pregnant Catholics with health problems

[Minerva]

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.

Ok, I understand the first part. But I don't see the distinction between two cis men having buttsex and a hetero couple having sex when the wife has no uterus or ovaries. In both cases, there are no eggs to be fertilized and the sperm is just going to die in a hole. The likelihood of a miracle pregnancy is exactly the same, so why is one licit and the other not?

Also, where would the Church stand on a woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having sex with a man? People with CAIS are assigned female at birth because they have vulvas and usually vaginas of some length, but there is no uterus, they have an XY karotype, and their "ovaries" are really undescended testes and therefore can't make eggs. Same likelihood of pregnancy as the two scenarios described above, but the "plumbing" issue is more ambiguous. If a woman with CAIS wouldn't be permitted to have sex with a man, would she be permitted to have sex with other women? Could her testes not producing sperm be considered "an unfortunate issue outside her control"?

[Savoring Samsara]

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?

I don't want to speak for the original poster, of course, but I think maybe by "heroic sacrifice" she meant remaining sexually abstinent within marriage?

[Librul]

Catholics using NFP as a semi-permanent or permanent "birth control" method are not in conformity with Church teaching, any more than a condom- wearing couple, no matter how much they spin it. It is to be used temporarily, when there is a pressing need to "space" children for a time. The sophistry of the arguments that many of the NFP crowd use is staggering. Especially when people talk of using it for literally YEARS. Used in that way, it's no different morally, in the eyes of the Church, than any other form of bc. Read the documents...not the literature from the Couple to Couple League.

[roamincatholic]

Ok, I understand the first part. But I don't see the distinction between two cis men having buttsex and a hetero couple having sex when the wife has no uterus or ovaries. In both cases, there are no eggs to be fertilized and the sperm is just going to die in a hole. The likelihood of a miracle pregnancy is exactly the same, so why is one licit and the other not?

Also, where would the Church stand on a woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having sex with a man? People with CAIS are assigned female at birth because they have vulvas and usually vaginas of some length, but there is no uterus, they have an XY karotype, and their "ovaries" are really undescended testes and therefore can't make eggs. Same likelihood of pregnancy as the two scenarios described above, but the "plumbing" issue is more ambiguous. If a woman with CAIS wouldn't be permitted to have sex with a man, would she be permitted to have sex with other women? Could her testes not producing sperm be considered "an unfortunate issue outside her control"?

To the first question - it's the difference between a "sterile" and "infertile" act. The two men are committing a sterile act - the procreative nature is completely out of the picture. The hetero couple is infertile, but the act itself is still ordered towards procreation and the "natural order", which is why they can't have anal sex either. Basically, you need to throw your mind back to 10th century (or older) theology to grasp this one. For the record, I've read and heard these arguments myself but come out where you are - just trying to explain the party line.

And for the second one - begs another question - could a woman with CAIS be a priest? I have to admit I have never seen anything written on intersex individuals within the Church. Given how strong the male/female roles are within it, I can't imagine it would be an easy place to stay for someone in that situation.

[Jenny]

Catholics using NFP as a semi-permanent or permanent "birth control" method are not in conformity with Church teaching, any more than a condom- wearing couple, no matter how much they spin it. It is to be used temporarily, when there is a pressing need to "space" children for a time. The sophistry of the arguments that many of the NFP crowd use is staggering. Especially when people talk of using it for literally YEARS. Used in that way, it's no different morally, in the eyes of the Church, than any other form of bc. Read the documents...not the literature from the Couple to Couple League.

I've heard of the Couple to Couple League - advertised on Catholic radio - so I assumed it was 100% approved by the RCC. What documents refute this? The catechism? If you know offhand what documents to research, I'd like to look a little further into this. Thanks.

[burntnorton]

This whole conversation is why I have zero respect for the attempts the Catholic church has made to put an intellectual gloss on its sexual positions. If NFP is, as its advocates claim, as effective as condoms or hormonal birth control (it isn't, unless you cherry pick stats from tiny studies of perfect use), then there is actually no difference between using NFP in the Catholic approved way and using a condole or hormonal birth control for the same approved purpose. In both cases, the act is equally open to life. So either they are lying about NFP to mislead their followers or their position is logically indefensible.

