Contraception and Spouses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anima_Christi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Madia:
This answer makes more sense to me:
all.org/issues/hayes001.htm
It’s pretty much in agreement. What the Pope said had to do with using a contraceptive.

The Pill can actually cease to be regarded as a contraceptive, when used for medical reasons, and the couple chooses to abstain for the safety of their potential children, during the course of treatment. In this case, there would be no “contraceptive effect” at all.
 
What would happen in the case of a couple who against the wishes of the other becomes sterilized or years later one or both of them realizes their sin and truly confesses, must they seperate or abstain for life? Unlike a pill or IUD-chances of reversal are slim and expensive.
First off, let us distinguish contraception from abortion. Contraception is preventing the conception of a child. Abortion is killing the child that is already conceived. Some methods of “birth control” are contraceptive (such as sterilization), abortive (such as the morning after pill) or both (such as the birth control pill).

Mutilation of the body to achieve sterilzation in order to prevent children in a grave sin because it is contraception. Now, physical sterility isn’t an absolute evil (for the Catechism):
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
The evil would be in the act of mutilating your body in order to achieve sterilization. Now, a surgery such as a hysterectomy which renders one sterile may or may not be morally licit. If a hysterectomy is done to save one’s life, it it licit as long the the sterile effect isn’t intended but merely permitted. However, a hysterectomy would be gravely sinful if the intent is to render the woman sterile.

When someone confesses the sin of mutilation of their body in order to achieve sterilzation their sin is forgiven if their intent is to mend their ways. From that confession on they must be open to children.

So, the person from that confession on must treat their sterility the same as a person who is sterile by no fault of their own. They should seek to be open to children by seeing if there is anyway to correct their sterility and take into account the cost/burden of it.

For example, if that person simply became sterile by flipping a switch off then they would be required to switch that flip back on. If however, to flip that switch on they were required to pay a certain amount of money and suffer certain burdens then they may not be required to depending on the amount of money and burdens.

Let me try another example. A thief steals $100,000 and confesses it. For his confession to be valid he must have a firm intent never to steal again and make restitution. He cannot simply confess the sin and then keep the money. He must do whatever possible to make restitution for his sin.

The sterile person cannot simply accept their sterility and not try to do anything to correct it.
 
40.png
Madia:
The sterile person cannot simply accept their sterility and not try to do anything to correct it.
The Church does not require a person to reverse the tubiligation.
 
The Church does not require a person to reverse the tubiligation.
What is the reason of the person not reversing the tubiligation? Is it to continue to be sterile or the financial/physical aspects of the surgery to the reverse the effects? If it is the first reason then the person is still not being open to children.

What I mean is if hypothetically the surgery to reverse the tubiligation was free and of no potential harm to the person then they would be required to get it reversed before engaging in the marital act since their only reason to not get it reversed would be to be sterile. Since (I imagine) the surgery to reverse the tubiligation is somewhat costly and there is some potential harm then the morality of not getting the surgery would differ on a case to case basis.
 
Michelle Arnold has a record of giving irresponsible answers to questions concerning contraception. I’ve contacted CA about this, but to no avail. I’m done financially supporting CA in any way.
 
40.png
Madia:
What is the reason of the person not reversing the tubiligation? Is it to continue to be sterile or the financial/physical aspects of the surgery to the reverse the effects? If it is the first reason then the person is still not being open to children.

What I mean is if hypothetically the surgery to reverse the tubiligation was free and of no potential harm to the person then they would be required to get it reversed before engaging in the marital act since their only reason to not get it reversed would be to be sterile. Since (I imagine) the surgery to reverse the tubiligation is somewhat costly and there is some potential harm then the morality of not getting the surgery would differ on a case to case basis.
It amazes me, Madia, how you continue to try to require what the Church does not and pronounce people as sinning if they do not meet your criteria. The church is CLEAR that sterilization reversal is not necessary in ANY case.
 
**You know, what I can never understand is why everyone gets all up in arms about not denying relations to a spouse who is refusing to be open to life, but no one ever seems to care that that same spouse is basicly forcing the open to life spouse to go against their conscience and beliefs. :confused: **

As for what Malia is saying about sterilization reversal. The church does say birth control is a sin to be repented of, common sense says you should then STOP using that birth control method.

