M
marybee
Guest
i think we are saying the same thing in a different way. I said we can not advocate it. I also said that there are many situations that it may not be a mortal sin. Thats all!
Is sterilization ok if a future pregnancy could end up with the death of a mother?
- Status
F
fix
Guest
It is not about being easy or hard. It is about grace and faithfulness.
L
LJN21
Guest
Yes your right, it is easy to give advice when your not the one going trough it. That doesn’t make the advice any less correct tho.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!
Your situation is completely different tho. If you knew your wife was going to die if she got pregnant would you feel the same way about sex?
M
marybee
Guest
He is merely pointing out that although it may be a cure for one problem it may also have unforseen side effects, like wanting it outside of marriage!
I know many people who’s spouses reject them, and they find it very difficult to be faithful! I think anyone would! Id go as far to say it is… well never mind! Being a christian woman i can’t say it!
Yes, a man may not want to put his wife’s life in jeopardy but that doesn’t take away his sex drive!
M
marybee
Guest
Not if you abstain like a priest the rest of your life. I know, thats not your calling!Okay.
By one roll in the hay, I can kill my wife and my unborn child…that is 2 deaths.
By one surgey my wife can enjoy a full long life with her husband and kids.
F
fix
Guest
Oh, I get his point. My point is we each have our cross. I do not want to minimize folks in this terrible situation. It is not that uncommon.He is merely pointing out that although it may be a cure for one problem it may also have unforseen side effects, like wanting it outside of marriage!
I know many people who’s spouses reject them, and they find it very difficult to be faithful! I think anyone would! Id go as far to say it is… well never mind! Being a christian woman i can’t say it!
And pm might not want to have sex with his wife, but maybe he would to someone else!
F
fix
Guest
That temptation can justify anything.Okay.
By one roll in the hay, I can kill my wife and my unborn child…that is 2 deaths.
By one surgey my wife can enjoy a full long life with her husband and kids.
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
Again, this idea that sex is an absolute right… if you adopt that attitude, then it’s a slippery slope from not getting it from your wife to getting it from your neighbor’s wife.
That’s why we are called to exercise self control.
Where is the charity of the husband? “Come here honey, I want it, and even if it kills you, I’m going to get my pleasure?”
What about the wife? Maybe she would like to have sex, but it’s her health and her child’s health? So she must live chastely. But she’s watching her husband get satisfaction elsewhere? Where is the charity?
Oh. Get her sterilized. You do know there are often physical side effects to that that are not good for the wife, don’t you? But you would put her through that to be sexually available to you?
Once sex becomes an absolute right in your head, all actions are then viewed only insofar as they help obtain that right, even in the face of moral questions.
A man has a sex drive. Whoopee. So does a woman. I wonder how nice it would be for her to hear “Honey, I miss our marital embrace. But if you died, I would miss you more. I love you, and I’ll put your health and safety over my man needs.” Might actually improve the marriage! Just a guess.
That’s why we are called to exercise self control.
Where is the charity of the husband? “Come here honey, I want it, and even if it kills you, I’m going to get my pleasure?”
What about the wife? Maybe she would like to have sex, but it’s her health and her child’s health? So she must live chastely. But she’s watching her husband get satisfaction elsewhere? Where is the charity?
Oh. Get her sterilized. You do know there are often physical side effects to that that are not good for the wife, don’t you? But you would put her through that to be sexually available to you?
Once sex becomes an absolute right in your head, all actions are then viewed only insofar as they help obtain that right, even in the face of moral questions.
A man has a sex drive. Whoopee. So does a woman. I wonder how nice it would be for her to hear “Honey, I miss our marital embrace. But if you died, I would miss you more. I love you, and I’ll put your health and safety over my man needs.” Might actually improve the marriage! Just a guess.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
A hysterectomy is only performed in the event the uterus is diseased and is allowed by the Church for that reason–treating disease is not a sin. It is not done to sterilize (no doc would perform it just for that). Tubal ligation is the procedure used to sterilize women. There is no medical indication other than sterilizath for a tubal. The procedure cures nothing.
There are morally licit and effective ways to not get pregnant: total abstinence or periodic abstinence (NFP). I would say that if you’re wife’s life is in danger by becoming pregnant, then the MANLY thing to do would be abstain or learn NFP and use the most conservative rules. There are people on this forum who have used NFP for years because of legitimate health issues.
God bless,
Jennifer
C
CatholicSam
Guest
By one surgery your wife will be killing her soul. That’s one eternal death, much worse than a million physical deaths.Okay.
By one roll in the hay, I can kill my wife and my unborn child…that is 2 deaths.
By one surgey my wife can enjoy a full long life with her husband and kids.
