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

[StGerardMajella]

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”?

Actually, in this particular case, the couple is actively utilizing NFP to protect themselves from a pregnancy, not contraception. For strictly medical purposes, contraception is only a secondary safeguard in the (allegedly) extremely rare and unusual event that NFP should somehow fail.

If we believe you, and others on this thread, NFP is highly effective in preventing pregnancy. If so, there should be no worries about utilizing some form of contraception as a secondary safeguard. After all, NFP will prevent the pregnancy, not the contraception.

Or are you now suggesting a hysterectomy as a potential solution, or a vasectomy as you mentioned earlier?

The wife is, for all intents and purposes, unable to procreate. There is no opportunity here for more children, even if she wanted them.

Are you now stating that NFP is no longer efficacious? Is it effective in preventing pregnancy in this case, or not?

The medical opinions expressed by some on this thread indicate that NFP is far too risky under these circumstances.

Let’s go ahead and ignore the doctor’s advice for a moment, and take your advice to its logical conclusion: The couple decides to both abstain and also utilize NFP when necessary.

What exactly are you proposing that the wife does if she gets pregnant and faces certain death?
Should she abort?
Should she face her certain death, instead?
How do you propose to handle the single father’s plight then?
What about the children who have now lost their mother?
How will this decision then impact the average family, who will most certainly be faced with bankruptcy, home foreclosure, and other economic devastation?
As she sits on her deathbed, do you want to be the one to explain your “advice” to her parents? How about her siblings and close friends? How about her spouse and children?

And please don’t tell me she should engage in abstinence for the next 50 years of her life. You and I both know that isn’t going to happen for 95% or more of all Catholic women in the West under these circumstances.

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.

Why exactly would it be scandalous for a man to want to be intimate with his wife?

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.

See above. The wife practices NFP to avoid certain death. Contraception being used only as a secondary safeguard in case NFP should presumably fail, which it should not according to NFP advocates.

 

[Moneyball]

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.

It’s a tough pill to swallow, I completely agree. I don’t even want to imagine a scenario where my wife would be risking her life for having sex, it would be a heavy cross to carry, no doubt. Of course that cross would be lifted the moment she reaches menopause, but it’s still a long time nonetheless.

Nevertheless, the road to a faithful Catholic life can and often does lead to many challenges. Some people have gone through torture, imprisonment, and even death for their Catholic faith… keeping that in mind, temporary abstinence (in the worse case scenario) looks somewhat mild compared to those other things.

 

[Listener]

StGerardMajella does have a good point about it being very strange that it would be okay to take birth control pills for your acne but not okay to take them if a pregnancy is going to kill you. I sometimes wish that Pope Francis would expand the definition of a medical reason to include a uterus that is dangerous for a baby to reside in. If you can remove a malfunctioning uterus that is causing health problems for a woman, why can’t you block access to a uterus that would be dangerous for a child to enter?

It is easy to tell a couple to practice abstinence for the next 30 years, but I can guarantee you that there are plenty of men who wouldn’t put up with that. They would demand their marital rights. Where does that leave the wife? Very ill or possibly dead.

Jesus said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

How are you going to be two in one flesh if you are abstaining for 30 years?

No one knows how happy I am to be much too old to have to worry about that stuff any more.

 

[Rau]

StGerardMajella does have a good point about it being very strange that it would be okay to take birth control pills for your acne but not okay to take them if a pregnancy is going to kill you.

It’s only a valid point if you believe the moral ill resides in swallowing the pill! What wrong do you think resides in taking a medication that directly treats acne? One may in fact be single at the time - but in any event, one is not seeking to separate the meanings of conjugal relations.

They [husbands] would demand their marital rights. Where does that leave the wife? Very ill or possibly dead.

Is that your view of husbands in general, or just those with a selfish or violent bent? The woman surely cannot stay with a man who would treat her in that way, force himself on her in that way.

Jesus said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

How are you going to be two in one flesh if you are abstaining for 30 years?

Circumstances change. Illness may also prevent conjugal relations. You may as well ask your question in this circumstance too. “Now that my husband is impotent - what are we to do?”

 

[Moneyball]

It is easy to tell a couple to practice abstinence for the next 30 years, but I can guarantee you that there are plenty of men who wouldn’t put up with that. They would demand their marital rights. Where does that leave the wife? Very ill or possibly dead.

