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

[underacloud]

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.

Not only that, but she’s now flipped from arguing that the Church teaching against contraception is not so black and white to attacking it for the very teaching she previously insisted didn’t exist.

It’s also interesting - or perhaps just strange - that in her scenario the Church is the villain, not the husband.

 

[agapewolf]

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.

Completely leaving out the fact that contraception is wrong because it IS HARMFUL to us. its not an arbitrary rule-- its there out of love.

so the scenario of using contraception…also leads to divorce, or if not that, spiritual slavery and warfare, could lead to serious disruption in the relationship, instability, etc.

the fact that a couple using NFP VERY sporadically and carefully, with God’s help and grace, and grow in virtue and love for each other because they aren’t using each other but respect each other all the more-- never made an appearance in your scenarios.

 

[Patavium]

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.

Unfortunately, this is what the World has done for the view of many Catholics. This is what the World teaches: “Husband MUST have sex with Wife even if she could die from it. It simply doesn’t matter at all”. The protection can fail, The pill can fail, any method CAN fail with NONZERO probability, except for abstinence. The only method with guaranteed ZERO probability of never failing.

For practical matters, Husband and Wife with help from God (many prayers, visits to the sacrament, etc…) should weigh the risks together and make decisions fully aware of these risks.

 

[E_7]

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.

Option #4 does not beat death from pregnancy because the birth control methods are not 100% effective. Believe what you want, dicieve yourself however you want, but the fact is that birth control or contraceptives are not 100% effective. The woman in case is still at risk of getting pregnant and die while using contraceptives. Don’t you understand?

Now tell me, if a husband becomes impotent all of a sudden after years of marriage with his wife, will the wife leave the husband just because he can’t get it up? If she does, their marriage was built on sand. Same goes for the case of the certain death of a woman if she gets pregnant, if the husband divorce her and doesn’t agree to abstain for her sake, then he doesn’t love her and sees her like an object of self-gratification. If he leaves, he is in the wrong, not her. Salvation is alone. A spouse can be the instrument of God or the devil, but in the end, you will be accountable for your own sins, not the sins of the other.

 

[Rau]

Option #4 does not beat death from pregnancy because the birth control methods are not 100% effective. Believe what you want, dicieve yourself however you want, but the fact is that birth control or contraceptives are not 100% effective. The woman in case is still at risk of getting pregnant and die while using contraceptives.

While this is correct, it is not the key issue in the discussion. Certainly a means can be found to ensure sexual relations without risk of pregnancy are possible - a hysterectomy (despite no disease to be treated), a vasectomy, etc. can produce the desired certainty.

Now tell me, if a husband becomes impotent all of a sudden after years of marriage with his wife, will the wife leave the husband just because he can’t get it up? If she does, their marriage was built on sand. Same goes for the case of the certain death of a woman if she gets pregnant…

It is very hard for us to accept that sometimes, bad things happen to us and despite man’s technology and inventiveness, the most convenient solutions - or the solutions seeming to offer the best outcomes - may not be moral solutions. Consider the permanently infertile couple. The rape victim who finds herself pregnant. The couple who are carriers of a serious condition such as Tay Sachs. Those living in the midst of serious infectious diseases such as Zika. The HIV carrier. The person who experiences same sex attraction. The moral law forbids: IVF, surrogacy, abortion, contraception and sexual relations outside of marriage - though these “solutions” may appear to be very attractive to persons facing difficult circumstances.

 

[Patavium]

Rau,

Vasectomies can fail.

I just wanted to add that.

God bless!

 

[rusty20]

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

…]

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 like how your response seemed to ignore one of my primary points:

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?

Authentic love dictates sacrifice. If I insist on risking my wife’s life for sexual pleasure, I am not doing the will of God.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’m trying to get back into being Catholic and I still struggle with the whole “No Contraception” and “No Sex before marriage” rules of the Catholic Church.

I am not getting married any time soon to my boyfriend, which I have been in a relationship with for 5 years already.
The whole “No Sex before marriage” would not work due to the natural flow of love between my boyfriend and I.

I don’t want a child either, so condoms work pretty well in that regard.

I try to be a good Catholic in every other area though.

But Catholics can’t pick and choose from the Catholic faith what they are going follow and what they are not. Catholics are not allowed to not follow X and Y in regards to sexual morality but follow the rest of the faith and be in good standing with the Church.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Option #4 does not beat death from pregnancy because the birth control methods are not 100% effective. Believe what you want, dicieve yourself however you want, but the fact is that birth control or contraceptives are not 100% effective. The woman in case is still at risk of getting pregnant and die while using contraceptives. Don’t you understand?