Then we get into the double effect exercise in mental masturbation. You have an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo or fetus is nonviable and it's continued presence in your fallopian tube threatens your health, life, and future fertility. The best treatment is to chemically terminate the pregnancy, which avoids the risk of surgery and has the best chance of preserving future fertility. But the mental wankery Catholic theologians engage in say this is a no no because it directly kills the embryo/fetus. Instead, they reimagine the problem as a diseased tube. Never mind that the "disease" is the fetus itself - when it's gone, the damaged tube presents zero risk. So the woman should have to undergo surgery with all it's risks, including danger to future fertility. Or you have a situation that could be effectively treated by severing the tubes, which solves the health problem without presenting any downside risk since it can be quickly accomplished before stitching up the Csection. Or you can remove the whole uterus, which is much riskier and will wreak extra fun havoc on the used up incubator - sorry, woman's - hormones. Of course the principle of double effect holds that the latter is the right option. Because you can bet that whatever option punishes the woman more for not serving her function as a piece of tupperware to store babies in is the right one. It's grotesque and evil and the Catholic church has blood on it's hands for promoting this dangerous, misogynistic bullshit.

[Mama Mia]

This whole conversation is why I have zero respect for the attempts the Catholic church has made to put an intellectual gloss on its sexual positions. If NFP is, as its advocates claim, as effective as condoms or hormonal birth control (it isn't, unless you cherry pick stats from tiny studies of perfect use), then there is actually no difference between using NFP in the Catholic approved way and using a condole or hormonal birth control for the same approved purpose. In both cases, the act is equally open to life. So either they are lying about NFP to mislead their followers or their position is logically indefensible.

Then we get into the double effect exercise in mental masturbation. You have an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo or fetus is nonviable and it's continued presence in your fallopian tube threatens your health, life, and future fertility. The best treatment is to chemically terminate the pregnancy, which avoids the risk of surgery and has the best chance of preserving future fertility. But the mental wankery Catholic theologians engage in say this is a no no because it directly kills the embryo/fetus. Instead, they reimagine the problem as a diseased tube. Never mind that the "disease" is the fetus itself - when it's gone, the damaged tube presents zero risk. So the woman should have to undergo surgery with all it's risks, including danger to future fertility. Or you have a situation that could be effectively treated by severing the tubes, which solves the health problem without presenting any downside risk since it can be quickly accomplished before stitching up the Csection. Or you can remove the whole uterus, which is much riskier and will wreak extra fun havoc on the used up incubator - sorry, woman's - hormones. Of course the principle of double effect holds that the latter is the right option. Because you can bet that whatever option punishes the woman more for not serving her function as a piece of tupperware to store babies in is the right one. It's grotesque and evil and the Catholic church has blood on it's hands for promoting this dangerous, misogynistic bullshit.

o

To the bolded: I always am surprised when people talk about Catholic Hospitals not providing appropriate care for tubal pregnancies or life-threatening pregnancies.

The main hospital in my town is Catholic and I know several people who had appropriate care for their tubal pregnancies. If they were too advanced to use chemicals they would do surgery on the tube, or remove the tube if that was the only option - but the chemical /medical choice was always on the table as a possibility if medically appropriate - the only concern was if it would work or not. In one case with a friend they tried the medical option first, then when that failed they went on to do surgery that removed the embryo and saved the tube.

With someone else I know they suggested a therapeutic abortion due to severe uncontrolled hyperemesis.

They won't do tubal ligations, but they do seem to put the mother's health first if isn't an elective procedure.

[Minerva]

To the first question - it's the difference between a "sterile" and "infertile" act. The two men are committing a sterile act - the procreative nature is completely out of the picture. The hetero couple is infertile, but the act itself is still ordered towards procreation and the "natural order", which is why they can't have anal sex either. Basically, you need to throw your mind back to 10th century (or older) theology to grasp this one. For the record, I've read and heard these arguments myself but come out where you are - just trying to explain the party line.

And for the second one - begs another question - could a woman with CAIS be a priest? I have to admit I have never seen anything written on intersex individuals within the Church. Given how strong the male/female roles are within it, I can't imagine it would be an easy place to stay for someone in that situation.

Intersex conditions like CAIS tend to confuse people who a) believe in strict gender roles and b) think sex and gender are the same thing. Assigning a gender is straightforward for most intersex conditions; back when Catholic doctrines were being written, a lot of cases would have resulted in remarks such as "this boy has an unusually small penis" or "this girl has an unusually large clitoris" and nothing would have been made of it. Rarely would anyone have seen a case where a baby's genitals were completely indiscernible, and in a lot of those cases, the baby would have died of other birth defects before gender roles became an issue. The Church had no way of knowing that sometimes women are infertile because they have no uterus and testes instead of ovaries, and they didn't even know what chromosomes were back then. I'd be very interested to know how Catholic doctrine deals with conditions that cause sexual ambiguity like 5-alpha reductase deficiency or CAIS, given that their doctrines don't account for that being possible.

