Hell and Non-procreative Sex

[fbl9]

In addition, married people have a right to the conjugal act. The Church is not in the business of violating human rights, natural rights and moral rights. Therefore, a person who undergoes a sterilization procedure and repents is not going to be asked to give up his or her right to the conjugal act or to deny the spouse as a penance. There are many ways to atone for our sins.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mattkubes]

This is tongue in cheek but has a serious point too

But how much of a miracle do you need to leave open in order to remain on the right side of the law so to speak ?

Well, a better emphasis might be to ask how we can best please God. We don’t want to barely skirt a sin - we want to stay as far away as possible. Hand to the plough and all.

 

[fbl9]

So, what happens if the husband has been sterilized (before they knew it was sinful). It’s been confessed and forgiven…but now what?

It was my understanding that now if you are open to procreation…i.e.not having oral sex…that you are not sinning as long as you are still open to it…the chances are not good…but hey…He is God…He can do anything he wants.

I’d be curious to hear the responses to this…

JR I think thirdec was making reference to this post. or a reply to it.

This is not true according to what I’ve read. Repentance never requires surgery to be valid. It might be a good idea and helpful to one’s self-discipline to restore the natural regulations God built into our sexuality, but sincere repentence (which by definition includes regret for having done it without any remaining satisfaction that the effects continue) is all we need to be forgiven and be restored to Grace.

But the reader should take neither of our words for it. If this applies to you, seek authoritative advice

I have read that it could be suggested that the couple reserve the marital embrace for the times when the wife is infertile.

The Church will never impose this on anyone. This would fall under elective surgery, not medically necessary. You’re not saving someone’s life or healing an illness. Therefore, it falls under extraordinary means to make restitution. The Church does not ask for extraordinary means of restitution, because Christ did not ask for that.

Was not the sterilazation an elective surgury also? Deliberate self mutilation

.The Church is also very savvy. Extraordinary means of restitution can be disordered, if they put the person’s life or health at risk when it’s unnecessary to do so. Surgery is always risky. One has to deal in the issue of proportionality here. Is the risk necessary? If you’re conscience is not at peace after receiving absolution, the you have a bigger problem in the area of faith than you do in the area of morality. Christ’s parting words to the sinner is “Go in peace.” not “Go and worry about this”.

What was the last part…sin no more…

In the ascetical life we make restitution for our sins and the sins of others, but we do so in a measured manner that does not do harm to us or others and we do so out of love, not to appease our guilt. To make restitution to appease our guilt can be a form of self-love. There is a fine line there between love of God and neighbor and love of self. You don’t punish yourself because it makes you feel good. The same rule applies here, you don’t

Ordinary means of restitution are enough: prayer, penance, and works of mercy.

HUH??? I don’t understand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Personally i only know of one is this situation(male sterilization) and he reversed sucessfully.

 

[Rence]

Without reversal the effects continue how is one not to take satisfaction in the marital embreace?

If you are in this situation, and will no longer find satisfaction in the marital embrace without reversal of sterilization, by all means, have it reversed. However, the Church doesn’t require it.

That suggestion is a personal choice. You may impose this restriction on yourself if you like, but the Church doesn’t require it.

Was not the sterilazation an elective surgury also? Deliberate self mutilationWhat was the last part…sin no more…Personally i only know of one is this situation(male sterilization) and he reversed sucessfully.

Yes, you CAN have it reversed if you want to, or can afford to. However, the Church doesn’t require it. It doesn’t matter if the sterilization was elective, reversing it is not required by the Church. If a person wants to have it reversed they can. But that’s not the same thing as being required to do so.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

[Was not the sterilazation an elective surgury also? Deliberate self mutilation

What was the last part…sin no more…Personally i only know of one is this situation(male sterilization) and he reversed sucessfully.

No one is saying that the sterilization wasn’t an elective surgery or that is wasn’t sinful. It was, I believe, not mortally sinful because it was not known at the time that it was wrong.

No one is saying that the person isn’t sorry, repentant, at having done that…now. But it is not required to have an elective surgery that could be expensive and have health complications. In todays world…the first surgery is paid for but a reversal would not be.

As for thinking someone does not live with the effects…well…we never know what blessings from God the couple missed out on because of this.

But, if they confess it (done) and are open to the possiblity of new life…that is what is required…a trust in God to do what he sees fit (which is really what the biggest sin was in the first place…not trusting in God).

