Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

[Guest guest]

,

Your message raises two questions. To what extent are the List messages archived, and how do we access those archives?

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

This has been a very interesting discussion. Has anyone considered writing an article or doing a case study for the Linacre Quarterly (the journal of the Catholic Medical Association)? Huntley CNM MSN co-moderator

[Guest guest]

There are several points I would like to mention that I have gleaned from this discussion.

Let us remember what the purposes of Christian/Catholic marriage are: it is a school of sanctity, in which we receive grace through the sacrament of our marriage to grow in holiness with the help of the spouse, in order to reach eternity in heaven.

We are called in marriage to sacrifice for the good of the other person (see Ephesians chapter 5, for example).

It seems that in this case, in the original question, there was expressed a reluctance to practice NFP strictly for avoiding pregnancy; in other words, perhaps there was an unwillingness to sacrifice for the good of the other person.

Another consideration is that this woman's uterus does not, in fact, present an immediate threat to her health or welll-being, but would present that risk only if it becomes a pregnant uterus... therefore, in fact, the only purpsoe to the hysterectomy at this point would be to prevent it becoming a pregnant uterus, or in other words, to contracept. Thus the true purpose of the hysterectomy is contraceptive, and would be objectively immoral. The CDF's statement makes perfect sense.

What our Lord calls us to often seems difficult or unpleasant, and often can involve suffering and sacrifice. However, God always provides us what we need to follow His will, no matter how difficult it may seem, if we step out in faith and obedience. God has a plan, and calls us to trust in Him.

We are all given a single life-time by the Lord, and the time is given so that we

might serve. For the work of God’s Church is never done, so long as time shall

last, and it is a privilege to offer the service of one’s life to her mission.

-Bishop E. , Diocese of Brownsville, TX

[Guest guest]

Hi Dominic,

1. I'm happy to continue the discussion as long as the others (including non-Catholics) on the list aren't find it too off-topic or otherwise boring (and I'm happy that those who have commented have been okay with it).

2. I'm pretty sure I agree with most of what you're saying.

3. In particular, I agree that what's needed here is moral certainty, and that someone who acts in accordance with what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the right thing (and that someone who acts in a way that's opposed to what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the wrong thing!).

4. Indeed, I'd go even further - one can, I think, be absolutely certain that to obey the teachings of the Church is right (and vice versa).

5. I think that's true especially because God (a) gives the Magisterium the special assistance you mention, and ( wills that we obey the Magisterium.

6. That's different from saying that the reason that we need to obey those teachings is that they're always guaranteed to be correct.

7. I think that this difference matters, for the following reasons:

A. We ought to do the right thing - and do it for the right reason. It is true that God gives the Magisterium special assistance and wills that we obey the Church's teachings. Thus, obeying the Magisterium for this reason = doing the right thing for the right reason. It isn't true that we're guaranteed that these teachings (even non-infallible) ones are always correct. Thus, to obey them on the grounds that they're absolutely certain to be correct = to do the right thing for something other than the right reason.

B. Something that I've had to address with my students in one of my courses - Catholic Social Teaching - is that the Church's moral Magisterium has - in the words of Pope Benedict XVI in his Dec. 2005 "hermeneutic of reform" (vs. "hermeneutic of discontinuity") address - "corrected" earlier teachings regarding religious liberty. I think that Benedict is right to characterize the teaching of the Church's living Magisterium, especially at Vatican II, in this way (and also to say that the authentic "hermeneutic of reform" actually involves a "combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels" - the former at the level of underlying principles, the latter at the level of practical applications); I don't think that a reading of the earlier papal teachings and - especially - of Vatican II that tries to make this "correction" (and element of discontinuity) go away is a fair reading. My point is - the more people have the (mistaken) idea that the Magisterium is always guaranteed to teach correctly (or always teaches "definitively"), the more they'll be unnecessarily resistant to, scandalized by, etc., at least one important teaching of the living Magisterium.

8. The CDF document we're discussing does say that the contrary opinion is to be excluded - but doesn't claim to be teaching this "definitively" or the like. In other words, we're back to the point that one may not dissent - but also that this isn't the same thing as a claim that the teaching is absolutely certain, that it's "definitive" in the theological sense I have in mind.