Again, the ends do not justify the means. That fact that we can forsee terrible consequences coming from these tough situations does not justify morally unjustifiable acts.

Jesus said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

How are you going to be two in one flesh if you are abstaining for 30 years?

The consommation of marriage (the marital act) takes care of that. It’s impossible to go from two flesh to one flesh, then back to two flesh.

 

[Moneyball]

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.

Yeah, this argument cuts through like a knife. I have a friend who knows a guy who was using a condom, and she was on the pill and she still got pregnant.

 

[Rau]

Actually, in this particular case, the couple is actively utilizing NFP to protect themselves from a pregnancy, not contraception. For strictly medical purposes, contraception is only a secondary safeguard in the (allegedly) extremely rare and unusual event that NFP should somehow fail.

Limiting sex, and contraception, are two means to the same end - avoiding pregnancy. One is a moral means, and the other immoral.

If we believe you, and others on this thread, NFP is highly effective in preventing pregnancy. If so, there should be no worries about utilizing some form of contraception as a secondary safeguard. After all, NFP will prevent the pregnancy, not the contraception.

I’ve not addressed the question of effectiveness, but it is the “means”, not its effectiveness, that determines morality. Others have remarked that the commonplace measures are not wholly effective. The person using contraception can’t deny why they are using it. It brings no health benefit itself.

Or are you now suggesting a hysterectomy as a potential solution, or a vasectomy as you mentioned earlier?

Clearly not. I mentioned these are among the most effective means of avoiding a pregnancy while continuing conjugal relations. But the degree to which the risk of pregnancy is eliminated is not the measure of legitimacy of the act. It’s the moral nature of the act that matters.

The medical opinions expressed by some on this thread indicate that NFP is far too risky under these circumstances.

You indicated that pregnancy = death. You appeared to be setting up a scenario where pregnancy must not occur. Now, there are a few immoral means to achieve that (eg. surgical), and only 1 moral means.

Let’s go ahead and ignore the doctor’s advice for a moment, and take your advice to its logical conclusion: The couple decides to both abstain and also utilize NFP when necessary.

NFP is limiting sex, “abstain” is to totally refrain from sex. The doctor’s strong advice is to not get pregnant, and he can offer suggestions on how to achieve that, and he can discuss effectiveness. Some of his suggestions will be moral, some immoral.

What exactly are you proposing that the wife does if she gets pregnant and faces certain death?

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. My suggestion is that she avoids pregnancy by moral means, so as not to place herself and her family in such a predicament. That may require abstinence till menopause. * If a woman is not free to become pregnant, if she desires to not become pregnant, if she must not become pregnant, she ought not to be having sex.*

Should she abort?
Should she face her certain death, instead?
How do you propose to handle the single father’s plight then?
What about the children who have now lost their mother?
How will this decision then impact the average family, who will most certainly be faced with bankruptcy, home foreclosure, and other economic devastation?
As she sits on her deathbed, do you want to be the one to explain your “advice” to her parents? How about her siblings and close friends? How about her spouse and children?

My advice was “don’t have sex”. It was good advice as the predicament you propose above confirms. I believe the Consequentialist would argue that abortion would be justified in this scenario, given abortion ends one life, but you theorise that another course produces a worse outcome . However, the Church teaches that abortion is moral evil, and cannot be pursued for any reason. Given your thought processes here are straight out of the Consequentialists’ moral guidebook, your answer may be more instructive. Would it be right for the woman to abort?

And please don’t tell me she should engage in abstinence for the next 50 years of her life. You and I both know that isn’t going to happen for 95% or more of all Catholic women in the West under these circumstances.

I won’t tell you that. But abstinence till menopause (typically till about age 51) would certainly eliminate the risks she seeks to avoid. If a woman is not free to become pregnant, if she desires to not become pregnant, if she must not become pregnant, she ought not to be having sex. What happens in practice is not the measure of what is moral.

Why exactly would it be scandalous for a man to want to be intimate with his wife?

The scandal would be to compel the wife.

 

[MonteCristo]

StGerardMajella does have a good point about it being very strange that it would be okay to take birth control pills for your acne but not okay to take them if a pregnancy is going to kill you?.

The point is that the Catholic Church explicitly prohibits artificial contraception for the purpose of contraception.