In your way of thinking…that there must be restitution…what happens to the couple that goes outside God’s plan and does in-vitro…and then ends up pregnant…do they give the child back?
[/quote]

 

[fbl9]

No one is saying that the sterilization wasn’t an elective surgery or that is wasn’t sinful. It was, I believe, not mortally sinful because it was not known at the time that it was wrong.

No one is saying that the person isn’t sorry, repentant, at having done that…now. But it is not required to have an elective surgery that could be expensive and have health complications. In todays world…the first surgery is paid for but a reversal would not be.

As for thinking someone does not live with the effects…well…we never know what blessings from God the couple missed out on because of this.

But, if they confess it (done) and are open to the possiblity of new life…that is what is required…a trust in God to do what he sees fit (which is really what the biggest sin was in the first place…not trusting in God).

In your way of thinking…that there must be restitution…what happens to the couple that goes outside God’s plan and does in-vitro…and then ends up pregnant…do they give the child back?

very funny of course they can not give back what they did nottake from God. Sterilization is taking from God the purpose of the marital embrace.Remaining sterile when it can be reversed is enjoying the fruit of the sin.
Coming to God the couple now know the purpose of the marital embrace. Knowing now that by sterilization they have shut God out of the marital embrace would that not make the marital embrace empty. Which would cause even more hardship on the marriage.
Remeber the key is in the if it can be reversed.

 

[JReducation]

very funny of course they can not give back what they did nottake from God. Sterilization is taking from God the purpose of the marital embrace.Remaining sterile when it can be reversed is enjoying the fruit of the sin.
Coming to God the couple now know the purpose of the marital embrace. Knowing now that by sterilization they have shut God out of the marital embrace would that not make the marital embrace empty. Which would cause even more hardship on the marriage.
Remember the key is in the if it can be reversed.

The conjugal act has two purposes.

1. Procreation
2. Communion of love between the spouses as the sign of the Communion of Love between Christ and the Church.

Procreation is never a given. People often do not procreate for biological reasons, usually age . . . but there are others.

The fact that they do not procreate does not alter the purpose of the conjugal act. There is still the unitive purpose of the act.

Again, as Catholics, it is not up to us to make moral law. It is up to the Church to teach and explain what has been revealed. Christ never revealed that one has to go through extraordinary means as a penance for sin.

As the he himself tells you at the end of your confession “Go in peace and sin no more.”

You are not sinning because you sleep with you spouse, even when you cannot procreate through a sinful choice. The sin was the choice: sterilization. The communion of love between husband and wife is never a sin. The sin is a done deal. It’s over. You are either sorry and confess it or you don’t care and ignore it. In either case, sterilization is not an ongoing act.

There is a difference between sterilization and contraception. The latter is an on-going act that must be stopped if one is truly sorry. The former is an act that had a beginning and an end. It has consequences, of course. You will never know for sure if you could have had that baby. That’s the consequence. The consequence itself is not a sin. No one knows for sure if they conceive until they conceive.

Maybe where you’re getting confused is in the difference between an evil act that is recurring and an evil act that is completed. The recurring act must be stopped if there is true contrition. The completed act must be regretted and confessed. There is nothing to stop

Reversing the sterilization is not a guarantee that you will conceive. It does not cure an illness or save a life, your own or that of an other person. In essence, it’s an unnecessary measure. It’s not forbidden, but not required either. It’s not even extraordinary in the good sense, such as laying down your life for another person.

The Church would look at giving a kidney as a great act of mercy. Reversing a sterilization is not a great act of mercy. The chances of saving a life if you donate a kidney are greater than you conceiving if you reverse the procedure. Yet, the Church requires neither of us.

Reversal can be immoral, if it’s a danger to the patient. Why? Because it’s unnecessary. We do not have the right to place ourselves in unnecessary danger.

We must always look to the saints for the answers to these questions, especially those who were great teachers. They were very wise. They never did or required that anyone do anything that would place their life, health or welfare in danger, if there was another way to achieve perfect charity. The goal is the perfection of charity.

As we go through life, we sin. We regret our sins. We confess them and atone for them. Atonement is always expressed through manifest charity. Charity takes many forms.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

very funny of course they can not give back what they did nottake from God. Sterilization is taking from God the purpose of the marital embrace.Remaining sterile when it can be reversed is enjoying the fruit of the sin.
Coming to God the couple now know the purpose of the marital embrace. Knowing now that by sterilization they have shut God out of the marital embrace would that not make the marital embrace empty. Which would cause even more hardship on the marriage.
Remeber the key is in the if it can be reversed.

Why is this funny? They did take from God…they took the right of God to make that decision and placed it in the hands of doctors and scientists. Should they have it reversed? Where is there repentance? They continue to enjoy the fruit of their “sin” by enjoying the child (according to your line of thinking.

