pregnant Catholics with health problems

[singsingsing]

I don't get the sense that Jen's problem is narcissism so much as willful denial. Her blase attitude about her very life-threatening condition is actually kind of blood chilling. Maybe it's just her writing style, but I don't understand how someone can joke about missing doses and then winding up in the hospital with blood clots in both lungs - not when you've got five small children depending on you and are pregnant with a sixth. I get the sense that she converted to Catholicism because she liked the idea that the Church was basically the voice of God, and now she's based her entire life around that. If she compromises now, her entire worldview and livelihood gets thrown out the window.

[Dog-n-Suds]

Yes, SingSingSing, I see your point. I think denial figures large in this whole situation. I also think narcissism plays in here. have you ever watched "Minor Revisions", or any excerpts from that series? Urg.

[duplessis3]

But even the denial of abstinence for her marriage (while recommending it to other committed couples) and her husband giving up good wine, in a good glass for lent, (no words- there is a stream of swear words going through my mind that were I to type them all out would convince you that I am speaking in tongues) speaks to a LACK of FAITHFULNESS. Sister, God is telling you to stop having sex. Period. Full stop. If you won't take birth control measure other than NFP, and God has made you the mother of almost 6...it is a sin, a terrible sin, to die. And getting pregnant knowing that it could kill you and the baby is almost a form of murder/suicide. And if her husband insists on PIV sex, then cripes, he is complicit in murder, if

not an actual murderer

Offer your horniness to the souls in purgatory. And raise those babies, for heaven's sake.

[Dog-n-Suds]

I will never believe that God would judge her or anyone else for using birth control in a situation like this (or most other situations, for that matter). The rule against artificial contraception in the Catholic church was made by Pope Paul VI, against the recommendation of the committee HE FORMED to discuss the issue. They recommended he allow Catholics to use artificial contraception, he said no. This leads some to believe that contraception is a sin?? It defies belief. If she makes it through this pregnancy alive (and I really hope she does), her concern should be for her children. Tie those tubes, continue enjoying intimacy with your husband, and put those kids first, for God's sake!

[JenXer]

Pope Paul VI did not create the proscription against artificial contraception. He clarified it during a time when new inventions and societal attitudes led to the need for better clarity. Personally, I think he was downright clairvoyant in Humanae Vitae.

But boy howdy, do I agree that Mrs. Fulwiler needs to take her own advice (and Duplessis3's!). Celibacy is a realistic option for all sorts of people... INCLUDING her and her husband. It wouldn't even be for a lifetime! How old is she? By her mid-40s she probably wouldn't be able to get pregnant, even if menopause hasn't hit yet.

And to consider herself an example of faithfulness?? I am friends with scores... scores(!) of Catholic, NFP-only women. Not a one of us would consider her to be prudent and we would all want to wring her husband's neck for his selfishness.

[Savoring Samsara]

Pope Paul VI did not create the proscription against artificial contraception. He clarified it during a time when new inventions and societal attitudes led to the need for better clarity. Personally, I think he was downright clairvoyant in Humanae Vitae.

But boy howdy, do I agree that Mrs. Fulwiler needs to take her own advice (and Duplessis3's!). Celibacy is a realistic option for all sorts of people... INCLUDING her and her husband. It wouldn't even be for a lifetime! How old is she? By her mid-40s she probably wouldn't be able to get pregnant, even if menopause hasn't hit yet.

And to consider herself an example of faithfulness?? I am friends with scores... scores(!) of Catholic, NFP-only women. Not a one of us would consider her to be prudent and we would all want to wring her husband's neck for his selfishness.

If the "about me" on her blog is up to date, she is 36 years old. So it's a small mercy, at least, that she likely only has a few years of fertility left.

[Savoring Samsara]

Yes, SingSingSing, I see your point. I think denial figures large in this whole situation. I also think narcissism plays in here. have you ever watched "Minor Revisions", or any excerpts from that series? Urg.

I haven't brought myself to watch it yet. Would you mind summarizing or at least pointing the way to the most salient instances of wackiness?

[singsingsing]

She's being induced today. Hopefully everything goes okay...

[Savoring Samsara]

She's being induced today. Hopefully everything goes okay...

And her Twitter says, "induction delayed due to high heparin levels." I am really worried for her and for this baby.

[singsingsing]

As am I. I know she underwent a procedure to have a filter placed near her heart, which was supposed to protect against blood clots. The procedure failed, so they have to go ahead with the induction and risk the clots. It's pretty horrifying. I honestly think that if I were her husband, after this, if she was still bound and determined to not use birth control, I would choose to abstain completely. Seriously, if THIS isn't a good enough reason in Orthodox Catholic World to prevent pregnancy, what is?

