ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1

  • Thread starter Thread starter josea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
josea:
The removal of a part of the body for the good of the rest having medical reasons is not 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.
What we have to remember is that the amputation or sterilization is always evil. However, utilizing the valid principle of double effect we can achieve the good of protection of the body through a legitimate medical procedure. It would be illicit to perform the procedure if the negative medical condition did not exist.
Examples:
1.) My arm is infected and I will die unless the infection is removed from my body. Antibiotics and everything else fail due to the advanced nature of the infection. A medical procedure to remove the infection is licit even though it has the unintended side effect of loss of limb.
2.) My arm is healthy and I decide to undergo the medical procedure to prevent a future infection that may happen when I undergo an activity (for the good of humanity, of course) that will probably cause my arm to be infected. This would be illicit and from what I understand it is your situation.
3.) My arm has light excema but I do not want to deal with putting lotion on it every day and so I have the same procedure done as before (I believe I am out of arms at this point but this is hypothetical). This would be illicit because the benefit of ridding myself of the excema (a skin disorder) is not more beneficial than the loss of my arm.

If the reproductive organs of your wife are not harming her now then you have no recourse to a medical procedure (morally speaking) to remove the same organs. Also, under the principle of double effect you cannot recourse to protect the life of your wife by immoral means (you are intending to do something that has a specifically contraceptive effect to prevent pregnancy) no matter how much you want it to be preventitive it never will be anything other than sex with a contraceptive because your wife might get pregnant. If the continued presence of the reproductive organs would harm your wife then you could consider sterilization for her and her alone.
40.png
josea:
But I insist that this is not about contraception but about a medical amputation of a diseased function or organ.
However, you wish to contracept to achieve the means of removal of the function. If the disease causes her problems now and threatens her then proceed with the removal of the disease and the unintended side effect of the removal of the organ could be realized.
40.png
josea:
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. … This is a missunderstanding: it is not about contraception, it is about application of moral principles to a particular case.
The removal of the eyes would be licit in this case because they are not functioning correctly and threatening life regardless of outside stimulus. If your wife’s reproductive organs are not threatening her in a non-pregnant condition then they are functioning correctly as they are. You have asserted that the oncoming of pregnancy is what causes the problem and not the organs themselves. Your analogy is incongrous to your situation.
 
40.png
josea:
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.
The removal of the eyes would be a physical evil and an unintended side effect In your case though you are wanting to do something good, prevent a condition that would threaten life (however, all is well now) by doing something that changes the function of the reproductive organs. In this you fail and would be acting immorally. You have no inherent right to sex.

USE NFP. Take a class creighton will teach you very strict ideas for rendering mucus. CCL gives slightly looser guidelines. CCL will include a BASAL thermometer and specific instructions on how and when to take your temperature so that you can identify the patterns (a fever thermometer does not work).

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
P.S. It would helpful to have specifics of the situation you are dealign with so we could judge your situation appropriately. Or contact the Paul VI institute for mroe guidance and alternatives.
 
wow… Do we have inherent right to happiness, communication, expression of our affects, to look for the unitive function of marital relations, to enhance and strengthen our relationship or even as a remedy o concupiscence as has been specifically stated in several church documents as a goals of marital relations? We do not have the right to all of these values only because my wife could not get pregnant again even if she would want to because she as a medical problem that will render her -using abstention, NFP or sterilization anyways- sterile?

The Church (not all as far as I know by now) wants us either to abstain from sex at all and from all these values above (even if there is a medical treatment to allows her to have a normal sexual life) or, if engaged in sexual activity, to be open to life (???) How can that be considered OK? Just a note about the use of NFP methods, it is always said that the method is moral because it is open to life. The logical following is: we should not use those methods (it does not work anyways for us) because they are open to life and we should not be anymore because of the life of my wife and the future of our family (me and three children). This is simply a “contradictio in terminis”. That is simply nonsense.

I seriously doubt that the morality applied here by the Church is correct.

