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

[bitterhope]

Lady comp was already pretty well known in Europe when we were over there several years ago. Many women loved it. I’m assuming it works well since its been around for a long time and selling very well despite its expense. Many of the women using it were not Christian at all so I doubt they would stick with it if it wasn’t pretty accurate. There are many zero-one child by choice families in Europe. I used the clear blue easy monitor. It didn’t work for me though. using artificial birth control is not an option for Catholics. Most don’t end up with very large families even if they are trying to have very large families. Those of us that NFP doesn’t work for have more choices than birth control or abstinence. We can try monitors, and we can find the way to accept the babies God sends. As a church family we should be helping people find ways to live out Catholic family life during tough situations.

Letting posters know that there are NFP aides and monitors available that may be of use to them is not pressuring anyone to buy something they can’t afford. It’s very likely most people are unaware of the different fertility monitors in the market. Lady comp and clear blue easy are not the only two. As expensive as lady comp is compared to clear blue easy up front, not needing to buy test strips monthly may work out cheaper in the long run. Ovacue is another monitor available. It is not temperature based and no urine test strips are needed either. There are costs to them, but there is to condoms, prescriptions, dr visits, and everything else in life as well.

A lady at our church just got certified to teach Billings. She’s been a labor and delivery nurse for 35 years and is a lactation consultant with the Health Dept as well. She is willing to teach couples free of charge and even willing to give all charting supplies away for free. I’ve heard others in this forum state the same things about instructors in their area. I know priests will often find scholarship money for couples seeking to learn NFP. If it works for a couple, wonderful! But there is no way to know for sure without actually trying it first.

Search for fertility or ovulation monitors online. Call the diocesan family life office and ask about options for classes in your area. There are even phone apps for NFP. Depending on how strictly you feel the need to avoid buying a monitor may be a good option for you. A phone app explaining the two day method or cycle beads might satisfy you. Hiring a professional associated with the Pope Paul VI to teach you Creighton might be your preference. Or using nothing at all and seeing what you get might be the way to go. If reasons are serious enough you might just abstain completely so no risks are there. That what my husband and I did for a long time. It didn’t kill us. We might be headed that way again.

 

[1ke]

It’s funny how when someone gives the realities of using NFP and the consequences of unintended pregnancy they are suddenly anti-church teaching, anti-NFP and all sort of other things. When someone says that they took ABC and they experienced side effects they get cheered on as the poster child for why it is so evil.

Not at all.

There is a way to express that YMMV with different methods, that some people do not find them to be as effective as others, and that some people find the abstinence difficult in a calm, respectful manner.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Yes, we are living chastely until our marriage, and I have an upcoming appointment to have the contraceptive implant in my arm surgically removed (minor procedure). Thank you for this information, especially the specific names of the methods. It seems as though most NFP information I was able to get (granted it was through an OB department) was focused on aiding conception.

I am definitely not against EVER having more children (in fact I would be a little sad if I knew for certain that was the case) but my doctor has warned me that it would be best to space them further apart to give my body time to recuperate and prepare, and also so that I can plan ahead of time for some extra help to minimize other physical stresses on my body.

I will look into this, thank you so much for your response.

I recommend that you check out WOOMB online. They may be able to direct you to a Billings or other NFP method instructor in your area.

Pope John Paul VI taught that a couple may use NFP licitly for a grave reason, which could include health issues. He taught that the couple must consider the welfare of themselves, their existing children, and any future children. (This is from Humanae Vitae.) Given these circumstances I could understand your not wanting to have more children due to the potential risk to them. That’s called being prudent.

I would recommend that you be assessed to determine if there is a fixable problem that could be causing these preterm births. (Some issues, such as cervical incompetence, can be addressed before or during pregnancy.) Your doctor should be able to assist you in this area.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Pope John Paul VI taught that a couple may use NFP licitly for a grave reason, which could include health issues. He taught that the couple must consider the welfare of themselves, their existing children, and any future children. (This is from Humanae Vitae.) Given these circumstances I could understand your not wanting to have more children due to the potential risk to them. That’s called being prudent.

You’ve really p(name removed by moderator)ointed the key issue. If you read some of the recent posts in this thread and others, the answer to a couple where fertility would be life-threatening to the mother is uniformly a resounding judgment that complete abstinence is the only answer. A litany of “Church teachings” on the matter usually follow.

