Is sterilization ok if a future pregnancy could end up with the death of a mother?

[aurora77]

Stealing is a sin, period. But certainly there are situations, or mitigating circumstances that lessen a person’s culpability. EG, if a person’s family is starving to death, and THEY ARE AFRAID OF DYING, OR THEIR CHILDREN DYING, they might steal food or money to buy food to save the lives of their children. Would that be a mortal sin? I doubt it, especially when someone is doing it to save their lives.

Interesting thought–can there ever be mitigating circumstances when it comes to mortal sin? If so, is it possible to have them for one sin and not another? Why?

 

[marybee]

Interesting thought–can there ever be mitigating circumstances when it comes to mortal sin? If so, is it possible to have them for one sin and not another? Why?

Im not saying its not a sin, but it may not be mortal. Im not sure what your question is!

 

[aurora77]

Im not saying its not a sin, but it may not be mortal. Im not sure what your question is!

Sorry, those questions weren’t directed at you specifically, but addressed what you were saying.

What I mean is–it seems like sometimes people assert that there are mitigating circumstances, when it comes to sin and culpability, like in your stealing example. Does the Church recognize these circs or is that just wishful thinking on the part of us sinners? If the Church does recognize them, how does She determine which sins can have such mitigating circumstances? From what I’ve read on these boards, it sounds as though there are never, ever such circumstances that could allow for sterilation. If there are such circumstances for one sin, but not another, why?

 

[marybee]

Sorry, those questions weren’t directed at you specifically, but addressed what you were saying.

What I mean is–it seems like sometimes people assert that there are mitigating circumstances, when it comes to sin and culpability, like in your stealing example. Does the Church recognize these circs or is that just wishful thinking on the part of us sinners? If the Church does recognize them, how does She determine which sins can have such mitigating circumstances? From what I’ve read on these boards, it sounds as though there are never, ever such circumstances that could allow for sterilation. If there are such circumstances for one sin, but not another, why?

No, the example I gave was for masturbation, the Church Recognizes that although something maybe gravely wrong, there may be situations that lessen the CULPABILITY of the person to make the decision with full consent and knowledge.

The stealing example just implied that the hunger and starvation maybe did not make this man as culpable as a person who was not stealing for food, maybe for drugs or to have a new tv or something. Certainly distinctions can be made.

Another example is addiction, a person’s ability to make decisions when they are an addict is severly lessened.

Only God knows truly if a person is in mortal sin. He can only determine a person’s heart. That being said, we can’t say to someone, “Go ahead and steal those drugs for your dying wife” That would be irresponsible. But will he go to hell for doing it? Only God knows!

It reminds me of what Fr. Corapi said in one of his cds. A woman asked about their gay daughter and he said not to get too upset, it may not be as bad as they think, she could have mental or emotional problems that lessen her will to do it. another example.

 

[PennitentMan]

If a person knows for certain that the pregnancy is going to result in death…and it’s not something that gets diagnosed during pregnancy, wouldn’t it be permissable to get steralised?

There is not a baby’s life that is in danger here…we are just talking about saving a life by performing a procedure.

 

[marybee]

If a person knows for certain that the pregnancy is going to result in death…and it’s not something that gets diagnosed during pregnancy, wouldn’t it be permissable to get steralised?

There is not a baby’s life that is in danger here…we are just talking about saving a life by performing a procedure.

The church says no. But my point was just that it may not be a mortal sin. It certainly is different thana person who is being sterilized for selfish reasons such as wanting a bigger house, more disposable income etc.

 

[fix]

I know some will think by saying this it sounds like i am condoning it, im not.

Stealing is a sin, period. But certainly there are situations, or mitigating circumstances that lessen a person’s culpability. EG, if a person’s family is starving to death, and THEY ARE AFRAID OF DYING, OR THEIR CHILDREN DYING, they might steal food or money to buy food to save the lives of their children. Would that be a mortal sin? I doubt it, especially when someone is doing it to save their lives.

