Sterilization Hypothetical

[Prodigal_Son]

…all I am doing is steering my wife away from the pill or IUDs and making clear I can’t use male condoms.

On a lighter note…how can you tell if a condom is male or female? Does this become clear when it is eek naked?

 

[Corki]

I suspect they have, but if he were to simply say “No birth control” than he would be being no less unilateral than her in her “Yes birth control” stance. And is NFP written into marriage vows now?

I just knew you were going to misinterpret that! NFP, of course is not written into marriage vows (but being open to children is). But what I meant was, you are not “acting unilaterally” if you are continuing with the promises made when you first got married.

 

[newbetx]

I haven’t abandoned the teaching of the church. As for my feelings about church, following JC has nothing to do with feelings so I am safe. I am not deciding to use some method of ABC, that decision is already made, all I am doing is steering my wife away from the pill or IUDs and making clear I can’t use male condoms.

Looking at everything rationally sterilization seems to be the best option. Cutting off marital relations has been suggested but that just doesn’t seem realistic at all. Has anyone ever actually done that? Do you just put a heavy lock on your door and carry around a big stick during the day? The only way that would work is if I move out the house and carry some pepper spray when I am around my wife. I can’t imagine it would be good for our kids growing up with separated parents.

Not having sex at all is easier over time than having it a couple of times a month. My experience, anyway.

For you, I have no real advice except the statement “The Church is patient.” You’ve obviously been blessed with good fertility and it’s kinda scary for her. Prior to the widespread use of contraceptives, what did men do? Gave it up, I presume until a time when the chances of conception go down.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not having sex at all is easier over time than having it a couple of times a month. My experience, anyway.

For you, I have no real advice except the statement “The Church is patient.” You’ve obviously been blessed with good fertility and it’s kinda scary for her. Prior to the widespread use of contraceptives, what did men do? Gave it up, I presume until a time when the chances of conception go down.

Or they rejoiced that they were blessed with many children! It is a *very *modern thing to see children as a burden, and – if you follow the full lifecycle – it is very untrue that children are a burden.

For ages, man begged that his children would survive, as many as possible, against all odds, and live to praise him.

Now, man begs that his children will be averted, as painlessly as possible, against all reason, and society declares him “normal”. I wish we felt it acceptable not to be normal!

 

[tjm190]

I just knew you were going to misinterpret that! NFP, of course is not written into marriage vows (but being open to children is). But what I meant was, you are not “acting unilaterally” if you are continuing with the promises made when you first got married.

… and you happen to know what promises they made to each other?

 

[kage_ar]

… and you happen to know what promises they made to each other?

If the couple was married in the Church, they promised to lovingly accept children from God.

 

[Corki]

… and you happen to know what promises they made to each other?

Af course, not. That’s why my statement started with

For all the information given …

But you realize that if one spouse enters a marriage with the intent to use contraception that could be seen as an action arguing against the Sacremental validity of the marriage. All marriages are presumed valid unless shown to be otherwise so we, as outsiders, should charitably presume that the couple did not enter the Sacrament with a contraceptive mentality.

 

[tjm190]

Af course, not. That’s why my statement started with

But you realize that if one spouse enters a marriage with the intent to use contraception that could be seen as an action arguing against the Sacremental validity of the marriage. All marriages are presumed valid unless shown to be otherwise so we, as outsiders, should charitably presume that the couple did not enter the Sacrament with a contraceptive mentality.

Ahhh, I got my threads confused. I thought the wife was a protestant.

 

[newbetx]

Or they rejoiced that they were blessed with many children! It is a *very *modern thing to see children as a burden, and – if you follow the full lifecycle – it is very untrue that children are a burden.

For ages, man begged that his children would survive, as many as possible, against all odds, and live to praise him.

Now, man begs that his children will be averted, as painlessly as possible, against all reason, and society declares him “normal”. I wish we felt it acceptable not to be normal!

I didn’t imply that they thought of them as a burden. Nor should anyone imply that the OP thinks so, either. The just reasons for limiting the size or spacing of a family were just as valid then, as today.

 

[BPW75]

Ok, the quote below is from another thread I was reading and nobody here has mentioned it, so I would like to get the opinion of Catholics on the validity of the argument. Is there a “morally correct level” of children, beyond which alternatives to NFP are allowable? Another post in that same thread listed the most ethically acceptable means of contraception from NFP on down. The sixth and last entry was, “female sterilisation. - least ethical but still sometimes justifiable.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213840

Children are a blessing from God. However, it is a common misunderstanding of Catholic moral theology that couples must keep having children, so long as they are able. While they certainly may continue having more children, no couple is obliged to have more children beyond what the Church describes as the “morally correct level.” It is the couple’s responsibility to discern what the “morally correct level” is, taking into account the good of the family, state of health and means of the couple, the good of society, the good of the Church, and the good of mankind.

