F
fix
Guest
Check the EWTN site. Priests there have said several times one is not required to reverse such things after confessing and one is not obligated to abstain.
One example
- Status
One example
F
fix
Guest
The problem is they are not priests or moral theologians.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Fr. Stephen Torraco does not explain why or address any of the questions I have, and, lest we forget, priests have said many unorthodox things several times in the past. The Magisterium must define the matter, or the Pope from the chair of Peter. As of yet, I am unaware of any such definitive statement from the infallible teaching authority of the Church.
So the question is this: what exactly causes an act to be ordered away from life, and how would absolution reverse that? We know that *being *sterile does not of itself make an act ordered away from life, and we know that one’s intention to avoid conceiving does not of itself make an act ordered away from life.
If a deliberate motion to reduce the possibility of conceiving new life is not what renders a given act (or acts) ordered away from life, then what is? And if it is, then how would absolution change the fact that a deliberate motion was made to order the act away from life?
F
fix
Guest
I am no moral theologian or any sort of authority. My thought is that absolution does not undue any previous act, it absolves.
If that act was done, the person is sorry they are forgiven. Any future acts are not done with intention to supress fertility. I cannot see the problem you have here?
M
manualman
Guest
This is not that hard. When sterilization is chosen as a means to have sex without babies, it is sin. When a previously sterilized person repents and is absolved, he (presumably) no longer has the INTENT to have selfish, contraceptive sex. The fact that the physical damage isn’t undone by the absolution is irrelevant unless the person remains secretly pleased with the outcome.
This is my concern with this whole thread. There still seems to be a mentality of “no fair! They get to have sterile sex!” My suggestion is that this attitude betrays a remaining disordered inclination on the part of the complainer. It shows a desire to have sterile sexual contact. My understanding of real chastity is that the couple makes not mental separation in their minds between the intimacy and procreation, even if serious reasons cause them to abstain during fertile times. This is not consistent with an apparent jealousy of sterilized, but forgiven people.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Right, absolution would mend the broken relationship between man and God by forgiving him of his sin. But how would it render future intercourse ordered towards life when man, by getting purposefully sterilized, ordered those acts away from life?
The problem I have is that from what I can grasp from Church teachings, it is not the desire to avoid pregnancy that orders intercourse away from life, and it is not simply being sterile that renders intercourse so disordered, but it is the deliberate motion to reduce the likelihood of conception that renders intercourse disordered.
Regardless of whether the man was forgiven of his sins, and regardless of whether the man does not intend to suppress the fertility of his acts after obtaining sterilization (because, technically, once he is sterilized, he has no further intention to reduce the likelihood of conception), the fact remains that the man made such a deliberate motion to reduce the likelihood of conception for all future intercourse.
If such a motion is indeed what renders intercourse disordered, then absolution cannot change that, nor can some later lack of contraceptive intention.
M
manualman
Guest
Well, yes. But after absolution, the “deliberate” part is no longer present. It becomes involuntary, the same as people sterile through no fault of their own.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
I have already established that the physical condition of sterility does not of itself render intercourse ‘ordered away from life’, in agreement with the Church.
In your opinion, what exactly causes intercourse to be ordered away from life? Is it not the deliberate motion to order it away from life that orders it away from life? Can forgiveness of sins undo this motion – not the resulting physical condition, but the motion (the sin of getting sterilized) itself?
I am not interested in your accusations of or assumptions about other people and their motives.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Are you saying that absolution somehow renders voluntarily performed motions ‘involuntary’?
M
manualman
Guest
- Simple, the INTENT to have sterile sex. No intent to make it sterile, no sin.
- That’s too bad. I’ve learned a lot from people who’ve challenged my motivations over the years.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Please clarify: when a person gets sterilized with ‘the intent to have sterile sex’, does this intent not disorder future intercourse away from life as much as this intent has affected the nature of future intercourse?
M
manualman
Guest
No more so than any other sin. When you tell a lie to your brother, you degrade the level of trust that exists between the two of you. After repentance and absolution, that trust may still need some healing, but he hasn’t really forgiven you if he now believes that you intend to tell a lie every time you open your mouth.
It’s the same thing here. Once you repent of the intent to make your sex sterile, your actions going forward are no different than those of someone sterile through no fault of his own. Your theory (absolution is irrelevant going forward, must remain abstinant for life) essentially negates the christian concept that sin can be forgiven.
It’s the same thing here. Once you repent of the intent to make your sex sterile, your actions going forward are no different than those of someone sterile through no fault of his own. Your theory (absolution is irrelevant going forward, must remain abstinant for life) essentially negates the christian concept that sin can be forgiven.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
We live in an age where analogies seldom suffice as arguments. ‘Similar’, maybe, but not ‘the same’.
I did not say that ‘absolution is irrelevant going forward’ or that sin cannot be forgiven. I simply find an issue with the notion that ‘the intent to have sterile sex’ is precisely and totally what renders sex disordered from life.
First, what does ‘the intent to have sterile sex’ mean? It can’t mean the intent to avoid pregnancy for just reasons, because the Church approves of such intentions (just not some of the means by which those intentions are exacted.)