First, it’s a parody. So, let’s take a breather.

Secondly, if NFP is as foolproof and effective as described, then the use of contraception is moot.

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

Close, but not entirely accurate. The Church allows contraception for medical purposes as long as the contraception isn’t purposely utilized to prevent pregnancy, such as using contraception to treat, say acne.

Which leads to the question: So, it is fine to use contraception to prevent acne, but not to prevent death? (Say what?)

Interesting concept to say the least, and not all that logical. (“But that’s completely different, and treating acne isn’t the same as…”. We get it already. You don’t have to explain.)

Let’s not forget that we are all sinners. Christ had a few choice words to say about this concept, and about the rampant hypocrisy among the Pharisees.

Interestingly, some of the holiest men in the Jewish faith have a completely different interpretation of contraception, primarily centered around protecting the life of the mother. They don’t seem to have any guilt in the matter, either.

Certainly a means can be found to ensure sexual relations without risk of pregnancy are possible - a hysterectomy (despite no disease to be treated), a vasectomy, etc. can produce the desired certainty.

The Church permits vasectomies? I missed that memo.

It’s also interesting - or perhaps just strange - that in her scenario the Church is the villain, not the husband.

I didn’t detect a villain in the parody. Let’s not read too much into it.

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.

 

[Rau]

…Close, but not entirely accurate. The Church allows contraception for medical purposes as long as the contraception isn’t purposely utilized to prevent pregnancy, such as using contraception to treat, say acne.

Not quite. The “drug” you call contraception here needs to be distinguished from the moral act. The Church allows medical treatments (obviously) and it is a fact that some treatments produce a contraceptive effect. But that is not the moral object of the act - it is an undesired side-effect.

Which leads to the question: So, it is fine to use contraception to prevent acne, but not to prevent death? (Say what?)

Way off base. The act of contraception has the direct effect of thwarting the procreative aspect of conjugal relations, which in itself is not a health benefit. Avoiding pregnancy itself is entirely licit, and there are moral ways to do that. You have indicated a preference for an immoral means.

Interestingly, some of the holiest men in the Jewish faith have a completely different interpretation of contraception, primarily centered around protecting the life of the mother.

I thought you called yourself a “Traditional Catholic”?

 

[StGerardMajella]

Way off base. The act of contraception has the direct effect of thwarting the procreative aspect of conjugal relations, which in itself is not a health benefit. Avoiding pregnancy itself is entirely licit, and there are moral ways to do that. You have indicated a preference for an immoral means.

And exactly what mechanism are you advocating besides NFP and abstinence? I am all ears.

NFP and abstinence aren’t acceptable answers for 95% of the Catholic population in a life versus death scenario. (And condemning them to eternal hell fire isn’t exactly helpful.)

We all agree that contraception should not be used as a whim or fancy. We get it. I am talking about only those cases where death is inevitable due to medical complications from a potential pregnancy.

The only answers I hear are NFP (death sentence), and abstinence (unlikely and intolerable). Oh, and that you can use contraception to prevent acne – but not to prevent certain death. Because we really have to stop acne at all costs.

That’s your answer…which really…isn’t…an answer.

I thought you called yourself a “Traditional Catholic”?

I am overwhelmed by the joy and love you share. Thank you for your compassion!

Not quite. The “drug” you call contraception here needs to be distinguished from the moral act. The Church allows medical treatments (obviously) and it is a fact that some treatments produce a contraceptive effect. But that is not the moral object of the act - it is an undesired side-effect.

Convoluted logic. You can use contraception to prevent acne, but not to prevent certain death. Now there’s a twister!

thwarting the procreative aspect of conjugal relations,

They can’t have any more children, mon frere. Procreation would lead to certain death in this case. Having more kids isn’t even an option.

 

[Moneyball]

Convoluted logic. You can use contraception to prevent acne, but not to prevent certain death. Now there’s a twister!

If the medicine in question directly treats the illness, but has an unwanted and unavoidable side effect (sterilization), it may still be administered… this includes life threatening illnesses. It is perfectly logical, philosophers call this the principle of double effect.

 

[Rau]

And exactly what mechanism are you advocating besides NFP and abstinence?.

Are you dropping the pretence of claiming that Church teaching permits contracepting conjugal relations and simply rejecting the teaching entirely, or do you claim it only applies to contraception as a “whim or fancy”. Has the Church ever written a single word to suggest that the moral evil only arises when the couple lack a good enough motivation? Or does that idea simply mark the extent of your acceptance of what is taught?

