Had vasectomy - so where does it leave me

  • Thread starter Thread starter Martin987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
newbetx said:
True. but it’s not humorous.

What is also apparent is that you do not think the rest of us are just in capable of critical thinking and finding the church is right.

Thinking through all of the arguments and life’s experiences, one can find truth if one wishes. It’s not the number of people that believe something that makes it true.
Click to expand...
But on a certain level, I do agree with the Church. I just think that an individual needs to have the freedom to decide how to enact the basic teaching.

I think that if I were to have formulated Catholic teaching on birth control, I would have emphasized the unitative aspects over the procreative aspects and allowed non-abortive means of birth control (barrier methods).
 
cheese_sdc said:
I think that if I were to have formulated Catholic teaching on birth control, I would have emphasized the unitative aspects over the procreative aspects and allowed non-abortive means of birth control (barrier methods).
Click to expand...
How is a couple putting up a barrier between them emphasizing the unitive aspects of sex?
 
cheese_sdc said:
Because if the only place you’re touching your partner is the genitals, then you’re doing it wrong. :eek: 😃 😉
Click to expand...
Oh my. The physical barrier is not “just physical”. Putting it there in the first place says a lot about acceptance of the other. It says “I want some of you, but not all of you…”.
 
cheese_sdc said:
Because if the only place you’re touching your partner is the genitals, then you’re doing it wrong. :eek: 😃 😉
Click to expand...
That doesn’t answer my question. A barrier is a barrier. If a person looks at it logically, a barrier cannot possibly unite a couple because the whole purpose of a barrier is to keep the two apart.
 
Look at it this way - the barrier is there to to prevent the sperm from entering the woman’s body.

However, sex is about much more than ejaculation. The caressing, kissing, and communication which is the unitive portion of intercourse occurs throughout the activity.
 
cheese_sdc said:
Look at it this way - the barrier is there to to prevent the sperm from entering the woman’s body.
Click to expand...
Ummm…yeah, and that’s dividing the couple, not unifying the couple. It’s a form of rejection – “I want the pleasure of sex, but not your sperm, so cover that thing up so it doesn’t actually touch me or deposit anything in me.” Or, “I want the pleasure of sex, but not your sperm, so I’m going to stick this silicone cap filled with spermicide (a mild poison) inside of my body to kill all those little buggers of yours because I can’t stand the thought of bringing your offspring into this world.” Or, “I want the pleasure of sex, but I don’t want you to have ALL of me, so I’m keeping my most intimate body part and my sperm in this handy latex sheath and you can’t have it.”
cheese_sdc said:
However, sex is about much more than ejaculation.
Click to expand...
True, but ejaculation is the result of orgasm for the man, so it’s a valid and important part of sex, just as orgasm for the woman is a valid and important part of sex.
cheese_sdc said:
The caressing, kissing, and communication which is the unitive portion of intercourse occurs throughout the activity.
Click to expand...
Sure…up to a point. And then you have this barrier between the couple that stops them from having 100% unity. You’re offering only partial unity, not full unity, and saying you’re emphasizing unity. So you have a contradiction on your hands that you have yet to explain adequately.
 
Everyone makes mistakes. If you didn’t know, then it’s not a mortal sin. But now that you’re aware of it, you should probably tell a priest in confession, and you’re not obligated to have it reversed. Good luck with everything man!
 
cheese_sdc said:
But on a certain level, I do agree with the Church. I just think that an individual needs to have the freedom to decide how to enact the basic teaching.

I think that if I were to have formulated Catholic teaching on birth control, I would have emphasized the unitative aspects over the procreative aspects and allowed non-abortive means of birth control (barrier methods).
Click to expand...
Now we understand the problem. But your first statement first.

We all have the ability to choose between what is expected and what we do. Done. We do. That does not make it morally correct, but, we, as you point out, can throw ourselves on the mercy of God. But that does not mean what the church teaches is wrong. The church teaches and will continue to teach what it is inspired to teach. We all have the ability to ignore it. That is not debatable.

Now the second statement. The teaching is this. It’s not what one GETS from the act, but what one GIVES. And the procreative nature of the act is something that is and must be given. If withheld, the act is diminished to less than intended. Or, I might note, degraded to only what is received. Some don’t understand the difference and I understand as I always thought the procreative nature “was optional.” It is not and there are good reasons for it.

Now that changes the discussion from IF contraception should be OK to the difference between contraception and abstinence (periodic or otherwise). There are plenty of threads on that already so no need to continue the discussion here.
 
HouseArrest said:
Oh my. The physical barrier is not “just physical”. Putting it there in the first place says a lot about acceptance of the other. It says “I want some of you, but not all of you…”.
Click to expand...
So I should be OK. My vasectomy didn’t involve a barrier, and my wife and I get all of each other. Just without the potential for two becoming three and without potentially fatal complication.
 
Martin987 said:
So I should be OK. My vasectomy didn’t involve a barrier, and my wife and I get all of each other. Just without the potential for two becoming three and without potentially fatal complication.
Click to expand...
She doesn’t get all of you. You’re withholding your fertility, which is part of you – an integral part of you.
 
