![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/03\/FrancisPope8.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up discussion of my paper,\u00a0\u201cIrresponsible\u201d Pope Francis? (Woman Who Had Seven C-Sections)<\/a> [1-23-15]. See also my earlier paper,\u00a0Pope Francis and Catholics Reproducing Like \u201cRabbits\u201d<\/a> [1-21-15]. Words of various participants will be in various colors.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n [This is the \u201cgrunt work\u201d of the apologist: the stuff that makes one very unpopular among those who disagree (dealing with the latest controversies). It\u2019s part of my task. Let \u2019em fly! Once again, I have made my argument. If you disagree with it, then dismantle it using reason, rather than merely whine against it with empty polemics, contentless rhetoric, and emotion.]<\/p>\n Jesus Perez<\/em>: Interesting article. Is your contention that the simple fact of having 8 C-sections irresponsible parenthood or that plus a number of other factors? I have difficulty with this.<\/span><\/p>\n Given the risks, yes (to your first scenario). I fully agree with the pope. We\u2019re not talking one or two and being willing to have some risk, but 7 or 8!\u00a0I also noted that since the pope rebuked the person herself, that he was likely acquainted with possible further elements of risk. But 7 or 8 c-sections would entail quite enough risk by themselves.\u00a0What if the woman had died<\/em> during her 8th c-section? Would that<\/em> shut the mouths of the pope\u2019s critics on this score?\u00a0It\u2019s not about having eight children, but about having eight c-sections. The two scenarios are vastly different from each other.<\/p>\n This is a tough one Dave. My wife has had three c-sections and we were told not to have more children after our second child. I don\u2019t think we\u2019re being irresponsible. We want to have more, and we know many faithful couples who\u2019ve had multiple c-sections.<\/span><\/p>\n I would say that you weigh the risks by consulting a good doctor and exercise proper judgment. If the risks are relatively low, more power to you and your lovely wife (and your faith and godly desire to have many children). But three is not seven or eight . . .<\/p>\n Michael Liccione<\/em>:\u00a0<\/span>Even granted that the Pope\u2019s view of that particular woman\u2019s choices is correct, I think it was an error to cite a particular individual. Doing that only caused some women with many children to sympathize with her and resent the Pope\u2019s remark.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Was St. Paul also wrong to name names? The pope didn\u2019t even mention a name, only a person without a name. We can choose to give into the zeitgeist<\/em>, where all this sort of thing is \u201cjudgmental\u201d or \u201cintolerant\u201d (or in a more sophisticated view), \u201cnot practical because of the likely reaction\u201d or we can follow the biblical model (rebukes and sometimes by name).<\/p>\n David L. Alexander<\/em>: Those are medical judgments, not strictly moral ones, and the Holy Father risks being outside his area of competence, much less his authority. Thus it is no surprise if \u201cthat only caused some women with many children to sympathize with her and resent the Pope\u2019s remark.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Medical judgments are necessarily entailed in applying the Humanae Vitae<\/em> teaching about \u201cgrave\u201d issues leading to moral decisions to space or avoid further children.<\/p>\n Just because that is not within the purview of infallible papal teaching does not mean that the pope can have no medical opinions at all<\/em>, or that he shouldn\u2019t render those opinions in a mere interview<\/em>. Popes write about science, too, and they aren\u2019t scientists anymore than they are doctors. I write about science as an apologist, not a scientist.<\/p>\n The fact is, that such medical knowledge is part and parcel of being a responsible parent, just as in my own marriage we had several grave reasons: very serious post-partum depression, increasingly difficult pregnancies, six miscarriages, and the low salary of a Catholic apologist. David Palm<\/em>: Scott and Kimberly Hahn have six children and I think all of them were born via c-section.\u00a0Were the Hahns irresponsible?<\/span><\/p>\n I assume that some situations are lesser risk than others. That is for doctors to determine.\u00a0I think reasonable people can disagree on this. But if that is the case, by the same token, the pope\u2019s opinion is a respectable one regarding \u201cgrave reasons\u201d by medical criteria and shouldn\u2019t be made fodder for the usual unbalanced criticisms that dominate in the discussion.<\/p>\n One can have a general opinion that eight successive c-sections are (all in all, broadly speaking) a risky thing without necessarily thinking that every single similar scenario entails the same risk.\u00a0So, for example, in Kimberly\u2019s case (and I heard her give\u00a0a whole speech at Steubenville about the \u2014 my phrase \u2014 \u201cgreat discomfort\u201d of one of her c-sections), her doctor may have said, \u201cyou are able to have a c-section with very little risk; therefore another one is a fairly routine procedure.