[alba]

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.

So if I were Catholic my fiancé and I would have to abstain from sex for the next thirty years? Glad I'm an atheist ;)

This is what I don't get: if sex is "a renewal of the convenant of matrimony", then surely it's potentially harmful to the marriage (and could result in divorce) if it's abstained from for long periods of time - and, indeed, it's well-accepted that lack of sex can have harmful effects on marriages. Isn't it also sinful for you to do something harmful to your marriage when there are options out there that would not harm the marriage?

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.

Surely if God thinks you should be parents He can perform a miracle and make a woman using contraception pregnant (which would seriously piss me off, because it's a huge invasion of my body), can't He? No contraception is 100% effective, so you're not truly separating the unitive and procreative aspects.

And on the topic of same-sex relations, isn't being LGBT an "issue outside your control"? You can't help being attracted to someone of the same sex, so why be deprived of the enjoyment of sex?

[burntnorton]

Mrs. S2004 - I recognize that most Catholic hospitals provide standard care. That's in part for liability reasons, but mostly because the professionals who work there day to day aren't monsters. They inhabit the real world and not some abstract paradise where they don't get confronted with the consequences of their actions. They prescribe birth control, provide tube "biopsies" (really, father, I just thought I saw something off during the c section. It's a total coincidence that the woman was all set to have a post pregnancy ligation at another facility!), and provide medical abortions for ectopic. Indeed, it's where I had my medical abortions for an ectopic. But in today's climate, you never know when the local bishop or some other misogynistic ass will stick his hand in and duck everything up by, say, denoting and excommunication an administrator for agreeing to provide an emergent abortion to a woman who was too close to dying an horrific death to transfer (see Arizona). And medical abortions for ectopic pregnancies are all but impossible to get in Ireland because of the influence of the Catholic church.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Mrs. S2004 - I recognize that most Catholic hospitals provide standard care. That's in part for liability reasons, but mostly because the professionals who work there day to day aren't monsters. They inhabit the real world and not some abstract paradise where they don't get confronted with the consequences of their actions. They prescribe birth control, provide tube "biopsies" (really, father, I just thought I saw something off during the c section. It's a total coincidence that the woman was all set to have a post pregnancy ligation at another facility!), and provide medical abortions for ectopic. Indeed, it's where I had my medical abortions for an ectopic. But in today's climate, you never know when the local bishop or some other misogynistic ass will stick his hand in and duck everything up by, say, denoting and excommunication an administrator for agreeing to provide an emergent abortion to a woman who was too close to dying an horrific death to transfer (see Arizona). And medical abortions for ectopic pregnancies are all but impossible to get in Ireland because of the influence of the Catholic church.

This is a very real problem in my area. Both my husband and my BIL did some of their training in Catholic hospitals here.

While many of the doctors aren't necessarily Catholic and couldn't care less, the official hospital policy simply does not permit certain actions and procedures. My husband was threatened by one of the ER nurses after he wrote a prescription for birth control. I also heard a harrowing story about a women with premature rupture of the membranes at 20 weeks, who subsequently died due to infection. The OB resident at the Catholic hospital kept checking for a fetal heartbeat instead of operating.

[rollmeover]

Intersex conditions like CAIS tend to confuse people who a) believe in strict gender roles and b) think sex and gender are the same thing. Assigning a gender is straightforward for most intersex conditions; back when Catholic doctrines were being written, a lot of cases would have resulted in remarks such as "this boy has an unusually small penis" or "this girl has an unusually large clitoris" and nothing would have been made of it. Rarely would anyone have seen a case where a baby's genitals were completely indiscernible, and in a lot of those cases, the baby would have died of other birth defects before gender roles became an issue. The Church had no way of knowing that sometimes women are infertile because they have no uterus and testes instead of ovaries, and they didn't even know what chromosomes were back then. I'd be very interested to know how Catholic doctrine deals with conditions that cause sexual ambiguity like 5-alpha reductase deficiency or CAIS, given that their doctrines don't account for that being possible.