The analogy I posted above deals with the removal of a function (seen) while the organs are healthy (the eyes and nerves connections to the brain). It would be logical to render this person blind for the good of the rest using the principle of totality even if the eyes are healthy.

Free choice of abstaining to be exposed to the external impulse of light is also an option. As I said the example is not perfect because in this case light would be a stimulus external to our free will and in our case, sexual relationship (light) depends on free will. But that is what I am discussing here all the time: that we should not make the morality of the actions taken here in the case of a diseased function dependent only on our free will. The function is diseased and should be removed independently of whether or not we are free to switch it on or let it off. In any case the function is not going to be on again. What is from the medical point of view the most secure way of protect your life? You will say abstention. I could say that sterilization does the same but preserving a lot of good values that might (note: I said might) go away but total abstention. Using risky NFP methods –and they are risky because people fails sometimes, I know for sure, interpreting fertility signs- is not the most secure way to go neither.

In the case of our woman I talks about the removal of reproductive function because she can not get pregnant in any case. I and others think she should not necessary give up her sexual live and all what that means if there are ways to avoid the risk of dying by a pregnancy. A medical treatment is not available at the moment to assure that she could have a normal sexual life but, by applying the principle of integrity or totality, she could sacrifice her reproductive function that would kill her when at work. This is the preventive amputation or elimination of a function that is not working OK: reproduction. It is argued that one can not amputate a healthy member or organ. BUT IN THIS CASE THE REPRODUCTIVE FUNCTION WORKING WRONG REQUIRES SOME PHYSICAL ORGANS WORKING OK (ovaries, uterus etc…) BUT AT SOME POINT THE PREGNANCY GOES WRONG AND KILLS THE WOMAN AND THE BABY. Are we so blind or so stupid not to distinguish this?

continues
 
People here (and Pius XII and the CDF in its statements) think this is evil because there are other moral solutions to it: abstention. Not because we are removing a healthy organ. But this does not have necessarily to be true. While some couple could see abstention as a solution it should not be the only moral alternative solution to this problem and neither to make the act of amputation of the reproductive function as “intrinsically evil” dependent on it. I explained this several times. The act here is not contraception, it is amputation of a part of your body for the good of the totality. Of course, if possibility of a normal sexual life and the preservation of the unitive part of the marital relation is not considered as a part of this totality then there is not way out.

The teaching about sterilization and the application of the principle of totality in this particular case has been addressed by Pius XII in a couple of speeches in congresses and in a note of the CDF quoting Pius XII teachings directly. As I said, while the doctrine of contraception is not reformable and could belong to the part of the magisterial teachings considered as definitive, the teachings considering this case as direct sterilization does not belong to infallible magisterium, it does not belong to the teaching about contraception and could be wrong. I could give you some examples about Popes saying wrong things. Pius IX and slavery for instance. He thought this was perfectly OK. Now it is considered an abomination. I am calling for a revision of those statements not to a revision of the doctrine about contraception. We do not want to contracept, it is not our intention. But if the principle of totality applies here the contraceptive effect should bed seen as the unwanted effect of the principle of totality (not the unwanted effect of the principle of “double effect”) when the reproductive function is removed for the good of the totality.

The same is now being discussed in the Church regarding condoms and aids. If the application of classical principle of morality could not be revised, there would not be any discussion at all, because contraception is always wrong. But once again, we are not talking here about contraception.

Jose
 
40.png
josea:
I seriously doubt that the morality applied here by the Church is correct.
This bottle line says it all. In order for you to further your argument, you need to remove the preeminence of the Church as the final authority on matters of faith and morals. Doesn’t this say something to you regarding the course and honesty/integrity of your argument for the introduction of contraceptive intercourse?
 
40.png
josea:
While some couple could see abstention as a solution it should not be the only moral alternative solution to this problem …
So, it really depends according to your logic on how each person/couple feels/views about the moral choices available to them whether they should make them binding or not?
 
40.png
felra:
So, it really depends according to your logic on how each person/couple feels/views about the moral choices available to them whether they should make them binding or not?
That is not what I mean. But his is the problem with chat rooms. I simply said that possibility of abstention and therefore renouncing to a lot of values that marital union provides might not be an alternative.

