Sterilization followed by confession?

[joclucsylv]

Yes, that’s what I am saying. On what grounds do you say is it not OK?

The proper use of our generative faculties is a marital act that is ordered to unity and procreation. From that flows the disordered nature of homosexual sex acts.

But, since you reject this teaching of the Church, on what basis do you say homosexual sex acts are wrong?

Homo acts are wrong because it just isn’t right. I don’t know. Thinking of 2 men together or 2 women together makes my stomach go upsidedown. God make Adam and Eve…not Adam and Steve.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Homo acts are wrong because it just isn’t right. I don’t know. Thinking of 2 men together or 2 women together makes my stomach go upsidedown. God make Adam and Eve…not Adam and Steve.

Feelings should not decide what is moral or not (your feelings of queasiness).

A Klansman could feel disgust about inter racial marriage, but there is nothing morally wrong with inter racial marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

We keep on going back and forth between “you need to have this feeling” to “repentance isn’t a feeling but an act of the will.”

It is about as clear as mud for me.

I can understand deciding, “I’ve decided the Church is right and I am wrong and I am going to arrange my life as if I wish I had never been sterilized.”

I can’t understand deciding, “I feel really bad about getting sterilized and I really feel my life would be better if I hadn’t”

I can understand a person who is sterilized feeling relief that they don’t have to worry about a pregnancy and being happy they can still have sex with their spouse. I’d hope that feeling doesn’t have to go away before they can receive reconciliation.

I think the one thing that attracts Catholics to sterilization above other methods of contraception is that it is a one and then done kind of deal. You can get a vasectomy confess the very same day, and then be done with it. Other methods require living with a guilty conscience.

Contrition does not need per se to have “emotion” involved. But it does need to have repentance.

A Catholic who “gets a vasectomy and confesses the same day” without repentance…is not receiving the sacrament …not receiving absolution. Anymore than a man who does not decide to marry a woman …does not consent…is not marrying…

 

[1ke]

Homo acts are wrong because it just isn’t right. I don’t know. Thinking of 2 men together or 2 women together makes my stomach go upsidedown. God make Adam and Eve…not Adam and Steve.

That’s not a reason. Give me an actual reason that its wrong.

And I’m not trying to be flip. I’m sure you’ve always been convinced contraception was right and never had to **think **about the “why” of it.

But, I’m encouraging you to look at the “why” and to give me a logical and well-reasoned argument against homosexual sex acts while holding that the Church is wrong regarding the proper use of our sexual faculties, and even moreso that the Church has no authority to teach as she does.

 

[Rence]

We keep on going back and forth between “you need to have this feeling” to “repentance isn’t a feeling but an act of the will.”

It is about as clear as mud for me.

I can understand deciding, “I’ve decided the Church is right and I am wrong and I am going to arrange my life as if I wish I had never been sterilized.”

I can’t understand deciding, “I feel really bad about getting sterilized and I really feel my life would be better if I hadn’t”

I can understand a person who is sterilized feeling relief that they don’t have to worry about a pregnancy and being happy they can still have sex with their spouse. I’d hope that feeling doesn’t have to go away before they can receive reconciliation.

I think the one thing that attracts Catholics to sterilization above other methods of contraception is that it is a one and then done kind of deal. You can get a vasectomy confess the very same day, and then be done with it. Other methods require living with a guilty conscience.

Well, yeah, of course there will be people who won’t regret doing it. I know many who have had it done and don’t regret it. But some people might mourn over that loss and feel very sorry that they did it.

It’s not that other methods require living with a guilty conscience…it’s that other methods aren’t permanent, and whenever the teaching clicks or when they’ve acceptved the theaching, when they’re ready to have another child, they can stop taking it. Whereas, it’s unlikely (and not required) to have sterilization reversed.

 

[sw85]

Homo acts are wrong because it just isn’t right. I don’t know. Thinking of 2 men together or 2 women together makes my stomach go upsidedown. God make Adam and Eve…not Adam and Steve.

But why it isn’t right? Why do you feel, intuitively, that it’s wrong?

There’s an easy answer. It’s wrong because it subverts the procreative nature of the sexual act.

As does contraception, sterilization, masturbation, coitus interruptus, exclusively anal or oral sex, etc. etc. etc.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Contrition does not need per se to have “emotion” involved. But it does need to have repentance.

What does that mean? What kind of feelings or act of the will is required?

A Catholic who “gets a vasectomy and confesses the same day” without repentance…is not receiving the sacrament …not receiving absolution. Anymore than a man who does not decide to marry a woman …does not consent…is marrying…

and what if they have repentance or are completely ignorant of what is required? I have quite a few members of my family who have done this, even a few who’ve done this with the counsel of a priest. Is this something they should know about, or are they saved by their ignorance?

