another bc question

[kayanne]

I hope I can ask this sincerely, without causing a heated debate! I would like to know if the catholic church ever allows an exception to its prohibition of artificial birth control. Some true, real life examples have me wondering about this.
For example, my sil (catholic) has nearly died in each of her 3 pregnancies. Her heart has nearly failed several times, and she spends much of her pregnancy in the hospital. They now have 4 children (one adopted). Even after her first pregnancy her dr advised her to not become pregnant again, as pregnancy truly threatens her life. They tried to avoid future pregnancies (I don't know any more specifics than that, I just know she called both of the other pregnancies "accidents.")
Would it be possible for her to have her tubes tied (or for her dh to have vasectomy) and it not be considered a sin?
I'm thinking like this: it is a sin to murder someone, but if an intruder breaks into my house and threatens me, I don't think it is a sin to kill the intruder in self-defense. Yes, murder is still a sin, but the *reason* for the killing makes it be not a sin (that's my opinion, and I believe justifiable biblically). So, if the sterilization was for the reason of self-defense (avoiding death from pregnancy complications) could it be acceptable to the catholic church?

Another similiar example, although this deals with abortion rather than ABC. I know a man whose mother died when he was 2. She was pregnant and was diagnosed with cancer. Dr advised her to have an abortion, and begin treatment for the cancer right away. (treatment while pregnant would have killed the unborn baby). The mom would neither abort nor undergo treatment. Baby was born healthy; mom died shortly thereafter. Would it have been a sin to abort and have cancer treatment, or to just have treatment while pregnant knowing it would kill the baby? or do you think the mom was obligated to delay treatment so that her baby would live? The man in this situation (woman's son) says he struggles with this, as he now has a brother he would otherwise not have had; but he grew up without a mother. He believes his mother should have guarded her own health first, so that she could have raised the children she already had.

I'm not really seeking personal opinions on such matters, but just want to know if there is official church teaching that would ever allow for ABC or abortion in such circumstances.

Respectfully, kayanne

 

[InnerPhyre]

I'm not sure as to what the Church would say about this woman having her tubes tied in this case. I do konw that even in such a case, birth control in pill or injection form are still forbidden, as they are abortifacient.

In the second case, the Church will never, under any circumstances, say that an abortion is justified. As for the cancer treatment, if it will kill the baby and the mother has a chance to survive until the baby is delivered, then I think she should not seek the treatment. If without treatment, she will die before the baby has a chance to be born, then it is better to save one life than for them both to die. Both are extremely difficult situations though. I know that if someone had a gun to my head and asked me to choose between my own life and the life of an innocent child, and I chose to let the little one die to save myself, the guilt would never leave me.

 

[cindylou]

Kayanne,
I haven't posted here in awhile (been very busy with 4 children and disabled mother). But I did think this was worth discussing for at least a couple of reasons. Many non-Catholics really just don't understand the Church's teaching on ABC especially under difficult circumstances such as your SIL. I don't have a Catechism handy so I will not quote, but I am certain someone will come along who will. LOL. I am merely discussing with you what I have been taught by parish priests whom I trust and also by what I have learned through my own research and discussions.

I would like to know if the catholic church ever allows an exception to its prohibition of artificial birth control.

No. Natural Family Planning can be used to avoid pregnancy if the circumstances are grave. Artificial Birth Control is never allowed for preventing pregnancy.

For example, my sil (catholic) has nearly died in each of her 3 pregnancies. Her heart has nearly failed several times, and she spends much of her pregnancy in the hospital. They now have 4 children (one adopted). Even after her first pregnancy her dr advised her to not become pregnant again, as pregnancy truly threatens her life.

I am sorry that pregnancy is so difficult and so life threatening.

Would it be possible for her to have her tubes tied (or for her dh to have vasectomy) and it not be considered a sin?

No. Sterilization is a mortal sin. Unfortunately many Catholics have done this not knowing the seriousness of their actions.

I'm thinking like this: it is a sin to murder someone, but if an intruder breaks into my house and threatens me, I don't think it is a sin to kill the intruder in self-defense. Yes, murder is still a sin, but the *reason* for the killing makes it be not a sin (that's my opinion, and I believe justifiable biblically). So, if the sterilization was for the reason of self-defense (avoiding death from pregnancy complications) could it be acceptable to the catholic church?