\u201d<\/p>\n Risks in medicine are all about percentages. But even a 1% risk of serious complications is a likely actuality: by average one person in a hundred will suffer them.\u00a0As I said, I also believe that the pope had further information about that particular case that he did not divulge in the plane interview.<\/p>\n Here is an article that dramatically backs up the pope\u2019s position: \u201cMultiple C-Section Complications\u201d<\/a> (Sandi Busch, Hello Motherhood<\/em>, 6-13-17). Excerpts:<\/p>\n C-sections are generally considered safe but they are associated with risks and those risks continue to increase with each c-section. . . .<\/p>\n According to information from the Harvard Medical School, adhesions are common in people who have had multiple abdominal surgeries. Every time another c-section is performed, more adhesions are created. After three or more c-sections there could be so many adhesions that it would take 10 to 60 minutes for a surgeon to cut through them. Adhesions cause abdominal pain and may cause organs to stick to one another or to the abdominal wall. In rare cases they result in infertility. . . .<\/p>\n The risks for placenta previa and placenta accreta increase with repeated c-sections. Placenta previa is a condition in which the placenta partially or totally covers the cervix. Placenta accreta results when the placenta grows too deeply into the uterus, making it difficult for the uterus to detach normally. Both conditions can result in bleeding that puts the baby\u2019s or mother\u2019s life at risk. Over 60 percent of cases of placenta accreta occur in women who had multiple cesarean deliveries. . . .<\/p>\n The chances of needing an emergency hysterectomy go up with the number of c-sections. While the risk of a hysterectomy is only 0.42 percent during a second c-section, it jumps to 2.41 percent after the fourth c-section and to 8.99 percent after a sixth, . . .<\/p>\n In the July 2006 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as study by Nisenblat, Barak et al compared women who had two c-sections with those having three. Excessive blood loss occurred in 3.3 percent of women with two c-sections but went up to 7.9 percent with a third cesarean delivery. . . .<\/p>\n Research by Beena Kamath, M.D. at the University of Colorado School of Medicine found that babies delivered by repeat c-section are nearly twice as likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and have an increased chance of breathing problems that require oxygen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My paper that we\u2019re discussing<\/a> contains links to many additional articles of this sort.\u00a0If someone wants to dispute the overwhelming medical data, have at it. Be my guest.<\/p>\n But I wholeheartedly agree, as I have said, that every persons\u2019 case has unique attributes. Medical assessments of the dangers of a given procedure (of the sort that are made in formal medical studies, published in professional journals) are general ones, based on determined percentages of risks involved.\u00a0The judgment of the doctor and a particular<\/em>\u00a0patient is a different thing. Therefore, there can be exceptions to the rule, as is almost always the case with just about anything.<\/p>\n My late mother had to have an operation shortly before she died, where the risk of death was put at 20%. Of course we agreed to it because if she hadn\u2019t had it, there was a stated \u201c1%\u201d chance of surviving long.\u00a0That was a clear choice. But if a person was otherwise healthy and wanted to undergo a non-necessary operation with a 20% risk of death, the rational choice would be (in most cases) to decline it.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t go through life on an 80-20 basis. So, for example, in a hypothetical where someone had a one in five chance of being killed by crossing a battlefield during a battle, they wouldn\u2019t usually decide to cross it (if it weren\u2019t necessary). The risk would be too great. Yet 80% of the time they would have lived.\u00a0We don\u2019t take risks like that. I exaggerate to make a point, but it\u2019s a valid general point.<\/p>\n Brendan Malone<\/em><\/a>:\u00a0Dave, I love your work, but I\u2019ve got to disagree with you on this one \u2013 as others have already said here, the issue is whether or not it was appropriate to actually publicly utilise that woman, and that specific scenario as an example of parental irresponsibility.\u00a0Surely her human dignity demands more than to be treated as an object lesson in irresponsibility for all the world\u2019s media?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Oh, and I\u2019m a fan of Pope Francis by the way, so I\u2019m not one of those types who is given to fits of anti Francis rage anytime Pope Francis says or does anything).<\/p>\n One other thing \u2013 I know of two very responsible and faithful local Catholic families who have been really hurt by the fact that Pope Francis used their specific family situation as an example of parental irresponsibility in front of the world\u2019s media.