My response to that suggestion is that a married couple who cannot have further children due to serious health issues, and faced with a lifetime of complete abstinence, are at a very, very high risk of separation and divorce, both of which can have major negative psychological long-term effects on the children as well as the spouses.

Yet, we hear it time and time again on these forums. Abstinence only. It’s the only solution. I believe that a compassionate Catholic priest, weighing all of the variables, doesn’t recite canon law in a vacuum. This is why we have a legal system - because laws are subject to interpretation. This is why we have priests and even canon lawyers - to interpret canon law and Church teachings.

The black-and-white “this is the edict, no exceptions or you are going to burn in hell for eternity” kind of thinking regarding these matters is anathema to winning converts, especially on a public forum.

I understand the Church wants to protect life. I get that. But NFP is Russian Roulette for some couples, where a pregnancy most certainly would mean the death of the mother, and abstinence would result in the break-up of the family unit in the form of a divorce.

Options of death or divorce hardly seem life-affirming. I don’t think our Catholic priests and medical doctors are so naive and blinded that they would not be able to weigh each individual situation carefully, taking into account all of the variables, causes, and risks.

 

[Rau]

Regardless of what you read on these forums, you need the advice of a competent Catholic priest and medical doctor.

Please do not put your life in unnecessary danger because of advice read on an Internet forum. You do no good for yourself, your future husband, or your children – or the Catholic Church for that matter – if you or your baby were to die prematurely from complications associated with a third pregnancy.

No individual here knows your medical situation, and no one here knows about your spiritual path. Weigh advice from professional experts that have your best interest at heart - not from complete strangers on an Internet forum.

I can understand the need for medical advice in connection with the risks of pregnancy for child or mother. I confess to be unclear what the objective of the priest’s “advice” would be. Surely you’re not suggesting a priest could advise in favour of contraception?

 

[Rau]

You’ve really p(name removed by moderator)ointed the key issue. If you read some of the recent posts in this thread and others, the answer to a couple where fertility would be life-threatening to the mother is uniformly a resounding judgment that complete abstinence is the only answer. A litany of “Church teachings” on the matter usually follow.

My response to that suggestion is that a married couple who cannot have further children due to serious health issues, and faced with a lifetime of complete abstinence, are at a very, very high risk of separation and divorce, both of which can have major negative psychological long-term effects on the children as well as the spouses.

Yet, we hear it time and time again on these forums. Abstinence only. It’s the only solution. I believe that a compassionate Catholic priest, weighing all of the variables, doesn’t recite canon law in a vacuum. This is why we have a legal system - because laws are subject to interpretation. This is why we have priests and even canon lawyers - to interpret canon law and Church teachings.

The black-and-white “this is the edict, no exceptions or you are going to burn in hell for eternity” kind of thinking regarding these matters is anathema to winning converts, especially on a public forum.

I understand the Church wants to protect life. I get that. But NFP is Russian Roulette for some couples, where a pregnancy most certainly would mean the death of the mother, and abstinence would result in the break-up of the family unit in the form of a divorce.

Options of death or divorce hardly seem life-affirming. I don’t think our Catholic priests and medical doctors are so naive and blinded that they would not be able to weigh each individual situation carefully, taking into account all of the variables, causes, and risks.

It is the nature of “intrinsic evils”, of which contraception is one, that the issue is indeed black and white. A Catholic priest who advises to the contrary acts contrary to Church teaching and the promise he made as a priest to conform himself accordingly.

There is no “weighing” to be done in regard to intrinsic evils. To believe that a moral evil becomes a good choice in light of possible consequences is to subscribe to the theory of Consequentialism, in which the morally right course is whatever seems to produce the best balance of consequences. Such an approach is utterly opposed by Catholic moral theology. Pope St John Paul 2 discusses this very issue in Veritatis Splendor.

 

[Magdalen2013]

I can understand the need for medical advice in connection with the risks of pregnancy for child or mother. I confess to be unclear what the objective of the priest’s “advice” would be. Surely you’re not suggesting a priest could advise in favour of contraception?

There are some medical illnesses that improve when treated with hormone pills – and where it is a question of the mother being healthy enough to take care of the children she already has, using these medications is permitted.

This discussion came up in RCIA and our DRE related that her mother had experienced this sort of medical issue and her priest advised her to use the medication. Note, this was not for birth control but for severe hormonal complications resulting in acute anemia.