[JenXer]

Seriously, if THIS isn't a good enough reason in Orthodox Catholic World to prevent pregnancy, what is?

Oh, this is a good enough reason to avoid pregnancy, even among the most devout of Catholics. One doesn't even need a life-threatening reason, just a "serious" one in one of the four broad categories: Financial, Physical Health, Mental Health or Social Concerns.

I'm certain that she and her husband will not use birth control, but I earnestly hope that they abstain for a few years. When I read her words dismissing the idea as not realistic, it made me craaayzee.

[docmom]

Why can't her husband have a vasectomy and say it's primary aim isn't birth control but to prevent killing his wife? Surely that would be OK in the culture of "life".

[singsingsing]

This is what makes no sense to me: Catholic couples are supposed to use NFP because otherwise they are not trusting God. However, the Catholic church allows that there are sometimes good reasons to prevent pregnancy. In these cases, how on earth is NFP any different from non-hormonal forms of birth control? If you say to yourself, "I can't have another baby right now because we're going through bankruptcy" or "I can't get pregnant right now because I need a kidney transplant" it makes no difference if you're using bc or NFP. The reasoning and the outcome is exactly the same.

[JenXer]

No, the primary aim would be to sterilize himself in order not to conceive, in order not to kill his wife. I understand that many folks don't agree that there's anything wrong with that, but this couple does. Their only option is abstinence.

Maybe they could practise extreeemely conservative NFP but she claims that's what they did and she still ended up pregnant. I'm sitting here pregnant under the same circumstances, minus the life threatening complications.

That's not an indictment against NFP. I know many pill babies, condom babies, even vasectomy/tubal ligation babies. No matter how careful you're being or what method you use, if you're having sex, pregnancy can happen.

That's why I do NOT understand their seemingly casual attitude about the risks they face.

[JenXer]

... it makes no difference if you're using bc or NFP. The reasoning and the outcome is exactly the same.

I totally get what you're saying. But we look at like this: The end does not justify the means. You can't use "bad" means even to end up with a "good" end.

For instance, a family needs money to feed their family. One option is for the parents to work at jobs that pay them an income. Another option is to rob a bank.

The reasoning and the outcome are exactly the same. But the morality of the methods sure aren't!

(Please know that I don't mean to equate couples who use artificial contraception with criminals! It's just an illustration to explain why it doesn't matter if the reasoning and outcome are the same.)

[alba]

I totally get what you're saying. But we look at like this: The end does not justify the means. You can't use "bad" means even to end up with a "good" end.

For instance, a family needs money to feed their family. One option is for the parents to work at jobs that pay them an income. Another option is to rob a bank.

The reasoning and the outcome are exactly the same. But the morality of the methods sure aren't!

(Please know that I don't mean to equate couples who use artificial contraception with criminals! It's just an illustration to explain why it doesn't matter if the reasoning and outcome are the same.)

But why is there something inherently wrong with contraception? Unlike robbing a bank, no one is harmed by its use.

[mockingbird]

I actually think you could make the argument that a vasectomy or tubal litigation would be permissible in this case using Catholic ethics. There is a theological argument revolving around the ethical principle of "double effect". Here is a quote from the National Catholic Bioethics Center explaining this argument that probably explains it better than I could:

The principle of double effect in the Church’s moral tradition teaches that one may perform a good action even if it is foreseen that a bad effect will arise only if four conditions are met: 1) The act itself must be good. 2) The only thing that one can intend is the good act, not the foreseen but unintended bad effect. 3) The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect; otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good. 4) The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.

This principle has been applied to many cases in health care, always respecting the most fundamental moral principle of medical ethics, primum non nocere, “First, do no harm.â€

The classic case of a difficult pregnancy to which this principle can be applied is the pregnant woman who has advanced uterine cancer. The removal of the cancerous uterus will result in the death of the baby but it would be permissible under the principle of double effect.

One can see how the conditions would be satisfied in this case: 1) The act itself is good; it is the removal of a diseased organ. 2) All that one intends is the removal of the diseased organ. One does not want the death of the baby, either as a means or an end. Nonetheless, one sees that the unborn child will die as a result of the removal of the diseased organ. 3) The good action, the healing of the woman, arises from the removal of the diseased uterus, not from the regrettable death of the baby which is foreseen and unintended. 4) The unintended and indirect death of the child is not disproportionate to the good which is done, which is saving the mother’s life.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/02/clarifying-ldquodouble-effectrdquo

I think you could apply this to having her tubes tied or even taking birth control. Either of those methods would prevent life-threatening blood clots, and the side effect of not being able to conceive would be ethically considered... a side effect. Not morally wrong because the intent of using those contraceptive methods are to heal the mom, not "kill babies".