The “authority of the Church I consulted said when I spoke about sexual abstention: sexual activity belongs to the integrity or totality of marital live and it has a great unitive value by itself that does not have to be sacrificed because of a medical problem when there are other means to preserve it when the principle of totality is applied.

From my point of view, this is also true: abstention does not necessarily preserve the unitive aspect of marital sexual relations. For some couples in difficulties might be a laudable option. That is what I said. I think it is nonsense to give the whole good aspects of marital sexual relations up because the procreative one is not working OK. This is absurd.

Again, the problem here is not that one uses an evil mean to achieve a good. According to the principle of totality the mean is not evil, like other medical amputation performed to eliminate a serious risk for the sake of the health and, I would say, the psychological stability and the quality of life of those persons.

Felra, we are obeying the Church even if we do not agree with the moral theology behind this case. I think it makes no sense and it could be reformed without problems.

Regards,

Jose
 
40.png
felra:
This bottle line says it all. In order for you to further your argument, you need to remove the preeminence of the Church as the final authority on matters of faith and morals. Doesn’t this say something to you regarding the course and honesty/integrity of your argument for the introduction of contraceptive intercourse?
I am not talking about contraceptive intercourse but about what I and others think should be called indirect sterilization.
 
40.png
josea:
I am not talking about contraceptive intercourse but about what I and others think should be called indirect sterilization.
But, the proper authority of the Church calls it direct sterilization :o :

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.”
 
40.png
josea:
I think it is nonsense to give the whole good aspects of marital sexual relations up because the procreative one is not working OK. This is absurd.

Again, the problem here is not that one uses an evil mean to achieve a good. According to the principle of totality the mean is not evil, like other medical amputation performed to eliminate a serious risk for the sake of the health and, I would say, the psychological stability and the quality of life of those persons.

Felra, we are obeying the Church even if we do not agree with the moral theology behind this case. I think it makes no sense and it could be reformed without problems.

Regards,

Jose
So, authoritative Church teaching in faith and morals is “absurd” if you do not agree with it? The only way to determine if someone is obeying the Church is by their choice of actions in matters of faith and morals. For the principle of totality pertinent to your presented medical situation, see the thoughtful and excellent previous posts by CatholicMatthew and this:

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.

and …

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 organism [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.
 
I would like to than you all for advises and support in our case.

I was not talking about contraception all this time but I will do it now.

Let me just tell you a little intimate detail. Yesterday my wife and I had the great opportunity, after using Billing’s and other hormones monitoring systems, to be engaged in marital relations after much time of abstention. We were more or less sure than she would not get pregnant. After the great gift of communication, confidence and all the goods that come from our love, we were wondering whether or not the sexual act we were engaged was “open to life”. The answer was clear to us: it was not, and the only difference we saw with using an artificial birth control method was that we were doing according to Church teachings.

This is my reflection now:

We were not open to life; we could not be open to life because of the health of my wife. We were intentionally separating the two aspects of the conjugal act. My wife told me that she was not giving me her fecundity. This is a fallacious argument use by the ultra-defenders of NFP: they say that in the act, when no ABC means are used, there is a complete donation to each other. This is not true: my wife could not give me and she did not give me her fecundity. How could she if she would die if she does?

By using NFP we were choosing a time when we knew reproduction was not possible and, therefore, our intention was only to preserve the unititive aspect. What I see is that if the problem with contraception is that it separates the two aspects, we were doing exactly the same using NFP. We understand the Church does not allow contraception because it separates the two aspects and that is intrinsically evil. But it is also clear that every moral act depends on the INTENTION of the person. When somebody uses NFP the intention is to have the unitive aspect and to avoid the procreative one. It is clear that, by using NFP, the sexual act is not perverted but the INTENTION is still to separate the two aspects. How can that act be morally good if the intention is bad?

How can this circle be broken?

Why does the Church allow exception about the INTENTION if there are serious reasons and it does not allow exception in the means. How can the Church declare ABC as intrinsic evil because it separates the two aspects of the sexual act and, at the same time, it allows this separation when the means used are licit???

