ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1

[josea]

felra:

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.

well as you said before this is the opinion of a privat authority saying that this particular case is always forvbiden. The Conference of Bishops in many parts of the world many times has spoken wrong statments.

 

[josea]

CatholicMatthew:

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

Sterilization is always evil but may be allowed to occur when unintended.
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.
ABSTINENCE is also. If the organs are not currently threatening her life then you have no justification to take them out.

Direct sterilization is always evil.
Have you read the authoritative teachings of the Church…humane vitae…casti connubi…?

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

That is exactly the point. You say that sterilization is always evil. But I try to show you again and I think the last time (I am getting tired) that it is not.

The removal of a part of the body for the good of the rest having medical reasons is not evil. Sterilization seen as the removal of a diseased part of a body for medical reasons might not be evil. The idea that if one has the possibility of preventing any part of the body to function (to avoid a bad effect) just by using FREE WILL is enough to dismiss the application of the principle of totality is not necessarily completely true. Complete sexual abstention might not be considered as a valid option to rule out the application of the principle of totality in our case. Of course, temporal abstention, if NFP works for that person, should be used instead of sterilization.

But I insist that this is not about contraception but about a medical amputation of a diseased function or organ.

Just a rude analogy:

Imagine just this hypothetical and strange situation: you have an illness that just by receiving light through your eyes, the electric impulse to your brain would kill you. You have two choices to go on having a normal life for the sake of the total wealth of your person (principle of integrity or totality)

1.  To stay always in a dark room (that involves free will) you are blind although your eyes are healthy.

2.  To use a medical treatment that removes physically the eyes or impairs the function of the eyes in transmitting the electric impulse to the brain in order to achieve a better life.

In both cases you are going to be blind: by free will or by medical treatment. What option would you take? Do you still think that the option 2) is morally unacceptable because your eyes are healthy and you are not allowed to remove them or to impair the visual stimulus reaching the brain?

The problem here is that, as I an others see, the principle of totality could be applied here.

Look at our example: you always have the possibility to keep your eyes closed or live in a dark room. And by doing this you do not put your life at risk. Now, the Church do not allow you to get preventive medical treatment because you still have the option of remaining in the dark room, and if you open your eyes outside, than it is your very own problem. Is this the kind of morality the Catholic Church is claiming to be correct? I donot think so. This is a missunderstanding: it is not about contraception, it is about application of moral principles to a particular case.

Do you really think that by doing the medical treatment your primary intention is to render you blind? I think you do not want to be blind but this is the price you have to pay if you want to get out of the dark room and live a normal human life and improve the quality of your life.

Do you see now that blindness is an unwanted effect? The principle of totality applies here allowing an unwanted effect to happen.

You still can argue that the particular medical treatment is evil by itself (sterilization) but I think that it is not. I see it as indirect sterilization when the principle of totality is applied. The example above, even if not perfect, should give you enough to reflect.

I would like you all to think about this calmly, give yourself a couple of days thinking and then give me your opinions.

Jose

 

[josea]

Sorry I want it to say it this way but I poseted the uncorrected version:

josea:

You have two choices to go:

1. To stay always in a dark room (that involves free will) you are blind although your eyes are healthy.

or for the sake of the total wealth of your person (principle of integrity or totality)

1. To use a medical treatment that removes physically the eyes or impairs the function of the eyes in transmitting the electric impulse to the brain in order to achieve a better life.

 

[Ella]

I still don’t see how this woman can be considered fertile. Her death, and the death of the child if she concieves seems, to me, to render her sterile. Whether or not her tubes are tied/removed or her uterus removed, she cannot have a child.

 

[felra]

josea:

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?

Reread your entire post that I responded to. Chastity has *everything to do *with the morality i.e., moral choices, for this “medical situation”. Again, you omit whatever salient portions of consideration to frame and support your failed position.

 

[josea]

Ella:

I still don’t see how this woman can be considered fertile. Her death, and the death of the child if she concieves seems, to me, to render her sterile. Whether or not her tubes are tied/removed or her uterus removed, she cannot have a child.