 

[StGerardMajella]

The point is that the Catholic Church explicitly prohibits artificial contraception for the purpose of contraception.

The Church permits NFP. Let we forget, Christ had a few choice words to say to the teachers of religious law in his time:

“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.” Matthew 23:4.

"Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.” Luke 11:46.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.” Matthew 23:13.

Then read Matthew 23: 23-25. Christ pretty much unleashes his anger on the Pharisees at that point.

My point in citing these verses is not to condemn Church teaching, but to emphasize that we need to be very, very careful about using religious law to condemn others, especially converts. We should not be weighing down potential converts with difficult burdens.

These matters are fairly complex, and compassion is in order, not condemnation. These matters are best left to competent doctors and priests to sort through the details and make recommendations.

We need more converts. Let’s try to be a little more welcoming to potential converts and not lose sight of priorities.

You indicated that pregnancy = death. You appeared to be setting up a scenario where pregnancy must not occur. Now, there are a few immoral means to achieve that (eg. surgical), and only 1 moral means.

I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe the Church permits a tubal ligation for either the man or the women for the purposes of preventing pregnancy either. Maybe someone on this thread can clarify.

Some of his suggestions will be moral, some immoral.

If the couple is utilizing NFP to prevent pregnancy as described in this case, then the additional use of a contraceptive method is moot.

NFP will mean that no embryo is destroyed. Contraceptive effects as a secondary emergency back-stop in case of error would be mathematically negligible.

My advice was “don’t have sex”…Would it be right for the woman to abort?

Abortion is a separate topic. Abortion should be avoided at all cost.

That fact that we can forsee terrible consequences coming from these tough situations does not justify morally unjustifiable acts.

What exactly is immoral about practicing NFP in this case, while also having an emergency back-stop in case of human error?

Because there might be 1 chance in a million that the secondary back-stop would “act as a contraceptive” and prevent a pregnancy if NFP fails? Really?

Who exactly gets hurt in that situation? No one. But, you just might be saving the life of the mother, and preventing her death and all that goes with it.

StGerardMajella does have a good point about it being very strange that it would be okay to take birth control pills for your acne but not okay to take them if a pregnancy is going to kill you.

Yep.

 

[Rau]

The Church permits NFP…

What exactly is immoral about practicing NFP in this case, while also having an emergency back-stop in case of human error?

NFP - periodically refraining from conjugal relations - is not immoral at all. If the emergency back-stop you speak of is contraception, the Church teaches that is immoral.

Of course, if one is not ovulating (due to the pill) NFP may be impossible to practice. Perhaps you mean NFP + condoms? The Church teaches that all conjugal acts must be respected, not just those at fertile times. Donning the condom is to act to remove the procreative aspect from conjugal relations - the very thing rejected by the Church.

Please remember the Church speaks for Jesus in the world today. Jesus: “Whatever you loose on earth will be considered loosed in heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be considered bound in heaven”.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.)

 

[E_7]

Actually, in this particular case, the couple is actively utilizing NFP to protect themselves from a pregnancy, not contraception. For strictly medical purposes, contraception is only a secondary safeguard in the (allegedly) extremely rare and unusual event that NFP should somehow fail.

See above. The wife practices NFP to avoid certain death. Contraception being used only as a secondary safeguard in case NFP should presumably fail, which it should not according to NFP advocates.

In her case, it’s not medical purpose, in my opinion. I believe that a medical purpose is a purpose that has to do with a condition other than avoid pregnancy. She is not excused.

Even as a “secondary safeguard”, using contraception to avoid pregnancy is living a state of mortal sin and living without being able to receive the Holy Eucharist. Their only option, in her particular case, is absolute abstinence. Why not??? Out of fear of the husband leaving? Please.

 

[MonteCristo]

“The Church permits NFP.”

Hence why I said artificial contraception.

The difference between artificial contraception (I.e. Birth control) and NFP is that with birth control, the couple is preventing a pregnancy unnaturally. With NFP there would never have been a pregnancy, not because the couple barred it, but because the female is simply unable to conceive at that time.

With birth control, conception is stopped by a medication (or however the couple decides.)

With NFP, there is no conception, due to nature. There is no barring of any sort; the conception is simply not possible.

 

[E_7]

“The Church permits NFP.”

Hence why I said artificial contraception.