I have CAIS. I can't be a priest because I am not a man in any sense except chromosonally - socially and legally (and in my own "heart and soul") I am a woman. I personally don't have any issue being Catholic and having CAIS because I don't feel or look like I have a "sexual ambiguity" but I have seen a very few catholics acting/writing with hatred towards intersex people, usually because they tack us on to the end of the GLBTQI thing and include us in their panic and fear and distaste about what the "weird people" might do to their community/children/church. I'm not publically "out" as being intersex because a) my family don't want me to be for various reasons, and b) I don't really identify myself that way and I'm still trying to work out what my duty is in terms of membership of a group that I don't feel a part of - but the catholics who know my background are all supportive and I suppose tend to see it as a physical medical issue. I suppose that means I get a free pass whereas someone who was born an XY male but identifies as female would be seen as having a pyschological issue, and the question of being gay/straight is often seen as a choice or another psychological issue by many christians. That is something I struggle with because the people who for example I saw writing on a blog about the "disgusting GLBTQI" people in their neighbourhood would look at me as a married mother and not stigmatise me, and I feel like I belong with the people they were hating on but am hidden.

I find it quite interesting to pop the bubble of christians having deep discussions about gender/sexuality when I reveal that I have a DSD and that means that their confident assertions that I am biologically programmed to enjoy being a wife/mother/submissive/homemaker are actually wrong etc. I am endlessly fascinated by social constructions of gender and sexuality and how that relates to church doctrine and science - and the way people in general perceive the topic.

The intersex people I know all "pass" as their social sexual identity and unless we tell someone they have no idea. I know of (online) some intersex people who embrace being "different" and having an idenity that is not entirely male or entirely female, but the people I know all identify as women and live as typical XX women in every way.

I have talked to a couple of priests and as I am in the eyes of the church a woman and my husband is an XY male sex between us is licit as it would be between a couple where the woman had no reproductive organs or was post-menopausal.

I think there are probably more challenges for people who have PAIS (or other DSDs that present in a physically more ambiguous manner) than for women/people with CAIS in terms of their gender identity and role within the church.

[Boltingmadonna]

Since I started this topic, I feel as if I should have the courtesy to show some interest in what people are saying . . . but Jeebus on the half shell, when the conversation turns to earnestly trying to make sense of Catholic teaching about sex, my eyes roll back so hard they're in danger of shooting through the back of my head. The crazy . . . it burns!! As burntnorton said:

This whole conversation is why I have zero respect for the attempts the Catholic church has made to put an intellectual gloss on its sexual positions.

Ay-freakin'-men, sister.

Mrs S2004 says

I always am surprised when people talk about Catholic Hospitals not providing appropriate care for tubal pregnancies or life-threatening pregnancies.

I don't know why the surprise. If they're following Church teaching, then they're not providing appropriate care. If they're providing appropriate care, they're not following Church teaching. They may be getting away with it because they have not yet come to the attention of a bishop who is interested in punishing them. It is impossible to know going in whether they will provide you with appropriate care, because you can't be sure where their loyalties will lie in any given case. That's why I would have trouble trusting a Catholic hospital.

JenXer said:

For me, this is one of those Hard Cases that calls for heroic sacrifice.

It isn't heroic. It's stupid. It's a self-imposed suffering that makes no sense--like Abigail giving away her perfectly good refrigerator. Any God who is happy that you've decided to make yourself suffer isn't worth worshipping. And I can't even get my head around the notion that you think you could be "pregnant" without a uterus. I think that shows the ultimate insanity of believing that a fertilized egg = "pregnancy." If you have no uterus in which an egg can implant, then you are NOT going to be pregnant. But I guess that explains the Catholics I've heard saying that if you have a hysterectomy, you are morally required never to have sex again.

I'm going to bow out for awhile now, because this is making my head spin. I am glad Jen Fulwiler and her baby survived. But I'm afraid this only means that the train wreck will continue. And it will encourage others to be equally cavalier about their own health, because look, she did it! And she has her own TV show! And she's so cute! /Facepalm.

[Boltingmadonna]

Popping back in to say that I regret using the word "stupid" in my previous post. I don't think that JenXer or any other Catholics here are stupid people because they believe Catholic teaching. I was once the same way, and agonized over all these things. I don't want my impatience with the Church to make me disrespectful of other women. It is, in fact, one of the things that boggles my mind so much--I don't understand how otherwise intelligent and sensitive people can allow themselves to be dominated by teachings that treat women like walking wombs. It bothers me. It is BECAUSE I respect Catholic women that I wonder why they do things that seem to me like self-abuse. I guess I am just never going to understand it. But I don't think you're stupid.

