It’s not that simple. If you’re talking about condoms, or some other barrier method, yes. If you’re talking about oral contraceptives, then no, that isn’t correct. It is permissible to use oral contraceptives if they are being used for a medical purpose other than to contracept.
Lol, gotta get a list of questions out there because you never know who is next! They’ll need to be prioritized too, because I dont want to learn Jesus’s favorite color before getting an answer to this.
I sure am hoping so.
This is an extremely dangerous idea and makes abortionists and other child killers to be more effective than Christ’s own church at saving souls. It’s an evil and pernicious idea piggybacking on sentimentality…as they so often do.
Perhaps that is exactly why it has not been revealed to us.
Even entertaining the idea is pernicious.
I quite agree.
Our modern American society would be strongly taken aback, though, by the suggestion that any unbaptized baby could go anyplace other than heaven. It’s a disliked concept, therefore, it’s not embraced. I don’t like it myself — who would? Modern religious sensibility is all about finding something that is pleasant to believe.
Once again, the tail wags the dog.
These are points very well made. Spontaneous abortion, most often before anyone knows, are just part of nature and there is nothing we can do about it. If everyone were to abstain from relations because of the possibility that a child would be conceived and spontaneously aborted, the human race would die out in one generation. Clearly that is not God’s will.
There is no problem whatsoever with a woman taking anovulants to correct uterine problems and the like. If ovulation is suppressed, there can be no pregnancy. I am all in favor of women using such medications solely in the interest of improving their health, without contraceptive intent. And as you point out, a woman using these medications is actually less likely to miscarry.
And it is not only contraceptive pills that have a potentially abortifacient function — other methods do as well, including the IUD. Mirabile dictu, even The Washington Post (!) admits this:
However, some physicians and researchers stand firm on the pre-1970 view that pregnancy begins at the moment of conception, when a sperm unites with an egg. From that perspective, any method that prevents implantation of that fertilized egg (essentially, everything except barrier methods such as condoms) is abortifacient.
I think apparitions adding to revealed doctrine is one of those red flags that marks apparitions as suspect. Some thing we just don’t know.
Could also add on having a short Lutal phase, and any number of other medications/ medical conditions that affect implantation and hormone levels.
I see the need for some of the language to improve to reflect what women are going through. Having a medication seen as abortive (most horrible thing ever) but suddenly you need to take it and it’s fine is confusing to say the least.
Where a medication has a potentially abortifacient function, I would recommend (a) finding out whether it makes conception and/or miscarriage more likely, less likely, or about the same, and (b) consulting one’s confessor and sharing the scenario and this information. There is no “one size fits all” scenario.
Yeah a blanket rule would be difficult, while birth control may be the most commonly cited one, there’s a lot of drugs that can affect fertility and implantation, things like anti-depressants which help people with chemical imbalances literally go about their day all the way down to things we don’t even think about taking like ibuprofen.