You are right. The unwanted effect after medical treatment is there anyways even if not treatment is taken. This woman can not have any more children anyways.

But, please, I would like you people to look at the analogy I gave you and tell me what you think.

Jose

 

[felra]

josea:

well as you said before this is the opinion of a privat authority saying that this particular case is always forvbiden. The Conference of Bishops in many parts of the world many times has spoken wrong statments.

“well as you said before this is the opinion of a privat authority saying that this particular case is always forvbiden” — please quote me whereI have previously said this before .

"this is the opinion of a privat authority" — no, this is a deliberate statement of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — your above response sounds quip, not genuine, and strickly agenda driven to so easily avoid and try to dismiss out of hand what the Church has clearly pronounced in matters of faith and morality pertinent to your “special case” situation and “search” for answers.

Your credibility is quickly eroding here on this thread. Your agenda as I have previously stated has become quite transparent.

 

[josea]

“well as you said before this is the opinion of a privat authority saying that this particular case is always forvbiden” — please quote me whereI have previously said this before .

"this is the opinion of a privat authority" — no, this is a deliberate statement of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — your above response sounds quip, not genuine, and strickly agenda driven to so easily avoid and try to dismiss out of hand what the Church has clearly pronounced in matters of faith and morality pertinent to your “special case” situation and “search” for answers.

Your credibility is quickly eroding here on this thread. Your agenda as I have previously stated has become quite transparent.

Sorry felra,

I refer to the American bishops rather to the note of the CDF. But I do not understand your surprise, as I already said before I question this resolution form the CDF and the moral doctrine of Pius XII about this particular case. I am directly saying that Pius XII was wrong about his application of the moral principles. And this has nothing to do with the general doctrine of the Church about contraception neither is it a question of faith.

Pius XII could be a good Pope but also a bad moralist, why not? Is this anything to do with our faith?

No, felra, this is not like you try to put it. Do not try to judge me so fast.

Please look at the case and judge by yourself. Why you do not comment on my example?

Jose

 

[felra]

josea:

That is exactly the point. You say that sterilization is always evil. But I try to show you again and I think the last time (I am getting tired) that it is not.

I would like you all to think about this calmly, give yourself a couple of days thinking and then give me your opinions.

Jose

But I try to show you again and I think the last time (I am getting tired) that it is not — you took the words right out of my mouth…think about this calmly, give yourself a couple of days thinking and then give me your opinions — I am calm, thanks, but I don’t need a couple of days to give you a thoughful response:

In his address to the Congress of Urology on October 8, 1953, Pope Pius XII outlined the specific conditions under which sterilization (or amputation, for that matter) may be performed:

Three things condition the moral permission of surgical operation requiring an anatomical or functional mutilation;

1. that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete orgasm [that is the principle of totality];
2. that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured; and
3. that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of a damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc.

[As far as sterilization is concerned], the conditions which would justify disposing of a part in favor of the whole in virtue of the principle of totality are lacking. It is not therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy oviducts if the life or (physical) health of the mother in not threatened by their continued existence.

The principle of the “double effect” applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this willresult in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin (Pope Paul VI, Humane Vitae, #14, 7/25/68; and Pope Pius XII, “Allocution to midwives”, #27, 10/29/51).

 

[josea]

felra:
In his address to the Congress of Urology on October 8, 1953, Pope Pius XII outlined the specific conditions under which sterilization (or amputation, for that matter) may be performed:

Three things condition the moral permission of surgical operation requiring an anatomical or functional mutilation;

1. that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete orgasm [that is the principle of totality];

Uoops! Just kidding but I think we are mixing really everything here.

Now serious:

This is obvious.

1. that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured; and

It can be avoid by sexual abstention but this is the key point here. Total sexual abstention might not be a valid option taken as alternative. This option does not allow a normal life and could even damage a marriage. So it is considered by many theologians because sexuality is an important part of the whole human been.

1. that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of a damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc.