I am not a scholar by any means, so bear with me. Murder is a grave sin for whatever reason. Although self defense might lessen the seriousness of the sin, it is a sin none the less. A sin does not "stop being" a sin just because we have a "reason" to do or not do it. To attempt to justify sterilization in this way, however is flawed. There are other ways to avoid pregnancy that are not sinful. Sterilization is not the only alternative to a "perilous" situation and the self-defense argument just doesn't hold water.

Another similiar example, although this deals with abortion rather than ABC. I know a man whose mother died when he was 2. She was pregnant and was diagnosed with cancer. Dr advised her to have an abortion, and begin treatment for the cancer right away. (treatment while pregnant would have killed the unborn baby). The mom would neither abort nor undergo treatment. Baby was born healthy; mom died shortly thereafter. Would it have been a sin to abort and have cancer treatment, or to just have treatment while pregnant knowing it would kill the baby? or do you think the mom was obligated to delay treatment so that her baby would live? The man in this situation (woman's son) says he struggles with this, as he now has a brother he would otherwise not have had; but he grew up without a mother. He believes his mother should have guarded her own health first, so that she could have raised the children she already had.

St. Maria Goretti was a Dr. and also had 3 other children in 1960 (I think). She was about 4 months pregnant when she was diagnosed with cancer. She knew saving her life would cost that of her unborn child. She knew giving life to her child would cost her own. She made her husband promise to forgo treatments so that her child could have a chance at life. She had already lived one. So the story of your friend is not unknown, but difficult. These choices can be difficult and many people choose differently. As a mother, I would probably do the same.

I'm not really seeking personal opinions on such matters, but just want to know if there is official church teaching that would ever allow for ABC or abortion in such circumstances.

The official Church teaching is one of selfless sacrifice and love...Artificial Birth Control is destructive to unborn children, young women and marriages. It is never acceptable. Abortion is even more heinous and should not be performed under any circumstance. This may sound incredibly silly and stupid, but the Church holds firm in Her teaching. Their is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. So what about our children? Yes, I would give my life if it meant any one of my precious gifts from God had a chance at a long and healthy life.

Cindy

Respectfully, kayanne[/QUOTE]

 

[Rising_Suns]

Kayanne, peace be with you,

Those are great questions. As IP said, the Church does not condone abortion under any circumstance. Killing a baby is still killing a baby, no matter what the external situation may be.

In regards to the first question, this is a little bit more difficult to answer clearly. I would first advise that the couple speak to a priest, before taking any of our advise, as I'm sure there is much more to the situation that would help in knowing what to do.

Has the couple been using NFP to space their pregancies? If so, why have they been having difficulties using it properly? I would first examine their approach to NFP first, as if done properly is over 99% effective.

By the way, it's good to see you here in OBOB again, Kayanne. Peace be with you!

-Davide

 

[kayanne]

Has the couple been using NFP to space their pregancies? If so, why have they been having difficulties using it properly? I would first examine their approach to NFP first, as if done properly is over 99% effective.

By the way, it's good to see you here in OBOB again, Kayanne. Peace be with you!

-Davide

Hey, thanks for the welcome back! I really don't know if they've been using NFP (a little too personal for me to ask about). Like I said, they called the last two pregnancies "accidents." Actually by now, sil is getting close to the age of menopause, so hopefully fertility won't be an issue much longer.

I do appreciate the responses so far. And I definitely appreciate the catholic pro-life position, and comments about sacrificial love.

Here's another question. I assume that if a woman had uterine cancer (or other health issue ie severe fibroids or whatever), she could have a hysterectomy, to save her life. Is that correct? But a hysterectomy to save her life indirectly (ie, avoiding life-threatening pregnancy)--that would not be allowed, because that would be considered bc?

Respectfully, kayanne

 

[Skripper]

Hey, thanks for the welcome back! I really don't know if they've been using NFP (a little too personal for me to ask about). Like I said, they called the last two pregnancies "accidents." Actually by now, sil is getting close to the age of menopause, so hopefully fertility won't be an issue much longer.

