Excused to follow moral law?

[josea]

In a recent book about moral theology (P. Miguel Angel Fuentes I.V.E.) I have read that are circumstances in which one might be excused to follow the moral law, for instance, when it is not possible morally or physically to do it or when it is very complicated and a heroic act would be required. My question is:

Does this case apply, for instance, when a woman that knows that a new pregnancy would put in risk her life refuse to use NFP and goes for direct sterilization because she is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of making a mistake when using NFP?

My interpretation here is that absolute continence or NFP would be a heroic act for this married woman.

What do you think?

Regards,

Jose

 

[sasafr]

while it using NFP may be a “heroic” act it is also a very foolish one. NFP is not 100% accurate, it is possible to still become pregnant. If she has been told she will not surivive a pregnancy for health reasons, I find that sterelization is the best act. Becomming pregnant would kill her and most likely the baby. Sterilization is her best option if she chooses not to be abstinant her entire life.

 

[Brendan]

while it using NFP may be a “heroic” act it is also a very foolish one. NFP is not 100% accurate, it is possible to still become pregnant. If she has been told she will not surivive a pregnancy for health reasons, I find that sterelization is the best act. Becomming pregnant would kill her and most likely the baby. Sterilization is her best option if she chooses not to be abstinant her entire life.

No, complete abstinence is the only moral option.

Directed sterilization is, and always will be, an immoral option

Abstinence itself is not a ‘heroic act’ in that it is one that millions are called to. Can we really say that an unmarried single who is abstaining is performing an heroic act? Or a teenager.

 

[1ke]

In a recent book about moral theology (P. Miguel Angel Fuentes I.V.E.) I have read that are circumstances in which one might be excused to follow the moral law, for instance, when it is not possible morally or physically to do it or when it is very complicated and a heroic act would be required. My question is: ]

It is hard to tell exactly what the author may have written from your explanation here, but the Moral Law is absolute. There are no “instances” when you do not have to follow the moral law.

Does this case apply, for instance, when a woman that knows that a new pregnancy would put in risk her life refuse to use NFP and goes for direct sterilization because she is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of making a mistake when using NFP?

No, she cannot do this. Sterilization is always wrong-- it is intrinsically disordered.

If the woman does not view NFP as a viable option, then she and her husband can abstain completely.

My interpretation here is that absolute continence or NFP would be a heroic act for this married woman What do you think?

That you are incorrect and not correctly applying Church teaching.

Continence and NFP are not heroic. They are the norm for any couple that has a just reason to postpone pregnancy. From the Catechism

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

The Catechism says EVERY act-- that includes sterilization for ANY reason.

Either you are reading materials contrary to the teaching of the church or you have misunderstood the author entirely.

 

[StCsDavid]

I don’t think you can make that leap to sterilization as the solution. If it were okay for her to get sterilized, why not just have the husband sterilized instead? A vasectomy is far easier than a tubal ligation. But that doesn’t seem right does it?

You also step onto the slippery slope of relativism. Every woman faces the risk of dying in childbirth. Where do we draw the line as to the level of risk when we say a woman is no longer worthy of her fertility and should be sterilized?

Saying she is afraid of messing up on NFP means she is basing her decision on fear, which rarely is a good measure for complex decisions.

Another variable is the consideration that the doctor could simply be wrong.

Finally, let’s say that she does get pregnant and both she and her child die in childbirth. How many souls go to Heaven? Have any of those souls not been created by God?

I’m not a medical ethicist, but sterilization in this scenario just doesn’t feel right.

 

[1ke]

while it using NFP may be a “heroic” act it is also a very foolish one.

The OP did not ask for random, uniformed opinions. The OP asked if what he proposed was correct application of Church teaching. It is not.

And, you are misinformed regarding NFP.

NFP is not 100% accurate, it is possible to still become pregnant.

Clearly you have failed to read the statistics on vasectomies and tubal ligations. Sterilization also has a failure rate, as do ALL contraceptives.

If she has been told she will not surivive a pregnancy for health reasons, I find that sterelization is the best act.

