|
|
Post by tisbearself on Feb 4, 2022 18:24:07 GMT
My recommemdation is that if you really want a source, contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center and ask for one. This subject is not discussed a lot in Catholic resources on contraception because it isn't a sin and likely accounts for only a small percentage of situations, which can be handled where necessary by a Catholic priest providing individual guidance based on his personal knowledge of someone's situation and motivations.
Having said that, I tend to think that even if a Pope had expressed the correct teaching directly, your acquaintance would still reject it, the same way people like Ron Conte freely reject Church teachings that don't agree with their ideas.
If the man isn't married or planning to be, and is not in the position of deacon or priest or spiritual advisor to others, then from a practical standpoint nobody cares what he thinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Feb 4, 2022 18:47:50 GMT
I got into a discussion the other day with someone, a quite scholarly ex-seminarian, totally orthodox in the Faith, and he maintained that if a woman is forced to use an anovulant for therapeutic reasons (to address endometriosis, to regulate a wildly erratic cycle, etc.) that has the unintended and unwanted side effect of suppressing her fertility, she must totally abstain from conjugal relations with her husband, as long as she is taking this medication. It has always been my understanding, that a woman in such circumstances is not obliged to abstain from conjugal relations, in that she does not wish, desire, seek, or intend the contraceptive effect of that medication. In short, she is in the same position, albeit temporarily and not permanently, as a woman who has had her ovaries and/or uterus removed for medical reasons (cancer, etc.) rather than with contraceptive intent, or for that matter, a woman who has completed menopause and will be infertile the rest of her life. (The same principle would, of course, also come to bear, if a man had to have his gonads removed due to cancer or similar grave threat to health.) I want to keep the scenario as streamlined as possible, and to make the following assumptions: - Neither the woman, nor her husband, taking delight or relief, as a voluntary emotion, in not being able to get pregnant, but rather, wishing she could be fertile during this time, even though it's not possible, and regretting the fact that their marital acts cannot be open to life.
- The anovulant is 100% effective, and even the remote possibility of an abortifacient effect does not exist.
- There is no other reasonable remedy.
- It may be only temporary, though possibly without a foreseen time frame.
The man with whom I've been talking, merely makes the assertion that conjugal relations in this case are sinful, without any relevant magisterial teaching, or citation from an orthodox Catholic moral theology text. Can anyone here, not merely making the opposite assertion in turn, or having to say "that's what I've always understood" (i.e., that involuntarily sterile coitus is permitted where conception is made impossible due to therapeutic use of BC pills), supply me with citations to refute what, unless I've been missing something for five decades, I've never had reason to believe otherwise? I don't foresee a debate on the merits of Humanae vitae, nor admonitions to be more concerned with other things (the plight of the poor and downtrodden, climate change, social justice, etc.), I'm just looking for sources. Thanking all in advance. I don't believe your "friend" the ex-seminarian no less, isn't aware of the Church teaching on the licit medical use of contraception. He's just a dissenter and most likely motivated by misogyny. He needs to concentrate more on self examination than judging women. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 4, 2022 20:31:43 GMT
My recommendation is that if you really want a source, contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center and ask for one. This subject is not discussed a lot in Catholic resources on contraception because it isn't a sin and likely accounts for only a small percentage of situations, which can be handled where necessary by a Catholic priest providing individual guidance based on his personal knowledge of someone's situation and motivations. Having said that, I tend to think that even if a Pope had expressed the correct teaching directly, your acquaintance would still reject it, the same way people like Ron Conte freely reject Church teachings that don't agree with their ideas. If the man isn't married or planning to be, and is not in the position of deacon or priest or spiritual advisor to others, then from a practical standpoint nobody cares what he thinks. Contacting the NCBC is an excellent idea, and I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for suggesting this.
As for the guy online, I cannot say what his motivations are, and I have assumed that he is simply misinterpreting HV 15 (the relevant paragraph) in good faith and ignorance. I do have to say that he is a former RCIA teacher (not sure if he teaches anyone at the moment) and has some moderating role on a forum, so he does "teach" to some extent, and his views affect more people than just himself.