M
marybee
Guest
I think we should all pray that we are not in that situation because the shoe may not fit so well on the other foot. The “marital embrace” is a huge part of marriage. In fact it is so sacred if you do NOT have it you don’t even have a valid marriage. I would not write it off so quickly!
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
Jennifer, you are right. One can remove a cancerous uterus or ovaries if the primary reason is to treat disease. The secondary effect would be to render the woman infertile, but that is an unintended result of the original procedure. It’s called the principle of double effect.
The Church doesn’t say a woman has to die of cancer. But you can’t remove a healthy organ to achieve infertility. That is mutilation.
Would you poke your own eardrums out so you don’t have to listen to a wife or noisy kids? That would make the house more peaceful, wouldn’t it? Then you could sit among them for the next 10 years and not be irritated. Or how about gouging out her eyes. Then you could lead her through stores and she won’t be tempted to buy stuff. That would help your family budget. Risk-free shopping for you!
Or you could cut off her feet. She’d have trouble leaving you.
And how about kid control? Prefrontal lobotomies might make them really obedient.
We’re on a roll. Surgery as a method of attaining family bliss!
Or again, how about castrating yourself. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about your wife’s imminent death. Oh? What? That idea isn’t so appealing to you?
Sorry to be sarcastic. But this is about a bigger issue. In our society sex has become equated with death, with AIDS and other diseases. Are we going to continue to teach our children that sex is the supreme good in life, and we are powerless to stop ourselves even in the face of grave personal risk?
AIDS is spreading among teens. You have limited time to teach them that chastity is indeed possible and desirable. I see a huge disregard of the biblical warning that the sins of the parents are visited on the children down through successive generations. You don’t want to look at your children in 15 years and have profound regrets over the choices you made.
We were taught that we were created to know, love and serve God in this world so as to be happy with Him in the next. I see nothing in there saying sex was part of our purpose in life. If anything we are doing gets in the way of our eternal salvation, we are supposed to avoid it. And teach our children to also.
The Church doesn’t say a woman has to die of cancer. But you can’t remove a healthy organ to achieve infertility. That is mutilation.
Would you poke your own eardrums out so you don’t have to listen to a wife or noisy kids? That would make the house more peaceful, wouldn’t it? Then you could sit among them for the next 10 years and not be irritated. Or how about gouging out her eyes. Then you could lead her through stores and she won’t be tempted to buy stuff. That would help your family budget. Risk-free shopping for you!
Or you could cut off her feet. She’d have trouble leaving you.
And how about kid control? Prefrontal lobotomies might make them really obedient.
We’re on a roll. Surgery as a method of attaining family bliss!
Or again, how about castrating yourself. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about your wife’s imminent death. Oh? What? That idea isn’t so appealing to you?
Sorry to be sarcastic. But this is about a bigger issue. In our society sex has become equated with death, with AIDS and other diseases. Are we going to continue to teach our children that sex is the supreme good in life, and we are powerless to stop ourselves even in the face of grave personal risk?
AIDS is spreading among teens. You have limited time to teach them that chastity is indeed possible and desirable. I see a huge disregard of the biblical warning that the sins of the parents are visited on the children down through successive generations. You don’t want to look at your children in 15 years and have profound regrets over the choices you made.
We were taught that we were created to know, love and serve God in this world so as to be happy with Him in the next. I see nothing in there saying sex was part of our purpose in life. If anything we are doing gets in the way of our eternal salvation, we are supposed to avoid it. And teach our children to also.
A
aurora77
Guest
This is a really good point. Setting aside the moral implications of sterilization, there are still those huge physical issues to be considered. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on premature menopause and it’s a very real, very serious issue. Osteoporosis and heart disease are major issues that menopausal women of any age must deal with, but the risks are much greater when women go through menopause earlier than normal. Besides, there’s the joy of hot flashes, night sweats, insomnia, mood swings, etc.
Even women who “only” have their uterus removed are at risk for premature menopause, b/c one or both ovaries can shut down as a result of the surgery. They do usually become active again, but the risk of an early menopause is higher.
If I were in a position to choose whether to be sterilized to prevent pregnancy or to practice NFP VERY conservatively, I’d choose the NFP. It’s the moral path, but it’s also the better path when it comes to physical health.
Also, for some women, a hysterectomy, whether total or partial, can cause sexual issues, painful intercourse and others. Depending on how the surgery is performed, there is sometimes a shortening of the vagina, which can cause some issues. Plus, there is the drop in libido some women experience.
