Catholic Question - Is a vasectomy contrary to church teaching?

[Xavierlives]

I was listening to Catholic radio last week and there was a discussion about birth control and the reference that was made was, your only form of birth control is self-control.

1. With a long biblical history of “vasectomy-type” birth control going on in the Old and New Testaments, I am wondering if this is an acceptable practice?
2. If it is a sin. once a Catholic has this done is it not an undoable sin?

 

[Nine_Two]

I can’t answer the whole of the Catholic position on it, but I do know the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils do specifically prohibit priests and bishops from undergoing such an operation (I believe it is defined as unnecessary surgery, with the context of eunuchs being brought up specifically, which is basically what a vasectomy is a form of).

Although in answer to your second comment, almost all sin is “undoable”, as in it can’t be reversed, therefore I would assume that like any other sin (if it is seen as a sin by the Catholics) confessing it with true repentence would result in absolution.

edit: First Canon of the Council of Nicea:

1. If anyone has been operated upon by surgeons for a disease, or has been excised by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. But if anyone has excised himself when well, he must be dismissed even if he is examined after being in the clergy. And henceforth no such person must be promoted to holy orders. But as is self-evident, though such is the case as regards those who affect the matter and dare to excise themselves, if any persons have been eunuchized by barbarians or their lords, but are otherwise found to be worthy, the Canon admits such persons to the clergy.

 

[that_name]

Look up “sterilization” in the Catechism.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

[Xavierlives]

I can’t answer the whole of the Catholic position on it, but I do know the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils do specifically prohibit priests and bishops from undergoing such an operation (I believe it is defined as unnecessary surgery, with the context of eunuchs being brought up specifically, which is basically what a vasectomy is a form of).

Although in answer to your second comment, almost all sin is “undoable”, as in it can’t be reversed, therefore I would assume that like any other sin (if it is seen as a sin by the Catholics) confessing it with true repentence would result in absolution.

edit: First Canon of the Council of Nicea:

Well, I the reason I brought the eunuch is was two-fold. It seems from ancient times it was practiced (even until the time of Christ) and its purpose as far as I can see was birth control (although it also opens a can of worms I’m not trying to open. (As in, when you are firing blanks, do you shoot your gun more). But if the ancient and early church acknowledged this as a method of not having children. Now no birth control seems quite a shift. So I was just seeing if anyone had an idea if it meshed.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, I the reason I brought the eunuch is was two-fold. It seems from ancient times it was practiced (even until the time of Christ) and its purpose as far as I can see was birth control (although it also opens a can of worms I’m not trying to open. (As in, when you are firing blanks, do you shoot your gun more). But if the ancient and early church acknowledged this as a method of not having children. Now no birth control seems quite a shift. So I was just seeing if anyone had an idea if it meshed.

Eunuchs were also used in church choirs and in operas. They were called Castratos and had soprano voices.

 

[1ke]

I was listening to Catholic radio last week and there was a discussion about birth control and the reference that was made was, your only form of birth control is self-control.

Contraception and direct sterilization are always gravely wrong acts.

1. With a long biblical history of “vasectomy-type” birth control going on in the Old and New Testaments, I am wondering if this is an acceptable practice?

Please provide proof of this “long biblical history” of “vasectomy-type” birth control.

The Bible does not condone contraception. Vasectomy was technologically beyond the ancient peoples. Castration is not the same thing as a vasectomy.

The Old Testament teaching on castration:
Deuteronomy 23:1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Perhaps you are thinking of eunuchs. Making a man a eunuch was not a birth control method.

Slaves were made into eunuchs in order to emasculate them-- render them incapable of having sexual relations and also to make them more docile and physically controllable (i.e., those of the royal household because of their access to the king). Eunuchs often served as household servants, where they would be around the women of the household but unable to have sexual liaisons with them due to their castration.

The term “eunuch” is also somtimes used in ancient texts in a colloquial way to mean “celibate”-- as when Jesus refers to “eunuchs for the kingdom” in Matthew 19:12.

1. If it is a sin. once a Catholic has this done is it not an undoable sin?

All sins can be forgiven if the person is contrite.

