RE: Sterilization and similar procedures

[ivebeenshown]

Some fellow Catholics on another board seem confused by Church teaching on sexual morality when it comes to NFP and etc.

Particularly, an objection was that the Church is contradictory to push struggling married couples into abstinence while allowing repentant and absolved subjects of willful sterilization procedures to engage in the marital act.

I hold that when one undergoes such a procedure with the intention of removing the natural capacity for procreation from the marital act, their intention and the act of undergoing such a procedure extends to every act following the procedure, thus rendering those acts ordered not towards life, but away from it – and in such a way that even though one might be absolved from the sin of having undergone such a procedure, it would be a sin still to engage in the marital act afterwards.

Is such an opinion orthodox?

 

[1ke]

Is such an opinion orthodox?

No.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No.

Can you please explain why?

 

[1ke]

Can you please explain why?

For the same reason it is not a sin for someone who is born sterile, becomes sterile due to disease/defect, is currently pregnant, or is past menopause to engage in relations.

 

[ivebeenshown]

For the same reason it is not a sin for someone who is born sterile, becomes sterile due to disease/defect, is currently pregnant, or is past menopause to engage in relations.

But none of those people deliberately crippled their capacity to procreate. Someone who willfully undergoes a procedure with the purpose and intent of reducing or eliminating the possibility of conception has essentially ‘put on a condom’ for all future sex acts.

Same way with birth control shots and pills and rings. If my wife went and got a birth control shot, wouldn’t it be a sin to engage in intercourse with me as long as the effects of that deliberate contraceptive act persisted?

 

[1ke]

But none of those people deliberately crippled their capacity to procreate. Someone who willfully undergoes a procedure with the purpose and intent of reducing or eliminating the possibility of conception has essentially ‘put on a condom’ for all future sex acts.

Doesn’t matter. Absolution is absolution.

The future acts are no different than any other sterile person. The Church’s teaching is that each act of intercourse must be **ordered **to unity and procreation, not that it must result in it or be able to result in it.

Same way with birth control shots and pills and rings. If my wife went and got a birth control shot, wouldn’t it be a sin to engage in intercourse with me as long as the effects of that deliberate contraceptive act persisted?

Not if she had contrition, confessed her sin, and received absolution.

 

[Corki]

Can you please explain why?

Just to add to the explanation you have already been given…

Sterilization is not the same as the sin of contracepting.

Contraception is any action, device or drug that has an effect on the actual marital act. You can repent and be absolved of it only if you stop, or intend to make an effort to stop.

Sterilization is it’s own sin, so to speak. It’s a big one. But it’s a one-time sin. You can repent and be absolved of it.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Doesn’t matter. Absolution is absolution.

The sin of getting sterilized disordered the following sexual acts, rendering them not ordered towards life. Absolution does not remedy that disorder. From the Catechism par. 1459: Sin …] injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.

The future acts are no different than any other sterile person. The Church’s teaching is that each act of intercourse must be **ordered **to unity and procreation, not that it must result in it or be able to result in it.

I understand that. A naturally sterile person has done nothing to order their sexual acts away from life whereas a purposefully sterile person has.

Not if she had contrition, confessed her sin, and received absolution.

Again, absolution does not remedy all disorders caused by sin.

 

[1ke]

The sin of getting sterilized disordered the following sexual acts, rendering them not ordered towards life. Absolution does not remedy that disorder. From the Catechism par. 1459: Sin …] injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.

Correct. The disorder is that they are no longer able to have chidlren.

understand that. A naturally sterile person has done nothing to order their sexual acts away from life whereas a purposefully sterile person has.

Again, absolution does not remedy all disorders caused by sin.

Well, you are welcome to persist in you beliefs but you did ask if they were orthodox and the answer is no.

The Church requires neither reversal nor abstaining from relations. If it is your position that the Church teaches otherwise, the burden is on you to produce the Church document stating so.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well, you are welcome to persist in you beliefs but you did ask if they were orthodox and the answer is no.

