Important (to me!) Moral question

[mumto5]

I am NOT asking you to do my research for me - I am just asking people to back up what they say. I have raised my daughter not to take anyone’s word for serious matters unless they can back themselves up. She also knows that if she makes claims to truth she better be able to back herself up. I believe that ALL should be held to this standard - including myself:thumbsup: . I can see that probably will not happen here - at least in this thread.

HOM

Yep - good for you. I raise my daughter to do the same. My assumption is that the people in this forum will be able to use a Catechism in order to check things out for themselves. Here’s one from the catechism:

On Contraception
2370 cont. …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 ends or a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle… involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

BTW - I am just stating what the church formally teaches on the matter, not my own opinion.

 

[mumto5]

Heart Of Mary:

I have a catechism that I use to back up any claim that I may make concerning official church doctrine. It is up to the person making the claim to prove themselves if they want to be taken seriously and that what they say is true.

HOm

Well, you are lucky to have that much time on your hands. I’m homeschooling five children and have a baby here.

 

[mumto5]

Likewise from the catechism on intention:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen; - the end in view or the intention; - the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it. 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). 1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

That’s enough on that. I’m busy preparing lunch right now.

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

mumto5:

Well, you are lucky to have that much time on your hands. I’m homeschooling five children and have a baby here.

Good for you. And I do not have “that much time on my hands” - I save a ton of time by not making alot of claims. BTW - you seem to have enough time for me today …I hoemschooled too - complete through highschool graduation - congratualtions on teaching your children.

HOM

 

[mumto5]

I am NOT asking you to do my research for me - I am just asking people to back up what they say.

HOM

PS - I was also making the assumption here that Catholic posters knew their faith well enough to require back-up on such fundamental matters. Obviously I was mistaken in this. I assume you went through the pre-Cana course?

 

[mumto5]

Heart Of Mary:

Good for you. And I do not have “that much time on my hands” - I save a ton of time by not making alot of claims. BTW - you seem to have enough time for me today …I hoemschooled too - complete through highschool graduation - congratualtions on teaching your children.

HOM

I’m waiting on the oven I am stuck home with sick kids. Call it ‘adult company’

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

mumto5:

PS - I was also making the assumption here that Catholic posters knew their faith well enough to require back-up on such fundamental matters. Obviously I was mistaken in this. I assume you went through the pre-Cana course?

Wrong - do not “assume” anything…

HOM

 

[mumto5]

Heart Of Mary:

Wrong - do not “assume” anything…

HOM

Well, I have to admit I didn’t know the church had a teaching on birth control until I was 17 and even then didn’t know it was serious matter. Probably didn’t know what a Catechism was either. Yes, I went through Catholic schools.

 

[1ke]

1ke -

is this true 100% of the time? Is it ALWAYS a mortal sin? I guess all those doctors who ever performed a hysterectomy (for any reason at all) are going straight to_ _ _ _.

Can YOU give me reference in the Catechism where it says assisting in a sterilization for ANY and ALL reasons is a mortal sin? If you can, then I will be satisfied that to do so would indeed be a mortal sin and I would change my “vote” to “do not take this job” - deal?
HOM

I know you think you are being cute, but you are not.

First of all, this person is asking about vasectomies not hysterectomies. Vasectomies serve no medical purpose other than sterilization. Same goes for tubal ligations

Hysterecomies are not sterilizations, they are medical procedures required to treat a diseased situation-- such as cancer of the uterus. Please do not mix morally offensive procedure with legitimate medical procedures.

Stick to the topic at hand: vasectomies.

CCC references on the absolute sinfulness of contraception and sterilization (italics added):

2370 “*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

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).

And, please see the document Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services. Relevant excerpts:

The Ethical and Religious Directives are concerned primarily with institutionally based Catholic health care services. They address the sponsors, trustees, administrators, chaplains, physicians, health care personnel, and patients or residents of these institutions and services. **Since they express the Church’s moral teaching, these Directives also will be helpful to Catholic professionals engaged in health care services in other settings. ** The moral teachings that we profess here flow principally from the natural law, understood in the light of the revelation Christ has entrusted to his Church. From this source the Church has derived its understanding of the nature of the human person, of human acts, and of the goals that shape human activity.

**Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted ** in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.

Document source:
usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

1ke:

I know you think you are being cute, but you are not.

