pregnant Catholics with health problems

[docmom]

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?

This degree of theological time wasting over the sex act is exactly why Catholic priests should be allowed to marry!! (Just MHO)

[singsingsing]

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...

Please explain how one reaches the conclusion, then, that birth control is morally wrong whereas total abstinence within marriage is perfectly fine. I see verses in the Bible that say straight out that husbands and wives are not supposed to abstain from sex with one another for long periods of time, but I'd have to look long and far to find any that say that birth control is a sin.

[2xx1xy1JD]

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.)

Here's where the analogy fails (aside from the obvious fact that bank robbers hurt people, and condoms don't]:

WHY exactly is contraception considered "bad"? In many cases, it isn't something intrinsic about the method itself (for example, use of hormones that have infertility as a side effect can be permitted if the primary purpose is another health-related reason). It is the fact that a couple is intentionally planning not to conceive - which is exactly what happens when a couple uses NFP or is intentionally celibate. If you agree that sometimes, intentionally planning not to conceive IS the moral choice, then how does it become immoral at the same time? The only difference that I can see is that NFP/celibacy involve abstaining from sex. Does the Catholic Church view sex as inherently sinful, unless it is justified by the chance of conceiving?

I know that you can't unilaterally change Catholic doctrine, and that this couple may need practical advice geared to the fact that THEY will not go against Catholic doctrine. I just have issues with a blanket declaration that artificial contraception is immoral (as opposed to merely being against Catholic doctrine).

[JenXer]

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?

Yeah, I'd say that pretty much sums it up!

This degree of theological time wasting over the sex act ...

Well, I'd say that the act that transmits human life is worth spending some time in theological thought, if one is so inclined. Now, if we were talking about which is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream I would agree that more than two minutes discussion is wasting time.

... is exactly why Catholic priests should be allowed to marry!! (Just MHO)

I don't get the connection there. Priests aren't the only ones who spend time thinking about theological stuff. Whether they should marry or not is a reasonable discussion but I need a nap!

[Savoring Samsara]

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.

I definitely did not know that. Thank you for teaching me something new today!

[mockingbird]

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).

Hmm, that is true.

I also forgot that she can't take regular hormonal birth control because that has a clotting risk.

This is coming from a more... non-fundy Catholic position, but I guess I would argue that keeping hormone levels at a low, normal/non-pregnant level is something that prevents her from developing blood clots, and taking a medication (eg progesterone-only birth control) / using a device/tying tubes to promote that state of health is the intent. Therefore the good effect is "stable hormones" not "no pregnancy". haha. Verbiage! I know that is kind-of weak though. I am not trying to make fun of her beliefs (because I do think if that is what she really believes, then she should follow them and do what she can to prevent pregnancy within the constraints of those beliefs - i.e. abstain), but I'm just trying to think of maybe how I might present this to a patient like her to convince her to do something about the issue if she won't abstain or comply to her medication schedule during pregnancy.

[Scales]

Please explain how one reaches the conclusion, then, that birth control is morally wrong whereas total abstinence within marriage is perfectly fine. I see verses in the Bible that say straight out that husbands and wives are not supposed to abstain from sex with one another for long periods of time, but I'd have to look long and far to find any that say that birth control is a sin.

I've never seen a verse that says that (I could be wrong or have forgotten). I've seen verses that say the husband and wife's bodies belong to each other, so don't deny each other, (or something like that.) That's not quite the same thing. If my husband's body belongs to me, and I know that by doing a certain thing with it/to it then it will die, or could probably die, or even has more than a completely remote random chance of death by said action, then I'm going to not do that action. With his body that is mine. So to speak. Meaning that I wouldn't get him pregnant even if the pope told me to.

[JenXer]

Does the Catholic Church view sex as inherently sinful, unless it is justified by the chance of conceiving?

