ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1

[kmktexas]

josea,

Replying to both of your posts.

First, there is no such thing as temporary sterilization other than chemical means such as Depo-provera. Those are abortifacients and therefore even more evil than other birth control methods.

Second, your whole argument is based on the idea that something that is objectively bad (you started this thread talking about ABC and switched to sterilization, but both apply) is used when (in your own words) “there are no other means by which the good may be obtained”. This is not the case in the scenario you have given. While the unitive aspect of marriage can be enhanced and hightened with sexual relations, it (sex) is by no means the primary goal of marriage. Nor is lack of sexual relations for a short time indicative of lessened marital unity.

You can never sin just to obtain a good result.

 

[fix]

kmktexas:

josea,

Replying to both of your posts.

First, there is no such thing as temporary sterilization other than chemical means such as Depo-provera. Those are abortifacients and therefore even more evil than other birth control methods.

Second, your whole argument is based on the idea that something that is objectively bad (you started this thread talking about ABC and switched to sterilization, but both apply) is use when (in your own words) “there are no other means by which the good may be obtained”. This is not the case in the scenario you have given. While the unitive aspect of marriage can be enhanced and hightened with sexual relations, it (sex) is by no means the primary goal of marriage. Nor is lack of sexual relations for a short time indicative of lessened marital unity.

You can never sin just to obtain a good result.

The case, as presented, would seem to be using the end justifies the means. Has not the Church addressed this several times in the past?

 

[josea]

Dear fix,

Yes, I change the name of ABC to sterilization to make it clearer. A continue hormone treatment could be also called sterilization but it would be temporal. I do not want to get involved into the abortifacient thing here again. Let’s stay with sterilization to follow the argument.

Fix, the big problem here is whether or not the principle of totality can be used. Pope Pius XII said no. Some other people said it can be applied to this case. If the principle can be applied then there is not “intrinsic evil” done.

According to Pius XII the principle of totality can not be applied only because one reason there is an alternative to sterilization: sexual abstention. The problem here is that I and others do not consider this as a real alternative because it is not normal for a couple. Removing the unitive aspect of the marriage, although very laudable for some people, does not have to be the proper and obligatory alternative behaviour for everybody.

This authority of the Church, I am always mentioning, saw the case from this perspective.

Now consider the problem with aids and condoms: the possibility of abstention from sexual relations is not being considered by many theologians and high influencing people in the Church (the theologian of the Pope for instance) as the main reason to ban condoms in this specila case. They could say the same: you can abstain from sex so you are not able to use a condom. But they are not saying this now.

Is it a bit clearer now?

 

[josea]

josea:

you can abstain from sex so you are not able to use a condom.

I wanted to say " you are not allow" to use a condom.
Sorry,
JOse

 

[fix]

josea:

Dear fix,

Yes, I change the name of ABC to sterilization to make it clearer. A continue hormone treatment could be also called sterilization but it would be temporal. I do not want to get involved into the abortifacient thing here again. Let’s stay with sterilization to follow the argument.

Fix, the big problem here is whether or not the principle of totality can be used. Pope Pius XII said no. Some other people said it can be applied to this case. If the principle can be applied then there is not “intrinsic evil” done.

According to Pius XII the principle of totality can not be applied only because one reason there is an alternative to sterilization: sexual abstention. The problem here is that I and others do not consider this as a real alternative because it is not normal for a couple. Removing the unitive aspect of the marriage, although very laudable for some people, does not have to be the proper and obligatory alternative behaviour for everybody.

This authority of the Church, I am always mentioning, saw the case from this perspective.

Now consider the problem with aids and condoms: the possibility of abstention from sexual relations is not being considered by many theologians and high influencing people in the Church (the theologian of the Pope for instance) as the main reason to ban condoms in this specila case. They could say the same: you can abstain from sex so you are not able to use a condom. But they are not saying this now.

Is it a bit clearer now?

Yes, thank you, but I do not want to be snide so I must choose my words carefully. The authority you are using to make your argument is a private authority. The Popes disagree with it, the tradition of the Church disagrees with it and few theologians, even if he is close to the Pope, are not the authority.

 

[kmktexas]

According to Pius XII the principle of totality can not be applied only because one reason there is an alternative to sterilization: sexual abstention. The problem here is that I and others do not consider this as a real alternative because it is not normal for a couple. Removing the unitive aspect of the marriage, although very laudable for some people, does not have to be the proper and obligatory alternative behaviour for everybody.

