Sterilization followed by confession?

[1ke]

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.

Look at the act itself.

Each act of intercourse must be: ordered to

Let’s stop there.

What does it mean to be ordered to something?

 

[joclucsylv]

Look at the act itself.

Each act of intercourse must be: ordered to

Let’s stop there.

What does it mean to be ordered to something?

I don’t know!!! Like I said I consider myself to be a smart girl, but all the jargon throws me for a loop!! If you are ordered to it means you have to do it??? Blah…I feel dumb!

 

[1ke]

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.

But it’s not. The Church teaches they are wrong for the same reason.

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.

The Church teaches these are both offenses against Chastity under the Sixth Commandment because the proper use of our generative faculties is per se ordered to unity and procreation.

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.

homosexuals argue all the time that their sex acts are a mutual gift and loving.

Again, go back to what the Church teaches regarding proper use of our generative faculties.

 

[ddarko]

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.

In practicing NFP, there is no reservation in the time of the sexual act.

At the time of the sexual act, the two spouses still present each other completely and accept each others fertility or infertility at that given time. Being infertile for a period is also part of your spouse which must be accepted. So it is still a loving act.

The difference in ABC is that it tries to not accept the spouses fertility at the times of the sexual act. Therefore it is not a loving act.

You have to understand the sexual act in terms of complete giving of each other.

God Bless

 

[sw85]

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.

It is not a question of whether or not coitus interruptus or contraception are effective in some cases or in this or that circumstance. It is a question of principle.

If one gets pregnant practicing contraception or coitus interruptus it is because one did not practice them as they were intended, or because they failed in their purpose. Their purpose in principle is to prevent procreation.

And the purpose of the human sexual faculty is in principle to procreate – this is true whether or not an individual happens to be fertile at the moment or whether the couple is naturally fecund.

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.

Right. I don’t see a reason why these cannot be preludes to traditional intercourse (well, oral sex anyway – the other thing’s just nasty!). But they cannot morally act as substitutes for it.

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.

NFP is *inherently *procreative.

Again, natural law is concerned with principle, not circumstance.

Is it wrong for me to say “cats are four-legged”? Obviously not all cats are: some have only three, whether due to illness, injury, or congenital defect. But it is OK to say it because I am understood to be saying that in principle cats have four legs. That is, to be four-legged and a cat is a norm arising from nature.

Likewise with sex. Penis + vagina + ejaculation is procreative in principle, whether or not the woman happens to be fertile at that particular point or whether she is capable of reproduction at all.

If we followed your logic through to its logical conclusion, it would necessitate forbidding the elderly and the infertile from marriage and, indeed, all sexual acts. That it would be insane and we all know it.

What matters is whether or not the sexual act is in principle capable of procreating. Contraception subverts that principle: if it fails to do so in a particular case, it is only because it failed to instantiate its purpose.

 

[Rence]

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.

According to the Church, it is not sinful to remove a diseased/damaged uterus. It is only sinful to remove a uterus to prevent pregnancies…which doesn’t usually happen. Usually, in order to prevent pregnancies, a tubal ligation is done, not a hysterectomy. Who told you it was sinful to remove your uterus and under what grounds?

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?

Once a diagnosis of tubal pregnancy is confirmed, the Church allows for removal of the damaged tube. The primary intervention targets the tube. The fact that there is a fetus in it is an unfortunate secondary situation. The Church does NOT allow the use of methotrexate to treat tubal pregnancy though, because the action is directly on the fetus itself, which is a direct abortion, and is forbidden by the Church. But no, the Church does not expect the woman to die. She is allowed medical intervention in an emergency and tubal pregnancies are emergency situtations.

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?

No, once a fetus is deceased, it is deceased. What the Church forbids is removing a live fetus, which is an abortion.

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?

The Church allows artificial birth control to treat medical conditions, even if the end event leads to her not being able to conceive. That’s in humanae vitae.

The Church allows fertility treatments, but not invitro fertilization because there is no untive property (the physical joining of the couple). In order for conception to be licit, the unitive properties must be present.