That may be your opinion, but it is contrary to Church teaching.

Moreover, many women who have been told that another pregnancy would be “fatal” are alive and well today after getting pregnant again by choice or by accident.

Becomming pregnant would kill her and most likely the baby.

My how you have embellished the original question which only stated there was a risk associated with another pregancy (and, by the way there is risk associated with EVERY pregnancy). You have now taken the OPs question and changed it to "certain death’ for the woman and the baby.

Sterilization is her best option if she chooses not to be abstinant her entire life.

Sterilization is always intrinsically disordered-- objectively a mortal sin.

 

[josea]

It is hard to tell exactly what the author may have written from your explanation here, but the Moral Law is absolute. There are no “instances” when you do not have to follow the moral law.

No, she cannot do this. Sterilization is always wrong-- it is intrinsically disordered.

If the woman does not view NFP as a viable option, then she and her husband can abstain completely.

That you are incorrect and not correctly applying Church teaching.

Continence and NFP are not heroic. They are the norm for any couple that has a just reason to postpone pregnancy. From the Catechism

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

The Catechism says EVERY act-- that includes sterilization for ANY reason.

Either you are reading materials contrary to the teaching of the church or you have misunderstood the author entirely.

I know all the church teachings about contraception and sterilization we do not have to discuss this again and again. What I am asking is if there are really such cases in which one can be excused to follow the moral law if an heroic act is to be expected in order to do so.

By the way, it is not same “heroic” absolute abstinence for an unmarried person that for a young copule that is sleeping together every night. But still… I am waiting for your answers to the original question.

Regards,
Jose

 

[1ke]

I know all the church teachings about contraception and sterilization we do not have to discuss this again and again.

You are the one who brought it up. I merely answered your questions.

What I am asking is if there are really such cases in which one can be excused to follow the moral law if an heroic act is to be expected in order to do so.

I answered your question. The answer is no. The moral law is absolute and eternal.

By the way, it is not same “heroic” absolute abstinence for an unmarried person that for a young copule that is sleeping together every night.

Chastity is not heroic in either case. If sleeping together is too tempting, then they should sleep separately.

But still… I am waiting for your answers to the original question.

I answered it.

 

[fix]

In a recent book about moral theology (P. Miguel Angel Fuentes I.V.E.) I have read that are circumstances in which one might be excused to follow the moral law, for instance, when it is not possible morally or physically to do it or when it is very complicated and a heroic act would be required. My question is:

Does this case apply, for instance, when a woman that knows that a new pregnancy would put in risk her life refuse to use NFP and goes for direct sterilization because she is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of making a mistake when using NFP?

My interpretation here is that absolute continence or NFP would be a heroic act for this married woman.

What do you think?

Regards,

Jose

Have you read Veritatis splendor?

It talks about certain acts that are always wrong no matter the circumstances. I cannot see how we may be dispensed from divine law or the natural moral law.

 

[Hastrman]

Sterilization must not be the goal, not even to prevent death. The only time sterilization is permitted is when it’s a side-effect. If you have ovarian/uterine/testicular cancer, and have to have the affected organ removed, then sterilization is permitted, because it wasn’t the intention, just a side-effect.

 

[puzzleannie]

In a recent book about moral theology (P. Miguel Angel Fuentes I.V.E.) I have read that are circumstances in which one might be excused to follow the moral law, for instance, when it is not possible morally or physically to do it or when it is very complicated and a heroic act would be required.

OP has not provided direct quote or link, so what are we discussing? I recall nothing in Fuentes’ writing which makes such an implication.

 

[josea]

Here is the link to the issue dicussed:
The only problem is that is in spanish
foromoral.com.ar/images/215/Manual_Moral_(parte_2).pdf

Pag. 51. in the chapter:

“Causas excusantes de la obligación”

From the book:

Conseguir la vida eterna. Principios fundamentales de la teología moral católica.
P. Miguel Angel Fuentes, I.V.E.

