Poll: Does libertarianism (with a small l) contradict Church teaching?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
10
0%
0 0%
13
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Using Artificial Contraception
#41
(11-27-2009, 04:28 PM)Rosarium Wrote: What does "Not married, widowed, separated, divorced." mean in the context of the poll? Is that for virgins?

That's what I voted, but I wondered the same thing. Those descriptions don't absolutely equal the absence of birth control.

Before I was Catholic I didn't know any better; I was never taught anything about birth control. My ideas about it were about the opposite of Catholic teaching.
Reply
#42
I have been taught that while a hysterectomy can have a medical reason for being performed aside from the contraceptive use (for instance, the removal of a cancerous uterus), that having one's tubes tied cannot.  Having one's tubes tied has, to my understanding, the sole consequence of rendering one sterile.

I know that there are situations in which one, for health reasons, ought to have no more children.  Sadly, I am pretty sure that after this child I may be in such a situation.  (The nurses were concerned for me with #5.  They warned me against another, and this at my Catholic hospital.  Well, #6 is on the way, and we're just praying everything works out.)  But I was also taught that the only morally licit means to obtain this legitimate end was NFP.  I was taught that there is never a moral reason to have one's tubes tied.  Is this incorrect?  ???
Reply
#43
(11-27-2009, 10:08 PM)kimbaichan Wrote:
(11-27-2009, 04:28 PM)Rosarium Wrote: What does "Not married, widowed, separated, divorced." mean in the context of the poll? Is that for virgins?
That's what I voted, but I wondered the same thing. Those descriptions don't absolutely equal the absence of birth control.
Before I was Catholic I didn't know any better; I was never taught anything about birth control. My ideas about it were about the opposite of Catholic teaching.
I think that option dose exclude the use of contraception because of the last option.
If someone is not married, widowed, separated, or divorced and ARE having sex and ARE using contaception than they would fall under the last option. If they are having extra marital sex than they probably don't care what the church teaches reguarding contraception ;D
Reply
#44
(11-27-2009, 10:32 PM)Katherine of Aragon Wrote: I have been taught that while a hysterectomy can have a medical reason for being performed aside from the contraceptive use (for instance, the removal of a cancerous uterus), that having one's tubes tied cannot.  Having one's tubes tied has, to my understanding, the sole consequence of rendering one sterile.

I know that there are situations in which one, for health reasons, ought to have no more children.  Sadly, I am pretty sure that after this child I may be in such a situation.  (The nurses were concerned for me with #5.  They warned me against another, and this at my Catholic hospital.  Well, #6 is on the way, and we're just praying everything works out.)  But I was also taught that the only morally licit means to obtain this legitimate end was NFP.  I was taught that there is never a moral reason to have one's tubes tied.  Is this incorrect?  ???
not sure, maybe someone else knows more about that  ???
Reply
#45
Padre'd probably know.
Reply
#46
(11-27-2009, 10:32 PM)Katherine of Aragon Wrote: I was taught that there is never a moral reason to have one's tubes tied.  Is this incorrect?  ???

In our situation, my wife has bi-polar disorder, and she cannot be on her medicine while being pregnant because of the chance of birth defects.  Well, without her medicine she goes into a deep, deep depression in which she sleeps a lot, cannot do anything, etc.  So basically, for nine months, our other kids are without much of a mother, and I'm without much of a wife.  It's a very bad situation physically, emotionally, and spiritually - not only for her, but for the whole family.  This is why, after much prayer and counseling with a priest, we made the choice of getting her tubes tied (We tried NFP, and it doesn't work for us).  Whether or not it was the right decision, we will be held accountable for that before God someday.  But from a human standpoint, it was something that we had to do for the good of our family.
Reply
#47
(11-28-2009, 10:00 AM)ServantofMary Wrote:
(11-27-2009, 10:32 PM)Katherine of Aragon Wrote: I was taught that there is never a moral reason to have one's tubes tied.  Is this incorrect?  ???

In our situation, my wife has bi-polar disorder, and she cannot be on her medicine while being pregnant because of the chance of birth defects.  Well, without her medicine she goes into a deep, deep depression in which she sleeps a lot, cannot do anything, etc.  So basically, for nine months, our other kids are without much of a mother, and I'm without much of a wife.  It's a very bad situation physically, emotionally, and spiritually - not only for her, but for the whole family.  This is why, after much prayer and counseling with a priest, we made the choice of getting her tubes tied (We tried NFP, and it doesn't work for us).  Whether or not it was the right decision, we will be held accountable for that before God someday.  But from a human standpoint, it was something that we had to do for the good of our family.