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 requires that both the woman and the fetus must be treated equally, and must be considered equally. They require the medical actions be geared to saving both. If the fetus is lost unintentionally/as a side effect, as a result of a treatment given to the mother, it is still acceptable. For example, in your tubal pregnancy example, the treatment is done on the mother (removal of the damaged tube), which is acceptable by the Church because the intervention targets the diseased/damaged organ, and not the fetus.

 

[Rence]

It is not a question of whether or not coitus interruptus or contraception are effective in some cases or in this or that circumstance. It is a question of principle.

If one gets pregnant practicing contraception or coitus interruptus it is because one did not practice them as they were intended, or because they failed in their purpose. Their purpose in principle is to prevent procreation.

And the purpose of the human sexual faculty is in principle to procreate – this is true whether or not an individual happens to be fertile at the moment or whether the couple is naturally fecund.

You must have missed my post where I explained that those were my opinions. I know what the Church teaches. An opinion was ask for, not a teaching, in the post I answered.

 

[sw85]

I don’t know!!! Like I said I consider myself to be a smart girl, but all the jargon throws me for a loop!! If you are ordered to it means you have to do it??? Blah…I feel dumb!

Don’t feel dumb. This is all difficult stuff to grasp, I know. Much of this terminology comes from classical philosophy, so of course it can be challenging.

To be ordered toward something means to point toward something. For instance, my eyes are capable of sight; therefore, my eyes are ordered toward the purpose of vision.

It does not mean I have to see all the time. Obviously, I can close my eyes when I sleep. But it means that I should not act in a manner contrary to their purpose, for instance, by jabbing my eyes out with a fork.

Likewise with the human sexual faculty. Everything about our sexual nature is ordered toward procreation: our sexual configuration; our feelings of intense, passionate romantic attachment; and so on. We don’t need to act exactly according to this essence all the time (that is, you don’t need to get pregnant every time you have sex); but you must never act in a manner that is explicitly contrary to that purpose. That means you cannot attempt to subvert procreation by means of contraception, masturbation, withdrawal, coitus interruptus, etc.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[sw85]

You must have missed my post where I explained that those were my opinions. I know what the Church teaches. An opinion was ask for, not a teaching, in the post I answered.

I guess I did; my apologies!

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?

If it was medically necessary for you to have your uterus removed then there is no sin in it. The sexual faculties are important but they are naturally subordinate to your right to life; if they conflict with your right to life than they must give away.

What is important here, as with every action, is will. Did you have a hysterectomy because you willed that your life should be spared? If so, then it is good. If you had one because you willed that you would have no more children, then that is sin – a subversion of the procreative capacity of your sexual faculty.

My understanding is that even abortion is acceptable when it is necessary to save the mother’s life, if she chooses to prioritize hers over her child’s.

 

[ddarko]

But it’s not. The Church teaches they are wrong for the same reason.

The church teaches that they are both immoral. The reasoning behind why they are immoral need not be infallible.

You said it yourself. One gives assent to the teachings of the church. Not necessarily to the reasoning behind it unless the premises behind the reasoning are also a teaching.

The Church teaches these are both offenses against Chastity under the Sixth Commandment because the proper use of our generative faculties is per se ordered to unity and procreation.

I think this merely a philosophical difference. I think we are both essentially saying the same thing. Yours stems from the proper use of generative faculties while mine stems from the philosophy of love.

Btw, thats another good example why there can be many reasons why something is immoral.

homosexuals argue all the time that their sex acts are a mutual gift and loving.

Well its not. Its rejecting the other spouses fertility.

Again, go back to what the Church teaches regarding proper use of our generative faculties.

As I said before, this is just a difference in our philosophical methodology. I accept the teachings of the church. I have no problem with you viewing the problem as a violation of the proper ends of the generative faculties but that is not the only possible way of seeing why such acts are disordered.

God Bless

 

[1ke]

I don’t know!!! Like I said I consider myself to be a smart girl, but all the jargon throws me for a loop!! If you are ordered to it means you have to do it??? Blah…I feel dumb!