 

[Rau]

There are some medical illnesses that improve when treated with hormone pills – and where it is a question of the mother being healthy enough to take care of the children she already has, using these medications is permitted.

This discussion came up in RCIA and our DRE related that her mother had experienced this sort of medical issue and her priest advised her to use the medication. Note, this was not for birth control but for severe hormonal complications resulting in acute anemia.

The church has no objection to taking medicines necessary to treat medical conditions. The Church’s teaching opposes the act of (direct) contraception.

Taking contraceptive pills to avoid pregnancy is direct contraception and the other poster seemed to be suggesting a priest might advise that course of action. Such advise would be wrong.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Taking contraceptive pills to avoid pregnancy is direct contraception and the other poster seemed to be suggesting a priest might advise that course of action. Such advise would be wrong.

In the case of a young wife who would face severe, life-threatening medical complications and most certain death if she became pregnant, NFP is most emphatically not an option. NFP in her case would be playing Russian Roulette.

As a wife, she has a obligation to her herself, her husband, and her children to stay alive and not get pregnant. If NFP was ineffective, she would most certainly die.

If she refuses to have relations with her husband for the next 50+ years, the husband will most certainly separate and divorce her, causing long-term harm to the couple as well as enormous negative consequences to the children.

Few individuals in a loving marriage would have the capacity to remain abstinent for the remainder of their life. Few individuals called to a holy life are able to do so, let alone a married couple in a long-term, loving relationship.

So, let’s be real: Most women in the West will not give a flying peach as to what the Church says about it. You can condemn them to hell, and you can call them a heretic. You can cite Church teaching until you are blue in the face. But neither the choices of certain death, permanent abstinence, nor separation and divorce are life-affirming.

Under these circumstances, the Church teaching as described by yourself and others boxes a couple into a mighty small corner. They cannot have relations, and they cannot have any pleasure that would not result in procreative efforts. This will lead to divorce in most, if not all, circumstances. Your only response is permanent abstinence.

Priests, understanding the variables and choices, can attempt to persuade the couple towards permanent abstinence. Again, this is highly unlikely, and even dangerous if it results in separation and divorce.

Most Catholic women in the Western world would not risk their life under these circumstances, and they won’t deny their husband. We can stop pretending otherwise, and we can start to show compassion for those individuals that face these very tough decisions.

Let me be clear on one other point - The use of contraception under the circumstances described above - i.e., the resultant pregnancy causing most certain death to the mother - is not utilizing contraception for birth control. It is being used to prevent certain death. That’s right - Death. There are many women that, if they became pregnant, would face such severe medical consequences that pregnancy is a death sentence.

An individual faced with these tough choices should consult a competent priest and a medical doctor. The Church calls the laity to be compassionate, kind, and understanding, and not to pass judgment on others.

Leave the consultation to the experts - the holy priests and the medical doctors - to advise on these matters.

 

[jmjZelie]

In the case of a young wife who would face severe, life-threatening medical complications and most certain death if she became pregnant…

[snip]

So, let’s be real:

Most Catholic women in the Western world would not risk their life under these circumstances, and they won’t deny their husband. We can stop pretending otherwise, and we can start to show compassion for those individuals that face these very tough decisions.

[snip]

Leave the consultation to the experts - the holy priests and the medical doctors - to advise on these matters.

I fully embrace the Church’s teachings in this area, but I have to say that I agree totally with these two statements that I quote from StGerardMajella, a poster who interestingly enough, has named himself after the patron saint for expectant mothers.

This is a situation where anonymous posters on the internet cannot help in any meaningful way. A priest however can give the genuine spiritual guidance on how to morally navigate a dangerous situation.

TabbyLilac and her fiancé are potential converts. We cannot expect a potential convert to begin living a life of heroic virtue before they even have access to the sacraments. That is like telling a toddler to run a marathon.

TabbyLilac, I hope you take no offense to this. I am a convert as well, and I had to go through careful discernment and learning about this and discuss everything with my husband, who also converted. You have heard the teachings of the Church on marital relations from several posters here. But please don’t be scared away. Right now is a time to learn and discuss and pray for wisdom.

Read a Catholic bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and read articles on the Catholic Education Resource Center online. Also take a look at The Way of The Lord Jesus by Germaine Grisez, also online.

God bless you in your discernment.

 

[E_7]

In the case of a young wife who would face severe, life-threatening medical complications and most certain death if she became pregnant, NFP is most emphatically not an option. NFP in her case would be playing Russian Roulette.

