Post by homeschooldad on Mar 21, 2024 15:11:14 GMT
www.pillarcatholic.com/p/pontifical-academy-raises-questions
It might surprise some readers, to know that I could actually accept the use of non-abortifacient contraception in cases of a wife (or possibly even a husband, though that scenario is as unlikely as it is comical, think of Peg and Al Bundy) insisting upon unjust fulfillment of the "marriage debt" when her husband forces her to engage in unwilful marital relations, is unwilling to use NFP (and that can always fail, NFP doesn't prevent pregnancy, it just makes pregnancy highly unlikely, or even highly likely when fertility awareness is being used to try to conceive), pregnancy would be highly imprudent, and she has no way to resist him --- that seems to me to fall more under the rubric of protecting oneself against an unjust aggressor (really a form of rape, when you think about it), than a willful use of birth control. Monstrous as it seems, some wives have no way to defend themselves against overbearing husbands where sex is concerned. There are cultures in which wives are treated more or less as slaves. A woman can certainly protect herself against pregnancy if she is raped, how would this be any different?
Another case would be (and this might be a bit of a reach) when either spouse could contract a loathsome disease (HIV, Zika, or even herpes) if a barrier method were not used. In the latter case, the goal is not to prevent pregnancy, but to ward off the transmission of a disease, the prevention of pregnancy simply being an unwanted double effect. Again, maybe a bit of a reach, but I think the reasoning is sound.
I don't know if the Church has ever addressed such cases --- that might be more of a pastoral matter than a matter of moral theology --- but I could accept these scenarios as in no way vitiating the traditional teaching of the Church.
As TLM adherents go, I tend to the more liberal side of the spectrum. Traditional principles of moral theology back me up on this, but I'm not sure how my fellow TradCaths would receive my reasoning. I'm not sure I care.
It might surprise some readers, to know that I could actually accept the use of non-abortifacient contraception in cases of a wife (or possibly even a husband, though that scenario is as unlikely as it is comical, think of Peg and Al Bundy) insisting upon unjust fulfillment of the "marriage debt" when her husband forces her to engage in unwilful marital relations, is unwilling to use NFP (and that can always fail, NFP doesn't prevent pregnancy, it just makes pregnancy highly unlikely, or even highly likely when fertility awareness is being used to try to conceive), pregnancy would be highly imprudent, and she has no way to resist him --- that seems to me to fall more under the rubric of protecting oneself against an unjust aggressor (really a form of rape, when you think about it), than a willful use of birth control. Monstrous as it seems, some wives have no way to defend themselves against overbearing husbands where sex is concerned. There are cultures in which wives are treated more or less as slaves. A woman can certainly protect herself against pregnancy if she is raped, how would this be any different?
Another case would be (and this might be a bit of a reach) when either spouse could contract a loathsome disease (HIV, Zika, or even herpes) if a barrier method were not used. In the latter case, the goal is not to prevent pregnancy, but to ward off the transmission of a disease, the prevention of pregnancy simply being an unwanted double effect. Again, maybe a bit of a reach, but I think the reasoning is sound.
I don't know if the Church has ever addressed such cases --- that might be more of a pastoral matter than a matter of moral theology --- but I could accept these scenarios as in no way vitiating the traditional teaching of the Church.
As TLM adherents go, I tend to the more liberal side of the spectrum. Traditional principles of moral theology back me up on this, but I'm not sure how my fellow TradCaths would receive my reasoning. I'm not sure I care.