This is also obvious. But the whole wealth of the person is not only health. That is clearly stated in Gaudium et spes. The positive effect would be enormous because other important values are going to be preserved then.
[As far as sterilization is concerned], the conditions which would justify disposing of a part in favor of the whole in virtue of the principle of totality are lacking. It is not therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy oviducts if the life or (physical) health of the mother in not threatened by their continued existence.

This is the problem. You and others (including Pius XII) think the conditions are lacking. I and others think they are not.

My God, our Bishop thinks so, this is not something I am inventing here. He is a world famous theologian and beloved in Rome. I do not consider at the moment right to give you his name. What else can I say?

Did you read my analogy? Did you try to understand that this is not against contraception or our faith but about the application of a moral principle to a particular medical case and that could be reformable?

Jose

 

[kmktexas]

1

) that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete orgasm [that is the principle of totality];

The organ itself is posing no threat or provoking serious damage to the organism. It is your introduction of other matter and cetain acts that pose the threat.

It can be avoid by sexual abstention but this is the key point here. Total sexual abstention might not be a valid option taken as alternative. This option does not allow a normal life

It is a valid option, chosen by many couples all the time for a variety of reasons. There is nothing abnormal about abstinance. Uncommon, yes, but not abnormal.

and could even damage a marriage

.

It could also strengthen the marriage.

So it is considered by many theologians because sexuality is an important part of the whole human been.

This is my Aha moment for where you are coming from. Sexality is indeed an important part of the whole human being. Sexuality is not the same as sexual activity. There is not threat to sexuality posed by abstaining, for a time, from sexual activity.

 

[josea]

I present to you again this analogy; I am very interested about your comments:

Imagine just this hypothetical and strange situation: you have an illness that just by receiving light through your eyes, the electric impulse to your brain would kill you. You have two choices to go:

1.  To stay always in a dark room (that involves free will) you are blind although your eyes are healthy.

or for the sake of the total wealth of your person (principle of integrity or totality)

1.  To use a medical treatment that removes physically the eyes (very rude I know but just an example) or impairs the function of the eyes in transmitting the electric impulse to the brain in order to achieve a better life.

In both cases you are going to be blind: by free will or by medical treatment. What option would you take? Do you still think that the option 2) is morally unacceptable because your eyes are healthy and you are not allowed to remove them or to impair the visual stimulus reaching the brain?

The problem here is that, as I an others see, the principle of totality could be applied here.

Look at our example: you always have the possibility to keep your eyes closed or live in a dark room. And by doing this you do not put your life at risk. We do not allow you to get preventive medical treatment because you still have the option of remaining in the dark room, and if you open your eyes outside, than it is your very own problem. Is this the kind of morality the Catholic Church is claiming to be correct?

Do you really think that by doing the medical treatment your primary intention is to render you blind? I think you do not want to be blind but this is the price you have to pay if you want to get out of the dark room and live a normal human life.

Do you see now that blindness is an unwanted effect? The principle of totality applies here allowing an unwanted effect to happen.

You still can argue that the particular medical treatment is evil by itself (sterilization) but I think that it is not. I see it as indirect sterilization when the principle of totality is applied.

 

[fix]

I believe felra’s quote solves the issue. Sterilization may never be done for contraceptive reasons. Removing the uterous would be reasonable if when your wife was pregnant the doctors believe it would be the only way to save her, and the child’s, life. The uterous may not be removed in anticipation of such an event.

 

[TAS2000]

I said:

The Catholic church is not wrong, and this situation is not special or different, and it has been addressed. You just don’t like the answer. Aside from the Pope himself spelling it out for you specifically, I don’t think you are going to agree.

You said:

I question this resolution form the CDF and the moral doctrine of Pius XII about this particular case. I am directly saying that Pius XII was wrong

I guess I was wrong. Apparently even a direct statement from the Pope ISN’T enough for you. We have covered the salient points again and again. This arguement doesn’t withstand the test of double effect, and your only basis for applying the principal of totality is that sex is part of the whole person, and going without it shouldn’t be expected of you. You are wrong,but no one here will change your mind. You can find individuals to agree with you, just as I can find individuals who are in favor of other beliefs contrary to church teaching. This proves nothing. The authoritative church teaching is that this is wrong, regardless of individual opinions or beliefs. It is to be hoped that a “cure” will be developed in the future to alleviate the current hardship you face, but until then you have no other moral options but the ones you don’t want to face.