As a wife, she has a obligation to her herself, her husband, and her children to stay alive and not get pregnant. If NFP was ineffective, she would most certainly die.

If she refuses to have relations with her husband for the next 50+ years, the husband will most certainly separate and divorce her, causing long-term harm to the couple as well as enormous negative consequences to the children.

Few individuals in a loving marriage would have the capacity to remain abstinent for the remainder of their life. Few individuals called to a holy life are able to do so, let alone a married couple in a long-term, loving relationship.

So, let’s be real: Most women in the West will not give a flying peach as to what the Church says about it. You can condemn them to hell, and you can call them a heretic. You can cite Church teaching until you are blue in the face. But neither the choices of certain death, permanent abstinence, nor separation and divorce are life-affirming.

Under these circumstances, the Church teaching as described by yourself and others boxes a couple into a mighty small corner. They cannot have relations, and they cannot have any pleasure that would not result in procreative efforts. This will lead to divorce in most, if not all, circumstances. Your only response is permanent abstinence.

Priests, understanding the variables and choices, can attempt to persuade the couple towards permanent abstinence. Again, this is highly unlikely, and even dangerous if it results in separation and divorce.

Most Catholic women in the Western world would not risk their life under these circumstances, and they won’t deny their husband. We can stop pretending otherwise, and we can start to show compassion for those individuals that face these very tough decisions.

Let me be clear on one other point - The use of contraception under the circumstances described above - i.e., the resultant pregnancy causing most certain death to the mother - is not utilizing contraception for birth control. It is being used to prevent certain death. That’s right - Death. There are many women that, if they became pregnant, would face such severe medical consequences that pregnancy is a death sentence.

An individual faced with these tough choices should consult a competent priest and a medical doctor. The Church calls the laity to be compassionate, kind, and understanding, and not to pass judgment on others.

Leave the consultation to the experts - the holy priests and the medical doctors - to advise on these matters.

Based on your reasoning, the use of contraceptives shouldn’t be used if the mom will die if she becomes pregnant. Why? Because Birth Control is less effective than NFP if done always right. There is a higher chance of becoming pregnant by using contraceptives. If you are going to follow your reasoning, isn’t it better to use NFP, or the complete removal of the matrix, or total abstinence which can be more effective than any form of birth control in not getting pregnant?

Worse the pill. If your concern is the wife’s/mom’s death/health and obligation to her family, the pill is the wrong way to go. Planned Parenthood says:
The progestin in YAZ, Gianvi, YASMIN, Ocella, Syeda, and Zarah, Beyaz, and Safyral may be linked to a higher risk for blood clots than other birth control pills. It can also raise potassium levels in your blood. This could cause heart and health problems.

Combination pill users have a slightly greater chance of certain rare, but serious, problems than nonusers. These problems, that may be fatal in very rare cases, include heart attack, stroke, having a blood clot in the legs, lungs, heart, or brain, or developing high blood pressure, liver tumors, gallstones, or yellowing of the skin or eyes (jaundice).

The risk for these problems increases if you

are age 35 or older
are very overweight
have certain inherited blood-clotting disorders
have diabetes
have high blood pressure
have high cholesterol
need prolonged bed rest
smoke

• See more at: plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill#sthash.I66rzTLL.dpuf

 

[Listener]

Prolonged periods of abstinence for married couples can also lead to separation and divorce, resulting in the break-up of families and having long-term, devastating consequences on young children. The scars of a painful divorce can mar a young child for the rest of their life.

Again, please don’t take advice from complete strangers on your unique set of circumstances. Seek the advice of a competent priest and medical doctor who is familiar with your specific set of circumstances and can weigh all of the variables involved.

People new to the Catholic Church may not know that some things known as birth control are allowed for medical reasons. For example, if you have horriible periods that cause you extreme pain or loss of blood, and you are on some kind of hormonal birth control to make this problem better, you would not be required to quit your hormones and go back to having horrible periods. I agree that it is best to discuss this with a doctor and a priest.

 

[Rau]

In the case of a young wife who would face severe, life-threatening medical complications and most certain death if she became pregnant, NFP is most emphatically not an option. NFP in her case would be playing Russian Roulette.

As a wife, she has a obligation to her herself, her husband, and her children to stay alive and not get pregnant. If NFP was ineffective, she would most certainly die.

