Let’s suppose a couple decides on sterilization, either for the man or for the woman (or hypothetically, for both). Then they become convicted in conscience that they have sinned. They go to confession.
The obligation to have the sterilization reversed, if indeed that is possible, then comes into play. Reversing a vasectomy is simpler and relatively non-invasive, and has few risks. However, it is not cheap — a few thousand dollars, which would be pocket change to a few, but a grave financial burden for others. Many would not be able to afford it.
Reversing a tubal ligation, though, is more complicated. It does involve cutting into the body cavity, even if done via laparoscopic surgery. It is not without risks, and it costs more than vasectomy reversal. Many would not be able to afford this either.
And add to this, it is not always medically possible to reverse a surgery such as this.
Is reversal mandatory, and under what circumstances?
And let’s take the simplest case: the couple can afford for the husband to have his vasectomy reversed.
Could this ever be, not necessarily a penance, but a condition for the “firm purpose of amendment” required for true repentance? In other words, you can afford it, and there’s a very high likelihood it can be reversed in this particular case. And as for the pain factor, well, you were willing to undergo the initial operation, so think of the pain as being something you can offer to Almighty God as a penance, not just for this sin, but for other unrelated sins you have committed. Pain and suffering need never be squandered.
And I have heard it said that some priests recommend mimicking the periodic continence which would exist if the couple had used NFP instead of sterilization, in effect “using NFP” even though it is not needed. What are we to think of this? Can a priest prescribe a practice over perhaps several years as part of the penance? Even if this is licit, I would think it would vary with the individual couple. I have also thought that having to live with the knowledge that you can never again have children (where reversal cannot be done) would be quite a penance in and of itself.
Thoughts from the forum?
The obligation to have the sterilization reversed, if indeed that is possible, then comes into play. Reversing a vasectomy is simpler and relatively non-invasive, and has few risks. However, it is not cheap — a few thousand dollars, which would be pocket change to a few, but a grave financial burden for others. Many would not be able to afford it.
Reversing a tubal ligation, though, is more complicated. It does involve cutting into the body cavity, even if done via laparoscopic surgery. It is not without risks, and it costs more than vasectomy reversal. Many would not be able to afford this either.
And add to this, it is not always medically possible to reverse a surgery such as this.
Is reversal mandatory, and under what circumstances?
And let’s take the simplest case: the couple can afford for the husband to have his vasectomy reversed.
Could this ever be, not necessarily a penance, but a condition for the “firm purpose of amendment” required for true repentance? In other words, you can afford it, and there’s a very high likelihood it can be reversed in this particular case. And as for the pain factor, well, you were willing to undergo the initial operation, so think of the pain as being something you can offer to Almighty God as a penance, not just for this sin, but for other unrelated sins you have committed. Pain and suffering need never be squandered.
And I have heard it said that some priests recommend mimicking the periodic continence which would exist if the couple had used NFP instead of sterilization, in effect “using NFP” even though it is not needed. What are we to think of this? Can a priest prescribe a practice over perhaps several years as part of the penance? Even if this is licit, I would think it would vary with the individual couple. I have also thought that having to live with the knowledge that you can never again have children (where reversal cannot be done) would be quite a penance in and of itself.
Thoughts from the forum?