First of all, this person is asking about vasectomies not hysterectomies. Vasectomies serve no medical purpose other than sterilization. Same goes for tubal ligations

Hysterecomies are not sterilizations, they are medical procedures required to treat a diseased situation-- such as cancer of the uterus. Please do not mix morally offensive procedure with legitimate medical procedures.

l

You watch your attitude young man - nobody here was trying to be cute. I probably know more about biology and what is sterilization and what is not than you so get off your high horse and change your attitude to one that is more conducive to the conversation flow (in case you do not know what that is it is when one topic originates a conversation and it ~flows~ into another. BTW - your “morally offensive procedure” is not so to all. I mixed nothing. Grow up.

HOM

 

[1ke]

Heart Of Mary:

You watch your attitude young man - nobody here was trying to be cute. ]

I am neither young, nor a man.
Heart Of Mary:

I probably know more about biology and what is sterilization and what is not than you so get off your high horse and change your attitude to one that is more conducive to the conversation flow

Well, that is certainly debatable. I am not on a high horse, but I am on point, which you are not.
Heart Of Mary:

(in case you do not know what that is it is when one topic originates a conversation and it ~flows~ into another. BTW - your “morally offensive procedure” is not so to all. I mixed nothing. Grow up.

HOM

You say “flow”, I say “off topic”. It’s not “my” morally offensive procedure, it is defined so by the Church. You clearly mixed sterilization and hysterectomy.

I am fully grown. And, you have not responded to my on point Church documentation which you demanded.

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

1ke:

I am neither young, nor a man.

Well, that is certainly debatable. I am not on a high horse, but I am on point, which you are not.

You say “flow”, I say “off topic”. It’s not “my” morally offensive procedure, it is defined so by the Church. You clearly mixed sterilization and hysterectomy.

I am fully grown. And, you have not responded to my on point Church documentation which you demanded.

Ok - thank you so very much for the Catechism references. And, just to clear things up - you are on your point and I am on mine. Also forgive me for calling you young man - you have my apology on that - I thought you were of the male persuasion…Now, you ARE younger than me - I know from your profile. So, get off your high horse young lady - is that better? I did not “demand” anything - just wanted someone - anyone - to be able to back up their claims. Mum has done so graciously without looking for recognition such as you do.

I am bowing out of this one - I am sick of the attitude of some people here and on the forums in general. I have kept my cool until now but no longer feel that is possible.

So, thank you to all the kind posters and to the others I have nothing to say except that I pitty you all.

HOM

 

[mumto5]

Heart Of Mary:

Ok - thank you so very much for the Catechism references. And, just to clear things up - you are on your point and I am on mine. Also forgive me for calling you young man - you have my apology on that - I thought you were of the male persuasion…Now, you ARE younger than me - I know from your profile. So, get off your high horse young lady - is that better? I did not “demand” anything - just wanted someone - anyone - to be able to back up their claims. Mum has done so graciously without looking for recognition such as you do.

I am bowing out of this one - I am sick of the attitude of some people here and on the forums in general. I have kept my cool until now but no longer feel that is possible.

So, thank you to all the kind posters and to the others I have nothing to say except that I pitty you all.

HOM

Hmm… you’re the only one I’ve seen show attitude around here. I’ve never seen anything like it on these particular forums.

 

[4eyes]

My thanks to all who took their valuable time to contribute to this thread-I carefully considered everything that was written. I did some additional research on cooperation with evil, and I believe I can make a decision which I will never regret.

Peace to you, again, my thanks, and I will remember your private intentions in my evening prayers tonight.

Yours in Christ,
4eyes

 

[LSK]

1ke -

is this true 100% of the time? Is it ALWAYS a mortal sin? I guess all those doctors who ever performed a hysterectomy (for any reason at all) are going straight to_ _ _ _.

Can YOU give me reference in the Catechism where it says assisting in a sterilization for ANY and ALL reasons is a mortal sin? If you can, then I will be satisfied that to do so would indeed be a mortal sin and I would change my “vote” to “do not take this job” - deal?
HOM

hysterectomies performed for sterilization purposes would be evil according to the catechism. As for anyone being condemned to hell, that is up to God, which is also stated quite clearly in the catechism.

 

[Viki59]

Dear 4eyes,
In case you’re still reading this thread:
I’m also an RN and had to turn down an opportunity to work in a clinic that would have been ideal, except that I would have had to refer for abortions. They wouldn’t even interview me once they knew I couldn’t do that.
But I found a much more relaxed job, paying about the same, in home health. Now I take care of children that some would say should have been aborted, with Downs and other disabilities. They are absolute blessings.
I’m sure that you will find an even better job if you turn down this one. God knows that we need these things.