C
cviolette
Guest
I have gone to confession for sterilization. I asked if I would need to have it reversed. I also asked about having sex with my husband. The priest told me that it was not required to be reversed and we did not have to abstain from sex.
I confessed the sin 13 years after I committed it. I had been a cafeteria Catholic and had decided to return completely to my faith. I did regret having my tubes tied. It was done at the advice of my doctor and husband because I had 4 c-sections very close together.
There are consequences to my sin. I do think it was one of the many decisions that destroyed my marriage. I do think I have an unhealthy view of sex and regret not only the surgery but many other sins. I can not chance my actions but I do live with the consequences.
I confessed the sin 13 years after I committed it. I had been a cafeteria Catholic and had decided to return completely to my faith. I did regret having my tubes tied. It was done at the advice of my doctor and husband because I had 4 c-sections very close together.
There are consequences to my sin. I do think it was one of the many decisions that destroyed my marriage. I do think I have an unhealthy view of sex and regret not only the surgery but many other sins. I can not chance my actions but I do live with the consequences.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Thank you for your testimony. I cannot imagine what you have suffered through that sin. I am thankful that you are with us in the Church.
N
Nate13
Guest
I think the question can be summed up to be, can we ever be guilty of a sin by not acting on something?
The answer to that question is obviously yes. If your life is in danger for instance can you refuse a reasonable treatment that has a 99% chance of fixing your condition and allowing you to live a healthy life in good faith? I think most would say it would be a sin to refuse such a treatment would they not? The key on which this is made though, is whether the action is reasonable request.
Or lets think about all the threads in the past on when its permissible for a spouse to refuse to have sex. Have we not said it would be sinful for one spouse to refuse a reasonable request to have sex from the other? What’s the key here? Reasonable request.
So the only basis on which I believe the Church says it does not require the reversal to be done is because its not always a reasonable request. I would have to assume it could be sinful to reject doing so if it were a reasonable solution for the person involved though.
Can anyone provide a solid reason for why someone who had truly repented, easily had the funds for the operation, and was shown the risks involved were minimal, could refuse the operation and say it wasn’t a reasonable request? I’d be curious to know the risks involved with getting a reversal done. That’s the only factor that I could see holding up possibly. Having a non-life threatening condition (being sterilized) and getting a reversal done that may have a very small chance of death or a serious complication, but a risk none the less.
The answer to that question is obviously yes. If your life is in danger for instance can you refuse a reasonable treatment that has a 99% chance of fixing your condition and allowing you to live a healthy life in good faith? I think most would say it would be a sin to refuse such a treatment would they not? The key on which this is made though, is whether the action is reasonable request.
Or lets think about all the threads in the past on when its permissible for a spouse to refuse to have sex. Have we not said it would be sinful for one spouse to refuse a reasonable request to have sex from the other? What’s the key here? Reasonable request.
So the only basis on which I believe the Church says it does not require the reversal to be done is because its not always a reasonable request. I would have to assume it could be sinful to reject doing so if it were a reasonable solution for the person involved though.
Can anyone provide a solid reason for why someone who had truly repented, easily had the funds for the operation, and was shown the risks involved were minimal, could refuse the operation and say it wasn’t a reasonable request? I’d be curious to know the risks involved with getting a reversal done. That’s the only factor that I could see holding up possibly. Having a non-life threatening condition (being sterilized) and getting a reversal done that may have a very small chance of death or a serious complication, but a risk none the less.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
You have brought up some good points. I don’t think reversal should be absolutely required, but I think it should be required to re-order the acts towards life and render them permissible once more.
I’m still trying to see what manualman is talking about. “The intent to have sterile sex?” What does this mean?
I wish the Church already had issued a clear and definitive official statement regarding the status of intercourse between purposefully sterilized individuals.
I’m still trying to see what manualman is talking about. “The intent to have sterile sex?” What does this mean?
I wish the Church already had issued a clear and definitive official statement regarding the status of intercourse between purposefully sterilized individuals.
F
fix
Guest
How is it disordered? The physical changes cannot be made plastic. They are unwilled.
Such a couple is not doing anything to suppress fertility.
Yes, and? The physical changes are no longer willed.
One cannot undue such things as they are permanent in the sense that the person has no control over them at that point.
The claim that the Church requires one to undergo one, or multiple, procedures to revise and restore anatomical structures has not been shown. It seems a prudential matter but not one that binds under mortal sin.
I am happy to change my mind as soon as some proof is given. So far, nothing.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
I wouldn’t think further surgery would be an absolute necessity.
But saying that just made me realize – if attempting to have a reversal would be a deliberate motion to re-order the acts towards life, then why wouldn’t repentance (with the resulting absolution) also count for the same? lightbulb
Well, I could say the same here! I’m not here to impose my (likely flawed) understanding on you or others; I am here to discuss the whys and the hows of it. Ultimately, I seek to accept official Church teaching. At the current time, I haven’t seen anything clear and definitive from the Magisterium or the Pope. That’s about what it would take for me.
Of course, it seems I might be getting there through reasoning.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Bingo!
Prodigal son’s brother syndrome.
The repentant sinner gets a party, a coat, a ring, and the fatted calf. What does the faithful brother get? Maybe a small kid.
- Status