9. I'm not sure that the sense I have in mind in using that term is especially technical. In fact, I think that it's likely fairly easy for people who use that word to be thinking, at least implicitly, of a teaching that is guaranteed correct and couldn't ever change. I could be wrong. At any rate, it's this possibility - combined with the practical disadvantages (see my #7 above) of this way of thinking - that led me to enter this discussion. I'd also note that if I'm using "definitive" in a technical and unusual (outside certain theological conversations) sense, that doesn't mean that this isn't what one might call the "proper" sense of the term.

10. I also fully agree that a response like this one from the CDF isn't ever likely to be "definitive" in the sense in which I'm using the term (or more authoritative than this one is) - for that matter, neither are papal teachings (see point above about 19th-cent. papal teachings on religious liberty). Thus, my point about what sort of teachings these are, why we should obey them, whether they could conceivably change, etc., is of very wide application. Likewise, since these teachings are in fact highly authoritative (even though not definitive), my point that one must indeed obey them is of wide application.

I hope that this helps explain my point and why I think it matters.

Uterine Removal after rupture?>>>> To: nfpprofessionals >>>> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:37 AM>>>>>>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a client who has 5 children.>>>> baby #1 was C Sec. due to breech>>>> #2 and #3 were V Bac to term>>>> #4 was Uteri ne Rupture, emergency Section at term>>>> #5 was planned Section, but emergency section at 30 weeks due to rupture.>>>>>>>> This client is now seeking a Uterine removal, in part because she is fearful of using NFP "strictly' and fears another, risky, pregnancy.>>>>>>>> I'm thinking that if there really was a valid concern (health wise) for uterine removal, this would have occured during one of her last two sections, and that the "emergency/urgency" has passed.>>>>>>>> She is not having bleeding issues, there is scar tissue due to all of the repairs though, but these do not cause pain to her.>>>>>>>> any thoughts/observatio ns?>>>>>>>> thank you!>>>> lisa roder>>>> CCLI Instructor> > > ------------------------------------> & g t;

[Guest guest]

The entire content of our discussions since we moved the list to yahoogroups is archived. These can be accessed at the web site for yahoogroups for this group. You can access it by going to yahoogroups.com and signing is with your email (that you use for the list) and your password. If you haven't set up a yahoogroups account, I strongly suggest that you do so as you can control your email preferences this way and read the list from the internet.

alicia

Re: Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

,

Your message raises two questions. To what extent are the List messages archived, and how do we access those archives?

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

This has been a very interesting discussion. Has anyone considered writing an article or doing a case study for the Linacre Quarterly (the journal of the Catholic Medical Association)? Huntley CNM MSN co-moderator

Harry Truman once quipped, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell."

ahuntley@...

[Guest guest]

Pam

All good points and I agree completely. Good comments. Thanks

Les Ruppersberger, D.O. Re: Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

There are several points I would like to mention that I have gleaned from this discussion.

Let us remember what the purposes of Christian/Catholic marriage are: it is a school of sanctity, in which we receive grace through the sacrament of our marriage to grow in holiness with the help of the spouse, in order to reach eternity in heaven.

We are called in marriage to sacrifice for the good of the other person (see Ephesians chapter 5, for example).

It seems that in this case, in the original question, there was expressed a reluctance to practice NFP strictly for avoiding pregnancy; in other words, perhaps there was an unwillingness to sacrifice for the good of the other person.

Another consideration is that this woman's uterus does not, in fact, present an immediate threat to her health or welll-being, but would present that risk only if it becomes a pregnant uterus... therefore, in fact, the only purpsoe to the hysterectomy at this point would be to prevent it becoming a pregnant uterus, or in other words, to contracept. Thus the true purpose of the hysterectomy is contraceptive, and would be objectively immoral. The CDF's statement makes perfect sense.

What our Lord calls us to often seems difficult or unpleasant, and often can involve suffering and sacrifice. However, God always provides us what we need to follow His will, no matter how difficult it may seem, if we step out in faith and obedience. God has a plan, and calls us to trust in Him.