And in response to another objection, no, I don't think it's "misogyny". Think about it --- for every wife who supposedly must abstain, there is a husband who is having to abstain as well. There would be many a husband, who would find this as much --- or more --- of a sacrifice, than his wife would. Women are not being singled out here.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Feb 6, 2022 17:35:55 GMT
And this is precisely what waters down the faith for our children. Everyone's thought gets to be acknowledged and honored as fact. Not as a point of dialog, or scholarly discourse. Just some guy's interpretation, when we have the Church herself interpreting very well what she teaches.
One cannot interpret without adhering to what the Church ACTUALLY teaches. That's division, and we have far too much of it in our Church today.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 6, 2022 18:43:05 GMT
And this is precisely what waters down the faith for our children. Everyone's thought gets to be acknowledged and honored as fact. Not as a point of dialog, or scholarly discourse. Just some guy's interpretation, when we have the Church herself interpreting very well what she teaches. One cannot interpret without adhering to what the Church ACTUALLY teaches. That's division, and we have far too much of it in our Church today. I'll give anyone their say, and I have no problem with "acknowledging", but "honored as fact", that's another story. Actually, the stance of this ex-seminarian --- and I am still willing to assume that he's just read the relevant passage from HV, thought that's what it said or implied, and has "taken it and run with it" in all sincerity and good faith --- does raise the valid question that anyone could raise, viz. "all right, a woman can use the pill in that situation, to address a health matter, but isn't that still contraception?". That is something that would need to be explained, for instance, to someone in RCIA who could very legitimately raise such a question. The structure of traditional shorter catechisms (the Baltimore Catechism, as well as newer ones such as The New Parish Catechism and Life in Christ) works precisely this way, raising a question and then addressing it either in the affirmative, in the negative, or elaborating further. From time to time, I've bristled at that format, reasoning "the author is directing the narrative by posing questions and then answering those questions, rather than allowing the reader to come up with their own questions", but this is a sound pedagogical method that goes all the way back to the Summa Theologica and even Greek philosophy. The Radio Replies series is basically an exhaustive fusillade of challenges, some of them quite malignant, to Catholic doctrine and morality, with Fathers Rumble and Carty parrying every thrust that is made at them, and doing an outstanding job of it. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 10, 2022 4:52:18 GMT
My recommendation is that if you really want a source, contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center and ask for one. This subject is not discussed a lot in Catholic resources on contraception because it isn't a sin and likely accounts for only a small percentage of situations, which can be handled where necessary by a Catholic priest providing individual guidance based on his personal knowledge of someone's situation and motivations. Having said that, I tend to think that even if a Pope had expressed the correct teaching directly, your acquaintance would still reject it, the same way people like Ron Conte freely reject Church teachings that don't agree with their ideas. If the man isn't married or planning to be, and is not in the position of deacon or priest or spiritual advisor to others, then from a practical standpoint nobody cares what he thinks. Contacting the NCBC is an excellent idea, and I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for suggesting this.
As for the guy online, I cannot say what his motivations are, and I have assumed that he is simply misinterpreting HV 15 (the relevant paragraph) in good faith and ignorance. I do have to say that he is a former RCIA teacher (not sure if he teaches anyone at the moment) and has some moderating role on a forum, so he does "teach" to some extent, and his views affect more people than just himself.
And in response to another objection, no, I don't think it's "misogyny". Think about it --- for every wife who supposedly must abstain, there is a husband who is having to abstain as well. There would be many a husband, who would find this as much --- or more --- of a sacrifice, than his wife would. Women are not being singled out here.
Just to follow up, I checked the NCBC website, and they do indeed offer an inquiry service, however, it is intended for those who have a concrete situation of their own, and need bioethics guidance. Given that this is an issue that does not affect me directly (as it would, for instance, if my wife were taking contraceptives for this purpose, and if there were a question of conjugal rights), I did not make an inquiry. They also suggest that providing this service is not "free", i.e., there are expenses involved in such counseling, and that donations are appreciated. I have absolutely no issue with that. Somebody has to spend time giving professional advice, and that has value. If I were going to spend money (other than the fees I pay to maintain my own website) in the apostolate, I would, as I've mentioned before, put a small advertisement promoting CCS in an orthodox Catholic publication such as the National Catholic Register or The Wanderer, but I have tried to find advertising rates for both, and for some reason, they don't publish those rates. You'd think they would. |
|