It reminds me of a psychology experiment. They told children this story…A man could not afford drugs to save his wife’s life, but the druggist refused to give it to him unless he had the full amount of money. The man, to save his wife’s life, stole the drugs. ALL young children said, “he should not steal, he did wrong, he was a thief”. They were not able to take into consideration that his wife was dying.

It is not really analogous.

Taking food, as the example, because one is starving is not the sin of theft.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

Now, direct sterilization is intrinsically evil. It is never licit.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

I can see your point, but it’s a faulty analogy. The right to life supercedes the right to property in the hierarchy of goods. So if one is starving, one may steal bread, if the intention is to repay someone at a later time.

But we MUST have food to stay alive. So stealing bread would be necessary. We may LIKE sex, but we don’t need it to live. So there is no evil we can choose to do in order to have sex in the same way we could steal in order to have food to sustain life.

And when married couples go on and on justifying that behavior and making excuses, it does kind of get tiresome for the many millions of priests, nuns, widows, widowers, singles and divorced people who cannot EVER have sexual relations if they want to maintain their relationship with God. I’m saying this as someone who has been single, married and divorced. We are all called at various points in our lives to live out the virtue of chastity. Yes, married people must also be chaste (different than celibate.) Why does God send these challenges? We will only find out at the ends of our lives when we make an accounting to Him of our choices.

I wonder if any of these parents are so fixated on the idea that they cannot leap into bed as much as they’d like if they have lost sight of the big picture. Their children may be young, but they will get older. What example are you setting for them? I was one of many children. Not all of them married. Some have yet to find a suitable spouse well into their 30s. They must live out chastity in the world as singles. Your children are not guaranteed marriage. Are you in effect telling them that sex is the end all and be all of a relationship and you cannot live without it? Are you modeling an example where you will barter your soul for sex? Are you telling your children that they cannot be expected to live chastely either? (Yes, they will come to know the choices you made. There are really very few secrets in families.)

What will you do then when you have a 20-something who is shacking up with someone because they cannot live chastely? Or won’t? And they point to you and say that you taught them that having sexual relations took priority over God?

I know it sounds harsh. I don’t mean to. But our children are watching. Are you teaching them that if they don’t have sex for several months or years that the marriage will become nasty and argumentative? That the only way a married couple can show love for each other is a sexual embrace? That self control and restraint is only for the single or the ordained? What lesson is that for a son who may marry a woman who has risky pregnancies? That he cannot remain chaste for almost a year while helping her safeguard a growing child? (Or that if he must, they will end up bickering and being angry and resentful?) Or the daughter who may marry a soldier and endure a long deployment… is she going to see that she can live chastely, or will she be like many of the confused women who have cheated on their spouses as soon as the plane was wheels up to the war zone? How can we advise our children if we haven’t lived those truths in our own lives?

Just a few open questions to throw out to others for consideration, not just the OP. I am trying to live to show my children that one can be loving, popular and friendly and joyful even if you sleep alone. Their father gets whatever he wants in whatever bed he wants it and he’s absolutely miserable.

The purpose of marriage is the mutual help and support of the spouses and the procreation and education of the children of that union. How we live and teach by example in our children’s primary classroom of life will affect their salvation as well as our own.

 

[LJN21]

Stealing is a sin, period. But certainly there are situations, or mitigating circumstances that lessen a person’s culpability. EG, if a person’s family is starving to death, and THEY ARE AFRAID OF DYING, OR THEIR CHILDREN DYING, they might steal food or money to buy food to save the lives of their children. Would that be a mortal sin? I doubt it, especially when someone is doing it to save their lives.

Bad example. The seriousness of stealing depends on to many circumstance. If you steal a piece of gum form a rich man its a very very minor sin (venial), if you stole a poor mans last loaf of bread you have probably committed a mortal sin. Stealing to feed your family if they are starving to death has always been taught by the church to be perfectly acceptable. So no stealing is not a blanket sin.

