It still sounds very much as if the real issue here is sex. A voluntary act that can be abstained from. If Josea really wanted to be open to further children if medical science progressed enough to fix the problem, then he wouldn’t be considering voluntary sterilization now. It would be pretty hard for medical science to “fix” something that has already been removed. He maintains that this is not contraception, but merely a precaution against a possible complication. However, the church has never said that ANY solution is a moral solution. It has said what is NOT moral, and that includes voluntary sterilization. There are other solutions, namely NFP or abstinence, that the church says are moral, but Josea doesn’t seem to want to accept those as his only choices. He wants to do something else, and is thus arguing for it. He wants to claim that the reproductive system is faulty, thus allowing for its removal. However, faulty doesn’t equal medically necessary. Without the medical necessity, the removal of the organs is not allowed. There is no special case here. And not being able to have sex is not the ending of a marriage. If you think so, I’d suggest you contact some quad- and paraplegics who would be willing to share their marriage tips.
As a final note, there have been documents by several theologians (not just one dissenting figure) that have spoken on the issue of ectopic pregnancies. In this case, the woman and child will die so the pregnancy is not viable. By far the least (medically) complicated treatment and the one most often suggested by medical professionals is to take MTX, basically a radioactive drug that will kill the baby, thus causing a miscarriage, that usually doesn’t involve surgery or any other “ill effects” for the woman. However, this is not morally acceptable, despite the many doctors who support it as the best for the woman. Instead, the only morally acceptable option involves surgery to remove part or all of the tube, thus hampering further reproductive efforts. I’ll bet Josea wouldn’t understand that either. Here is a quote form the article:
“for an act to be morally licit, not only must the intended effect be good, but also the act itself must be good. For this reason, most moralists agree that MTX does not withstand the application of the principle of double effect.” Sounds to me like the same applies here. Direct sterilization to prevent procreation is wrong, regardless of the intended good effect of saving the woman from dying should the pregnancy occur.