We are all given a single life-time by the Lord, and the time is given so that we

might serve. For the work of God’s Church is never done, so long as time shall

last, and it is a privilege to offer the service of one’s life to her mission.

-Bishop E. , Diocese of Brownsville, TX

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the complete response. I'd like to take a day or 2 to pray and reflect on the things you say; in the interim can I trouble you to provide a link to the Ratzinger "continuity/discontinuity/hermeneutic of reform" document you cite, especially with regard to the social doctrine developments from the 19th century onward? That would help me greatly in understanding precisely what it is you're saying. I think the discussion has become more important and engaging than I even first believed it would.

Re: Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

Hi Dominic,

1. I'm happy to continue the discussion as long as the others (including non-Catholics) on the list aren't find it too off-topic or otherwise boring (and I'm happy that those who have commented have been okay with it).

2. I'm pretty sure I agree with most of what you're saying.

3. In particular, I agree that what's needed here is moral certainty, and that someone who acts in accordance with what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the right thing (and that someone who acts in a way that's opposed to what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the wrong thing!).

4. Indeed, I'd go even further - one can, I think, be absolutely certain that to obey the teachings of the Church is right (and vice versa).

5. I think that's true especially because God (a) gives the Magisterium the special assistance you mention, and ( wills that we obey the Magisterium.

6. That's different from saying that the reason that we need to obey those teachings is that they're always guaranteed to be correct.

7. I think that this difference matters, for the following reasons:

A. We ought to do the right thing - and do it for the right reason. It is true that God gives the Magisterium special assistance and wills that we obey the Church's teachings. Thus, obeying the Magisterium for this reason = doing the right thing for the right reason. It isn't true that we're guaranteed that these teachings (even non-infallible) ones are always correct. Thus, to obey them on the grounds that they're absolutely certain to be correct = to do the right thing for something other than the right reason.

B. Something that I've had to address with my students in one of my courses - Catholic Social Teaching - is that the Church's moral Magisterium has - in the words of Pope Benedict XVI in his Dec. 2005 "hermeneutic of reform" (vs. "hermeneutic of discontinuity") address - "corrected" earlier teachings regarding religious liberty. I think that Benedict is right to characterize the teaching of the Church's living Magisterium, especially at Vatican II, in this way (and also to say that the authentic "hermeneutic of reform" actually involves a "combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels" - the former at the level of underlying principles, the latter at the level of practical applications); I don't think that a reading of the earlier papal teachings and - especially - of Vatican II that tries to make this "correction" (and element of discontinuity) go away is a fair reading. My point is - the more people have the (mistaken) idea that the Magisterium is always guaranteed to teach correctly (or always teaches "definitively"), the more they'll be unnecessarily resistant to, scandalized by, etc., at least one important teaching of the living Magisterium.

8. The CDF document we're discussing does say that the contrary opinion is to be excluded - but doesn't claim to be teaching this "definitively" or the like. In other words, we're back to the point that one may not dissent - but also that this isn't the same thing as a claim that the teaching is absolutely certain, that it's "definitive" in the theological sense I have in mind.

9. I'm not sure that the sense I have in mind in using that term is especially technical. In fact, I think that it's likely fairly easy for people who use that word to be thinking, at least implicitly, of a teaching that is guaranteed correct and couldn't ever change. I could be wrong. At any rate, it's this possibility - combined with the practical disadvantages (see my #7 above) of this way of thinking - that led me to enter this discussion. I'd also note that if I'm using "definitive" in a technical and unusual (outside certain theological conversations) sense, that doesn't mean that this isn't what one might call the "proper" sense of the term.

10. I also fully agree that a response like this one from the CDF isn't ever likely to be "definitive" in the sense in which I'm using the term (or more authoritative than this one is) - for that matter, neither are papal teachings (see point above about 19th-cent. papal teachings on religious liberty). Thus, my point about what sort of teachings these are, why we should obey them, whether they could conceivably change, etc., is of very wide application. Likewise, since these teachings are in fact highly authoritative (even though not definitive), my point that one must indeed obey them is of wide application.

I hope that this helps explain my point and why I think it matters.

Uterine Removal after rupture?

>>>> To: nfpprofessionals

>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:37 AM

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> A

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I have a client who has 5 children.