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s fine, Brendan. Now please answer for me: was St. Paul also wrong when he called out Hymenaeus and Philetus by name, and also Alexander the Coppersmith: not only for that<\/em> time but for all posterity<\/em> thereafter, to be read in the Bible?<\/p>\n Was he wrong when he used the sinner in the Corinthian church as an \u201cexample\u201d of how to stigmatize a person in sin, for his own good (and then receive him back after his repentance and reform)?\u00a0Was St. Luke wrong when he mentioned Simon the Sorcerer in the Book of Acts as a terrible example of trying to buy God\u2019s grace?<\/p>\n Please explain to me the difference in essence or principle. No one else has yet done that. I make these extensive biblical arguments and it seems that for those who disagree with my opinion, they just disappear into thin air as if I had never brought them up. The Bible is our model. St. Paul is a model to imitate. If the pope was wrong, it seems to me that Paul and Luke were also wrong, in inspired, infallible Scripture.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Whether NFP always works or not isn\u2019t directly related to this latest controversy, as far as I can tell. The point was continuing to have children via c-section, despite the grave risks involved.<\/p>\n People take everything personally. This is the problem today. No one can utter any criticism. It\u2019s always regarded as judgmental and intolerant, and whoever dares to utter a public criticism as a big bad meanie and insensitive brute. This comes (ultimately) straight from the \u201cPC\u201d secular \/ liberal mentality. It has crept into the worldview of even millions of Christians now.<\/p>\n I see it all the time in doing apologetics. When people disagree with something I contend for, they get all hurt and hot and bothered, and start saying insulting things, and block me, etc.\u00a0I\u2019m just doing my job. I didn\u2019t sign up for this work that God called me to (way back in 1981) in order to win a popularity contest or to cause everyone to have warm fuzzy feelings towards me all the time.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n As I have stated several times now, it is likely that there are individual exceptions to the rule. This doesn\u2019t refute the pope\u2019s point at all, since it is understood by thinking people that there are such things as exceptions to rules and specific anomalies. Neither the pope nor any other practicing Catholic in this debate that I have seen, object to large numbers of children per se.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n My friend Paul Hoffer<\/em> wrote in agreement:<\/p>\n I had the opportunity to read the actual remarks of the Pope in context with other things that he said in the conversation. All the Pope was saying is that we have an obligation as Christians to exercise prudence in our lives, whether it be in our conversations with others, when expressing our opinions, or when pro-creating. Some of the folks here have brought up that they, too, have had to resort to multiple c-sections in connection with the birth of their children.<\/p>\n Hopefully, such folks weighed that probability and the risks involved, and discussed it with their spouse before engaging in sexual intercourse, let alone deciding to have another child. Because there are so many factors involved (or should be involved) in making such decisions, we cannot take a cookie-cutter approach to judge each person\u2019s decision based on a single comment made by the Pope ,but we should take away from it a heightened awareness that being Christian means exercising prudence and humility in all aspects of our daily lives. We should not tempt God, as the Pope said, by acting without exercising such prudence and humility.<\/p>\n People have brought up how they have had no problem with c-sections and having multiple children. Well, in my family situation, we had to exercise prudence by waiting seven years between children because of life-threatening health issues arising from my wife\u2019s pregnancy. We did not simply keep on having children, leaving it up to God whether my wife lived or not through another pregnancy. Along with much prayer, many cold showers, saving up financially in case of complications, we worked with her doctor to optimize the probability that our second child would be born healthy, safely and with both parents. It took us seven years between children but in the end, my wife and I have two wonderful children and the equally wonderful prospect of growing old together.<\/p>\n So, in the end, if people take a moment to read what the Pope said, prayerfully reflect on it, determine whether what was said has applicability to one\u2019s own situation, and, if necessary, take the time to attempt to reconcile what the Pope said with previous teaching when there seems to be dissonance those words and what we believe the Church teaches, they would be happier, less stressed and healthier (since their blood pressure won\u2019t be so high). Further, we all should take the time to correct others when they attempt to use Calvinist proof-texting methods to create a sound bite to make the Pope out to be some sort of knucklehead who is totally out of line with previous popes or with magisterial teaching.