I do appreciate the responses so far. And I definitely appreciate the catholic pro-life position, and comments about sacrificial love.

Here's another question. I assume that if a woman had uterine cancer (or other health issue ie severe fibroids or whatever), she could have a hysterectomy, to save her life. Is that correct? But a hysterectomy to save her life indirectly (ie, avoiding life-threatening pregnancy)--that would not be allowed, because that would be considered bc?

Respectfully, kayanne

To save her life "indirectly"? I'm far from being an expert on this, so take this for what it's worth. But my understanding of Catholic theology is that so long as contraception is not the intent, it is no sin. Although the scenario you've described is a bit vague, if the intent were to save her life, and an unintended side effect or consequence is that she is no longer able to conceive, I'm pretty sure it is permissable.

 

[kayanne]

To save her life "indirectly"? I'm far from being an expert on this, so take this for what it's worth. But my understanding of Catholic theology is that so long as contraception is not the intent, it is no sin. Although the scenario you've described is a bit vague, if the intent were to save her life, and an unintended side effect or consequence is that she is no longer able to conceive, I'm pretty sure it is permissable.

Well, by "indirectly," I mean preventing her from possibly dying from a future pregnancy (since she endures life-threatening heart complications every time she is pregnant, and her dr has told her in no uncertain terms that she should NOT get pregnant again.)

Yes, contraception would be the intent, but only because pregnancy is so dangerous for her. So I wondered if, in this case, she could have a hysterectomy, to absolutely 100% be assured of no more pregnancies. I'm assuming it's "no" since the intent would be for bc. But it seems to be only a fine line of difference between sil having a hysterectomy to avoid hazardous pregnacy compared to having a hysterectomy to prevent possible death from uterine cancer. Either way the woman loses her uterus and can't become pregnant.

Would NFP be the only acceptable choice? If NFP is being used to avoid ever becoming pregnant again for the rest of her life (as opposed to spacing), I wondered how it would be any different if she simply had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy (since a hysterectomy would presumably be ok for other life-saving purposes).

Did that make my question clearer?

 

[stray bullet]

Well, by "indirectly," I mean preventing her from possibly dying from a future pregnancy (since she endures life-threatening heart complications every time she is pregnant, and her dr has told her in no uncertain terms that she should NOT get pregnant again.)

Yes, contraception would be the intent, but only because pregnancy is so dangerous for her. So I wondered if, in this case, she could have a hysterectomy, to absolutely 100% be assured of no more pregnancies. I'm assuming it's "no" since the intent would be for bc. But it seems to be only a fine line of difference between sil having a hysterectomy to avoid hazardous pregnacy compared to having a hysterectomy to prevent possible death from uterine cancer. Either way the woman loses her uterus and can't become pregnant.Would NFP be the only acceptable choice? If NFP is being used to avoid ever becoming pregnant again for the rest of her life (as opposed to spacing), I wondered how it would be any different if she simply had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy (since a hysterectomy would presumably be ok for other life-saving purposes).

Did that make my question clearer?

I think it is important to keep in mind why birth control is prohibited, as it rejects life.
Having parts of your reproductive system removed for the purpose of stopping the spread of cancer is fine. You are not doing it to reject life.

In the case of removing parts of your body in order to stop pregnancy because it might be dangerous is rejecting life, for the purpose of reducing the risk to yours.

I guess the question comes down to, is it ok to commit a sin in order to help prolong your own life? If so, wouldn't it then be ok to abort your fetus because giving birth puts you at risk? It opens a whole box...

 

[Skripper]

Well, by "indirectly," I mean preventing her from possibly dying from a future pregnancy (since she endures life-threatening heart complications every time she is pregnant, and her dr has told her in no uncertain terms that she should NOT get pregnant again.)

Yes, contraception would be the intent, but only because pregnancy is so dangerous for her. So I wondered if, in this case, she could have a hysterectomy, to absolutely 100% be assured of no more pregnancies. I'm assuming it's "no" since the intent would be for bc. But it seems to be only a fine line of difference between sil having a hysterectomy to avoid hazardous pregnacy compared to having a hysterectomy to prevent possible death from uterine cancer. Either way the woman loses her uterus and can't become pregnant.