>>>> baby #1 was C Sec. due to breech

>>>> #2 and #3 were V Bac to term

>>>> #4 was Uteri ne Rupture, emergency Section at term

>>>> #5 was planned Section, but emergency section at 30 weeks due to rupture.

>>>>

>>>> This client is now seeking a Uterine removal, in part because she is fearful of using NFP "strictly' and fears another, risky, pregnancy.

>>>>

>>>> I'm thinking that if there really was a valid concern (health wise) for uterine removal, this would have occured during one of her last two sections, and that the "emergency/urgency" has passed.

>>>>

>>>> She is not having bleeding issues, there is scar tissue due to all of the repairs though, but these do not cause pain to her.

>>>>

>>>> any thoughts/observatio ns?

>>>>

>>>> thank you!

>>>> lisa roder

>>>> CCLI Instructor

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

& g t;

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Pedulla,The December 22, 2005 address can be found at this link:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.htmlAs I read it, the majority of this address seems to speak negatively towards the hermeneutics of discontinuity . For example in this address, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the two opposing ways of interpreting the Council, "On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call 'a

hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture'; it has frequently availed

itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of

modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of

renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has

given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet

always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of

God.

"Peace,Kathy Re: Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

Hi Dominic,

1. I'm happy to continue the discussion as long as the others (including non-Catholics) on the list aren't find it too off-topic or otherwise boring (and I'm happy that those who have commented have been okay with it).

2. I'm pretty sure I agree with most of what you're saying.

3. In particular, I agree that what's needed here is moral certainty, and that someone who acts in accordance with what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the right thing (and that someone who acts in a way that's opposed to what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the wrong thing!).

4. Indeed, I'd go even further - one can, I think, be absolutely certain that to obey the teachings of the Church is right (and vice versa).

5. I think that's true especially because God (a) gives the Magisterium the special assistance you mention, and ( wills that we obey the Magisterium.

6. That's different from saying that the reason that we need to obey those teachings is that they're always guaranteed to be correct.

7. I think that this difference matters, for the following reasons:

A. We ought to do the right thing - and do it for the right reason. It is true that God gives the Magisterium special assistance and wills that we obey the Church's teachings. Thus, obeying the Magisterium for this reason = doing the right thing for the right reason. It isn't true that we're guaranteed that these teachings (even non-infallible) ones are always correct. Thus, to obey them on the grounds that they're absolutely certain to be correct = to do the right thing for something other than the right reason.

B. Something that I've had to address with my students in one of my courses - Catholic Social Teaching - is that the Church's moral Magisterium has - in the words of Pope Benedict XVI in his Dec. 2005 "hermeneutic of reform" (vs. "hermeneutic of discontinuity") address - "corrected" earlier teachings regarding religious liberty. I think that Benedict is right to characterize the teaching of the Church's living Magisterium, especially at Vatican II, in this way (and also to say that the authentic "hermeneutic of reform" actually involves a "combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels" - the former at the level of underlying principles, the latter at the level of practical applications); I don't think that a reading of the earlier papal teachings and - especially - of Vatican II that tries to make this "correction" (and element of discontinuity) go away is a fair reading. My point is - the more people have the (mistaken) idea that the Magisterium is always guaranteed to teach correctly (or always teaches "definitively"), the more they'll be unnecessarily resistant to, scandalized by, etc., at least one important teaching of the living Magisterium.

8. The CDF document we're discussing does say that the contrary opinion is to be excluded - but doesn't claim to be teaching this "definitively" or the like. In other words, we're back to the point that one may not dissent - but also that this isn't the same thing as a claim that the teaching is absolutely certain, that it's "definitive" in the theological sense I have in mind.

9. I'm not sure that the sense I have in mind in using that term is especially technical. In fact, I think that it's likely fairly easy for people who use that word to be thinking, at least implicitly, of a teaching that is guaranteed correct and couldn't ever change. I could be wrong. At any rate, it's this possibility - combined with the practical disadvantages (see my #7 above) of this way of thinking - that led me to enter this discussion. I'd also note that if I'm using "definitive" in a technical and unusual (outside certain theological conversations) sense, that doesn't mean that this isn't what one might call the "proper" sense of the term.