“Just” or worthy reasons are require if the couple seeks to use NFP to limit the number of their children below the morally correct level.

According to John Paul II:

See the 8th post in the thread I linked to if it doesn’t display properly. I think the quote from the Pope didn’t convey.

 

[BPW75]

Here is the quote from John Paul II:

"The use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.
[John Paul II, General Audience address, 5 September 1984] "

 

[s4angel]

Dear op,

My Grandmother (god rest her soul) was a nurse and a very devout catholic. She used NfP for almost 50 years and it was 100 percent effective for her. She taught me from a very young age how not to get pregnant. It has never let me down except for the times I didn’t stop to think about where I was in my cycle.

as for sterilization I can tell you from experiance that you will come to regret this with all your heart even if you do not choose or want to have more kids in the future it still effects you. Being close to God is all that matters and doing something on purpose that seperates oneself from him is agony and then the knowledge that you pre planned it to go to confession afterward .

I don’t know how better to put this except the one thing that my dad used to tell me when I would get into trouble as a kid and appologise he would say be sorry before you do it, meaning If you are sorry before you do it then don’t do it.

 

[kage_ar]

Ok, the quote below is from another thread I was reading and nobody here has mentioned it, so I would like to get the opinion of Catholics on the validity of the argument. Is there a “morally correct level” of children, beyond which alternatives to NFP are allowable? Another post in that same thread listed the most ethically acceptable means of contraception from NFP on down. The sixth and last entry was, “female sterilisation. - least ethical but still sometimes justifiable.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213840

See the 8th post in the thread I linked to if it doesn’t display properly. I think the quote from the Pope didn’t convey.

That is a post by someone who does NOT believe in the Church teachings, they hold anti-Catholic opinions on many teachings.

 

[BPW75]

That is a post by someone who does NOT believe in the Church teachings, they hold anti-Catholic opinions on many teachings.

You said nothing about the quote from John Paul II’s reference to a “morally correct level”. Can someone please address the substance of the post and not the person?

 

[kage_ar]

Here is the quote from John Paul II:

"The use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.
[John Paul II, General Audience address, 5 September 1984] "

Sure.

The morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.

Exactly what he said

 

[Corki]

You said nothing about the quote from John Paul II’s reference to a “morally correct level”. Can someone please address the substance of the post and not the person?

Note the link between his phrases “morally correct level” and “unworthy reasons”. There is no single morally correct level for all Catholic families, even in the same circumstances. If you use NFP (infertile periods) for selfish reasons you will almost assuredly have births below the morally correct level for your family.

I don’t think the Pope was speaking about children beyond the morally correct level but of couples not reaching the morally correct level at all. In this quote, that is. He certainly speaks of the question of children beyond what is responsible in other writings. The morally correct level is a minimum, not a maximum. For some couples that morally correct level might be zero (ie infertile couples); for others it might be a dozen.

 

[newbetx]

While it may be a bit off topic, here is the other thread on the subject…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213887

But that is way off topic. We’re not here to judge the number of children the OP currently or plans to have.

 

[BPW75]

Note the link between his phrases “morally correct level” and “unworthy reasons”. There is no single morally correct level for all Catholic families, even in the same circumstances. If you use NFP (infertile periods) for selfish reasons you will almost assuredly have births below the morally correct level for your family.

I don’t think the Pope was speaking about children beyond the morally correct level but of couples not reaching the morally correct level at all. In this quote, that is. He certainly speaks of the question of children beyond what is responsible in other writings. The morally correct level is a minimum, not a maximum. For some couples that morally correct level might be zero (ie infertile couples); for others it might be a dozen.

I agree that the morally correct level is a minimum. However, the inference seems to be that once the morally correct level has been achieved, you don’t need a “worthy” reason to avoid pregnancy. And what qualifies a worthy or unworthy reason?

After reading the actual link to the Pope’s article, clearly he is not allowing for methods other than NFP, which answers part of my question. However, as I mentioned, there was another post in that thread that listed the ethically acceptable birth control methods from NFP, to condoms, on down to less acceptable methods such as sterilization, which was said to be “sometimes justifiable”. Is this true?

 

[BPW75]

Sure.

The morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.

Exactly what he said

Ok, so you attacked the person whom I quoted as having a history of not holding to Church teachings, and then went on to agree with what he said. Am I missing something, or did you have a change of heart? What exactly did he say that you disagree with?

 

[kage_ar]

Ok, so you attacked the person whom I quoted as having a history of not holding to Church teachings, and then went on to agree with what he said. Am I missing something, or did you have a change of heart? What exactly did he say that you disagree with?

No, I agree with our beloved John Paul II.

I disagree with Budgie2 who said that some forms of sin are more ethical than others, a poster who says things against Church teaching.