Oh, sorry! Are we both speaking English!? Blech, English is so imprecise!!!

Not *ordered to *as in “commanded.”

Ordered to as in a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose.

So, if I am facing the sunset I am ordered to the west. Fish are *ordered to *water.

I order my will to God. When I sin, I order it away from God. I commit a disorderd act.

 

[crazzeto]

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…

Yes aboslutly, with out repentance then we are going through the motions of the works of the law as it were, and we should well understand this doesn’t save. There must be true repentance, the penitent must fully understand that they were in the wrong objectivly, and seek reconciliation with God. With out this, then one attempts to lower the sacrament to the status of mere “fire insurance”, this is not good.

If one wants, they can debate the emotional side till your blue in the face. But what one can not deny, is that reconciliation simply doesn’t work in the manner described by the poster you replied too bookcat. There must must must be true repentance of any form.

 

[1ke]

And SW’s example of the eye is much better than mine.

 

[LaSainte]

OMgosh!! That is gross lol!!

But as Ike was quick to point out, if you masturbate or if your husband ejaculates outside of your vagina, you might as well be having sex with a goat. And as PR Merger pointed out it has to be a consenting goat, otherwise it’s just sick.

 

[Little_One0307]

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.

This has been stated time and time again in this post. The Church will never change her stance in regards to Contraception. This scenario will never happen. The Church has taught from its inception that it is wrong. The Teaching of the Catholic Church is held to be withtout error and will never be in error.

So pursuing an answer to this question is moot.

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

If a person disagrees fundamentally with Church teaching on contraception, to the point where after YEARS of prayer and study, honestly believes the Church to be in error on this, believes that God does not have a problem with contraception, etc., and decides to become sterilized, what happens?

If this person decided to get sterilized and then confess to the priest that although they are sorry to have gone against the Church, they do not believe that what they did was a grave sin and are happy with the outcome, and also confesses the sin of presumption (since they intended to be sterilized and confess it all along), would they be able to be absolved and start receiving communion again?

This is not a debate about contraception.

To All,

You know I went back to the orginal post. And you know what sentence that stands out to me the most? The one bolded and made red. Funny but that is what this thread has degenerated into, a debate about contraception, and started by none other than the OP.

God bless.

 

[Corki]

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.

You are mixing up procreative and fecudity. Procreative means doing the act as it was intended without anything getting in the way of your God given fertilty. That fertility is what it is on any given day. NFP fulfills that condition. ABC does not.

Being procreative doesn’t enter the picture at all on a day when you aren’t having sex.

Fecundity is related to conception. Using either ABC or NFP does not lead to fecundity. But then neither does “honey, I have a headache” on a day you are fertile or husband is off fighting a war. We are not required to have sexual relations in a manner that is fecund, only in a manner that is procreative.

I know, more terminology. Sorry.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

But as Ike was quick to point out, if you masturbate or if your husband ejaculates outside of your vagina, you might as well be having sex with a goat. And as PR Merger pointed out it has to be a consenting goat, otherwise it’s just sick.

you’re baaaaaaaaad

 

[Corki]

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.

I’m not 1ke but are you asking what will someone think or what would someone do?

If somehow the Church flipped on her position on Contraception (say an anti-pope had the Chair of Peter), it would mean that all the Church has taught about marriage would be optional. The Church can’t say that contraception is “ok” without also permitting homosexual unions, polygamy, incest (consensual), artificial insemination, cloning and abortion because those teachings are all tied together into a whole teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage.

If such a thing happened, I would be looking for the remnant.

This has been stated time and time again in this post. The Church will never change her stance in regards to Contraception. This scenario will never happen. The Church has taught from its inception that it is wrong. The Teaching of the Catholic Church is held to be withtout error and will never be in error.

So pursuing an answer to this question is moot.

God bless.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I haven’t read much of this thread, so this question may have been answered, but I’m curious:

Let’s say a man (unbaptized, always and currently a non-theist) had a few children with his wife, then decided to get a vasectomy. Some years later, he converts to Catholicism. What of his vasectomy? What must be done to live right at that point?