If she refuses to have relations with her husband for the next 50+ years, the husband will most certainly separate and divorce her, causing long-term harm to the couple as well as enormous negative consequences to the children.

Few individuals in a loving marriage would have the capacity to remain abstinent for the remainder of their life. Few individuals called to a holy life are able to do so, let alone a married couple in a long-term, loving relationship.

So, let’s be real: Most women in the West will not give a flying peach as to what the Church says about it. You can condemn them to hell, and you can call them a heretic. You can cite Church teaching until you are blue in the face. But neither the choices of certain death, permanent abstinence, nor separation and divorce are life-affirming.

Under these circumstances, the Church teaching as described by yourself and others boxes a couple into a mighty small corner. They cannot have relations, and they cannot have any pleasure that would not result in procreative efforts. This will lead to divorce in most, if not all, circumstances. Your only response is permanent abstinence.

Priests, understanding the variables and choices, can attempt to persuade the couple towards permanent abstinence. Again, this is highly unlikely, and even dangerous if it results in separation and divorce.

Most Catholic women in the Western world would not risk their life under these circumstances, and they won’t deny their husband. We can stop pretending otherwise, and we can start to show compassion for those individuals that face these very tough decisions.

Let me be clear on one other point - The use of contraception under the circumstances described above - i.e., the resultant pregnancy causing most certain death to the mother - is not utilizing contraception for birth control. It is being used to prevent certain death. That’s right - Death. There are many women that, if they became pregnant, would face such severe medical consequences that pregnancy is a death sentence.

An individual faced with these tough choices should consult a competent priest and a medical doctor. The Church calls the laity to be compassionate, kind, and understanding, and not to pass judgment on others.

Leave the consultation to the experts - the holy priests and the medical doctors - to advise on these matters.

If you have read the doctrine concerning contraception, you will be aware that, as fact not judgement, there are no exceptions. There are people in this world faced with many grave difficulties. The spouse of a seriously ill or incapacitated person for example.

Your suggestions that a priest can licitly “sanction” contraception is outrageous. Your suggestion that the act is not contraception but “self-defence” or similar is fantasy, and has no support in moral theology or the expression of the doctrine on contraception.

Would you suggest that parents consult a priest to enquire whether an abortion might be appropriate in some special and threatening circumstance? Can abortion be viewed as self-defence? Logically, you ought to conclude that it can. Abortion and contraception are not the same, but both are intrinsically evil and thus never moral to choose. No priest can take a different position and remain true to his solemn commitment.

 

[carefullytread]

If you have read the doctrine concerning contraception, you will be aware that, as fact not judgement, there are no exceptions. There are people in this world faced with many grave difficulties. The spouse of a seriously ill or incapacitated person for example.

Your suggestions that a priest can licitly “sanction” contraception is outrageous. Your suggestion that the act is not contraception but “self-defence” or similar is fantasy, and has no support in moral theology or the expression of the doctrine on contraception.

Would you suggest that parents consult a priest to enquire whether an abortion might be appropriate in some special and threatening circumstance? Can abortion be viewed as self-defence? Logically, you ought to conclude that it can. Abortion and contraception are not the same, but both are intrinsically evil and thus never moral to choose. No priest can take a different position and remain true to his solemn commitment.

A priest can’t licitly offer this advice, but I think there’s a very good chance that they will.

When I was struggling with coming back to the Church, this was one of the sticking points for me as well. I talked with various priests about it, and while some took the orthodox line, I would say the most common response was more of a “You know I have to say this, but , no one follows this teaching” and a few were more explicit than that.

And the statistics (at least in my country) seem to bear that out. Something like 2-4% of Catholic women of child bearing age use NFP. It’s an extremely ignored doctrine, even amongst regular church attending Catholics.

That doesn’t mean it’s right. In fact, I decided that honesty demanded I not be one of those people and so I didn’t come back to the Church. But the large majority of Catholics do ignore the doctrine and many priests will at least tacitly encourage ignoring it as well rather than drive away a convert.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Based on your reasoning, the use of contraceptives shouldn’t be used if the mom will die if she becomes pregnant. Why? Because Birth Control is less effective than NFP if done always right. There is a higher chance of becoming pregnant by using contraceptives.

I never advocated a particular form of contraception. Each individual situation needs to be evaluated and decided in consultation with a medical doctor and a spiritual counselor, as I have repeated ad nauseum numerous times.