All in all, this is NOT a surgery to be taken lightly and honestly, I can’t imagine why anyone would willing do this unless it was medically necessary.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
As I read through the discussion that continues, I think some of the confussion and perceived “judgementalism” relates to words choices and phrases that some may not understand.
When some write words like “objective mortal sin” that means the act itself is a seriously wrong-- it meets the condition of “serious matter”. But the other two points of full knowlege and deliberate consent may not be present. A priest who misinforms the penitent may obstruct the penitent’s “full knowledge” and therefore for that particular misinformed person that condition for a mortal sin *might *not be met. Sometimes a spouse gets sterilized against the wishes of the other spouse, which would mean that “deliberate consent” was missing on the part of one. The Catechism points 1854-1864 explain this further.
Lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent might be lacking in other circumstances where people are sterilized. Many hospitals encourage tubal ligations with c-sections sometimes when the woman is right in the middle of a complicated delivery! When I experienced a complicated pregnancy and was on heavy doses of mind-altering medicine, hospital staff asked about a dozen times if I wanted to be sterilized. I heard of a situation, where a woman found the hospital consent form for sterilization slipped in with all the many other hospital forms that they asked her to sign!
I want it made clear that we who believe* all* the Church teachings do believe all the Church teachings–including the parts about what limits culpability and about God’s mercy and forgiveness of sin. I have also come to believe as I grow in my faith that God’s way may not be easy, but it is easier than the alternatives. God gives those who seek Him what we need to grow in holiness; if we refuse to carry one cross, we likely just make a heavier cross for ourselves and our loved ones to carry in the future.
This is a very important point! The Catechism point 1857 clearly states: “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’”
When some write words like “objective mortal sin” that means the act itself is a seriously wrong-- it meets the condition of “serious matter”. But the other two points of full knowlege and deliberate consent may not be present. A priest who misinforms the penitent may obstruct the penitent’s “full knowledge” and therefore for that particular misinformed person that condition for a mortal sin *might *not be met. Sometimes a spouse gets sterilized against the wishes of the other spouse, which would mean that “deliberate consent” was missing on the part of one. The Catechism points 1854-1864 explain this further.
Lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent might be lacking in other circumstances where people are sterilized. Many hospitals encourage tubal ligations with c-sections sometimes when the woman is right in the middle of a complicated delivery! When I experienced a complicated pregnancy and was on heavy doses of mind-altering medicine, hospital staff asked about a dozen times if I wanted to be sterilized. I heard of a situation, where a woman found the hospital consent form for sterilization slipped in with all the many other hospital forms that they asked her to sign!
I want it made clear that we who believe* all* the Church teachings do believe all the Church teachings–including the parts about what limits culpability and about God’s mercy and forgiveness of sin. I have also come to believe as I grow in my faith that God’s way may not be easy, but it is easier than the alternatives. God gives those who seek Him what we need to grow in holiness; if we refuse to carry one cross, we likely just make a heavier cross for ourselves and our loved ones to carry in the future.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
The post above the one I just posted discussed health consequences of sterilization.
Some of the health consequences, such as increased risk of prostate cancer following vasectomies, or increased need for hysterectomy following tubal ligation, may be part of the heavier cross some build for themselves and their families. If the moral teachings of the Church don’t convince some of you, perhaps you should look at the simple health consequences of sterilization, especially when the sterilization is prompted by concern for health.
1
1ke
Guest
No this is not correct.
You can never sterilize a person in any circumstance.
You can do a medical procedure whose purpose is not sterilization even if it results in infertility. For example, a woman who receives radiation for cancer can become sterile from that treatment. The purpose is **not **to sterilize her, the purpose is to eliminate the cancer. The side effect of radiation is non-functioning ovaries.
If the ovaries or the uterus itself is diseased with cancer, it can be removed. The purpose is not to prevent conception but to eliminate the cancer.
You cannot remove the ovaries or the uterus to prevent a future pregancy. That is sterilization. The solution here it so abstain periodically or fully to avoid conception.
M
marybee
Guest
This is what I was trying to express! Thats why I said that it definitely MAY not be a mortal sin. Someone mentioned that no way a surgical procedure could lack full knowledge and consent because of a “waiting period” and this is what came to my mind as well!
L
LJN21
Guest
This is what is frustrating me.This is what I was trying to express! Thats why I said that it definitely MAY not be a mortal sin. Someone mentioned that no way a surgical procedure could lack full knowledge and consent because of a “waiting period” and this is what came to my mind as well!
It IS a mortal sin.
The only MAY is in regard to the guilt!
It definitely IS a mortal sin.
They definitely MAY NOT have culpability (guilt of committing) the mortal sin depending on a number of things.
M
marybee
Guest
HAHA yes thats what i said! or meant to say!
- Status