[treemom]

I am so glad I am neither Catholic nor do I believe in this BS. My husband and I would have had to abstain for the rest of our lives given our history of childbearing and my complications from a childhood injury.

[treemom]

o

To the bolded: I always am surprised when people talk about Catholic Hospitals not providing appropriate care for tubal pregnancies or life-threatening pregnancies.

The main hospital in my town is Catholic and I know several people who had appropriate care for their tubal pregnancies. If they were too advanced to use chemicals they would do surgery on the tube, or remove the tube if that was the only option - but the chemical /medical choice was always on the table as a possibility if medically appropriate - the only concern was if it would work or not. In one case with a friend they tried the medical option first, then when that failed they went on to do surgery that removed the embryo and saved the tube.

With someone else I know they suggested a therapeutic abortion due to severe uncontrolled hyperemesis.

They won't do tubal ligations, but they do seem to put the mother's health first if isn't an elective procedure.

The catholic hospital in my town will only do tube removal for ectopic unless a u/s can clearly show no heartbeat.

And there is no way they would approve a therapeutic abortion.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I found this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353977

I appreciate that some Catholic posters here are discussing the nuances of Catholic doctrine.

At the same time, I think that there is a need to be very clear about the objective implications of this doctrine. The "secondary effects" doctrine may provide some wiggle room for Catholics, but is NOT equivalent to a doctrine that states that you do what you need to do to preserve the mother's life and health, period. The means permitted by Catholic doctrine to treat some maternal conditions, such as ectopic pregnancy, cause more harm to women than the medically recommended procedures.

If someone freely chooses a more dangerous option for personal religious reasons, that is their right. I won't, however, humor anyone who seriously tries to argue that these are not more invasive and more dangerous options (I'm not just picking on Catholics - while I'm fully aware of the dangers of diseases transmitted via blood, I won't agree with a Jehovah's Witness who tries to deny that refusing blood transfusions in all circumstances can mean refusing life-saving treatment.). In my mind, if patients come to a Catholic hospital and aren't explicitly warned the moment they enter that they may be denied the best treatment option for religious reasons, or if there is no realistic alternative to a Catholic hospital in a particular area or in an emergency, you have an ethical problem.

[pugglemama]

o

To the bolded: I always am surprised when people talk about Catholic Hospitals not providing appropriate care for tubal pregnancies or life-threatening pregnancies.

The main hospital in my town is Catholic and I know several people who had appropriate care for their tubal pregnancies. If they were too advanced to use chemicals they would do surgery on the tube, or remove the tube if that was the only option - but the chemical /medical choice was always on the table as a possibility if medically appropriate - the only concern was if it would work or not. In one case with a friend they tried the medical option first, then when that failed they went on to do surgery that removed the embryo and saved the tube.

With someone else I know they suggested a therapeutic abortion due to severe uncontrolled hyperemesis.

They won't do tubal ligations, but they do seem to put the mother's health first if isn't an elective procedure.

I delivered my third child at 20 weeks due to incompetent cervix and subsequent infection. She was born in a Catholic hospital. Before the doctors could induce me (despite being 4 cm dilated, I was not in labor), which was necessary in order to save my life, they have to have approval from their ethics committee because the baby was alive and induction of labor would cause her death at 20 weeks. They approved it, but made me feel like shit about it and basically considered it an abortion. However, when I delivered my subsequent child at 31 weeks due to severe pre-eclampsia (third case of preeclampsia, more severe each time) and had a c-section, the same hospital refused to allow a tubal ligation. IMO, another pregnancy just as life threatening as the events that lead to my daughter's birth and death, for myself and the baby but they don't see it that way. I have three living children who need me here. My husband had a vasectomy (more than willingly lol) to spare me another surgery.

[treemom]

Pugglemama,

I am so sorry.

[AuntCloud]

The catholic hospital in my town will only do tube removal for ectopic unless a u/s can clearly show no heartbeat.

And there is no way they would approve a therapeutic abortion.

Sweet! then you'd be having internet discussions with my ghost, as I had a heterotopic pregnancy (DD was in the right place, her evil twin was in the tube). It ruptured, I nearly bled to death, some truly great doctors were able to take out the tube plus evil twin while keeping Cloudlet where she was. I guess the Catholic hospital would rather see me and fetus perish but hey, at least we didn't kill Evil Twin!

