Catholic Question - Is a vasectomy contrary to church teaching?

[peary1]

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

The question wasn’t about castration - it was about vasectomies. The two are not the same. Castration is the removal of the testicles. A vasectomy is the surgical procedure that stops the sperm from coming up from the testicles and released. It does not involve testicle removal but the suturing of the vans de’ferens.

 

[Xavierlives]

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.

I’ll be happy to discuss symantics, but the intent of the question, which still seems pretty clear to me, is that the Bible shows and example of “Birth Control.” It is very much a physical action that is taken. Whether the action is “forced” upon a servant… irrelevant. Whether the action is chosen by the servant… irrelevant. A quite a bit of the time it was practiced in Biblical times, it was done to stop a man from siring children with the women of the master’s house. That sure sounds like birth control to me.

Just because my dog is castrated doesn’t mean he can’t hump my leg, it just means he can’t get it pregnant.

 

[Xavierlives]

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.

Wow! so it could be argued that it isn’t birth control at all!

 

[aspirant]

The Bible mentions many actions that are not morally acceptable, like polygamy, rape, idolatry, and murder. The mention of physical eunuchs in scripture does not make it OK to mutilate people.

 

[puzzleannie]

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?

where in any sacred scripture do you find reference to vasectomy or any sterilization surgery promoted as a means of contraception? are you sure you are reading an actual bible?

there are many “undoable” sins, as in those in which no matter how contrite one is, the effects of the sin are irreversible. For one, the sin of contraception means whatever child God intended to give that couple will not be born. The innocent child who was aborted will never see life on earth. The murder victim will not be resurrected. The damage done to reputations by lies and gossip will go on. That does not mean such sins cannot be forgiven and absolved, they can, but precisely because they have ongoing effects, we also incur just punishment for them, which may be worked out here on earth, or in purgatory, so we are clean to enter heaven

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

yes and nowhere in the bible is either promoted solely for contraceptive purposes. When Paul and Jesus speak of “being a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom” they are making colloquial relevance to the choice for celibacy, and in fact the early Church as cited above and elsewhere specifically prohibited deliberate surgical castration by someone who wanted to insure is celibate priestly status, perhaps to remove temptation. the case of Origen is illustrative. The early church acknowledged the existence of those who had been deliberately sterilized, as they acknowledged the existence of other evils such as slavery, and provide pastoral guidance for those in those conditions, but nowhere is either condoned or promoted by the Church.

 

[Xavierlives]

where in any sacred scripture do you find reference to vasectomy or any sterilization surgery promoted as a means of contraception? are you sure you are reading an actual bible?

I’m pretty sure this is a joke. he… hehe… hehehe. I guess I would start with Jesus’s words in Matthew 19:12. That’s in the actual Bible, right?

there are many “undoable” sins, as in those in which no matter how contrite one is, the effects of the sin are irreversible. For one, the sin of contraception means whatever child God intended to give that couple will not be born. The innocent child who was aborted will never see life on earth. The murder victim will not be resurrected. The damage done to reputations by lies and gossip will go on. That does not mean such sins cannot be forgiven and absolved, they can, but precisely because they have ongoing effects, we also incur just punishment for them, which may be worked out here on earth, or in purgatory, so we are clean to enter heaven

Ok. So a tattoo or a vasectomy are forgiveable. A Catholic would just have to live with the side effects.

 

[Xavierlives]

The Bible mentions many actions that are not morally acceptable, like polygamy, rape, idolatry, and murder. The mention of physical eunuchs in scripture does not make it OK to mutilate people.

Hmm… but if I am sinning with my boy parts, Matt 18:8-9 says I should lop the off.

(and all forms of pandemonium broke free…)

 

[ALLGIRLS]

The question wasn’t about castration - it was about vasectomies. The two are not the same. Castration is the removal of the testicles. A vasectomy is the surgical procedure that stops the sperm from coming up from the testicles and released. It does not involve testicle removal but the suturing of the vans de’ferens.

I know, but the OP is trying to equate the two, claiming a “long biblical history of ‘vasectomy type’ birth control in both the Old and New Testament”. I was making a point that the 2 are NOT the same thing, castration was not used for “birth control” (it was just an unintended consequence).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Hmmm (deep thoughts ). Come to think of it, is there anywhere in the Bible, besides the case of Onan (whom God dealt with most severely!) and Judah (where Tamar eventually got her child, albeit through deceit) where someone deliberately tries to prevent births? I can’t. Like I mentioned before, families back them seemed to want to have loads of kids (using multiple wives and their handmaids even!). Barren women prayed fervently for children (Sara, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth), Trying to limit their number is never mentioned, each one being considered a gift from God (and usually named to reflect that), and spacing was taken care of with extended breastfeeding. “Birth control” as we think of it today is just not a Biblical concept.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Hmm… but if I am sinning with my boy parts, Matt 18:8-9 says I should lop the off.

(and all forms of pandemonium broke free…)

uch:

Hmmm. Let us know how that works out for ya!

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[BV_in_CA]

I am very interested in this subject because I am thinking about getting a vasectomy. I recently rediscovered my faith and I have been reading alot lately. We have 3 children and that is more than enough. But we don’t want to stop having sex either.

Don’t we have a social responsibilty in addition to our religious responsibility. We can dish out a child every year until my wife is no longer capable (i.e. 18 and counting show), but at some point we need to stop. I can not see us stop having sex because we don’t want more children. That is a right/benefit we have because of our marriage.