No, not at all. Sex is inherently awesome but it becomes problematic if you seek to separate the unitive end from the procreative end. That is why the church is against artificial conception as well as artificial contraception. Both seek one good end, at the expense of avoiding the other good end. They should always go together.

Having sex during an infertile time still leaves the chance of conceiving. It's saying, "We hope we don't conceive but we're leaving the chance open, by not actively stopping the chance.".

So if the couple has a serious reason they must avoid pregnancy, they can abstain. Really... any couple with that serious of a reason should consider abstaining. Contraception fails with an alarming frequency. I'm not sure we'd feel any better if Jennifer Fulwiler said, "But we were using condoms!". Well, honey, if getting pregnant threatened your LIFE, why would you trust a condom??

[JenXer]

Mockingbird and Scales, I think you are expressing the Catholic position beautifully, even if you don't agree with it. I could totally see the benefit of Mrs. Fulwiler balancing her hormones, if it meant lessening the risk of blood clots. And exactly about not wanting to harm your spouse's body.

When I read her blog, I was most upset at her husband. I still am. How could he take that risk with his wife's life??

[2xx1xy1JD]

No, not at all. Sex is inherently awesome but it becomes problematic if you seek to separate the unitive end from the procreative end. That is why the church is against artificial conception as well as artificial contraception. Both seek one good end, at the expense of avoiding the other good end. They should always go together.

Having sex during an infertile time still leaves the chance of conceiving. It's saying, "We hope we don't conceive but we're leaving the chance open, by not actively stopping the chance.".

So if the couple has a serious reason they must avoid pregnancy, they can abstain. Really... any couple with that serious of a reason should consider abstaining. Contraception fails with an alarming frequency. I'm not sure we'd feel any better if Jennifer Fulwiler said, "But we were using condoms!". Well, honey, if getting pregnant threatened your LIFE, why would you trust a condom??

Yes, failure rates exist....but there are permanent methods of birth control that are far, far more effective than NFP if any future pregnancy would be life-threatening. A hysterectomy could be an option for someone who needed absolute, 100% protection from pregnancy. Otherwise, the effectiveness of vasectomies is a failure rate of 1 in 2000, which is lower than any other method, and that could be lowered even further if men periodically test their semen.

[Savoring Samsara]

So if the couple has a serious reason they must avoid pregnancy, they can abstain. Really... any couple with that serious of a reason should consider abstaining. Contraception fails with an alarming frequency. I'm not sure we'd feel any better if Jennifer Fulwiler said, "But we were using condoms!". Well, honey, if getting pregnant threatened your LIFE, why would you trust a condom??

You're right, if it were me, I would not trust a condom. I would, however, trust a vasectomy and/or a tubal ligation, which have a MUCH lower rate of failure than a condom. (Perhaps even an IUD, which is temporary but 99.9% effective and has no chance of user error lowering its effectiveness.) Particularly if I had six children already. Of course, permanent sterilization would not be permissible under Catholic theology (unless it were something like an emergency hysterectomy, which I certainly don't wish on anyone). But for people who have no such religious qualms, I wouldn't necessarily say it's abstinence or nothing.

I checked her Twitter and it looks like her induction has just begun. I doubt Ms. Fulwiler would welcome the prayers of a UU pagan, but she'll be getting them from me anyway.

(ninja edit: crossposted with 2xx1xy1JD...sorry for the repetition, but I'll keep the post here for now)

[luv2run]

I have actually recently spoken to a priest who specializes in Catholic ethics.

My situation is similar to Jen's. I'm having my sixth csection next week. I wasn't thrilled about this baby. At all. We were charting. Alas, I ovulated early, didn't catch it, and got pregnant (after only being together twice that month...again, was not happy).

A tubal is being strongly recommended by my OB because after switching to this new practice mid pregnancy (I actually left a Catholic OBGYN practice because I was getting poor care), she reviewed my OR records and found that I've had two 'windows'. This means the lining around the scar on my uterus was thinning when they went to deliver the baby. I knew of only one (hence my leaving the other practice...I was livid they didn't tell me). She said that another baby after this would be 'life threatening' and was no longer ' a personal choice'. I love my OB. I trust her.

