years, they will live a celibate life for the sake of the family. They live happily ever after. The End.

Ending Option 2:
They get divorced. Wife goes bankrupt, kids are scarred for life. Husband remarries. The End.

Ending Option 3:
Wife practices NFP, makes a mistake on timing, gets pregnant and promptly dies from medical complications. Husband goes off the deep end. Children are left without their mother, and are scarred for life. Family files for bankruptcy protection. The End.

Ending Option 4:
The husband and wife practice NFP. As an abundance of caution, the husband wears protection, and the wife takes the Pill. While not 100% foolproof, this option beats divorce and death from pregnancy, while still keeping the marriage intact. Plus, if anyone at the Church condemns them, they’ll convert to another Christian faith that won’t condemn them to eternal hell fire for taking rational actions to protect the life of the mother. The End.

Yep.

You have outlined by example the Consequentialist approach to morality - which is to determine the moral course by examining the Consequences of actions. Such an approach can authorize any action in light of perceived superior outcomes. Such an approach is utterly rejected by the Catholic Church. JP II speaks about it in Veritatis Splendor.