First of all, I want you to know how sorry I am for the situation that you and your wife find yourself in. I am sure that it has caused you much distress and pain. While we are spirited in our debate, don’t think that we are unsympathetic.

Noone is suggesting that anyone remove the unitive aspect of marriage. Sex is not the unitive aspect of marriage. It is ONE way to express the unitive aspect of marriage. Doing without sex for a time is a real alternative for any couple even though it might not be the one that you would chose if you had other moral options. This is why the principal of totality doesn’t work here. It isn’t an situation where there are no alternatives.

Saying that abstinance is not normal is not a good reason to discard it as an alternative. Having a life threatening medical condition isn’t normal either. Neither is something you asked for. Both could fall under the “better or worse” category.

Just a few decades ago, almost any man who had a heart attack was told not to have sex - that it would be too much stress. This wasn’t a pleasant situation for a couple to face. But you didn’t hear people saying that they needed a way to have sex so that they kept the unitive aspect of thier marriages. They abstained until the medical situation stabalized.

If one spouse has a condition that makes the marriage act (either the unitive or procrative aspect of that act) life threatening, then they need to either avoid the threatening act or find a moral solution to aleviate the medical situation.

 

[josea]

fix:

Yes, thank you, but I do not want to be snide so I must choose my words carefully. The authority you are using to make your argument is a private authority. The Popes disagree with it, the tradition of the Church disagrees with it and few theologians, even if he is close to the Pope, are not the authority.

Well, as far as I know this particullar issue has been addressed by few Church documents (I am talking about the application of teh principle of totality to this case and not about the fact of sterilization itself). The general doctrine about direct sterilization is clear to me. The special case of the application of the principle of totality in the case of preventive sterilization has been only addressed in a couple of speeches of Pius XII in some scientific conferences and in a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Catholic Hospitals directly mentioning the doctrine of Pius XII.

I do not see why the moral statement made by Pius XII when he analyzed this specific case can not be revised and reformable. As I said the traditional moral principles of the Church would allow this interpretation and this is what many bishops and theologians are doing. I do not think that the theologian of the Pope, by the way a cardinal, would dare to make such statements about condoms if this was a doctrinal issue.

Please, note that I am not talking about contraception: that is irreformable. **I am talking about the application of moral principles **that is the case I am bringing here. And that can change as theology advance or new perspectives are found without affecting the doctrine at all.

Regards,

Jose

 

[josea]

kmktexas:

If one spouse has a condition that makes the marriage act (either the unitive or procrative aspect of that act) life threatening, then they need to either avoid the threatening act or find a moral solution to aleviate the medical situation.

Thanks for your sympathy. But what I am claiming all the time is: that the removal of the reproductive function could be a moral licit way to solve the problem.

To me it is clear that if no medical solution possible we would without hesitation abstain for ever. But this is not the case here. There is a method that might not be intrinsically evil if the principle of totality can be applied.

Regards,

Jsoe

 

[josea]

kmktexas:

If one spouse has a condition that makes the marriage act (either the unitive or procrative aspect of that act) life threatening, then they need to either avoid the threatening act or find a moral solution to aleviate the medical situation.

Thanks for your sympathy. But what I am claiming all the time is: that the removal of the reproductive function could be a moral licit way to solve the problem.

To me it is clear that if no medical solution possible we would without hesitation abstain for ever. But this is not the case here. There is a method that might not be intrinsically evil if the principle of totality can be applied.

Regards,

Jose

 

[josea]

kmktexas:

Just a few decades ago, almost any man who had a heart attack was told not to have sex - that it would be too much stress. This wasn’t a pleasant situation for a couple to face. But you didn’t hear people saying that they needed a way to have sex so that they kept the unitive aspect of thier marriages. They abstained until the medical situation stabalized.

I am sure if there was a medical treatment to get around the cardiac problem for ever they would have taken it. Wouldn’t they?
This is not about how hard abstention is. That belongs to another thread in other section, perhaps spirituality. This is about the application of traditional moral principles to a particular situation.

jose

 

[fix]

josea:

I am sure if there was a medical treatment to get around the cardiac problem for ever they would have taken it. Wouldn’t they?
This is not about how hard abstention is. That belongs to another thread in other section, perhaps spirituality. This is about the application of traditional moral principles to a particular situation.

jose

But, the argument you make is not novel. Sterilization surgery has been around for decades and the Church knew about it. The principle of totality is not new. Why do you think there is new way to approach an old problem that has been addressed before by the magisterium?

 

[josea]

fix:

But, the argument you make is not novel. Sterilization surgery has been around for decades and the Church knew about it. The principle of totality is not new. Why do you think there is new way to approach an old problem that has been addressed before by the magisterium?