So I went to my spiritual director first. A Franciscan. He said that the preservation of my life was not a sin, and would fall under the double effect.

The ethics priest said the opposite. That if I had a hysterectomy, that it would fall under double effect the uterus is damaged and isn't working, so it has to be removed, with the secondary effect of being infertile. He said a tubal was a direct sterilization and not permissible under Catholic teaching, and because of that it doesn't fall under double effect. The tubal has the direct intention (purpose) of preventing pregnancy. The hysterectomy has the direct effect of saving my life. Honestly, I kept thinking, "Isn't that what the tubal is doing too?"

I told him my uterus WAS not working properly and that's why it needed a tubal. The OB says a hysterectomy is used only in life threatening or severe cases. The ethics priest said the tubal still didn't qualify. It honestly just confused me more.

As much as I worry about making the wrong decision (and my husband and I have abstained for a LONG time many times, and it's just not healthy IMO), I'm supposed to sign the papers for the tubal this Friday, and I'll probably do it. As much as it pains me. It pains me more that I feel that the faith I love so much isn't valuing my life. At least that's what it feels like. It's been hard.

I will say the priests, both of them, were very sympathetic, and didn't just consider random things. They took everything into consideration. So, I'm gonna go with with my director said. He knows me best anyway.

[Dog-n-Suds]

Pregnancy threatens her life. She and her husband have 5 (soon to be 6) children. No loving God would judge her for using a permanent form of birth control. It baffles me that she thinks God treats his creation that way.

It creeps me out how much she loves attention and goes into minute detail about her medical procedures. Posting an Instagram photo of an IV in her arm??? Get over yourself and put the focus on raising your kids. You really are not all that special!

I really do hope everything goes well for her and her baby today.

[luv2run]

I also wanted to add that my husband said if I wasn't comfortable with the tubal, he would abstain. And he would. When I told him I would worry about such a sacrifice on his part, he said "I'd deal with it. You're life is more important".

So, at least I know he loves me enough to sacrifice a lot for me if it came down to it.

It's not an easy decision. And I have to admit that the Church is not always clear on this teaching. I worry a lot of people are becoming martyrs when they don't have to be.

[singsingsing]

I've never seen a verse that says that (I could be wrong or have forgotten). I've seen verses that say the husband and wife's bodies belong to each other, so don't deny each other, (or something like that.) That's not quite the same thing..

In 1 Corinthians: "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

[Dog-n-Suds]

Dear luv2run,

It is good that you are doing what's best for your health. While it's true that some of the teachings of our religion (man made teachings) might not seem to value your life, the God who created you does!! God wants you to be healthy and able to raise your children and see them grow up.

I wish you the best with your upcoming C-section, for a safe delivery and a healthy baby. Blessings on you and your husband as you raise your family.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Does Catholicism have a theological concept of suspending other rules when there is a threat to life?

I'm just familiar with how this works in Judaism (see http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practic ... Life.shtml for a basic summary).

It's interesting how the theology seems to be quite different between 2 pro-birth religions. Judaism would likely require the tubal, on the grounds that a hysterectomy carries a higher risk of complications.

I also wonder about how the "secondary effect" exception plays out with the medical community. Doctors are generally required to advocate for the least risky procedures, and are also required to avoid causing harm. How does this work if a patient requests a more invasive procedure for religious reasons, or says that they intend to take drugs known to be toxic to a fetus but have no intention of aborting?

[Confused_by_religion]

To me, the fun question is:

Does god - IF it exists and is the immensely powerful and all-knowing raison d'etre of prette much everything - actually care if a tiny little human being during the short span of her fertility tries to control that fertility, especially if another pregnancy might result in a death that could turn five little humans into orphans? And especially if the pregnancy could be prevented by contraception, instead of being terminated by abortion?