The Church requires neither reversal nor abstaining from relations. If it is your position that the Church teaches otherwise, the burden is on you to produce the Church document stating so.

It is quite alright. I am writing my local Father and if necessary, I will seek the fullest clarification from the highest authority possible. By the same token, you may feel free to produce the Church document stating that sex after willful sterilization is somehow ‘ordered towards life’.

The Catechism says it is necessary that each and every act is ordered towards life.

HV 11: The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

How has the sexual act after willful sterilization for the purpose of limiting procreation retained its intrinsic relationship to procreation?

 

[manualman]

To be sure, those who sterilized themselves and repented are always going to be tempted to return to the self-centered sexuality that contraception inclines people towards. They haven’t “beaten the system” by being forgiven. On the contrary, they will forever after have a more difficult time achieving a healthy sexual outlook. They’ve been forgiven for their self-mutilation, but the physical and spiritual temporal ill effects of that mistake remain.

But repentence and confession takes away the INTENT to have sex artificially severed from its full meaning and nature. Therefore, the absolved are not necessarily engaging in contracepted sex spiritually afterwards. But the temptation will surely be there.

Your question implies in interior attitude that catholic teaching is an arbitrary burden on people that weighs them down and that those who get sterilized and repent are somehow rewarded. Consider the contrary idea that perhaps the problem lies in your own sexual worldview, not catholic teaching. Perhaps you (and I to be honest) still suffer an awful lot of influence from our culture in which sex is for the indulgence of selfish desires rather than an act of mutual total giving to one another?

This is why some people eventually seek reversal of vasectomy or tubal ligation. It’s not that they need it to be forgiven, but they come to realize that doing so will help them avoid unhealthy sexual outlooks and attitudes. It restores the way in which our physical bodies manifest what God built into our souls.

 

[Corki]

The sin of getting sterilized disordered the following sexual acts, rendering them not ordered towards life. Absolution does not remedy that disorder. From the Catechism par. 1459: Sin …] injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.

.

You only quoted part of paragraph 1459.

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

This part of the Catechism isn’t talking about the physical disorders that remain, such as being no longer capable of having children, but the lingering spiritual damage - the temporal effects of sin.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You only quoted part of paragraph 1459.

This part of the Catechism isn’t talking about the physical disorders that remain, such as being no longer capable of having children, but the lingering spiritual damage - the temporal effects of sin.

It says ‘all the disorders’.

Regardless, the Catechism does state that every marital act must of necessity remain ordered towards life. If a woman gets a birth control shot, are the subsequent marital acts in which she engages still ‘ordered towards life’? If not, what about receiving absolution before the effects of the shot have dissipated renders the acts ‘ordered towards life’ again?

 

[Corki]

Regardless, the Catechism does state that every marital act must of necessity remain ordered towards life. If a woman gets a birth control shot, are the subsequent marital acts in which she engages still ‘ordered towards life’? If not, what about receiving absolution before the effects of the shot have dissipated renders the acts ‘ordered towards life’ again?

The birth control shot is an interesting case and a contrite woman should follow her Confessors advice. A shot lasts about 3 month, I believe. It’s possible that her confessor would tell her to abstain until the effects dissipate but the immoral act was committed when she agreed to and got the shot. That’s what she is going to confess and be absolved of.

 

[fix]

How has the sexual act after willful sterilization for the purpose of limiting procreation retained its intrinsic relationship to procreation?

Because the act takes place unhindered. That some physical changes happend, and confessed, does not change the moral nature of the act. It may be a physical evil at that point, but it is no moral evil.

 

[Corki]

It says ‘all the disorders’.

Yes, the disorder still exists but that doesn’t mean there has been no change to the consequences.

In the case of a sterilization, the unremedied disorder is that the person is still sterilized. For someone who has repented of their action, this would be a heavy cross to bear.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Because the act takes place unhindered. That some physical changes happend, and confessed, does not change the moral nature of the act. It may be a physical evil at that point, but it is no moral evil.