Martin987 said:
… I admit, I still can’t understand the reasons for not allowing artificial contraception if avoiding pregnancy is a matter of life or death (or more likely abortion to save Mum), to be honest I didn’t expect to, and I can’t honestly say that I wouldn’t do it again. Will try confession at the end of the month …
…
Click to expand...
Martin, going back to this earlier post of yours I noticed that you said you are unsure if you would “do it again”, but I imagine that you would not, for example if you vasectomy healed, because you now know it is sinful to destroy the order of the body (vasectomy is mutilation). This would be an important idea to ponder before confession, because, contrition requires regret and an intention not to do the sin confessed in the future. If venial then no sacramantal confession is necessary, but it can still be good for you. The teaching is that all sin (deadly or less serious) has temporal punishment (Latin theology) or necessary purification for theosis (Eastern theology), for which purpose we do penance.

Confessing venial sins is subtle and not much is written nowadays on it. Council of Trent wrote: “Venial sins may rightly and with profit be told in Confession; but they can also be withheld without any fault and expiated by various other means.” (Session XIV, ch. 5).

When confessing only venial sins, there must be contrition for forgiveness. The will is important: “Would that I had never sinned.” For valid confession of venial sins only, it suffices to have general contrition for negligence or carelessness leading to the venial sins, or for one particular venial sin of many confessed that time. And it is always good to be universally penitent for all sins of our past (of whatever degree).

p. 72-74 Frequent Confession, by Benedict Baur O.S.B. (Scepter, 1999)
 
Martin987 said:
So I should be OK. My vasectomy didn’t involve a barrier, and my wife and I get all of each other. Just without the potential for two becoming three and without potentially fatal complication.
Click to expand...
A vasectomy is a permanent physical barrier.
 
cheese_sdc said:
Look at it this way - the barrier is there to to prevent the sperm from entering the woman’s body.

However, sex is about much more than ejaculation. The caressing, kissing, and communication which is the unitive portion of intercourse occurs throughout the activity.
Click to expand...
Right on both counts, but still short.

What is love if it doesn’t involve sacrifice or risk? Unitive is being able to say, “no matter what happens, we’re in this together!” Far different from “well, this is great as long and you don’t get pregnant!”
 
newbetx said:
Right on both counts, but still short.

What is love if it doesn’t involve sacrifice or risk? Unitive is being able to say, “no matter what happens, we’re in this together!” Far different from “well, this is great as long and you don’t get pregnant!”
Click to expand...
If the pregnancy is fatal, we are definitely NOT in anything together ever again. Too risky.

Also several people have mentioned that mutilation is sinful. Does this apply to having life saving surgery / tonsils removed to ease breathing / removing a benign mole as a precaution / reconstructive plastic surgery after major burns? Where’s the line drawn?
 
Martin987 said:
If the pregnancy is fatal, we are definitely NOT in anything together ever again. Too risky.

Also several people have mentioned that mutilation is sinful. Does this apply to having life saving surgery / tonsils removed to ease breathing / removing a benign mole as a precaution / reconstructive plastic surgery after major burns? Where’s the line drawn?
Click to expand...
These actions are to help the body work the way its supposed to, not to change and stop a working system of the body.
 
Martin987 said:
Also several people have mentioned that mutilation is sinful. Does this apply to having life saving surgery / tonsils removed to ease breathing / removing a benign mole as a precaution / reconstructive plastic surgery after major burns? Where’s the line drawn?
Click to expand...
The line is drawn at how the body party that is to be worked on is functioning. Tonsils that obstruct breathing are not functioning properly, so it’s okay to take them out. Benign moles don’t have a function at all but could lead to cancer, so it’s okay to take them out. Reconstructive plastic surgery after major burns enables the person to move properly (i.e., if the face is burned, the scar tissue won’t allow the person to speak, smile, etc. normally, but the surgery will enable that).

Healthy sexual organs are supposed to be fertile. Changing those healthy sexual organs to make them infertile is eliminating function, not enabling function. It’s akin to cutting off a pair of healthy legs because one doesn’t want to be bothered with walking or climbing stairs.
 
Martin987 said:
If the pregnancy is fatal, we are definitely NOT in anything together ever again. Too risky.
Click to expand...
The point is you play the cards you are delt. Too hard for you? Fine. Take your risks with the Lord, instead. We are allowed free will.

The teaching stays the same if you like it or you don’t. I can’t say God won’t forgive you. Not my call. Nor anyone here.

Too often, secular society pushes the idea that we need not suffer. So we do anything to stop some part of suffering. Sometimes that leads us to suffer more in other ways. We have to beware that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
 
Martin987 said:
If the pregnancy is fatal, we are definitely NOT in anything together ever again. Too risky.

Also several people have mentioned that mutilation is sinful. Does this apply to having life saving surgery / tonsils removed to ease breathing / removing a benign mole as a precaution / reconstructive plastic surgery after major burns? Where’s the line drawn?
Click to expand...
Martin,

I would just forget this thread now, you have been forgiven, you and your wife have children, a good family and are bonding physically, emotionally and spiritually. No, the potential for life probably isn’t there (Vas is only 99% effective) but that is in the past now, the Church doesn’t require a reversal so what these people say is actually quite irrelevant if you have made your peace with God about it.

Me personally I believe that your duty now is to be the best Catholic father you can to your children, that is what God wants you to do going forward, not worry about something He has already forgotten.

Sincerely,
Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top