Would NFP be the only acceptable choice? If NFP is being used to avoid ever becoming pregnant again for the rest of her life (as opposed to spacing), I wondered how it would be any different if she simply had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy (since a hysterectomy would presumably be ok for other life-saving purposes).

Did that make my question clearer?

There is still no clear-cut answer because the situation described still does not accurately describe the degree of "risk" involved. However, from the limited information contained in the situation you've described, strictly speaking, contraception" would NOT be the intent any more than "abortion" is the intent in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where a fillopian tube is removed with the baby inside. Just like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the goal/intent of the procedure is not the death of the baby in the fillopian tube, but rather an unfortunate consequence of the tube's removal. It seems that a similar concept would apply here. Because the intended purpose of the procedure is not "contraception" but rather to save the person's life.

 

[Skripper]

I think it is important to keep in mind why birth control is prohibited, as it rejects life.
Having parts of your reproductive system removed for the purpose of stopping the spread of cancer is fine. You are not doing it to reject life.

In the case of removing parts of your body in order to stop pregnancy because it might be dangerous is rejecting life, for the purpose of reducing the risk to yours.

I guess the question comes down to, is it ok to commit a sin in order to help prolong your own life? If so, wouldn't it then be ok to abort your fetus because giving birth puts you at risk? It opens a whole box...

The question of "sin" rests in the intent. If sinful intent is not there, there is no imputation of sin. The same principle applies in the case of killing in defence of one's own life or the life (or lives) or others.

This is not a "whole box," Stray." This particular "box" already exists . . . and is already "open." At "risk" is different than certainty. How much "risk" are we talking about? Every woman is "at risk" to some degree by undergoing a pregnancy and giving birth . . . that's normal. However, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, as I've described above, the situation is beyond mere normal "risk" . . . to the point of certitude. It is certain that neither would survive. In the case described by the OP, more information is needed. It's too vague. The real question, I would think, is how much "risk" must a woman subject herself to beyond the normal, natural risk inherent in any pregnancy? This is why I indicated previously that the scenario originally depicted is simply too vague.

 

[geocajun]

The question of "sin" rests in the intent. If sinful intent is not there, there is no imputation of sin. The same principle applies in the case of killing in defence of one's own life or the life (or lives) or others.

Skrip, some examples such as fornication are always sinful, regardless of intent.
Did you mean to say that 'consent' rather than intent? Because without consent, there is never an imputation of guilt for sin.

 

[geocajun]

Also, we need to keep in mind the concepts of direct, versus indirect.
Direct sterilization is always wrong. Indirect sterilization, which would be something that happens during a surgury to safe the patients life, but results in an indirect sterilization of the patient is not the same thing, and would not be immoral.

 

[geocajun]

I guess the question comes down to, is it ok to commit a sin in order to help prolong your own life? If so, wouldn't it then be ok to abort your fetus because giving birth puts you at risk? It opens a whole box...

Stray, a fundamental rule of moral theology is that "The ends do not justify the means".
For example, I want a new car (the ends), but that does not give me the right to rob a bank to fund it (the means).

 

[Skripper]

Skrip, some examples such as fornication are always sinful, regardless of intent.
Did you mean to say that 'consent' rather than intent? Because without consent, there is never an imputation of guilt for sin.

Different realm entirely. For you and me, as for most folks, because they are aware of the sinful nature of fornication, fornication is always sinful, and mortally so. Therefore, whether or not imputation of mortal sin is present would rest strictly and entirely on consent, yes. However, such is not the case with someone truly ignorant of the sinful nature of fornication. For them, this could rise to no more than venial sin. But, again, we are talking about two different things here. Some things are objectively sinful, while other things depend on the intent. You know that.

 

[Skripper]

Also, we need to keep in mind the concepts of direct, versus indirect.
Direct sterilization is always wrong. Indirect sterilization, which would be something that happens during a surgury to safe the patients life, but results in an indirect sterilization of the patient is not the same thing, and would not be immoral.