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n [there was much discussion \u2014 deleted for brevity\u2019s sake \u2014 about the difficulty of abiding by the rules and principles of Catholic Natural Family Planning]<\/p>\n Yes, it is difficult, especially if a woman is irregular in her cycle. I know, because my wife was very irregular, and (like Paul) I had to take a lot of cold showers, too (if you know what I mean). Plus, on top of that there was serious depression involved and adverse side effects of an anti-depression pill (that didn\u2019t help things, to put it very<\/em> mildly).<\/p>\n Thus I am not one to minimize the difficulties of NFP. It is<\/em><\/strong> often very<\/em> difficult, just as the Catholic and disciples\u2019 life are in general. This calls for love and compassion towards those who struggle, and they shouldn\u2019t be made to feel inferior.\u00a0But I think we can all agree that these things aren\u2019t a basis to either reject Church teaching or leave the Church. When we were struggling with it, we never once thought that the Church\u2019s teaching or NFP were to blame. We understood that our<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0specific case was difficult because of irregularity.<\/p>\n This is the problem sometimes: people want to blame the Church or God. That\u2019s the flip side of people blaming couples who struggle with applying NFP. Both judgments are wrong. There has to be a happy medium.\u00a0The blame game never works. We all have to play the \u201ceducation game.\u201d<\/p>\n Being open to life doesn\u2019t mean being ecstatic over a surprise pregnancy that comes at a bad financial or health or emotional time, but being \u201copen to life\u201d (exactly what it says): recognizing in an act of will (not necessarily of the emotions) that God willed for this new life to come into being and that He will, therefore, make a way to provide for him or her.\u00a0That\u2019s a matter of faith, which is from the will, not the emotions. That is difficult, too, but the principle still holds.<\/p>\n Again, we know from experience ourselves (and God has provided, even given my meager full-time apologist income).<\/p>\n People who see the pope\u2019s remarks as somehow against the \u201copenness to life\u201d approach or ethic are wrong. Responsible parenting is the other aspect of that.\u00a0We\u2019re not all obliged to have 15 or 20 children<\/a> or to not \u201cplan\u201d at all. After all, it\u2019s in the very terminology: \u201cNatural Family Planning<\/em>\u201d . . .<\/p>\n Responsible parenthood entails giving serious thought to numbers and timing of children, within the pro-child ethic, and consultation with a doctor to ascertain physical risks. The pope\u2019s rebuke remains a quite rational and sensible one with regard to multiple c-sections, but there can be exceptions to the rule.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Benjamin Baxter<\/em>:\u00a0Part of the problem is that this explanation adds suppositions which, while plausible, Pope Francis isn\u2019t mentioning. He\u2019s leaving a lot to guess at. It is certainly a failure of communication (as a remark made to everyone.) Pope Francis is not a good\u00a0public speaker. He\u2019s a personal communicator, one-on-one. Trouble is, he\u2019s speaking publicly.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Now, being a good communicator is not a requirement for sanctity. However, being a good communicator has been a quality of the papacy for the last thirty years. People listening to the pope and expecting that are understandably distressed.<\/p>\n Bottom line: The role of someone who \u201cgets the Pope\u201d is not to condescend or assume hostile motives but first to recognize that someone is angry and, more likely than not, has a very understandable reason for it.<\/p>\n Someone I know talked about these remarks as brilliant. They aren\u2019t. They\u2019re likely interpersonally effective in the moment but they are publicly scandalous because they are shared around the world. If someone is going to speak to \u201cthe little ones\u201d about Pope Francis, recognizing the genuine distress is a huge first step, and recognizing it as a legitimate distress is the most important second step.<\/p>\n Talking about Pope Francis\u2019 comments from interviews is more like a counseling session than an apologetic argument.<\/span><\/p>\n Once again (like most of the pope\u2019s critics that I\u2019ve seen) you are engaging in the subjective endeavor of talking about [the pope\u2019s] talking rather than engaging the actual matter at hand<\/em>, to determine if he did anything wrong.<\/p>\n I do the latter (and further, ground it in the Bible with modeling examples from same). Most of the pope\u2019s critics do the former. It\u2019s the typical outlook today, in our postmodernist world: the subjective overcomes the objective every time.<\/p>\n Everything (in this approach) has to do with impression and PR and perception (\u201cfailure of communication\u201d) rather than truth and tradition and a Catholic \/ biblical worldview.<\/p>\n
\n*
\nThree of those four factors are medical ones. But God blessed us with four wonderful children and He has provided for their needs and my family\u2019s needs.<\/p>\n