The difference between artificial contraception (I.e. Birth control) and NFP is that with birth control, the couple is preventing a pregnancy unnaturally. With NFP there would never have been a pregnancy, not because the couple barred it, but because the female is simply unable to conceive at that time.

With birth control, conception is stopped by a medication (or however the couple decides.)

With NFP, there is no conception, due to nature. There is no barring of any sort; the conception is simply not possible.

And also the spouse using contraceptives is rejecting the wholeness and totality of his/her spouse, rejecting the capabilities of conception and resulting in lust.

 

[Moneyball]

What exactly is immoral about practicing NFP in this case, while also having an emergency back-stop in case of human error?

Because there might be 1 chance in a million that the secondary back-stop would “act as a contraceptive” and prevent a pregnancy if NFP fails? Really?

Who exactly gets hurt in that situation? No one. But, you just might be saving the life of the mother, and preventing her death and all that goes with it.

Consequentialism is fundamentally incompatible with Catholic moral reasoning. The contraceptive act is inherently and intrinsically evil, which means it can never be morally justified… ever.

 

[TabbyLilac]

The consommation of marriage (the marital act) takes care of that. It’s impossible to go from two flesh to one flesh, then back to two flesh.

Hello there, I am the OP (regrettably). Since I’m the one that had the original question, I would like to point out that we are not yet married but are CONSIDERING converting to Catholicism and marrying. But if our only option then is abstinence, there is no reason for us to get married, right? Because the marriage could never be consummated and isn’t that part of the covenant of marriage? Despite the fact that we have children and getting married is in their best interest as well, our marriage would never actually be valid in the eyes of the Church if it couldn’t be consummated. Nevertheless, I just wanted to point out how far off track from answering my original post you have gotten. Not even addressing the most basic issue which is that we are not married yet even. It doesn’t matter though, as I am no longer searching for answers here.

I’ve learned my lesson and, I realize that despite my original intentions of meeting other Catholics and asking some questions, this is not the place for that. A public anonymous forum is never going to be anything other than a place where people can be hurtful and nasty to each other because they can hide behind the anonymity of their computer (and pretend that THEY don’t sin and never have). I walked away from this long ago because it began to make me question my calling to Catholicism… it was discouraging to listen to discussions and then arguments that included put-downs and name-calling between people who are so passionate about following the letter of the law of the Church but who, first and foremost, are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ and love each other according to Jesus himself. I don’t see any love, kindness, or compassion in most of these posts and I won’t continue reading beyond the quote I responded to above… But I read the following in my bible yesterday and it caused me to want to check in and share in case this unhelpful and unloving thread is still happening.

2 Timothy 2:24 it says “A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness.”

GENTLE. TOLERANT. CORRECTING OPPONENTS WITH KINDNESS.

I think everyone that is so wrapped up in snipping and hurling insults back and forth should consider that the true spirit of love in Christ has been lost here. Nothing can be gained by continuing any of this. Those of you who disagree are NOT going to change each other’s minds. And I’m guessing any potential converts like myself have walked away from it long ago and instead stuck to reading their Catholic bible, CCC, USCC for Adults, and talking with their priest.

I hope you can all let this go. I’m very sorry that my post has caused all this hatred and vitriol to be thrown between good Catholic people who love God and love their faith and their Church. I may be new here and new to Catholicism, but I’m definitely not new at life, and I hope you all can see that this thread is no longer doing anything but harm. God Bless.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hi TabbyLilac,

I guess that this Saturday won’t be the day you convert.

Please know that I will keep you in my prayers as you discern your conversion. I did have a similar experience about reverting, contraception was the last thing that I needed to give up and it was very frightening.

God is patient. I know he was patient with me, I had not practiced my faith for about 20 years.

Have a Blessed Easter.

 

[jmjZelie]

Hi TabbyLilac,

I was very glad to see your post and to see the confidence and persistence you have in this process of discernment. And the reminder about what a disciple should be like was welcome.

To answer your question, if you and your boyfriend were to want to marry while protecting your health and being obedient to the teachings of the Church so that you can be brought into full communion, you actually do have a couple options.

Both options would be a valid, sacramental marriage.