10. I also fully agree that a response like this one from the CDF isn't ever likely to be "definitive" in the sense in which I'm using the term (or more authoritative than this one is) - for that matter, neither are papal teachings (see point above about 19th-cent. papal teachings on religious liberty). Thus, my point about what sort of teachings these are, why we should obey them, whether they could conceivably change, etc., is of very wide application. Likewise, since these teachings are in fact highly authoritative (even though not definitive), my point that one must indeed obey them is of wide application.

I hope that this helps explain my point and why I think it matters.

Uterine Removal after rupture?

>>>> To: nfpprofessionals

>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:37 AM

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> A

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I have a client who has 5 children.

>>>> baby #1 was C Sec. due to breech

>>>> #2 and #3 were V Bac to term

>>>> #4 was Uteri ne Rupture, emergency Section at term

>>>> #5 was planned Section, but emergency section at 30 weeks due to rupture.

>>>>

>>>> This client is now seeking a Uterine removal, in part because she is fearful of using NFP "strictly' and fears another, risky, pregnancy.

>>>>

>>>> I'm thinking that if there really was a valid concern (health wise) for uterine removal, this would have occured during one of her last two sections, and that the "emergency/urgency" has passed.

>>>>

>>>> She is not having bleeding issues, there is scar tissue due to all of the repairs though, but these do not cause pain to her.

>>>>

>>>> any thoughts/observatio ns?

>>>>

>>>> thank you!

>>>> lisa roder

>>>> CCLI Instructor

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

& g t;

[Guest guest]

Thank you Kathy!

a

hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture

Re: Re: Uterine Removal after rupture?

Hi Dominic,

1. I'm happy to continue the discussion as long as the others (including non-Catholics) on the list aren't find it too off-topic or otherwise boring (and I'm happy that those who have commented have been okay with it).

2. I'm pretty sure I agree with most of what you're saying.

3. In particular, I agree that what's needed here is moral certainty, and that someone who acts in accordance with what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the right thing (and that someone who acts in a way that's opposed to what the CDF teaches can be morally certain that he/she is doing the wrong thing!).

4. Indeed, I'd go even further - one can, I think, be absolutely certain that to obey the teachings of the Church is right (and vice versa).

5. I think that's true especially because God (a) gives the Magisterium the special assistance you mention, and ( wills that we obey the Magisterium.

6. That's different from saying that the reason that we need to obey those teachings is that they're always guaranteed to be correct.

7. I think that this difference matters, for the following reasons:

A. We ought to do the right thing - and do it for the right reason. It is true that God gives the Magisterium special assistance and wills that we obey the Church's teachings. Thus, obeying the Magisterium for this reason = doing the right thing for the right reason. It isn't true that we're guaranteed that these teachings (even non-infallible) ones are always correct. Thus, to obey them on the grounds that they're absolutely certain to be correct = to do the right thing for something other than the right reason.

B. Something that I've had to address with my students in one of my courses - Catholic Social Teaching - is that the Church's moral Magisterium has - in the words of Pope Benedict XVI in his Dec. 2005 "hermeneutic of reform" (vs. "hermeneutic of discontinuity") address - "corrected" earlier teachings regarding religious liberty. I think that Benedict is right to characterize the teaching of the Church's living Magisterium, especially at Vatican II, in this way (and also to say that the authentic "hermeneutic of reform" actually involves a "combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels" - the former at the level of underlying principles, the latter at the level of practical applications); I don't think that a reading of the earlier papal teachings and - especially - of Vatican II that tries to make this "correction" (and element of discontinuity) go away is a fair reading. My point is - the more people have the (mistaken) idea that the Magisterium is always guaranteed to teach correctly (or always teaches "definitively"), the more they'll be unnecessarily resistant to, scandalized by, etc., at least one important teaching of the living Magisterium.

8. The CDF document we're discussing does say that the contrary opinion is to be excluded - but doesn't claim to be teaching this "definitively" or the like. In other words, we're back to the point that one may not dissent - but also that this isn't the same thing as a claim that the teaching is absolutely certain, that it's "definitive" in the theological sense I have in mind.