Regards,

 

[setter]

while it using NFP may be a “heroic” act it is also a very foolish one. NFP is not 100% accurate, it is possible to still become pregnant. If she has been told she will not surivive a pregnancy for health reasons, I find that sterelization is the best act. Becomming pregnant would kill her and most likely the baby. Sterilization is her best option if she chooses not to be abstinant her entire life.

A woman can become pregnant whether the wife or husband undergoes a sterilization procedure via tubal ligation or vasectomy. The only 100% guarantee against future pregnancy is total marital abstinence (until post-menopause) or removal of the ovaries or testicles. Again, the “best act” for any Catholic couple faced with such a challenging is always the act which is morally licit.

 

[josea]

Hi again,

Here the text in spanish that I wanted to discuss about:

"Ante todo excusa del cumplimiento de la ley la **ignorancia invencible **e inculpable de la misma.
En segundo lugar excusa de su cumplimiento la **impotencia **para cumplirla ya sea impotencia absoluta o física (quien no tiene con qué restituir está excusado mientras dure la imposibilidad) o bien la impotencia moral, o sea con grave dificultad (el acto, de hacerse, sería heroico). "

Regards,
Jose

 

[josea]

Ás I was asked to use an automatic trnaslator to post that text here it is:

" First of all it excuses of the observance of the law the invincible and guiltless ignorance of the same one.
Secondly it excuses of his fulfillment the powerlessness already to fulfill it be an absolute or physical powerlessness (who does not have with what to return is excused while the impossibility lasts) or the moral powerlessness, or with serious difficulty (the act, of doing, would be heroic)."

Of course, using a free translator (translation2.paralink.com/)

Regards,
Jose

 

[MilesXpisti]

Hi again,

Here the text in spanish that I wanted to discuss about:

"Ante todo excusa del cumplimiento de la ley la **ignorancia invencible **e inculpable de la misma.
En segundo lugar excusa de su cumplimiento la **impotencia **para cumplirla ya sea impotencia absoluta o física (quien no tiene con qué restituir está excusado mientras dure la imposibilidad) o bien la impotencia moral, o sea con grave dificultad (el acto, de hacerse, sería heroico). "

Regards,
Jose

This notion is utterly ridiculous. By this reasoning, the martyrs of the early Church would have been morally blameless for recanting their faith to prevent being burned or eaten in the colosseum. Difficulty or danger is not a valid excuse for doing something immoral and expedient. Remember the words of Christ:

And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved. — Gospel of St. Mark 13:13

 

[josea]

This notion is utterly ridiculous. By this reasoning, the martyrs of the early Church would have been morally blameless for recanting their faith to prevent being burned or eaten in the colosseum. Difficulty or danger is not a valid excuse for doing something immoral and expedient. Remember the words of Christ:

No it is not, doing or not doing something under that kind of pressure for sure would not have been a sin. If anybody is threatening you like “either you kill this (innocent) person or I kill you” and you pull the trigger, I am sure you won’t be condemned by this act and so was I told.

And that is how I understand the text I posted here.

 

[MilesXpisti]

No it is not, doing or not doing something under that kind of pressure for sure would not have been a sin. If anybody is threatening you like “either you kill this (innocent) person or I kill you” and you pull the trigger, I am sure you won’t be condemned by this act and so was I told.

And that is how I understand the text I posted here.

Are you kidding me? Self-preservation is not a valid excuse for doing moral evil. Not ever. Even doing moral evil to save the life of another is questionable:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1753

A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving)

 

[josea]

Are you kidding me? Self-preservation is not a valid excuse for doing moral evil. Not ever. Even doing moral evil to save the life of another is questionable:

I amnot kidding you, that is what I have always heard and learned: when YOUR life is at risk. Why? For the simple reason that you are not acting freely! and that is a MUST for a sin to be such.

Jose

 

[fix]

No it is not, doing or not doing something under that kind of pressure for sure would not have been a sin. If anybody is threatening you like “either you kill this (innocent) person or I kill you” and you pull the trigger, I am sure you won’t be condemned by this act and so was I told.

And that is how I understand the text I posted here.

Such an act is always wrong. One’s culpability may be lessened due to mitigating factors, but the act is always evil.