We keep on waffling back and forth it seems to me.

 

[Rence]

But why it isn’t right? Why do you feel, intuitively, that it’s wrong?

There’s an easy answer. It’s wrong because it subverts the procreative nature of the sexual act.

As does contraception, sterilization, masturbation, coitus interruptus, exclusively anal or oral sex, etc. etc. etc.

Well, I can’t speak for Joc, but I can speak for myself. While I obey the rules of the Church (have to add that disclaimer you know) I have no problem with your list, including contraception. But homosexuality is different because there is never any potential for life. Whereas with contraception, there still is. With coitus interruptus, there still is. Even with sterilization, there have been incidents which have only proven…that there still is.

In fact, I can’t even process why contraception or coitus interruptus is forbidden by the Church even though I have read their rationale.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Well, yeah, of course there will be people who won’t regret doing it. I know many who have had it done and don’t regret it. But some people might mourn over that loss and feel very sorry that they did it.

It’s not that other methods require living with a guilty conscience…it’s that other methods aren’t permanent, and whenever the teaching clicks or when they’ve acceptved the theaching, when they’re ready to have another child, they can stop taking it. Whereas, it’s unlikely (and not required) to have sterilization reversed.

Well the permanence is presumably why you would choose sterilization over other methods. If you use a condom and then confess you still have to worry about your contraception, but if you are sterilized and confess you are set for life. How sneaky. If you can’t be good, you might as well be good at it I suppose.

 

[formerlysure]

After 5 years of infertility treatment, many years of treatment for endometriosis, a tubal pregnancy which was terminated surgically, and 6 miscarriages, I had a hysterectomy. I was told that this was a sinful decision on my part. I had also taken shots for two cycles to control the endometriosis which had a contraceptive effect as they put me into a medically induced state of menopause. The idea was to stop the endometriosis for a few months to preserve and repair my fertility, so that afterward I might be able to have a successful pregnancy.

I have never been clear on any of the medical procedures I submitted to during that time in my life. For example, tubal pregnancies are not viable and if left alone, the mother dies. What is the Church position on this? Die? Same with incomplete miscarriages - the mother will die of infection if I D&C is not performed to remove the deceased fetus. Is it considered an abortion if the fetus has already perished? And what of efforts to preserve fertility - if a particular treatment has a contraceptive effect, such as if a woman with polycystic ovaries takes birth control to get on a regular cycle and protect her health, is that considered sinful? What of taking medication that puts a woman in a forced state of menopause to correct infertility - her intention is to be able to accept a pregnancy. Is that ok?

Where I run into difficulty is those areas in which the mother’s life is in balance and there is no choice that is not viewed as sinful. If I have a child for whom I’m responsible, is it truly a sin to do what is required to preserve my life and care for that child?

 

[joclucsylv]

But why it isn’t right? Why do you feel, intuitively, that it’s wrong?

There’s an easy answer. It’s wrong because it subverts the procreative nature of the sexual act.

As does contraception, sterilization, masturbation, coitus interruptus, exclusively anal or oral sex, etc. etc. etc.

Ahhhh…but oral and anal sex are ok as long as the act is completed in the vagina.

Now as I reread your post I see that you said exclusively anal or oral sex.

 

[joclucsylv]

Well, I can’t speak for Joc, but I can speak for myself. While I obey the rules of the Church (have to add that disclaimer you know) I have no problem with your list, including contraception. But homosexuality is different because there is never any potential for life. Whereas with contraception, there still is. With coitus interruptus, there still is. Even with sterilization, there have been incidents which have only proven…that there still is.

In fact, I can’t even process why contraception or coitus interruptus is forbidden by the Church even though I have read their rationale.

 

[1ke]

But homosexuality is different because there is never any potential for life.

This is a poor understanding of what the Church teaches.

Again: each act must be per se ordered to unity and procreation. Contraception is a deliberate action that disorders the act.

Whereas with contraception, there still is. With coitus interruptus, there still is. Even with sterilization, there have been incidents which have only proven…that there still is.

This is called proportionality and is a false teaching. The Church has condemned it.

 

[1ke]

Think for yourself joclucsylv. Rence is incorrect.

Try again.

Give me a well-reasoned argument as to why some acts are moral when they deliberately separate the unitive and procreative and others are not.

 

[joclucsylv]

Now 1ke…what if at some point down the road the church decides contraception is ok. What will you think then. It’s a hypothetical question I know, but I am curious.

 

[ddarko]

Yes, that’s what I am saying. On what grounds do you say is it not OK?