1- you could marry in the Church and learn about the most conservative models of NFP, and practice the one that best suits you. This would involve waiting each cycle until after ovulation has been confirmed, and using only those days for marital relations. If would restrict the number of days you may express your love in that way, but you would still have some days post-ovulation prior to your menstrual period. Some women use monitors for this, and some women, in the most serious cases, go the doctor to double check with a blood test. I have never used this method but I have read about it on NFP forums. There are women on this forum as well who have avoided pregnancy for many years using the most cautious methods. You could learn about comparative failure rates of your current birth control and the various methods. Since this marriage would be consummated, it would be indissoluble, as well as sacramental and valid.

2- or if that is still not sure enough, but you decide to marry for the sake of your children and for the love you already share with your boyfriend, but decide to abstain entirely for the sake of your health, until menopause or until your health situation changes or medical treatment improves, this would also be valid and sacramental. It would not be indissoluble, however, unless you decided to consummate the marriage at some point, in which case, it would become indissoluble. This path would be more challenging, in my opinion, and would require competent spiritual direction.

There may be several other options that I am unaware of, too, for you and your boyfriend to discuss and consider. This is why I stressed talking to a priest. You have no reason to assume that due to your serious health problems that you would be barred from marrying the father of your children in a valid, sacramental marriage. And there are several conservative NFP protocols that are worth your research.

But I think right now, you are doing the right thing. Sticking with the Bible and the Catechism and speaking to kind Catholics face to face and with your priest, those are all very prudent. It is important to protect your heart right now and keep your fledgling faith guarded from anything that would steal your peace and joy.

You remain in my thoughts and in my prayers, TabbyLilac!

 

[Moneyball]

Hello there, I am the OP (regrettably). Since I’m the one that had the original question, I would like to point out that we are not yet married but are CONSIDERING converting to Catholicism and marrying. But if our only option then is abstinence, there is no reason for us to get married, right? Because the marriage could never be consummated and isn’t that part of the covenant of marriage? Despite the fact that we have children and getting married is in their best interest as well, our marriage would never actually be valid in the eyes of the Church if it couldn’t be consummated. Nevertheless, I just wanted to point out how far off track from answering my original post you have gotten. Not even addressing the most basic issue which is that we are not married yet even. It doesn’t matter though, as I am no longer searching for answers here.

I’ve learned my lesson and, I realize that despite my original intentions of meeting other Catholics and asking some questions, this is not the place for that. A public anonymous forum is never going to be anything other than a place where people can be hurtful and nasty to each other because they can hide behind the anonymity of their computer (and pretend that THEY don’t sin and never have). I walked away from this long ago because it began to make me question my calling to Catholicism… it was discouraging to listen to discussions and then arguments that included put-downs and name-calling between people who are so passionate about following the letter of the law of the Church but who, first and foremost, are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ and love each other according to Jesus himself. I don’t see any love, kindness, or compassion in most of these posts and I won’t continue reading beyond the quote I responded to above… But I read the following in my bible yesterday and it caused me to want to check in and share in case this unhelpful and unloving thread is still happening.

2 Timothy 2:24 it says “A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness.”

GENTLE. TOLERANT. CORRECTING OPPONENTS WITH KINDNESS.

I think everyone that is so wrapped up in snipping and hurling insults back and forth should consider that the true spirit of love in Christ has been lost here. Nothing can be gained by continuing any of this. Those of you who disagree are NOT going to change each other’s minds. And I’m guessing any potential converts like myself have walked away from it long ago and instead stuck to reading their Catholic bible, CCC, USCC for Adults, and talking with their priest.

I hope you can all let this go. I’m very sorry that my post has caused all this hatred and vitriol to be thrown between good Catholic people who love God and love their faith and their Church. I may be new here and new to Catholicism, but I’m definitely not new at life, and I hope you all can see that this thread is no longer doing anything but harm. God Bless.

I agree with you that this discussion has gone off topic and that little good can come from continuing this debate. The comment you quoted was an attempt from me to respond to someone else’s question about abstinence and marriage. I figured since he/she brought it up that I’d give my take on it. I apologize if you think that was inappropriate.

I also agree with you that name calling and personal insults have no place in evangelization, even if we sometimes fail to meet that standard. I hope that you weren’t accusing me of such things, I don’t recall ever posting any comment in these forums that included personal insults, much less hatred and vitriol.