I am not saying that the approach is new, certainly the problem started when the medical possibility was at hand. Then the reaction of the Church was to forbid it under any circumstances. Recently cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview that these are issues which theologians should continue reflecting about . So the last word is not said yet. There is a time of reflection and discussion and that takes time. This is happening with the problematic of aids and condoms.

But the important think about it is that these discussions will not change the doctrine of the Church about contraception. this is not about contracpetion: the discussion are about how classical moral principles are correctly applied. In the mean while discussion will go on where misunderstandings about intentions and terminology will take place.

Jose

 

[gardenswithkids]

Josea, I am not in your wife’s situation, but I would like to share my sympathy and prayers.

josea:

…The good that we are seeking here is to preserve the great unitive value of sexual relationshipbetween spouses and not to lose it just becuase the reproductive apparatus is defective…

I don’t believe sterilization can give you what you are looking for. The unitive and procreative aspects are interconnected. If you voluntarily cut off the procreative through the desire to avoid pregnancy (however noble the reason), you will also be cutting the unitive value of the act. These two aspects are linked.

Also, you say you already have three children, but now somehow pregnancy poses a grave risk for your wife. Just a guess, but is this the case of repeat Cesaerian sections? Doctors frequently warn women of death for more than three c-sections as the complications grow with each pregnancy. But the record for c-section births is MUCH higher than what doctors recommend. I know of a couple women who have exceeded what they were told they should have. Yes, they were riskier births. Is it possible the doctor warned your wife based on fear of a malpractice suit? I suggest you may want to consult with another doctor who supports NFP only, and ask his oppinion. If you both truly want more children, maybe this is possible.

 

[felra]

josea:

According to Pius XII the principle of totality can not be applied only because one reason there is an alternative to sterilization: sexual abstention. The problem here is that I and others do not consider this as a real alternative because it is not normal for a couple. Removing the unitive aspect of the marriage, although very laudable for some people, does not have to be the proper and obligatory alternative behaviour for everybody.

This authority of the Church, I am always mentioning, saw the case from this perspective.

Now consider the problem with aids and condoms: the possibility of abstention from sexual relations is not being considered by many theologians and high influencing people in the Church (the theologian of the Pope for instance) as the main reason to ban condoms in this specila case. They could say the same: you can abstain from sex so you are not able to use a condom. But they are not saying this now.

Is it a bit clearer now?

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom…The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the sense with reason…Self-mastery is a long and exacting work.” (CCC 2339, 2341, 2342).

**Is it a bit clearer now? **

 

[felra]

josea:

Well, as far as I know this particullar issue has been addressed by few Church documents (I am talking about the application of teh principle of totality to this case and not about the fact of sterilization itself). The general doctrine about direct sterilization is clear to me. The special case of the application of the principle of totality in the case of preventive sterilization has been only addressed in a couple of speeches of Pius XII in some scientific conferences and in a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Catholic Hospitals directly mentioning the doctrine of Pius XII.

I do not see why the moral statement made by Pius XII when he analyzed this specific case can not be revised and reformable. As I said the traditional moral principles of the Church would allow this interpretation and this is what many bishops and theologians are doing.

Jose

In response to its query on sterilization, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s statement of March 13, 1975 replied to the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops as follows:

“Any sterilization, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical magisterium, especially of Pius XII. Therefore, notwithstanding and subjectivity right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care of **prevention **of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as the result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden to the doctrine of the church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an ever graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.”

The effort to justify contraceptive sterilization on the grounds of the principle of totality (the argument that some hoped for-good-to-come about can justify the deliberate intention to act directly against a good here and now) was explicitly rejected by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in their July 9, 1980 “Statement on Tubal Ligation”, *Hospital Progress, *61.9 (1980), 39.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

josea:

Thus, it is clear that preventive sterilization gives a “proportionate benefit to the patient” allowing sexual relations between spouses (otherwise impossible). This is a great value that should be preserved according to to Gaudium et Spes, n. 61. and a part of the human body may be sacrificed to preserve the integrity of the whole human person. Period.

Proportionalism is not a valid justification. It has been dismissed. As part of double effect we have to make sure the outcome is correctly proportionate negative to positive but the mere proportionate nature of benefit is just proportionalism and no good.

Sterilization to solve a medical condition is ok only under the context of double effect.

Under the mercy,

Matthew

PS preserving the integrity fo the whole human person means that contracepting is a no-no.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

josea:

The main principle I am calling in this case to justify preventive sterilization is the principle of Integrity and Totality and not the double effect.