I think I know the answer to this: it is argued that sexual acts done when conception is impossible does not separate the two aspects. But, actually if you think about it, it does because if not, the use of NFP without serious reasons should not be sinful and if we were open to life, we would play irresponsibly with the life of my wife and the future of my three children.

How can this circle be broken?

I still think this is a fallacious way of thinking but, even if I do not understand it properly we will do what our Mother the Church tells us to do. The only think I pray to God is that, if anything is wrong in this way of thinking, He should correct it to avoid the unnecessary burden on his children just because of a philosophic error.

Thanks for your prayers and for the effort in the defense of our Church. We accept her teachings although we, as many others, do not understand and still think are inaccurate.
**We will obey without understanding.:amen: **

Jose
 
You’re in my prayers, Josea.

I still don’t see how your wife can be considered fertile since she would die if she got pregnant. Tying her tubes would not make her any less capable of having a baby. So how is it different than someone getting liposuction or plastic surgery?

After reading the posts on this thread, I keep thinking of the story where Jesus healed the old woman on the Sabbath.
 
40.png
josea:
Why does the Church allow exception about the INTENTION if there are serious reasons and it does not allow exception in the means. How can the Church declare ABC as intrinsic evil because it separates the two aspects of the sexual act and, at the same time, it allows this separation when the means used are licit???

**We will obey without understanding.:amen: **

Jose
Whether a couple is using NFP or contraception the result – the end - is the same in both cases, but clearly the means are not and the morality of any act is dependent on both the end and the means. The difference in the means – in the way in which pregnancy is avoided - is the critical difference between contraception and NFP. That a married couple would ever feel that the very act intended by God to be the physical sign of their marriage vows – the way in which those vows are supposed to take flesh in their marriage – should be altered so that its consequences could be avoided, is not just unnatural; it is a lie, a betrayal of their sacred marriage vows for total self-giving to each other.

Christian marriage is a sacrament and the sexual act is the physical sign of that sacrament in the same way that the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine are the physical signs of the Eucharist. Contraception should be as shocking as seeing someone receive the Eucharist and then ‘undo’ the consequences of the act by spitting out the host.

I believe that the reason you are abstaining is for “grave reasons”, which makes the *intent *morally acceptable and inherently sacrificial.

Again, in the words of Pope Paul VI, “Self-discipline of this kind [periodic abstinence] is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children.” (*Humanae Vitae *paragraph 21).
 
40.png
josea:
I would like to than you all for advises and support in our case.

Thanks for your prayers and for the effort in the defense of our Church. We accept her teachings although we, as many others, do not understand and still think are inaccurate.
**We will obey without understanding.:amen: **

Jose
My prayers for you and your marriage. Here are a some scriptures that came to mind as I read you post:

Job** *****Chapter 28:28 “***And to man he said: Behold, the fear of the LORD is wisdom; and avoiding evil is understanding

Proverbs** *Chapter 3:5 “***Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not.”

Proverbs** *Chapter 15:32 “***He who rejects admonition despises his own soul, but he who heeds reproof gains understanding.”

Ephesians** *Chapter 5: 25-27 “ ***Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

Matthew** *Chapter 19:25-29 “***When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, "For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible." Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, … And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.”

1 Thessalonians** *Chapter 4:1-4, 7 “***Finally, brothers, we earnestly ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that, …This is the will of God, your holiness: that you refrain from immorality, that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor. For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness.”

1 Peter** *Chapter 1:14-16 “***Like obedient children, … as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, “Be holy because I (am) holy.”

1 Peter** *Chapter 1:6-9 “***In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, … as you attain the goal of (your) faith, the salvation of your souls.”

1 John** *Chapter 4:17 “***In this is love brought to perfection among us, that we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world.”

God bless.
 
At one time, esoteric theological discussions were kept bewteen trained theologians for better understanding of the truth. It seems today these issues are let out like a trial ballon to see if a loophole can be found to start unraveling the moral law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top