I’d like to finish with a personal testimony… although raised Catholic, I myself didn’t believe in God a few years ago, and my wife (cohabiting girlfriend at the time) was an atheist. Slowly but surely we eventually became non-denominational Christians, but were nowhere near living a Catholic lifestyle. My wife entered the Church just three years ago (on the day tomorrow actually) and even then we weren’t completely converted. Of all the social teachings we struggled with, like you, contraception was the most difficult to accept. We had made the decision to join and participate in the Church all the while doubting/rejecting certain social doctrines. I’m not saying this as a good thing, but it is the path we took nonetheless.

You see I’ve made mistakes in my life, plenty of them actually. I’ve never pretended to be anything that I’m not. I think it is important for people to understand what and why the Church teaches what she does… it is actually the first of seven spiritual acts of mercy to instruct the ignorant. In my journey, and in my own ignorance, I have greatly benefited from those who told me truth about the Church’s teachings… I wouldn’t want you or anyone else to make their decision to join the Church based on misleading or false information.

I’m sorry you didn’t get the counselling you were hoping for in these forums, I myself am fairly new here. If my comments were off putting please know that that was certainly not my intention… it’s not easy to be charming in a back and forth debate style interaction, especially not when English is also not my native language. Regardless, I pray that you get the counselling that you deserve.

Oh, and in my honest opinion, becoming Catholic truly is a wonderful thing despite its challenges… my wife and I have no regrets. I wish you the best, and God bless!

 

[StGerardMajella]

I would like to point out that we are not yet married but are CONSIDERING converting to Catholicism and marrying. But if our only option then is abstinence, there is no reason for us to get married, right?

The Church accepts everyone as potential converts. You are, most emphatically, welcomed as a convert, as is your future husband. Please don’t allow the vicious legalists on this thread attempt to dissuade you from your path to joining the Church.

As you can see from this thread, matters regarding marriage and children are highly volatile topics with wide-ranging (name removed by moderator)ut. I have done my best in this thread to advocate for the convert, and to shut down the unwavering legalism that clearly hurts the Church’s efforts at winning converts.

I could not agree with you more. Time and time again, we see the legalists do everything within their power to stop converts from entering the Church, holding their hat on obscure theological “rules” to obstruct converts at every turn. We are all sinners, and the hypocrisy of these high-handed efforts to detract converts is very much against the spirit of Christian charity, and against the wishes of Christ, who was a compassionate, loving Savior who welcomed everyone to His Church.

The Church desperately needs good people like yourself. As we read the latest news in our public sphere, Christianity is clearly under vicious attack from all angles. Unfortunately, we still have narrow-minded legalists that will do everything within their power to stop converts from entering the Church.

Best wishes and prayers to you and your future husband.

 

[jmjZelie]

The Church accepts everyone as potential converts. You are, most emphatically, welcomed as a convert, as is your future husband. Please don’t allow the vicious legalists on this thread attempt to dissuade you from your path to joining the Church.

As you can see from this thread, matters regarding marriage and children are highly volatile topics with wide-ranging (name removed by moderator)ut. I have done my best in this thread to advocate for the convert, and to shut down the unwavering legalism that clearly hurts the Church’s efforts at winning converts.

I could not agree with you more. Time and time again, we see the legalists do everything within their power to stop converts from entering the Church, holding their hat on obscure theological “rules” to obstruct converts at every turn. We are all sinners, and the hypocrisy of these high-handed efforts to detract converts is very much against the spirit of Christian charity, and against the wishes of Christ, who was a compassionate, loving Savior who welcomed everyone to His Church.

The Church desperately needs good people like yourself. As we read the latest news in our public sphere, Christianity is clearly under vicious attack from all angles. Unfortunately, we still have narrow-minded legalists that will do everything within their power to stop converts from entering the Church.

Best wishes and prayers to you and your future husband.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop the name-calling, StGerardMajella. Calling people vicious and narrow-minded and legalists is uncharitable and divisive. It doesn’t help TabbyLilac or any other reader of the forum to see that kind of anger. Please recall the example of your forum patron saint, who was a model of charity and preferred to remain silent in the face of unjust accusations rather than reveal the faults of others.
Neither would he unjustly accuse others of things such as you have done here: of trying to stop and dissuade converts. It breaks my heart to see these kind of accusations. Many of us here are converts ourselves, and are regularly praying for converts or helping out in catechesis or RCIA in our parishes.
I hope you have a holy Triduum and a joyful Easter.