The proper use of our generative faculties is a marital act that is ordered to unity and procreation. From that flows the disordered nature of homosexual sex acts.

But, since you reject this teaching of the Church, on what basis do you say homosexual sex acts are wrong?

I think you are going down a dangerous argument here and also possibly fallacious.

Even if what you say is true, i.e. Homosexual acts cannot no longer be shown to be disordered on the point of pro-creation if ABC’s are ok, to argue that therefore it is wrong to say ABC is wrong is a slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality might still be wrong based on some other reason which has nothing to do with contraception.

So going back to the ABC question, ABC’s are wrong because the spouses cannot express themselves completely and they do not accept each other completely if they use contraception (i.e. they deny the fertility of the other spouse). Thus it is not a loving act and hence immoral.

Same goes for homosexuality. The person cannot express themselves fully in a homosexual relationship. The fertility of the other person is always rejected intrinsically in the same sex act. Thus it is not an act of love and therefore immoral.

So if one denies the premise that the proper sexual act has to be a mutual gift to each other, and adheres to perhaps a utilitarian view, then both contraception and homosexual acts could be argued to be ok. But such a utilitarian view is incompatible with Christ’s teachings.

God Bless

 

[Rence]

This is a poor understanding of what the Church teaches

Again: each act must be per se ordered to unity and procreation. Contraception is a deliberate action that disorders the act.

This is called proportionality and is a false teaching. The Church has condemned it.

In the post you’re quoting, I didn’t say what the Church teaches. At all. I answered, “why do you FEEL…”. What I feel or believe or think, has nothing to do with what the Church teaches. It’s just my opinion.

 

[Bookcat]

What does that mean? What kind of feelings or act of the will is required?

and what if they have repentance or are completely ignorant of what is required? I have quite a few members of my family who have done this, even a few who’ve done this with the counsel of a priest. Is this something they should know about, or are they saved by their ignorance?

We keep on waffling back and forth it seems to me.

Will.…feelings do not always follow what we would like them to…they are not required. But one does need to authentically repent…see the CCC …where it notes that part of contrition is “despising” the sin that was committed…

I person could…by the grace of God have repentance so quickly…even in such a pre-meditated act such as that…such is possible. But there is good reason to doubt that they will…and a person making such a decision hoping to have the the needed repentance is putting their soul in grave grave jeopardy…and adding other sin perhaps as well…

The action of the priest was one of grave scandal…and something that can be reported to his bishop…such should never be counseled…the Church is very clear on that. Such a Priest should not be gone to for advice and the persons involved should repent and go to another Priest and confess…

(and as noted it likely should be reported to their bishop (but I would of course not be spreading such…for that would be detraction…but the bishop I would think needs to know).

 

[joclucsylv]

Think for yourself joclucsylv. Rence is incorrect.

Try again.

Give me a well-reasoned argument as to why some acts are moral when they deliberately separate the unitive and procreative and others are not.

With NFP one is not being procreative!!! If one wanted to be procreative, they wouldn’t use NFP or ABC. I know we are going around in circles but that’s how I see it at the moment. I can’t wrap my brain around it.

 

[1ke]

After 5 years of infertility treatment, many years of treatment for endometriosis, a tubal pregnancy which was terminated surgically, and 6 miscarriages, I had a hysterectomy. I was told that this was a sinful decision on my part.

If your uterus was diseased and needed to be removed, you did nothing wrong.

For example, tubal pregnancies are not viable and if left alone, the mother dies. What is the Church position on this? Die?

This is a separate topic. There are two options for a tubal pregancy, one moral and one not. Under the principle of double effect it is morally licit to treat the mother’s diseased condition by removing the infected tube even though it is foreseeable that the child cannot continue to live outside the mother’s body. Taking a chemical to kill the child is not moral.

Same with incomplete miscarriages - the mother will die of infection if I D&C is not performed to remove the deceased fetus. Is it considered an abortion if the fetus has already perished?

Why would it be?

And what of efforts to preserve fertility - if a particular treatment has a contraceptive effect, such as if a woman with polycystic ovaries takes birth control to get on a regular cycle and protect her health, is that considered sinful? What of taking medication that puts a woman in a forced state of menopause to correct infertility - her intention is to be able to accept a pregnancy. Is that ok?

From Humanae Vitae:

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Where I run into difficulty is those areas in which the mother’s life is in balance and there is no choice that is not viewed as sinful. If I have a child for whom I’m responsible, is it truly a sin to do what is required to preserve my life and care for that child?

The Church does not require you to do anything immoral to preserve life. You can choose a moral means of doing so.