Would god really care?

Especially a god that doesn't care all that much if there are floods, earthquakes, genocides, pandemics that kill off hundreds and hundreds of us?

The only conclusion it that a god that cares and minds is a micromanaging neurotic deity I'd rather not worship.

[JenXer]

Luv2run, we have a great deal in common... right down to your user name. I love to run, too. In fact, I was training for a marathon when I got pregnant (under nearly identical circumstances as you).

I have a tendency to hemorrhage at birth because my uterus just does not clamp down. Normally it's easily managed with a shot of pitocin but this last time my doctor was reaching for the phone to call the operating room. (Thankfully that's just when the bleeding slowed down.)

It's almost certainly going to happen again this time. It occured to me that I could very well end up with a hysterectomy. I was okay with that until I thought, "Wait. I might still be able to get pregnant. There just would be no place for the baby to implant."

The only certain way to prevent conception would be to remove the ovaries, but that would rocket me into menopause at the same time I'm postpartum. That doesn't sound like a good idea for my mental health! Then I thought of a hysterectomy with a tubal ligation. Then it was, "How about just the tubal ligation?".

I really, really admire you for seeking out spiritual/ethical clarification. My heart goes out to you immensely. Personally, I decided not to go for a tubal ligation on its own. If a hysterectomy is necessary, okay. But I think the ethics priest is right. For me, this is one of those Hard Cases that calls for heroic sacrifice.

I hope and pray that your c-section goes smoothly and that your recovery is quick and comfortable. I can't even begin to convey how much I wish you well. (((Hugs)))

[Minerva]

I can see why Catholicism would allow elderly or infertile couples to have sex, but what about a couple where the woman has had her uterus and ovaries removed? A pregnancy is physically impossible, so they would by definition be separating the unitive end from the procreative end. Sure, the couple has no choice but to separate the ends if they want the unitive. But if couples who can't reproduce naturally can be expected to abstain from procreating in order to not separate the ends, then should a post-complete hysterectomy couple not be expected to abstain from sex for the same reason?

Getting back on topic, I wonder if Catholicism's teachings on suicide could be applied to Jen Fulwiler's situation, since their refusal to abstain could result in her death.

[DrPusey]

Well, it looks like she just tweeted and the immediate danger is past:

Baby is here! Thank you so much for your prayers. Totally, utterly exhausted. Details after I rest. :-)

Hope everything's OK for her and the baby. And that God speaks to her through the painkillers and she decides He's telling her to abstain or otherwise prevent future pregnancies.

[roamincatholic]

I can see why Catholicism would allow elderly or infertile couples to have sex, but what about a couple where the woman has had her uterus and ovaries removed? A pregnancy is physically impossible, so they would by definition be separating the unitive end from the procreative end. Sure, the couple has no choice but to separate the ends if they want the unitive. But if couples who can't reproduce naturally can be expected to abstain from procreating in order to not separate the ends, then should a post-complete hysterectomy couple not be expected to abstain from sex for the same reason?

It's about basic biological plumbing at the end of the day. As long as the act is "ordered" properly (aka, no contraception and PIV for ejaculation, each and every time) it's fine. Infertility or age are given a pass because it's still an appropriately ordered act, even if no pregnancy is likely to occur. Aka, there's always the chance God will perform a miracle and you'll get pregnant, so you haven't separated the unitive and procreative aspects - it's just an unfortunate issue outside your control.

Same rationale, btw, for why homosexual acts aren't licit in the Church. This stuff is all knotted together - I think that's why so many Catholics fall to one side or the other and become hardliners or liberals for all the sexual morality in the Church. If you disagree with one aspect, like licit use of contraception, it all starts to unravel.