 

[PennitentMan]

The church says no. But my point was just that it may not be a mortal sin.

Wow, I didn’t know that…

So even if it will save my wife’s life, she is not allowed to have a hysterectomy?
If she is not pregnant and we know that it will kill her to become pregnant? Wow…

 

[fix]

Sorry, those questions weren’t directed at you specifically, but addressed what you were saying.

What I mean is–it seems like sometimes people assert that there are mitigating circumstances, when it comes to sin and culpability, like in your stealing example. Does the Church recognize these circs or is that just wishful thinking on the part of us sinners? If the Church does recognize them, how does She determine which sins can have such mitigating circumstances? From what I’ve read on these boards, it sounds as though there are never, ever such circumstances that could allow for sterilation. If there are such circumstances for one sin, but not another, why?

There is a difference between objective sin and culpability. One may commit a grave sin, but not be culpable for a variety of reasons. But, I have never seen where one should be encouraged to commit a serious sin or told to keep doing it because one may be non culpable.

The goal is reform not to keep committing grave sin hoping we are free from culpability.

 

[marybee]

Wow, I didn’t know that…

So even if it will save my wife’s life, she is not allowed to have a hysterectomy?
If she is not pregnant and we know that it will kill her to become pregnant? Wow…

As long as the intention is to prevent a future pregnancy, risking death or whatever, not permitted!

 

[marybee]

Bad example. The seriousness of stealing depends on to many circumstance. If you steal a piece of gum form a rich man its a very very minor sin (venial), if you stole a poor mans last loaf of bread you have probably committed a mortal sin. Stealing to feed your family if they are starving to death has always been taught by the church to be perfectly acceptable. So no stealing is not a blanket sin.

Thanks, but I think you just want to pick fights with me! The point was He was stealing to SAVE HIS WIFE’S LIFE.

 

[LJN21]

The church says no. But my point was just that it may not be a mortal sin. It certainly is different thana person who is being sterilized for selfish reasons such as wanting a bigger house, more disposable income etc.

The church says no.

It is still a Moral sin. Period. There may be lessened culpability based on many factors but it is still in fact a moral sin.

 

[PennitentMan]

As long as the intention is to prevent a future pregnancy, risking death or whatever, not permitted!

Allow me to understand:

The end result is my wifes death.
If that is by a threatening cancer, we can sterlize. But if it is by becoming pregnant in the future it’s a sin.

Hmmm…

 

[marybee]

The church says no.

It is still a Moral sin. Period. There may be lessened culpability based on many factors but it is still in fact a moral sin.

YEah, thanks, i think you stated your point! I think we heard you the first 100 times! LOL

 

[fix]

Allow me to understand:

The end result is my wifes death.
If that is by a threatening cancer, we can sterlize. But if it is by becoming pregnant in the future it’s a sin.

Hmmm…

There is an alternative. One may abstain.

 

[LJN21]

Thanks, but I think you just want to pick fights with me! The point was He was stealing to SAVE HIS WIFE’S LIFE.

No I’m not picking a fight with just you. I would have replied in same to anyone that posted that.

Its not a valid argument. Stealing to not starve to death is not a sin. The church has never taught it was.

We have a basic human right to eat. Noting can supersede
basic human rights. This is why its okay to work on Sunday to put food on the table as well.

We do not have a basic human right to sex. Even in marriage.

 

[LJN21]

YEah, thanks, i think you stated your point! I think we heard you the first 100 times! LOL

Its not my point, its the teaching of the Church.

 

[PennitentMan]

There is an alternative. One may abstain.

Well that opens up a whole different can of worms…a life with a spouse without sex.
*Right there *is a root cause for many many adulterous affairs.

It’s easy for someone to give that advice when he is a vowed celebate or someone who has a healthy sex life…

But with my track record here, I’m sure you all knoew I was going to say that!