Read both quotes from the CC and tell me how either is really different? They both are trying to justify a means to an end…so would they both not require reversal according to your line of thinking?

Luckily for both the couple who ended up sterile…and the couple that had invitro…the Church does not teach anything other then you must confess and be sorry for your sin. Neither is an ongoing sin.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, **yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin **and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

 

[fbl9]

call me clueless but you can’t be open to life in the marital embrace if you have been made sterile by your own choice, which you also have means to attempt to make yourself sterile again.
Delierate sterilization renders the marital act into what? forincation, call it what you may but that is the case.

 

[wanner47]

call me clueless but you can’t be open to life in the marital embrace if you have been made sterile by your own choice, which you also have means to attempt to make yourself sterile again.

Sure you can. Being open to life means being open to God’s will for your childbearing, regardless of physical circumstances. In the case of a man who procures a vasectomy without realizing that it was wrong, then later repents, he and his wife are still being open to life by being open to God performing a miracle and reversing the vasectomy, if He chooses to do so.

Delierate sterilization renders the marital act into what? forincation, call it what you may but that is the case.

 

[JReducation]

call me clueless but you can’t be open to life in the marital embrace if you have been made sterile by your own choice, which you also have means to attempt to make yourself sterile again.
Delierate sterilization renders the marital act into what? fornication, call it what you may but that is the case.

You need to reread the Church’s definition of marriage and maybe Pope John Paul’s writings on Theology of the Body.

You are reducing the marital act to that of the lowest animals, for the sole purpose of procreation. You’re leaving out the entire human, sacramental, psychological and ecclesial dimensions of marriage.

All animals procreate. But man is the only one that can give himself to another out of love the only one who can be Christ and Church in the sexual act. This raises the sexual act between spouses to a level above other animals.

Procreation is certainly one of the ends of the marital act, but it is not the only end. Even when it is taken away, because of a sinful choice, the other end remains in place.

The expression of love between Christ and the Church remains intact. That can still be communicated sacramentally in the sexual act between spouses. It is far form fornication.

You’re also leaving out the effects of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We are brought back into Christ’s life as we are. Once we have confessed the sin and expressed sorrow, it is forgiven and forgotten. Restitution can be done in other ways. You don’t have to give up the other part of marriage. In fact, it would be a sin to do so.

If you give up sexual intercourse, because you can no longer reproduce, you’re saying that the sin has power over the sacrament. It’s as if you were saying that the sacrament of marriage ceases to exist when there is a sin. Sacraments are divine. They are not reduce or affected by man’s sins. They remain in effect.

In addition, if you give up the sexual act because you committed as sin, you are refusing to fulfill the rest of your marital duties. You do have a duty to have intercourse with your spouse, whether or not you can reproduce. That duty comes from the covenant that you made. That covenant is not abrogated by sin. If that were the case, then Christ and the Church would have been separated a very longtime ago. Yest Christ, the groom, remains with the Church, the bride and she with him, despite sin. This is what the married couple must do as well. The vocation of the couple is to be the sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church. They must continue to live in love and to express unitive love, not matter what sins they may have committed.

A loving conjugal act is not fornication. Fornication is the absence of committed love in the sexual act.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

fbl9;7762119:

call me clueless but you can’t be open to life in the marital embrace if you have been made sterile by your own choice, which you also have means to attempt to make yourself sterile again.

Sure you can. Being open to life means being open to God’s will for your childbearing, regardless of physical circumstances. In the case of a man who procures a vasectomy without realizing that it was wrong, then later repents, he and his wife are still being open to life by being open to God performing a miracle and reversing the vasectomy, if He chooses to do so.

It’s not fornication of you repent of your sin and remain open to God’s will.

Pope John Paul explained this very well. Open to life has two levels. One is open to bear children. The other is open to the dignity of life.

You can not bear children, because of sterilization. However, you are aware of and convinced of the essential value of human life and opposed to all forms of interference with life, even though your circumstances do not allow you to have children or more children, if you already happen to have some.

In other words, now that you know that this is a sin and you have repented. You are not committed to defending life, rather than promoting sterilization, contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and even cruel and needles capital punishment.

That is the whole meaning of open to life. It’s not just open to having babies. There is more to it than that. Having babies is the crux of the matter, but the dignity of life is the core moral value.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

fbl9;7762119:

call me clueless but you can’t be open to life in the marital embrace if you have been made sterile by your own choice, which you also have means to attempt to make yourself sterile again.