I’ve just been thinking about it a lot and maybe some good people here can give me some ideas.

Thank you,

 

[Xavierlives]

uch:

Hmmm. Let us know how that works out for ya!

In Christ,

Ellen

It was a hypothetical. All of my boy parts are sin-free.

and of course, most people believe this was more a figurative statement involving the Church. If we are all a part of the body, and is sinning, than it is better for the church to cut off that dead part than bring the whole church down.

 

[aspirant]

I guess I would start with Jesus’s words in Matthew 19:12. That’s in the actual Bible, right?

That verse doesn’t mention contraceptive use, much less condone it.

So a tattoo or a vasectomy are forgiveable. A Catholic would just have to live with the side effects.

The tattoo wouldn’t need to be forgiven, because getting a tattoo is not morally problematic in Catholicism.

 

[aspirant]

The Bible mentions many actions that are not morally acceptable, like polygamy, rape, idolatry, and murder. The mention of physical eunuchs in scripture does not make it OK to mutilate people.

Catholics are not literalists.

 

[Xavierlives]

I am very interested in this subject because I am thinking about getting a vasectomy. I recently rediscovered my faith and I have been reading alot lately. We have 3 children and that is more than enough. But we don’t want to stop having sex either.

Don’t we have a social responsibilty in addition to our religious responsibility. We can dish out a child every year until my wife is no longer capable (i.e. 18 and counting show), but at some point we need to stop. I can not see us stop having sex because we don’t want more children. That is a right/benefit we have because of our marriage.

I’ve just been thinking about it a lot and maybe some good people here can give me some ideas.

Thank you,

Well, I can give you a psuedo-protestant perspective.

In the early church, there was a mixing of Jews and Gentiles. They had a little problem. Some would eat certain meat, while others were not. Everyone got upset. So how was it solved? Answer: Love. If what you are doing is causing your brother to sin, than you shouldn’t do it.

Well, this seems willy-nilly, some might say. Well, the Holy Spirit is our Guild. If I am being led to witness in Utah and I don’t go, I sin. There is nothing in the Bible that says, “thou shalt go to Utah and witness.”

Christianity still has this problem. Some want straightforward answers “_______ is sin.” I think we also need to continue to listen to the Holy Spirit. Of course this is not justification for doing something you know to be sinful, “the Bible doesn’t say anything about marijuana so I am going to smoke all day!” No. We need to quite our hearts and listen. The answer will come.

Since you didn’t post your faith, it is hard to say whether this will be helpful at all.

God Bless.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Maybe we should first agree no what a Eunich is…seems like there is a difference in understanding the term.
Xavierlives tend to think of it as castration while Corki seems to think of it as removal of all genitalia.
Please correct me if I’m wrong here
Looking into the term briefly seems to refer to it as castration…in which case I can’t see it hampering the sexual funcion at all.
I do tend to agree with Xavierlives in that in most references I’ve seen, eunuch means castration.

I agree with Xavierlives in that it seems like neither vasectomy nor castration would hamper sexual intercourse, but both would render the man infertile.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m pretty sure this is a joke. he… hehe… hehehe. I guess I would start with Jesus’s words in Matthew 19:12. That’s in the actual Bible, right?

Ok. So a tattoo or a vasectomy are forgiveable. A Catholic would just have to live with the side effects.

where on this thread has anyone mentioned tatoos?

where did Jesus tell his followers a vasectomy or sterilization is permitted for the purposes of contraception.

your misunderstanding of the term Eunuch in this context has been corrected by several posters, but if you deliberately choose to misunderstand not our problem but yours.

and where on God’s green earth have you come up with the notion that because the effects of a sin cannot be undone, that sin cannot be forgiven.

do you mind my asking what Bible version you are using since your interpretations seem unique

 

[PennitentMan]

I am very interested in this subject because I am thinking about getting a vasectomy. I recently rediscovered my faith and I have been reading alot lately. We have 3 children and that is more than enough. But we don’t want to stop having sex either.

Don’t we have a social responsibilty in addition to our religious responsibility. We can dish out a child every year until my wife is no longer capable (i.e. 18 and counting show), but at some point we need to stop. I can not see us stop having sex because we don’t want more children. That is a right/benefit we have because of our marriage.

I’ve just been thinking about it a lot and maybe some good people here can give me some ideas.

Thank you,

Assuming you are Catholic, the resounding answer will be “Vasectomy is a sin in any circumstance”
So is all other birth control.

The only answer they will give you is to try your hand at NFP.

But please, be warned that the results are very rarely as accurate as the people on here will have you believe.
Failure rates done in perfect control circumstances (what they will quote to you) are far different from failure rates in the real world…even when people (myself being one of them) used it VERY religiously to the point of not having relations with your partner for months at a time…just to be safe (since we couldn’t afford to be pregnant again).
NFP almost ruined our marriage.

So, if you are a hard-line catholic, your only options in your situation will be to either to totally abstain from having sex, or very periodic sex, or keep having sex and producing them babies.

I thought I’d let you know the other side of NFP.

 

[aspirant]

Don’t we have a social responsibilty in addition to our religious responsibility.

Yes.

I can not see us stop having sex because we don’t want more children.

Stopping entirely should not be necessary.