 

[josea]

TAS2000:

I said:You said: I guess I was wrong. Apparently even a direct statement from the Pope ISN’T enough for you. We have covered the salient points again and again. This arguement doesn’t withstand the test of double effect, and your only basis for applying the principal of totality is that sex is part of the whole person, and going without it shouldn’t be expected of you. You are wrong,but no one here will change your mind. You can find individuals to agree with you, just as I can find individuals who are in favor of other beliefs contrary to church teaching. This proves nothing. The authoritative church teaching is that this is wrong, regardless of individual opinions or beliefs. It is to be hoped that a “cure” will be developed in the future to alleviate the current hardship you face, but until then you have no other moral options but the ones you don’t want to face.

I think this is a problem of an aplication of a moral priciple.While teh doctrine about contraception is irreformable an erroneous or incomplete application of a moral principle can be revised and modified by the Church. I am not talking about contraception.

 

[josea]

UN Integrated Regional Information Networks

February 2, 2005
Posted to the web February 2, 2005

Johannesburg

A senior Vatican official is supporting the use of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS in Africa, contradicting the Catholic church’s position on contraception.

Official Roman Catholic teaching bans condoms because they are a form of contraception, arguing that abstinence - even among married couples, if necessary - is the best way to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

In an interview this week with the Italian news agency, Apcom, Cardinal Georges Cottier, theologian of the pontifical household, said the threat of HIV and AIDS was so immediate that "the use of condoms in some situations can be considered morally legitimate

".

Cottier is the most senior figure so far to argue that condoms should be admissible in exceptional circumstances

You see how an application of a moral principle can be revised without affecting the doctrine or faith. Otherwise cardinal Cottier would have not said what he said. But, as some of you suggested here, I am the one against Popes and the Church.
Regards,
jose

 

[felra]

josea:

You see how an application of a moral principle can be revised without affecting the doctrine or faith. Otherwise cardinal Cottier would have not said what he said. But, as some of you suggested here, I am the one against Popes and the Church.
Regards,
jose***“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified.***To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God

.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

 

[josea]

***“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified.***To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God

.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

Dear felra,
You do not really get the point.
I am not talking about contraception and neither cardinal Cottier does when he talks about a possible moral licit use of condoms. Do not you think cardinal Cottier, the theologian of the Pope, knows what the Pope wrote?

He is talking about the aplication of a moral principle that might allow the use of condoms without doing contraception in particular situations. But I see this is pointless, you will never understand the difference. I suggest you to take a course in moral theology otherwise you will keep, without thinking, quoting and saying things that are not the point here.

The idea is that in particular situations what “looks like” contraception might not be.

But you do not see or you do nto want to see the difference.

I give up.

All the best to you all.
Jose

 

[Ella]

But you do not see or you do nto want to see the difference.

Josea, I see the difference.

 

[manualman]

Josea,

You are in a terrible bind and I prayed for you since the first time you posted on this subject. But I would suggest that you are too close to this to be able to rationally derive good moral conclusions. Further, I suggest that if this were about any topic other than sex, nobody would be arguing.

I like analogies. Earlier, the idea of mastectomy came up for breast cancer. What if it was discovered tomorrow that castor oil totally prevented breast cancer? 2 tablespoons a day. 100% effective. What if a woman had severe predisposition to breast cancer, but REALLY hated the taste of castor oil? Would she be morally justified in taking the risk of surgery to avoid having to eat her castor oil? Me thinks not.

You have a fine mind and obviously contemplate what is right and holy before God. But the smartest people often are the worst about rationalizing. You’ve articulated an eloquent and sophisticated argument for why your case allows ABC. Unfortunately for you, castor oil is 100% effective in avoiding this risk to your wife’s life.

I’m very sorry to hear of your hardship. As someone else mentioned, be sure not to assume that abstinance means you can no longer be intimate. Intimacy is an awful lot more than just the physical.