Your suggestions that a priest can licitly “sanction” contraception is outrageous. Your suggestion that the act is not contraception but “self-defence” or similar is fantasy, and has no support in moral theology or the expression of the doctrine on contraception.

Canon law does not operate in a vacuum. This is why we have canon lawyers, ecclesiastical courts, and priests. We also have highly specialized medical doctors that consult patients in these matters utilizing the most recent advances in science.

For any individual facing a serious life-threatening situation, consultation for their own unique individual circumstances must be done with the proper counsel, medical and spiritual.

There is a vast and considerable difference between a healthy mother that perpetuates contraception to avoid pregnancy for her own whims and pleasure, and an unhealthy mother that needs to use contraception to avoid pregnancy because her very life is at risk. The two scenarios are not even remotely comparable. To equate the two as the same is to apply canon law in broad, sweeping generalizations without taking into account highly unique and particular circumstances.

Taking a high-handed, condescending, irascible attitude towards mothers in these very difficult decisions and circumstances is neither charitable nor helpful (let alone Catholic), which is why I have repeatedly advised wise counsel - and compassion.

Would you suggest that parents consult a priest to enquire whether an abortion might be appropriate in some special and threatening circumstance?

Off-topic. I made no comments as to abortion.

 

[Rau]

On Contraception, Pope Paul VI writes:

*“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).*Using condoms or the pill or similar to prevent a pregnancy, motivated by the good intention of avoiding the medical consequences of pregnancy, is using contraception “as a means”. It is explicitly rejected.

Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, March 1, 1997, writes in the document “Vademecum for Confessors: Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life,” #4, [advice to Priests hearing confessions]

*“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.” *On Intrisic Evils, Pope St John Paul II writes:

*“The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior 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. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” [Veritatis Splendor 67]. *

There is no doubt that the teaching contraception is most difficult for those who are gravely concerned at the risk attached to pregnancy, and for many others. It may require the kind of struggle that those who have suffered a disability of some kind must endure. Or the spouses of those must endure. The difficulty a couple faces when the husband has suffered impotence (eg. as a consequence of prostate surgery), or the husband of a seriously ill or incapacitated woman faces (not to mention the wife herself). But it is wrong to suggest that there is a loophole in connection with ‘contracepted’ conjugal relations, and that a priest can point it out. By all means, people should take their difficult struggles to their priest, but it is wrong to suggest that they will find there a more “palatable” moral norm that that which the Church herself teaches.

 

[Rau]

A priest can’t licitly offer this advice…

It is good that you know that.

When I was struggling with coming back to the Church, this was one of the sticking points for me as well.

Is pregnancy life-threatening for you?

I talked with various priests about it, and while some took the orthodox line, I would say the most common response was more of a “You know I have to say this, but , no one follows this teaching” and a few were more explicit than that.

Clearly, we can’t know whether this properly reflects what was said. We can, however, know the truth of your first sentence above.

… many priests will at least tacitly encourage ignoring it as well rather than drive away a convert.

Rather than lead people astray, a priest is more likely to ask the individual to pray for God’s strength and guidance, and to commit themselves to try to live by Church teaching.

 

[underacloud]

Your suggestions that a priest can licitly “sanction” contraception is outrageous. Your suggestion that the act is not contraception but “self-defence” or similar is fantasy, and has no support in moral theology or the expression of the doctrine on contraception.

Yes.

Let’s be very careful here - to encourage someone to contracept by seeking a priest who will “sanction” it for that couple is to encourage something that the Church has spoken clearly against as intrinsically evil (ie always evil). To encourage such sin is scandalous (in the moral sense of the word).

Let’s show compasion. Let’s help each other cary our crosses. But let’s not lead each other to sin.

 

[Listener]

There’s nothing like scaring someone away from the Church before she even joins!

“Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven. Whose sins you shall retain they are retained.”

To whom did Jesus say that?

Apparently, priests have no idea what they’re doing, and people on these forums are the infallible experts!

If you can’t trust a priest, then why speak to a priest about anything?

 

[underacloud]

There’s a world of difference between forgiving any given sin after the fact and sanctioning any given sin before the fact.

Priest have been given authroity by God and the Church to absolve sins. Priest have not been given authority to sanction or approve sins planned for the future. (and in fact, planning to commit a given sin is grounds for withholding absolution for past occurances of that sin).