On a more related note, if she says she got pregnant while charting - this is the same lady who treats her life-necessary medication as just another task she can procrastinate or forget. I would normally say a life-threatening condition would compel someone to practice very strict NFP, but in her case, I'm not so sure she followed all the rules to the letter.

[Scales]

In 1 Corinthians: "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

That's the same one I was thinking of. Seems pretty reasonable to me. And also seems like the mister should take good care of his wife's body and not risk killing her for an orgasm. It doesn't say no abstaining, just not to deprive one another. My husband would not be deprived if his orgasm had a chance of killing me and so we abstained until I was past childbearing. He wouldn't touch me. This would still leave each of us with the whole self-control issue, and the lack thereof. Of course, we're not Catholic, so, happily, birth control methods are fine for us and we don't have to actually worry about this. I think this makes a great case for birth control being fine, especially in cases where somebody's life is in danger. It makes no logical sense to keep trying to bear children when it's a death sentence for both you and the baby.

I cannot imagine going to any religious worker, or anyone really, and describing what we do or don't do, how often we do it, and what order we do it in, and what kinds of birth control may or may not be used. Doesn't that seem awfully intrusive for some figure to be inserting himself into a relationship that is supposed to be a union before God? It seems so odd to me.

[samurai_sarah]

Luv2run, we have a great deal in common... right down to your user name. I love to run, too. In fact, I was training for a marathon when I got pregnant (under nearly identical circumstances as you).

I have a tendency to hemorrhage at birth because my uterus just does not clamp down. Normally it's easily managed with a shot of pitocin but this last time my doctor was reaching for the phone to call the operating room. (Thankfully that's just when the bleeding slowed down.)

It's almost certainly going to happen again this time. It occured to me that I could very well end up with a hysterectomy. I was okay with that until I thought, "Wait. I might still be able to get pregnant. There just would be no place for the baby to implant."

The only certain way to prevent conception would be to remove the ovaries, but that would rocket me into menopause at the same time I'm postpartum. That doesn't sound like a good idea for my mental health! Then I thought of a hysterectomy with a tubal ligation. Then it was, "How about just the tubal ligation?".

I really, really admire you for seeking out spiritual/ethical clarification. My heart goes out to you immensely. Personally, I decided not to go for a tubal ligation on its own. If a hysterectomy is necessary, okay. But I think the ethics priest is right. For me, this is one of those Hard Cases that calls for heroic sacrifice.

I hope and pray that your c-section goes smoothly and that your recovery is quick and comfortable. I can't even begin to convey how much I wish you well. (((Hugs)))

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I've got to ask: What heroic sacrifice are you talking about? I'm confused. Are you talking about risking another pregnancy? Or a hysterectomy?

Also, why does this one priest's opinion trump the Franciscan? Quite frankly, to this former liberal Catholic, it sounds like whoever inflicts the maximum martyr-style suffering is right, in this case. And that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm still a cultural Catholic (my whole family is Catholic), and there are some things I love about the RCC. But perhaps I was raised in a different tradition, in which humans always came first. Good for you for living your faith to the letter of the law, but as I said, I'm confused. It sounds like needless martyrdom, so I'd love to hear a bit more.

P.S.: If this reads like a personal attack, I'm sorry. That's not my intention. You don't need my blessing for your personal choices, I'd just like to know more about why you choose that way. Feel free to ignore me if that's too personal. But for all it's worth, I sincerely hope that everything goes well with your current pregnancy.

[ILoveJellybeans]

It's about basic biological plumbing at the end of the day. As long as the act is "ordered" properly (aka, no contraception and PIV for ejaculation, each and every time) it's fine. Infertility or age are given a pass because it's still an appropriately ordered act, even if no pregnancy is likely to occur. Aka, there's always the chance God will perform a miracle and you'll get pregnant, so you haven't separated the unitive and procreative aspects - it's just an unfortunate issue outside your control.

Like Dede? She believes she is 12 months pregnant with a miracle lung horse baby despite her husband having a vasectomy.