Sure you can. Being open to life means being open to God’s will for your childbearing, regardless of physical circumstances. In the case of a man who procures a vasectomy without realizing that it was wrong, then later repents, he and his wife are still being open to life by being open to God performing a miracle and reversing the vasectomy, if He chooses to do so.

It’s not fornication of you repent of your sin and remain open to God’s will.

Well said…I’ve known people that have had vasectomys and there wives still ended up pregnant…of course many of those were in the Protestant circle…where many do not believe that contraception is a sin.

But if you are still being open to life…in the marital embrace…you are saying that God may do what He will.

the other poster never did respond back about how that is different then the couple with invitro fertilazation.

Along that line of thinking then the couple that is barren…is in fornication every time…especially if there is a procedure that they could do to correct that…do they have to pursue every opportunity because its only about procreation?

 

[fbl9]

Why is this funny?

You thought that you could make your case by comparing that which can not be undone to that which can be undone.

The person in this **can **have the vasectomy reversed.
One is merely paying lip sevice to being open to life when they are unwilling to be so.

 

[fbl9]

wanner47;7762237:

Along that line of thinking then the couple that is barren…is in fornication every time…especially if there is a procedure that they could do to correct that…do they have to pursue every opportunity because its only about procreation?

You are the ones who have painted the picture that this is only about procreation.Should you all swallow your words when the husband does not finish where he is supposed to? The only reason you all were posting is to prove your point against one who says differently than your feel good ideals.

Did the couple choose to be barren? it was not their choice and no sin was done by their being barren. The sterlized couple choose their postion that is what the issue is. When was the last time you ever heard of some one confessing to being barren? never, so no sin get it.

 

[wanner47]

You are the ones who have painted the picture that this is only about procreation.

Um, no, we haven’t.

Should you all swallow your words when the husband does not finish where he is supposed to?

If he does so accidentally, there is no sin, because he did not intend to do so.

The only reason you all were posting is to prove your point against one who says differently than your feel good ideals.

No, we’re posting because we believe the Church teaches the Truth about human sexuality – and believe me, most people do NOT call the Church’s teachings on human sexuality “feel good”!

Did the couple choose to be barren? it was not their choice and no sin was done by their being barren. The sterlized couple choose their postion that is what the issue is. When was the last time you ever heard of some one confessing to being barren? never, so no sin get it.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that being barren is a sin, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

Choosing to sterilize oneself, or consenting to the sterilization of one’s spouse, is a sin, but once that sin is confessed and sincerely repented of, it is not required to reverse the sterilization procedure.

 

[fbl9]

Um, no, we haven’t.

If he does so accidentally, there is no sin, because he did not intend to do so.

No, we’re posting because we believe the Church teaches the Truth about human sexuality – and believe me, most people do NOT call the Church’s teachings on human sexuality “feel good”!

I don’t think anyone is claiming that being barren is a sin, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

Choosing to sterilize oneself, or consenting to the sterilization of one’s spouse, is a sin, but once that sin is confessed and sincerely repented of, it is not required to reverse the sterilization procedure.

If there is no sin invovled in being barren what does it have to do with sin involved with sterilization.
According to the staff apologist the man should have it reversed if he can… do you think this is merely a suggestion?
How is the sterilized man, who could be sterile again, giving the whole of himself to his wife?

 

[wanner47]

If there is no sin invovled in being barren what does it have to do with sin involved with sterilization.

It is not a sin to be NATURALLY barren, otherwise it’d be a sin to be infertile, menopausal, or elderly.

It is a sin to intentionally make yourself barren, because you are mutilating otherwise healthy organs in order to close yourself off from the procreative nature of the marital act.

Do you understand the distinction?

According to the staff apologist the man should have it reversed if he can… do you think this is merely a suggestion?

Yes, that is the teaching of the Church.

How is the sterilized man, who could be sterile again, giving the whole of himself to his wife?

Through the grace of God, who forgives the contrite and repentant sinner.

 

[fbl9]

It is not a sin to be NATURALLY barren, otherwise it’d be a sin to be infertile, menopausal, or elderly.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

If there is no sin invovled in being barren what does it have to do with sin involved with sterilization.
According to the staff apologist the man should have it reversed if he can… do you think this is merely a suggestion?
How is the sterilized man, who could be sterile again, giving the whole of himself to his wife?

I have also heard on CAF from an apologist that it is not necessary to have it reversed…and you are assuming that the man was fertile to begin with…maybe he wasn’t.

No one is arguing that sterilization is a sin…but what you are saying MUST be done…is not what the Church teaches…which would put you against the Church.