Wow, that's terrible. I work in a pharmacy, so I see this often, and it is so tricky to balance. Thank God that you did have the children you have and that your wife when taking her medications has a good balance.  :pray2:
Reply
#48
(11-27-2009, 03:11 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: I'm engaged and using the pill for medical reasons.  Never done anything, etc, but on it because basically, I can't have a period without intense pain.  So, they found a method of preventing my cycle in full, and it's been great.  Yes, I can't have kids because I can never come off of it, but considering that I went through worse pain than when I broke my back, it's a sacrifice I can make.  I literally would pray that I wouldn't wake up, because I couldn't stand to be in such pain only to know that it would be back again.  Thank God for adoption.

For years, I assumed that I would never be able to marry because of it, but after talking to very Traditional priests on the matter and having the principle of double effect explained...I found that I was fine.

Hmm maybe I am being stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to try to have children anyway? I have a friend with the same condition as you, it seems, and she says she hopes to sort of come off the pill and immediatly get pregnant, which would mitigate the excruciating pain. Is that not an option for you?
Also, and again I am maybe being dumb about this, but wouldn't the double-effect defense also justify the use of condoms in HIV-carriers in Africa and all of that? Not meaning to rain on your parade or anything.
Reply
#49
(11-28-2009, 02:37 PM)elizabee Wrote:
(11-27-2009, 03:11 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: I'm engaged and using the pill for medical reasons.  Never done anything, etc, but on it because basically, I can't have a period without intense pain.  So, they found a method of preventing my cycle in full, and it's been great.  Yes, I can't have kids because I can never come off of it, but considering that I went through worse pain than when I broke my back, it's a sacrifice I can make.  I literally would pray that I wouldn't wake up, because I couldn't stand to be in such pain only to know that it would be back again.  Thank God for adoption.

For years, I assumed that I would never be able to marry because of it, but after talking to very Traditional priests on the matter and having the principle of double effect explained...I found that I was fine.

Hmm maybe I am being stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to try to have children anyway? I have a friend with the same condition as you, it seems, and she says she hopes to sort of come off the pill and immediatly get pregnant, which would mitigate the excruciating pain. Is that not an option for you?
Also, and again I am maybe being dumb about this, but wouldn't the double-effect defense also justify the use of condoms in HIV-carriers in Africa and all of that? Not meaning to rain on your parade or anything.

Thats kinda what i was thinking too. Because you dont get periods when your pregnant, and they are often much lighter after the babies. Im not judgeing, just very curious.
Reply
#50
(11-28-2009, 02:40 PM)CanadianCatholic Wrote:
(11-28-2009, 02:37 PM)elizabee Wrote:
(11-27-2009, 03:11 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: I'm engaged and using the pill for medical reasons.  Never done anything, etc, but on it because basically, I can't have a period without intense pain.  So, they found a method of preventing my cycle in full, and it's been great.  Yes, I can't have kids because I can never come off of it, but considering that I went through worse pain than when I broke my back, it's a sacrifice I can make.  I literally would pray that I wouldn't wake up, because I couldn't stand to be in such pain only to know that it would be back again.  Thank God for adoption.

For years, I assumed that I would never be able to marry because of it, but after talking to very Traditional priests on the matter and having the principle of double effect explained...I found that I was fine.

Hmm maybe I am being stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to try to have children anyway? I have a friend with the same condition as you, it seems, and she says she hopes to sort of come off the pill and immediatly get pregnant, which would mitigate the excruciating pain. Is that not an option for you?
Also, and again I am maybe being dumb about this, but wouldn't the double-effect defense also justify the use of condoms in HIV-carriers in Africa and all of that? Not meaning to rain on your parade or anything.

Thats kinda what i was thinking too. Because you dont get periods when your pregnant, and they are often much lighter after the babies. Im not judgeing, just very curious.

Yeah, my friend was saying also that she's hoping her body will sort of fix herself after the hormonal ordeal of pregnancy. Of course she is maybe being very very hopeful and talking about the ideal, I'm not saying it would be easy or pain-free, but wouldn't risking it be better than risking an invalid, babyless marriage?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)