 

[Corki]

Well, I the reason I brought the eunuch is was two-fold. It seems from ancient times it was practiced (even until the time of Christ) and its purpose as far as I can see was birth control (although it also opens a can of worms I’m not trying to open. (As in, when you are firing blanks, do you shoot your gun more). But if the ancient and early church acknowledged this as a method of not having children. Now no birth control seems quite a shift. So I was just seeing if anyone had an idea if it meshed.

A eunich hasn’t undergone a vasectomy. He has had his sexual organs removed. He is unable to consumate the sexual act. This is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Xavierlives]

A eunich hasn’t undergone a vasectomy. He has had his sexual organs removed. He is unable to consumate the sexual act. This is comparing apples and oranges.

Err… no. I think it the eunichization process is just castration. All the other boy parts remain.

 

[Xavierlives]

Contraception and direct sterilization are always gravely wrong acts.

Please provide proof of this “long biblical history” of “vasectomy-type” birth control.

Well Eunuchs are the historical and Biblical referenence I was making. We can discuss the wide variety of services eunuchs provided, but during Biblical times, a majority were servants and they were sterilized to emasculate them, as you said. This, among other things, makes sure someone doesn’t… err… sneak one in on the Master.

The Bible does not condone contraception. Vasectomy was technologically beyond the ancient peoples. Castration is not the same thing as a vasectomy.

Yes. In ancient days they did their version of a vasectomy… they chopped.

The Old Testament teaching on castration:
Deuteronomy 23:1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Right. Eunuch and men with birth defects were not able to enter the temple. Does this answer something?

Perhaps you are thinking of eunuchs. Making a man a eunuch was not a birth control method.

Slaves were made into eunuchs in order to emasculate them-- render them incapable of having sexual relations and also to make them more docile and physically controllable (i.e., those of the royal household because of their access to the king). Eunuchs often served as household servants, where they would be around the women of the household but unable to have sexual liaisons with them due to their castration.

The term “eunuch” is also somtimes used in ancient texts in a colloquial way to mean “celibate”-- as when Jesus refers to “eunuchs for the kingdom” in Matthew 19:12.

All sins can be forgiven if the person is contrite.

Yes. This is all consistant with Wikipedia. I’m wondering about the Catholic ramifications.
If I use a prophylactic once, I believe it is a sin (according to the Catholics). If I receive a vasectomy, it cannot be undone, but if the sinner repents, the act is not undone. Will the person not continue to live in/with that sin?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well Eunuchs are the historical and Biblical referenence I was making. We can discuss the wide variety of services eunuchs provided, but during Biblical times, a majority were servants and they were sterilized to emasculate them, as you said. This, among other things, makes sure someone doesn’t… err… sneak one in on the Master.

Yes. In ancient days they did their version of a vasectomy… they chopped.

Right. Eunuch and men with birth defects were not able to enter the temple. Does this answer something?

Yes. This is all consistant with Wikipedia. I’m wondering about the Catholic ramifications.
If I use a prophylactic once, I believe it is a sin (according to the Catholics). If I receive a vasectomy, it cannot be undone, but if the sinner repents, the act is not undone. Will the person not continue to live in/with that sin?

I found this interesting take on eunuchs and people who are unable to procreate:

Now Jesus instructed the people in Matthew 19:12 that being a eunuch is sometimes better in the same way that it is better for an unmarried individual as both can devote their whole being on the study of God’s Word and the development of His Way as they do not get tangled up in pleasing a mate or be driven to sin because of their sexual appetites as he was trying to explain. But he qualifies this teaching with the admonition that it is only for those that it is given by the Father to be able too this. Of course he did not mean that humans should stop procreating within the marriage covenant or none of us would be alive today.

The idea that even a eunuch could be baptized and close to God and be begotten into God’s family shows the impartiality of our Father in all things. It also shows the better covenant in Jesus and why the old covenant became obsolete in some things.
link:
biblestudy.org/question/what-is-a-eunuch.html

 

[Corki]

Err… no. I think it the eunichization process is just castration. All the other boy parts remain.