Why does religion have to be linked with medicine? I second the amazement at otherwise intelligent women letting celibate men micromanage their reproductive life and health. It's just isn't logical (can I get a Spock gif, please?).

Pugglemama, I'm so sorry. Yay for the Catholic hospital for making you feel even worse, if possible, when you are about to lose a much wanted pregnancy. I'm asking again - why would intelligent women (and men) trust their health with church officials who don't seem to have their best interest at heart?

[Minerva]

I have CAIS. I can't be a priest because I am not a man in any sense except chromosonally - socially and legally (and in my own "heart and soul") I am a woman. I personally don't have any issue being Catholic and having CAIS because I don't feel or look like I have a "sexual ambiguity" but I have seen a very few catholics acting/writing with hatred towards intersex people, usually because they tack us on to the end of the GLBTQI thing and include us in their panic and fear and distaste about what the "weird people" might do to their community/children/church. I'm not publically "out" as being intersex because a) my family don't want me to be for various reasons, and b) I don't really identify myself that way and I'm still trying to work out what my duty is in terms of membership of a group that I don't feel a part of - but the catholics who know my background are all supportive and I suppose tend to see it as a physical medical issue. I suppose that means I get a free pass whereas someone who was born an XY male but identifies as female would be seen as having a pyschological issue, and the question of being gay/straight is often seen as a choice or another psychological issue by many christians. That is something I struggle with because the people who for example I saw writing on a blog about the "disgusting GLBTQI" people in their neighbourhood would look at me as a married mother and not stigmatise me, and I feel like I belong with the people they were hating on but am hidden.

I find it quite interesting to pop the bubble of christians having deep discussions about gender/sexuality when I reveal that I have a DSD and that means that their confident assertions that I am biologically programmed to enjoy being a wife/mother/submissive/homemaker are actually wrong etc. I am endlessly fascinated by social constructions of gender and sexuality and how that relates to church doctrine and science - and the way people in general perceive the topic.

The intersex people I know all "pass" as their social sexual identity and unless we tell someone they have no idea. I know of (online) some intersex people who embrace being "different" and having an idenity that is not entirely male or entirely female, but the people I know all identify as women and live as typical XX women in every way.

I have talked to a couple of priests and as I am in the eyes of the church a woman and my husband is an XY male sex between us is licit as it would be between a couple where the woman had no reproductive organs or was post-menopausal.

I think there are probably more challenges for people who have PAIS (or other DSDs that present in a physically more ambiguous manner) than for women/people with CAIS in terms of their gender identity and role within the church.

Thanks for sharing your experience! It's surprising how many people think the "maternal instinct" is linked to having two X chromosomes - the belief isn't limited to conservative Christians, either.

[Minerva]

For the record, about.com says you can get pregnant after a hysterectomy. Some hysterectomies leave the ovaries and part of the uterus in place, and the embryo implants on that. Some hysterectomies just leave the ovaries in place and "tie" off the top of the vagina. If sperm gets through that tie and wanders up the abdominal cavity to an egg, and the embryo implants on one of the abdominal organs (or on the fallopian tubes if they were left in place), then you have an ectopic pregnancy.

[mockingbird]

This subject is what made me become disillusioned with the Catholic church. I am extremely sensitive to hormones. I am also petite so I would have similar concerns to Jen in The Little Couple. There's kind-of a consensus among me, close family and my gynecologist that pregnancy would be very dangerous for me. If it didn't kill me, it would be living hell for 9 months. I had cancer treatments which *probably* made me infertile, and had always planned to adopt, but I personally don't feel comfortable with trusting "probably infertile" because the "miracle baby" would not be so miraculous in my case. I can't jibe with the Catholic teachings because they would require me to go through something that would put me in serious danger. Once I looked at it that way, the teachings became offensive to me. I had an experience with out of whack hormones in high school that was traumatic, and I can't imagine God wanting me to choose to go through something like that again just because FETUS.

Anyway, there are a lot of things I find beautiful about the Catholic church, and I still believe in most of the basic theology. However, I can't agree with much of its social teachings because I feel like they are so ignorant and insensitive to the needs of the modern world.

[bananacat]

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

Yes, it is forbidden by Catholics (which is also ridiculous) but wow, you sure have a messed up view of sex. It's not just about using a woman for a man to reach orgasm. I'm all for oral and hands, but it needs to go both ways since the woman will want sexual relief just as much as the man.

[bananacat]

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.

Even if they did decide that a tubal was a sin, couldn't you just do it, confess once, and then be off the hook?