So I can kind of understand Malia’s perspective. If you did sterilization for birth control reasons and then repent of that sin and are physically able to reverse that sin - why would you not do so? If you had an IUD inserted for bc for example, wouldn’t it seem logical to feel required to remove it if you are truely repentant of getting it?
 
So I can kind of understand Malia’s perspective. If you did sterilization for birth control reasons and then repent of that sin and are physically able to reverse that sin - why would you not do so? If you had an IUD inserted for bc for example, wouldn’t it seem logical to feel required to remove it if you are truely repentant of getting it?

Well, for one, reversal of sterilization is expensive, has a success rate of about 60% for women and about 50% for men and entails the dangers of anesthesia and infection, pain and time off from work. When you remove an IUD you do not undergo surgery. For those who want children but have undergone sterilization what about the option of adoption?
 
Following Christ is hard. Why do we spend so much time looking for “loopholes” in Church teaching?
 
So I can kind of understand Ma[d]ia’s perspective. If you did sterilization for birth control reasons and then repent of that sin and are physically able to reverse that sin - why would you not do so?
Here’s some links that might be helpful (I’m somewhat paraphrasing them in my answer below):
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=310098&Forums=0&Experts=6&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=reversal&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=322955&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=reversal&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=23&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Once confessed, the situation would have to be treated like any other infertile couple. Some questions that might be helpful to the couple to ask are:
  1. What is the cost of treating the problem causing infertility and can it be afforded financially?
  2. What is the possibility of success of the treatment?
  3. What potential dangers are associated with the treatment?
  4. What reasons are there for not getting the treatment?
You might want to distinguish between non-conceptive (infertile) intercourse and anti-conceptive (contraception) intercourse. Non-conceptive (infertile) intercourse is not sinful. However, anti-conceptive intercourse (contraception) is gravely sinful. The infertile couple should always have the constant intention that if by some Miracle God granted them a child they would accept that child.

From what I undersand the Church has made no official statement on this matter. If they have someone please link it. A good idea for the couple would be to follow their consciense in this situation. If from that confession on they intend to be open toward the transmission of life, it would be a good idea for them to pray to the Holy Spirit and let Him guide them. Since every couple is different He may guide some toward adopting, some toward having a reversal, others to teaching married couples, etc.
 
Celeste88 said:
So I can kind of understand Malia’s perspective. If you did sterilization for birth control reasons and then repent of that sin and are physically able to reverse that sin - why would you not do so? If you had an IUD inserted for bc for example, wouldn’t it seem logical to feel required to remove it if you are truely repentant of getting it?

Well, for one, reversal of sterilization is expensive, has a success rate of about 60% for women and about 50% for men and entails the dangers of anesthesia and infection, pain and time off from work. When you remove an IUD you do not undergo surgery. For those who want children but have undergone sterilization what about the option of adoption?

Yes, all that’s true and why I have highlighted a section of my post. (Can’t help but point out that all those are possible side effects of giving birth too.:rolleyes: ) Adoption is at least as expensive and difficult to use to achieve a child as a reversal. Of course, it is always an option for anyone wanting a child.

I’m NOT saying the Church is requiring everyone to get a reversal. My point is that it does seem to make sense to want to reverse or correct a past sin if possible. Would it be a hardship to do so for some? Very likely, but that does not automaticly make it less worth doing for a person. This would be a personal issue between a couple and their priest.
 
Rob’s Wife said:
****
I’m NOT saying the Church is requiring everyone to get a reversal. My point is that it does seem to make sense to want to reverse or correct a past sin if possible. Would it be a hardship to do so for some? Very likely, but that does not automaticly make it less worth doing for a person. This would be a personal issue between a couple and their priest.

Exactly! I don’t think anyone would say that attempting a surgical reversal would be bad, only that it is not required. The couples who have chosen not to get a reversal have nothing to feel guilty about (assuming they have truly repented).

Although, I would imagine in a situation where a couple already has children they may decide that attempting a reversal is too risky(medical, financial, etc) and would put their existing children at risk.

Like you said, it is a very personal decision and we need to trust that the couple is making the best decision for them.

Malia
 
Notice:

Since the question has now been answered, the thread will be closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top