B
BV_in_CA
Guest
I don’t think NFP would be an option. Considering it only took 1 try in two cases and 2 trys in another, we’re a pretty fertile couple. Thanks for your responses.
Catholic Question - Is a vasectomy contrary to church teaching?
- Status
X
Xavierlives
Guest
My point is the acknowledgement by Christ of eunuchs in the world. Eunuchs who were castrated. Eunuchs who were castrated for the purpose of stopping procreation. Some of these are sterile at birth. Some are sterile by acts of man. Some are sterile by choice. None can have children.
We are free from Lev. 19:28 but not any other laws?
A
aspirant
Guest
Eunuchs are, by definition, castrated.
This is eisegesis. Castration was done for many reasons in the ancient world.
Christ acknowledges that men castrated by other men exist; he does not condone it.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
I did. As a response to your comment about the permanent repercussions to sin. But recently someone said I can violate Lev. 19:28 and get a tattoo, but not violate an unlisted sin of contraceptive use. I can tattooerize but not vasecomize.
Where did he not?
Ok… I’ll digress to a 1st grader… I am not. You seem to be choosing to ignore the correlation between a eunuch and a man with a vasectomy. You seem to be choosing to ignore that removing testicles is not removing of all the boy parts. Moreover, you seem to be ignoring that the Jews insisted on having something to circumcise. Trust me here. Castration is the vasectomy of the last 3000 years.
That is the thrust of my question! If a Catholic has a vasectomy and has sex with is wife… he sins. Then… sex again… then sins again. Sex turns into a dirty sin. Vasectomies, despite what you read, are pretty much unreversable.
So does this Catholic perpetually live in sin every time he has sex with his wife because his vasectomy is not changing?
I can use any you like.
A
aspirant
Guest
Modern Catholics are not ancient Israelites, and the moral law does not forbid tattoos.
Castration and vasectomy are not the same procedure. They are both mutilations, however, so they’re both forbidden by Catholic moral teaching.
What you’re consistently ignoring is that castration was done for a wide variety of reasons. It is certainly not equivalent to vasectomy.
Not if he repented getting the vasectomy.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
I’m not ignoring it. But castrating men for falsetto was not done during Biblical times. 95% it was done for one purpose… to sterilize.
Hmm… ok. So, after repenting, a Catholic with a vasectomy is well with God.
A
aspirant
Guest
In biblical times, castration was forbidden to the Israelites, if a Jew caused castration he was subject to whipping, eunuchs were not allowed to marry Israelite women, and Israelites did not consider eunuchs to be men.
Except for the pesky fact that it was frequently done for other reasons and often included peotomy.
If one repents sin and no longer approves it, it does not hinder one’s relationship with God.
P
peary1
Guest
No, it is considered “birth control”. The purpose of getting a vasectomy is to “control birth” or eliminate conception, the latter considered a mortal sin by the Church. “Controlling birth” can be found in NFP, but that is a natural method, not artificial.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
So, when a man becomes a eunuch for “heaven’s sake” is is okay, but when a man has a vasectomy to not have children, it is bad?
Both are artificial. Both sterilize.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
err… no. There is no evidence to support a penectomy was included in castration.
Well thats good.
C
Corki
Guest
No, becoming a eunuch for heaven’s sake it to forgo sexual relations. (see post #6) This does not involve anything artificial or any bodily alteration.
When a man has a vasectomy he wants to enjoy sexual relations but without the natural effects. Vasectomies are wrong first as unnecessary mutilation and also as removing the procreative aspect from marital relations.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
I read #6 when it was posted. I find the interpretation to fall short.
So. Let’s look at this. We (and by we I mean you), are trying to prove that eunuch = forgo sexual relations.
Now, lets look at a new Testament scripture that talks about this. Matthew 19:12 seems to be right on point.
Jesus says:
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (KJ)
12For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. (DR)
Some men forgo sexual relations because they were born that way. Ok. Maybe a birth defect forces some men not to have sex. Sounds plausable.
Others forgo sexual relationships because men made them that way. Hmm… this one is tough. Lets skip it.
*Some men forgo sexual relationships for the kingdom of heaven. *. Ooo. Sounds like a priest! Lets say this is spot on!
Too bad we still have to think about that pesky part b, Others forgo sexual relationships because men made them that way.
Hmm… maybe if we say, Jesus used the same word for three classes of people! Then we get to use it for our definition, and we win. We can say eunuch means eunuchs and eunuch means birth defects and eunuch means priest, that way we can say “forgo sexual relations” is Biblical.
Personally, I find this theologically repugnant. You can’t make Jesus say what you want to hear. Jesus is talking about one class of men. Castrated men. How they got to the castration is listed. Jesus said it very clearly. Some men are born castrated. Some men are castrated by other men. Some men choose to be castrated. The last two are very artifical. And Jesus then says, He that can take it, let him take it.
A
aspirant
Guest
He is not sterilizing acts of sexual intercourse, because he’s not having sex.
A
aspirant
Guest
Except in actual histories of castration.
A
aspirant
Guest
Correct.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Except for history seems to be mute on this.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
It’s okay. I need not beleaguer the point. There is a purpose to the Catholic stance. I do not need to accept it, just recognize it.
A
aspirant
Guest
That’s not what was said.
Not at all. For example, involuntary castration was frequently inflicted as torture or punishment on prisoners of war and those defeated in battle in ancient times. As a consequence, many of these men were unable to marry or engage in sex.
Like a priest? No. Many priests are married and they are not required to be celibate. Like someone who abstains from marriage and sex, e.g. Paul? Yes.
Actually, no. Only those “made eunuchs by men” were castrated.
In the context of Matthew, Jesus is talking about men who do not marry (verse 10). Some do not marry because they are eunuchs by birth. Some do not marry because men made them eunuchs. And some choose the life of a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.
The third usage of “eunuch” is, of course, is a metaphor for a man who does not marry; moral law actually forbids self-mutilation. As I mentioned before, we are not literalists.
It is possible to be born a eunuch, but not born castrated. Castration is an action by which a person loses testes later.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Corki said it and you affirmed. Rememer:
Yes. Thank you for proving my point. There were men born without testicles (known as undescended testicles) who were eunuchs and then artifical act of castration creating the remander of eunuchs.
Other than that, it is rehash. So, I think we are done.
A
aspirant
Guest
The problem being that what Corki said and I affirmed is not the same thing you said afterward.
If by “proving” you mean “correcting,” you are welcome.
- Status