[Scales]

Well, women have other orifices to use. Is this forbidden by Catholics?

[singsingsing]

I totally get what you're saying. But we look at like this: The end does not justify the means. You can't use "bad" means even to end up with a "good" end.

But what I'm saying is, how is a condom different than NFP? How is a condom bad, while NFP is good? If you're using NFP correctly, it should be at least as successful in preventing pregnancy as using a condom. It makes no sense that it's okay to track your temperature and cervical mucus and then not have sex on the days you're ovulating for the sole purpose of wanting to prevent pregnancy, but it's not okay to use barrier methods for the same reason. I know you could argue that abstaining from sex when you're fertile is morally better than having sex when you're fertile but knowingly blocking any chance of conception (though I honestly think that's splitting hairs) - but don't husbands and wives also have a moral obligation to meet each other's sexual needs? In that case, you could argue that knowingly abstaining from sex for the sole purpose of preventing conception during the wife's fertile period, which is often when women most desire sex, is also sinful.

[docmom]

I think most "rational" Catholics would agree with this (rational in quotes not because I think Catholics are irrational but because I want to distinguish those thinking open minded Catholics from those that insist on absolute unquestioning obedience to the Magisterium). However, I don't think we'd ever convince these people. i would truly be interested in what most catholic theologians would say on this subject.

[JenXer]

I actually think you could make the argument that a vasectomy or tubal litigation would be permissible in this case using Catholic ethics.

This topic fascinates me but I truly hope that I don't come across as trying to sound like a Catholic Expert. I am not wiser-than-thou and definitely not holier-than-thou. Hoping that's understood, let's discuss!

No method of contraception would act to prevent her blood clots. It would act to prevent pregnancy, which is what threatens to cause blood clots (if I understand her situation correctly).

Look again at #3 in the first paragraph... "The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect; otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good."

That's precisely the situation with sterilization or contraception here. The good effect (a lesser risk of a pregnancy that can lead to dangerous blood clots) would arise from the bad effect (contraception).

Now, if you said that taking a hormonal supplement, like the Pill, would protect her from blood clots that could happen even if she wasn't pregnant, we'd be dealing with the double effect here. Many a Catholic woman takes the Pill for reasons completely unrelated to pregnancy prevention. The fact that it does lessen the chance of pregnancy isn't the main intent (even if it's welcomed).

But why is there something inherently wrong with contraception? Unlike robbing a bank, no one is harmed by its use.

This really is the fundamental question. Books could be (and have been) written about it. In a nutshell, it's believed that the marital act is a renewal of the covenant of matrimony. It is designed by God to be unitive and sometimes procreative. Tampering with those effects, whether with barriers or by altering the body, is to seek to frustrate one of the ends for one's selfish pleasure. They want the unitive without the procreative.

We may all say, "Yeah, duh, we sometimes don't want the procreative and for very good reasons!". That's why it's okay to enjoy the unitive effect of sex during times of infertility. But for a couple who MUST avoid the procreative chance, the only option is to abstain.

[singsingsing]

But for a couple who MUST avoid the procreative chance, the only option is to abstain.

So in that case, the good effect (preventing a life-threatening pregnancy) would arise from a bad effect (abstaining from sex completely within marriage).

[Savoring Samsara]

Well, women have other orifices to use. Is this forbidden by Catholics?

It is my understanding that under a fully orthodox Catholic viewpoint, the only moral form of sexual activity is penis-in-vagina sex, performed by a married couple, without the use of any form of artificial contraceptive.

[JenXer]

So in that case, the good effect (preventing a life-threatening pregnancy) would arise from a bad effect (abstaining from sex completely within marriage).

No, because abstaining is not a bad effect. It's a perfectly acceptable option. Sometimes it sucks, but it's still a morally licit option. And speaking of sucks...

It is my understanding that under a fully orthodox Catholic viewpoint, the only moral form of sexual activity is penis-in-vagina sex, performed by a married couple, without the use of any form of artificial contraceptive.

Yes, but if there's a Round Two that night, other options are okay. They can be done in addition to the regular ol' marital act, just not in place of.

[saraelise]

No, because abstaining is not a bad effect. It's a perfectly acceptable option. Sometimes it sucks, but it's still a morally licit option. And speaking of sucks...

Yes, but if there's a Round Two that night, other options are okay. They can be done in addition to the regular ol' marital act, just not in place of.

So, oral sex as foreplay is ok so long as it doesn't result in orgasm? Or if you've had a P-I-V orgasm, can you just go crazy on round two?