Where do you see reference to a lack of good reason in the following:

"…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).

Note that “as a means” does not limit the Intention in mind to “whim or fancy”. It’s unqualified - meaning “as a means to achieve anything”. That the meaning of intrinsically evil"!

It would be a more honest discussion (and have naturally ended pages ago) if you simply declared a view the Church is wrong, rather than to seek to misrepresent her.

 

[Rau]

If the medicine in question directly treats the illness, but has an unwanted and unavoidable side effect (sterilization), it may still be administered… this includes life threatening illnesses. It is perfectly logical, philosophers call this the principle of double effect.

A hysterectomy is the clearest example. Done as a medical requirement to eliminate disease or similar, it is good. The sterilisation is a (bad) consequence and not the object of the act.

Contracepting conjugal relations treats no illness. It alters the nature of conjugal relations to eliminate the procreative aspect (the “means”, the “object of the act”) potentially for an excellent reason (the “end”). But the Church teaches this means to that (or any other) end is always immoral (moral evil). There are other means to that end - and yes they are very unpalatable and may have bad consequences.

The church holds that one may not do moral evil to achieve a good, or even a great good. That is the meaning of “the end does not justify the means”. For those subscribing to Consequentialism, the ends may indeed justify the means. That is what StGerardMajella is arguing. She is arguing the act ceases to be evil if it delivers better outcomes.

 

[Moneyball]

A hysterectomy is the clearest example. Done as a medical requirement to eliminate disease or similar, it is good. The sterilisation is a (bad) consequence and not the object of the act.

Contracepting conjugal relations treats no illness. It alters the nature of conjugal relations to eliminate the procreative aspect (the “means”, the “object of the act”) potentially for an excellent reason (the “end”). But the Church teaches this means to that (or any other) end is always immoral (moral evil). There are other means to that end - and yes they are very unpalatable and may have bad consequences.

The church holds that one may not do moral evil to achieve a good, or even a great good. That is the meaning of “the end does not justify the means”. For those subscribing to Consequentialism, the ends may indeed justify the means. That is what StGerardMajella is arguing. She is arguing the act ceases to be evil if it delivers better outcomes.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[StGerardMajella]

If the medicine in question directly treats the illness, but has an unwanted and unavoidable side effect (sterilization), it may still be administered… this includes life threatening illnesses. It is perfectly logical, philosophers call this the principle of double effect.

Even though preventing death seems like a pretty good medical reason to take contraception, and a worthwhile objective.

To make matters worse, these same mothers are now restricted from intimacy with their husband, and have to remain celibate the rest of their life. No touching, nothing. Because that path must always be “open to life”, and lead towards procreative efforts.

 

[MonteCristo]

But Catholics can’t pick and choose from the Catholic faith what they are going follow and what they are not. Catholics are not allowed to not follow X and Y in regards to sexual morality but follow the rest of the faith and be in good standing with the Church.

100% agree.

 

[Rau]

Even though preventing death seems like a pretty good medical reason to take contraception, and a worthwhile objective.

To make matters worse, these same mothers are now restricted from intimacy with their husband, and have to remain celibate the rest of their life. No touching, nothing. Because that path must always be “open to life”, and lead towards procreative efforts.

The Church teaches that the procreative and unitive aspects are not to be separated. That does not mean one seeks procreation.

The (contraceptive) act does not prevent death, it aims to enable conjugal relations while preventing pregnancy. Do you see how different that is from “preventing death”? You are wrong to draw no distinction.

The proper health decision for our hypothetical couple is “avoiding pregnancy”. There is a moral option that prevents pregnancy, but it is rejected by you because it has very unpalatable consequences.

 

[E_7]

I still don’t understand how contraceptives are better solution to avoid death if the woman gets pregnant, because she would still be at risk on getting pregnant by using contraceptives. Abstinence, total abstinence should be practiced in her particular case.

A Catholic husband, if Catholic, would not leave his wife just because they need to abstain forever and ever in order to prevent the wife’s certain death if she gets pregnant. The wife shouldn’t live a manipulated state where “oh, if I don’t have sex with my husband, he will leave me…I should at least engage in immoral acts with my husband so he won’t leave me…” . Please. The Catholic husband should be understanding on his wife’s certain death situation and love his wife. Love as the sacrificial act/decision definition. It’s also scandalous to know that a Catholic husband left his wife because he put his sexual desires over her, God and his family. He leaves her and then what? He goes to seek who to have sex with?