9. I'm not sure that the sense I have in mind in using that term is especially technical. In fact, I think that it's likely fairly easy for people who use that word to be thinking, at least implicitly, of a teaching that is guaranteed correct and couldn't ever change. I could be wrong. At any rate, it's this possibility - combined with the practical disadvantages (see my #7 above) of this way of thinking - that led me to enter this discussion. I'd also note that if I'm using "definitive" in a technical and unusual (outside certain theological conversations) sense, that doesn't mean that this isn't what one might call the "proper" sense of the term.

10. I also fully agree that a response like this one from the CDF isn't ever likely to be "definitive" in the sense in which I'm using the term (or more authoritative than this one is) - for that matter, neither are papal teachings (see point above about 19th-cent. papal teachings on religious liberty). Thus, my point about what sort of teachings these are, why we should obey them, whether they could conceivably change, etc., is of very wide application. Likewise, since these teachings are in fact highly authoritative (even though not definitive), my point that one must indeed obey them is of wide application.

I hope that this helps explain my point and why I think it matters.

Uterine Removal after rupture?

>>>> To: nfpprofessionals

>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:37 AM

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> A

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I have a client who has 5 children.

>>>> baby #1 was C Sec. due to breech

>>>> #2 and #3 were V Bac to term

>>>> #4 was Uteri ne Rupture, emergency Section at term

>>>> #5 was planned Section, but emergency section at 30 weeks due to rupture.

>>>>

>>>> This client is now seeking a Uterine removal, in part because she is fearful of using NFP "strictly' and fears another, risky, pregnancy.

>>>>

>>>> I'm thinking that if there really was a valid concern (health wise) for uterine removal, this would have occured during one of her last two sections, and that the "emergency/urgency" has passed.

>>>>

>>>> She is not having bleeding issues, there is scar tissue due to all of the repairs though, but these do not cause pain to her.

>>>>

>>>> any thoughts/observatio ns?

>>>>

>>>> thank you!

>>>> lisa roder

>>>> CCLI Instructor

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

& g t;

[Guest guest]

Yes - many thanks (I was out running an errand).

Yes - Pope Benedict is certainly arguing (rightly) that the Council should be read with a hermenutic of reform, not a hermeneutic of rupture.

What I think is at least equally interesting, however, is his complex and nuanced description of what the correct hermeneutic of reform involves (i.e. the elements of both continuity and discontinuity that he mentions, as I said - esp. in regard to the teaching I mentioned, on religious liberty). It is not a matter of thinking that the Council changed (or added) nothing.

Again, to be clear - I don't think such changes are typically to be desired/expected (in fact, they're hardly ever to be desired/expected). In regard to the teaching on hysterectomy for cases in which future pregnancy might cause uterine rupture, I don't think any change is to be desired/expected.

I'm just saying that the mere existence of the teaching doesn't absolutely guarantee that the substance of the teaching is certain or, therefore, that the teaching couldn't change. And that someone who thinks otherwise might be obeying it for the wrong reason - and might run into intellectual and spiritual trouble when confronted with, e.g. (and especially), the Council's teaching on religious liberty (and there are more than a few Catholics - though certainly still a small minority - who've in fact run into such trouble - and this is most unfortunate).

Uterine Removal after rupture?>>>> To: nfpprofessionals >>>> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:37 AM>>>>>>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a client who has 5 children.>>>> baby #1 was C Sec. due to breech>>>> #2 and #3 were V Bac to term>>>> #4 was Uteri ne Rupture, emergency Section at term>>>> #5 was planned Section, but emergency section at 30 weeks due to rupture.>>>>>>>> This client is now seeking a Uterine removal, in part because she is fearful of using NFP "strictly' and fears another, risky, pregnancy.>>>>>>>> I'm thinking that if there really was a valid concern (health wise) for uterine removal, this would have occured during one of her last two sections, and that the "emergency/urgency" has passed.>>>>>>>> She is not having bleeding issues, there is scar tissue due to all of the repairs though, but these do not cause pain to her.>>>>>>>> any thoughts/observatio ns?>>>>>>>> thank you!>>>> lisa roder>>>> CCLI Instructor> > > ------------------------------------> & g t;