How is it unhindered? When the person got the sterilization done, they intentionally hindered all of their future intercourse.

Absolution does not change the fact that the person did something to hinder those acts.

Now, we know that simply being sterile is not enough to render the act ‘ordered away from life’, and we know that simply wishing to avoid pregnancy does not do that either. So what exactly causes an act to be ‘ordered away from life’ if not the deliberate action of an individual to hinder that act?

 

[Nate13]

How is it unhindered? When the person got the sterilization done, they intentionally hindered all of their future intercourse.

Absolution does not change the fact that the person did something to hinder those acts.

Now, we know that simply being sterile is not enough to render the act ‘ordered away from life’, and we know that simply wishing to avoid pregnancy does not do that either. So what exactly causes an act to be ‘ordered away from life’ if not the deliberate action of an individual to hinder that act?

Interesting comments on this topic here:

nfpandmore.org/wordpress/?p=52

A problem arises when the spouses repent of these sins. As Father Hogan notes, these sins can be forgiven. The problem is this: What do repentance, sorrow for sin, and a firm purpose of amendment require? Is it sufficient to confess the sin, do the canonical penance, and then go on living as before, enjoying the fruits of their sins every time they engage in a contraceptively sterilized “marriage act.” Or does the sterilized person have to undergo reversal surgery or do something else? Father Hogan says, “the Church does not require such a person to undergo an operation to reverse the sterilization procedure.” That is a misleading statement. True, there is no formal teaching document that spells out what is necessary after sterilization, but it is incorrect to think that formal documents are the only way in which moral teaching is conveyed in the Catholic Church.

There is a long-standing tradition in Catholic moral theology that reversal surgery is required if it can be done without being an extraordinary burden on health or finances and has a reasonable chance of success. As I stated in my work, Sex and the Marriage Covenant (SMC), “If reversal surgery were as simple and inexpensive as vasectomies and tubal ligations, then it would be morally required for all as part of their repentance. This is the common teaching of respected moral theologians. However, it is also a principle of moral theology that extraordinary burdens are not normally required as part of repentance” (p. 221). And I went on to name some well known theologians of the 20th century who supported the reversal-requirement position—Arthur Vermeersch, S.J., Hieronymus Noldin, S.J., and Joseph Farraher, S.J. (SMC notes, p.377).

So in theory while its not required it would be very hard to justify not getting a reversal assuming the procedure was economically viable and very low risk. Someone who has had one these procedures and later repents would have to seriously ask themselves this question about why they are choosing not to get the condition reversed. In the case of a hysterectomy though, there really isn’t the option to get it reversed.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Interesting comments on this topic here:

nfpandmore.org/wordpress/?p=52

I had actually read that yesterday, thank you for bringing it up.

So in theory while its not required it would be very hard to justify not getting a reversal assuming the procedure was economically viable and very low risk. Someone who has had one these procedures and later repents would have to seriously ask themselves this question about why they are choosing not to get the condition reversed. In the case of a hysterectomy though, there really isn’t the option to get it reversed.

True, true, and unfortunately true.

I think this is an issue that is unsettling for many, especially those who do not seek sterilization and must abstain for the legitimate dangers of having further children. I feel that the Church should clarify on this matter and make a definitive statement.

It will come down to this: the Church teaches that each must of necessity remain ordered towards life. Sterility does not in itself order an act away from life, nor does infertility, or a responsible desire to avoid pregnancy. So what does order an act away from life, and can absolution reverse this in the case of ‘projected frustration’, where the individual made a motion that, one way or another, rendered sex not ordered towards life?

 

[Nate13]

Idk, I’m not sure the Church says anywhere that someone who steals a million dollars and then later repents has to give the million dollars back. Most of us would assume that is part of the common sense repentance for the act assuming there were no unrealistic impediments preventing the person from doing so. Part of our penance and repentance for our sins is to do what we can realistically to cure the physical evil our sins have caused.