Principles of Integrity and Totality

These principles dictate that the well-being of the whole person must be taken into account in deciding about any therapeutic intervention or use of technology (see Ethical and Religious Directives, nn. 29 and 33). Therapeutic procedures that are likely to cause harm or undesirable side effects can be justified only by a proportionate benefit to the patient. In this context, “integrity” refers to each individual’s duty to “preserve a view of the whole human person in which the values of the intellect, will, conscience, and fraternity are pre-eminent” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 61). “Totality” refers to the duty to preserve intact the physical component of the integrated bodily and spiritual nature of human life, whereby every part of the human body “exists for the sake of the whole as the imperfect for the sake of the perfect” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, Question 65, Article 1). Accordingly, a part of the human body may be sacrificed if that sacrifice means continued survival for the person.

Thus, it is clear that preventive sterilization gives a “proportionate benefit to the patient” allowing sexual relations between spouses (otherwise impossible). This is a great value that should be preserved according to to Gaudium et Spes, n. 61. and a part of the human body may be sacrificed to preserve the integrity of the whole human person. Period.

I did not try to apply the principle of double effect because I do not see it necessary as the principle of integrity and totality already answer the question and also the problem of the undesirable side effect is included. But let’s have a look to the other principle:

 

[CatholicMatthew]

josea:

**· The intended act must be good in itself. The intended act may not be morally evil.**Sterilization like other medical amputation it is not by itself intrinsic evil. That’s obvious.

No, it is instrinsically evil to directly sterilize. The intended act must be good (ie removing cancer or preserving life or function

josea:

· The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen by the agent but must be unintended.
The primary and only intention is to permit the exercise of a great value for the person by impairing possibility of death when that value is preserved; the impossibility of conception by the means used to achieve the first goal are the secondary unwanted effect.

you are not directly saving a life. What is the great value you are exercising? Are you not willing to give up sex for the life of your wife or are you toooo selfish?

josea:

·** The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means. **Sterilization is not necessarily an evil mean.

Sterilization is always evil but may be allowed to occur when unintended.

josea:

**· The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result.**This is obvious. The good effect here is that the woman will not be killed when involved in sexual activity.

My point exactly…abstain if it would kill or take an NFP class get a basal thermometer and use a five day temp only rule. Depending on the exact nature of the disease and the proposed method of treating you would be able to more effectively determine this.

josea:

**· Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.**As I already said it is presumptuous to declare that the best method to avoid a risky pregnancy is NFP. That might no work for every woman. The only 100% effective method is the complete removal of the reproductive system.

ABSTINENCE is also. If the organs are not currently threatening her life then you have no justification to take them out.

josea:

So, it looks to me that the application of both principles seems to point to the same conclusion. Of course, if you flaw one of the premises by, for instance, saying that sterilization is always intrinsically evil the principles can not be applied.

Direct sterilization is always evil.

josea:

That is the point of view of many theologians and, among them, the Church authorities that I already mention.

Have you read the authoritative teachings of the Church…humane vitae…casti connubi…?

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[josea]

gardenswithkids:

Josea, I am not in your wife’s situation, but I would like to share my sympathy and prayers.

I don’t believe sterilization can give you what you are looking for. The unitive and procreative aspects are interconnected. If you voluntarily cut off the procreative through the desire to avoid pregnancy (however noble the reason), you will also be cutting the unitive value of the act. These two aspects are linked.

Also, you say you already have three children, but now somehow pregnancy poses a grave risk for your wife. Just a guess, but is this the case of repeat Cesaerian sections? Doctors frequently warn women of death for more than three c-sections as the complications grow with each pregnancy. But the record for c-section births is MUCH higher than what doctors recommend. I know of a couple women who have exceeded what they were told they should have. Yes, they were riskier births. Is it possible the doctor warned your wife based on fear of a malpractice suit? I suggest you may want to consult with another doctor who supports NFP only, and ask his oppinion. If you both truly want more children, maybe this is possible.

we were consulting an “extra” doctor to make sure about our case. The “extra doctor” is a member of Opus Dei and he warned us about the danger of a next pregnancy.

 

[josea]

felra:

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom…The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the sense with reason…Self-mastery is a long and exacting work.” (CCC 2339, 2341, 2342).

**Is it a bit clearer now? **

Chastity has nothing to do with what I am bringing here. I am talking about the application of a moral principle to a medical situation. Of course, we all have to be chast but what has this to do here?