Exactly. "Surgery," in and of itself, is not "sinful." In this case, intent is crucial . Off to work . . . I'm late!

 

[geocajun]

Different realm entirely. For you and me, as for most folks, because they are aware of the sinful nature of fornication, fornication is always sinful, and mortally so. Therefore, whether or not imputation of mortal sin is present would rest strictly and entirely on consent, yes. However, such is not the case with someone truly ignorant of the sinful nature of fornication. For them, this could rise to no more than venial sin. But, again, we are talking about two different things here. Some things are objectively sinful, while other things depend on the intent. You know that.

Dave, in general, when I hear anyone say "it all depends on intent" in any moral theology discussion, it raises my neck hair.
There are also cases where one is guilty because they "Should have known better" and that is regardless of intention.
I don't want to blur the issue at hand, however I don't want to leave someone with the idea that morality of any action is based solely on the intention of the one doing it. There are alot of qualifying factors which leave this specific scenerio hinging on intention, and I am not sure that was clear.

 

[kayanne]

I guess the question comes down to, is it ok to commit a sin in order to help prolong your own life? If so, wouldn't it then be ok to abort your fetus because giving birth puts you at risk? It opens a whole box...

For clarification, would the cath church teach that you cannot kill a person in self-defense (ie intruder in the house)? Or what about to save another person (ie intruder is holding your wife at gunpoint, so you shoot intruder to save your wife)?
I'm trying to see if "murder" (always a sin) is different than "kill" (which is not always a sin considering all of the times God in the OT told people to kill others, ie in wars).
And then, by extension, I'm trying to find out if self-defense/self-preservation is reason for ABC (or abortion). I am definitely pro-life, but I would not be opposed to a law which allowed for abortion to save the life of the mother (and I mean truly save her life--not this "emotional health" garbage). BTW, I know that such a scenario (mother's physical life at stake, and only abortion would save her) is very rare, but I'm just curious. Of course, in the case of ectopic pregnancy this is relevant also.
The sil that I am referring to has had several cardiac arrests during her pregnancies. Without defibrillation ("shock paddles") she would die within 4-6 minutes. It's no minor problem, obviously.

 

[geocajun]

For clarification, would the cath church teach that you cannot kill a person in self-defense (ie intruder in the house)? Or what about to save another person (ie intruder is holding your wife at gunpoint, so you shoot intruder to save your wife)?

In defense of ones life, if it results in the death of the aggressor, that is not immoral.

 

[geocajun]

I am definitely pro-life, but I would not be opposed to a law which allowed for abortion to save the life of the mother (and I mean truly save her life--not this "emotional health" garbage). BTW, I know that such a scenario (mother's physical life at stake, and only abortion would save her) is very rare, but I'm just curious. Of course, in the case of ectopic pregnancy this is relevant also.

Also, take for example an ecoptic pregnancy that will kill the mother. The surgury to fix this will kill the baby.
The Church says it is OK to remove the tube from the mother, which will indirectly result in the death of the child inside.
This is an example of indirect abortion, and it is not immoral. It is also quite distinct from direct abortion.

 

[kayanne]

Also, take for example an ecoptic pregnancy that will kill the mother. The surgury to fix this will kill the baby.
The Church says it is OK to remove the tube from the mother, which will indirectly result in the death of the child inside.
This is an example of indirect abortion, and it is not immoral. It is also quite distinct from direct abortion.

Bear with me, as I try to clarify. An ectopic pregnancy can be ended to save the mother. Now, I don't know if an ectopic pregnancy always require removal of the fallopian tube. I thought that just the embryo could be removed, leaving the fallopian tube intact, but maybe that's not correct. Anyway, would it be moral to remove only the embryo from the tube to save the mother's life, or would it have to be surgical removal of the tube, which just happens to also remove the embryo?
Can an embryo (fetus/baby/whatever you wish to call him/her at whatever stage of development it is) be removed from the uterus to directly save the life of the mother? You said "indirect abortion" is quite distinct from "direct abortion." I'm not sure I understand the difference. I'm just trying to find out if abortion is ever allowable if the pregnancy (non-ectopic) is certain to kill the mother (which would then presumably kill the baby also).