“just castration” is the removal or sexual organs. Castration involves the removal of the testicles. Vasectomy is surgical blocking or severing the vas deferens. Nothing is removed.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

“just castration” is the removal or sexual organs. Castration involves the removal of the testicles. Vasectomy is surgical blocking or severing the vas deferens. Nothing is removed.

Vasectomy does not remove any sexual desire.

 

[Corki]

Vasectomy does not remove any sexual desire.

Which is another reason comparing eunichs and people with vasectomies is not valid.

 

[Xavierlives]

“just castration” is the removal or sexual organs. Castration involves the removal of the testicles. Vasectomy is surgical blocking or severing the vas deferens. Nothing is removed.

Yes. I know. Maybe I don’t understand your point then.

What makes a eunuch? removing of the testicles. This would end the chances of siring children. A vasectomy pretty much ends the chances of siring children. Both are forms of birth control.

3,000 years ago, they figured it out.

 

[Xavierlives]

Which is another reason comparing eunichs and people with vasectomies is not valid.

Good gravy. The argument is castration is a form of birth control, not vasectomy is equal to castration. Vasectomy is a pretty new to the scene compared to the 3000+ year old practice of castration.

You can’t argue that people were not castrated (or had a form of birth control) in Biblical times (you just can’t).

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Castration is NOT birth control, it’s SEX control. Men weren’t made eunuchs to keep them from having children, but to keep them from having sex (not having children being a consequence, but not the motivation). Children were considered blessings in both the Old and New Testaments (people wanted them so much wives gave their husbands their maids so the family to could have more. Remember Jacob and his 12 sons?), people didn’t have 2 and “get fixed” back then.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[peary1]

I was listening to Catholic radio last week and there was a discussion about birth control and the reference that was made was, your only form of birth control is self-control.

1. With a long biblical history of “vasectomy-type” birth control going on in the Old and New Testaments, I am wondering if this is an acceptable practice?
2. If it is a sin. once a Catholic has this done is it not an undoable sin?

There is nothing in the bible that even comes close to “vasectomy-type” birth control. It did not exist back then.

Although experiments with vasectomies on animals was going on as early as the 1830s, it didn’t become a serious consideration for birth control until the early 1960s. Even so, it is not always effective. At least 3% sperm still gets through and can still cause pregnancy.

As a direct form of birth control, yes, it is considered a mortal sin in the Church. As for reversal, 85-90% of vasectomies can be reversed successfully.

 

[mark_a]

Vasectomy does not remove any sexual desire.

It can, however, cause a man’s body to produce antibodies which are shown to be a cause of dementia.

 

[aspirant]

Look up “sterilization” in the Catechism.

If a an act involves mutilation—i.e. if the act unnecessarily renders a bodily organ unable to perform its function—the act is immoral. As the Catechism puts it: “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”

Ear piercing, for example, is not mutilation because it does not prevent the ear (or any other organ) from performing its natural functions. A vasectomy, on the other hand, is actually intended to prevent natural bodily functions.

There is an exception for strictly therapeutic acts, when it is not possible to preserve both the health of the whole person and the natural function of an organ. A cancerous uterus can be removed, for example, to preserve the life and integrity of the body as a whole. The loss of the uterus’ function is an unintended and unavoidable consequence in these circumstances, rather than the object of such a hysterectomy. A vasectomy performed for the purposes of contraception doesn’t qualify for this exception.

Also from the Catechism: “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

 

[Corki]

Yes. I know. Maybe I don’t understand your point then.

What makes a eunuch? removing of the testicles. This would end the chances of siring children. A vasectomy pretty much ends the chances of siring children. Both are forms of birth control.

3,000 years ago, they figured it out.

First of all, your OP was about birth control. The Church does not teach against birth control. Birth control is timing, spacing and limiting the number of children and the Church has no problem with that if done responsibly and not for selfish reasons. The Church teaches against contraception and sterilization as methods of spacing or avoiding children.

Castration eliminates the abilty to engage in sexual relations. Contraception and vasectomies just divorce sterilization from the unitive and procreative ends of marital sexual relations.

Castration is also rarely voluntary. So even the church teaching against multilation would mean that the eunuch would not be at fault; rather the prohibition would be against the ones who performed and/or required the castration.