You are misinterpreting the Catechism. The “evil” of sterility has nothing to do with you. It is referring to the condition of sterility. When the Catechism states that it is not an absolute evil it means the condition of sterility is not necessarily a bad thing. Another way of looking at it is perhaps God wants you to bring love into the world another way, i.e. “adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.” The Crucifixion of Jesus was evil but not an absolute evil since so much good came from it. Unite your cross with the Lord’s cross.
I am trying to cheer you up and I hope it comes across that way. I am truly sorry for your suffering.
Hi Hail Linus:
I am grateful for your concern, and am thankful others are looking out for us here. I note below you were fortunate enough to have a child eventually, so that is great news, I am glad for you.
Once again, here’s the “offending” (to me, anyway) passage from 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…"
I had thought about interpreting the Catechism this way (it’s the condition that is evil, not you), but felt very uneasy about it. I think that’s because I am so very troubled by exactly what “evil” is. This is a philosophical dilemma, I think, one that the best minds have struggled with, and, unfortunately, not found satisfying answers. When the moral theology of Christianity (and other world religions) was developed, theologians had a very poor understanding of disease (in fact, I’d venture to say that they didn’t understand disease at all, attributing it to sin, not organic factors). You got sick because of something you did; it was your own moral failing that made disease happen (this seemed reasonable before modern hygiene and the germ theory of disease, both 19th century developments).
Let’s say we allow for this interpretation; that it’s the “condition” of sterility that is evil, not the person. Then who/what is responsible for the condition, then? Sterility caused by disease (or whatever) is the result of a bacteria, a virus, whatever…these organisms aren’t “evil” any more than a cat is evil for catching and killing a mouse…they are just doing what bacteria do, occupying and colonizing their human hosts (they have no moral agenda, and I can’t see any way they can do “good” or “evil”, as they have no Mind, no consciousness). Is their Creator, then, practicing “evil” by placing these organisms in their human hosts? The thought is conceivable, as He has the capability of doing otherwise, which would lead to “good” (conception and birth) rather than “evil” (infertility and sterility). If you have the capability of doing “good” but deliberately choose to do “evil” instead, what does that mean? As I said above, this is a very complicated philosophical problem, because if we accept that some evil is “moral evil” (caused by a conscious agent’s bad choices) and other evil is “natural evil” (caused by disaster, disease, and not a conscious agent, which I think is what you are doing, I’m not sure), then we have another circle to square: how can evil acts occur against the will of an all-powerful, all-perfect, all-good Creator, who we call God? This has bedevilled theologians since the beginning of time: none can provide an answer for it, because there really is no answer to it. I sometimes tell my students that “not all problems have solutions”; I suspect this is a good example of that. About all I can say is that I am deeply disappointed with the moral agent (whoever/whatever that is) that is ultimately responsible for our world today; they could have, in my opinion, done much better.
Jacques