Sterilized Convert

[sergius89]

I am in a debate with my wife’s aunt concerning the Church’s stance on sterilization. Both my wife’s aunt and uncle converted to the Catholic faith later in life. Before he converted my wife’s uncle had a vasectomey. The aunt is of the belief that she and her husband can consumate the marriage act with no adverse consequences. That since the sterilization occurred before their conversion they basically are grandfathered in and able to have sex without the ability to procreate and it not be a sin. My standpoint is that because they are now Catholic this is a sinful act because of the uncle’s sterilization. It is my understanding that since they have willingly removed the ability to procreate from the act, not because of natural factors, this is an immoral act, even though it is between husband and wife. Please let me know your thoughts.

 

[agapewolf]

I am in a debate with my wife’s aunt concerning the Church’s stance on sterilization. Both my wife’s aunt and uncle converted to the Catholic faith later in life. Before he converted my wife’s uncle had a vasectomey. The aunt is of the belief that she and her husband can consumate the marriage act with no adverse consequences. That since the sterilization occurred before their conversion they basically are grandfathered in and able to have sex without the ability to procreate and it not be a sin. My standpoint is that because they are now Catholic this is a sinful act because of the uncle’s sterilization. It is my understanding that since they have willingly removed the ability to procreate from the act, not because of natural factors, this is an immoral act, even though it is between husband and wife. Please let me know your thoughts.

The immoral action was the sterilization. If this has been confessed and repented from, there is no need to abstain from the marital act.

 

[manualman]

It’s important to avoid legalism and excessive focus on externals in issues like this.

Catholic teaching on human sexuality is that marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are all facets of ONE jewel, not individual goods that can be separated. What happens if you try to remove just one facet from a jewel? The whole jewel is badly damaged.

Contraception/sterilization is sinful not just arbitrarily (it’s on the list!), but because it alters the very meaning of the sexual union of the couple. When a couple INTENTIONALLY defeats their natural fertility in order to indulge in sexual intimacy without babies resulting, it’s not really intimacy anymore. Their intention changes the very essence of the contact and the damage is cumulative over time. The trajectory contraception causes is an attitude towards sex that is selfish instead of giving.

Now to your questions. People who chose sterilization have sinned because they have taken a permanent action/intention to forever divorce their sexual intimacy from babies. But the ACTION can be repented of and forgiven in confession. If that confession actually includes genuine repentance for the sterilization, then they are absolved and can have relations normally. They will forever need to actively work hard to avoid having their sexual intimacy becoming one of mutual selfishness instead of mutual giving, but once the INTENTION to contracept is removed, that outcome is no longer certain. Some people find that they need to reverse the vasectomy to restore the selflessness regulator God built into human sexuality, but the Church does not teach that this is morally required in all cases.

The short answer is NO, they are not required to abstain or reverse the procedure, but they ARE required to repent of it and genuinely seek ways to mitigate the ongoing damage that action will otherwise have in their marriage. But a “We’re grandfathered” attitude MIGHT indicate a mindset that really doesn’t regret the sterilization, but continues to value it. That ain’t repentance. Don’t assume they have this mindset, you aren’t their judge, but if they are interested in the topic you can certainly suggest that they consider the issue and pray about it. That’s the key here. You are NOT going to argue them into repentance. Get that straight right now. The best you can do is to witness, not browbeat.

 

[PaulGH]

The immoral action was the sterilization. If this has been confessed and repented from, there is no need to abstain from the marital act.

This is the right answer. The sin was in the past. The fact that the consequences of the sin are still present is sad and unfortunate, but it is not an impediment to consumating the marriage. Also, the uncle could opt to have the sterilization reversed. This would be a good thing to do, if it can be done without undue risk. But he is not *obligated *to have it reversed.

Also, confession of the sin may not even be necessary, if the person who committed the sin was baptized later, after the sterilization occurred, because baptism washes away our past sins. You mentioned that your wife’s uncle converted, but I wasn’t sure if he converted from Protestantism (in which case he likely was baptized long before the sterilization), or from some non-Christian background (in which case he probably would have been baptized upon entering the Catholic Church).

 

[EasterJoy]

The immoral action was the sterilization. If this has been confessed and repented from, there is no need to abstain from the marital act.

Yes. Even if they had been Catholic at the time of the sterilization, life-long abstinence would not be required. It would be a serious sin, however (the sin of presumption), to have sterilization done with the prior attitude of “oh, we can just confess later, and have our cake and eat it, too.” That is an additional and even more serious sin from which to repent, because it is a sin based on a fundamental hardness of heart.

 

[sergius89]

Thank you for the explanations, they have been very helpful. Let me change the facts. Let’s say that a cradle Catholic gets sterilized while in a recognized Catholic marriage. It would seem to me that baring some obscure health reason the only reason to become sterilized is to prevent conception. If the Catholic proceeds in this way can they ever truly repent for this sin. If this individual’s sole motivation is to prevent conception, nothing else, how can this person be truly penitent. It seems to me that this would be a lasting stain on the persons soul.

 

[Corki]

Thank you for the explanations, they have been very helpful. Let me change the facts. Let’s say that a cradle Catholic gets sterilized while in a recognized Catholic marriage. It would seem to me that baring some obscure health reason the only reason to become sterilized is to prevent conception. If the Catholic proceeds in this way can they ever truly repent for this sin. If this individual’s sole motivation is to prevent conception, nothing else, how can this person be truly penitent. It seems to me that this would be a lasting stain on the persons soul.

If the Catholic party (and his/her spouse if involved in the decision) have contrition and receive Sacramental absolution, they are absolved - period. You can’t judge someone’s contrition from outside the confessional - only the priest can do that and if he feels they are contrite, they are absolved.

If the person lied in the Confessional, that’s another story but sterilization is not an unforgivable sin regardless of what the motivation was at the time the sin was committed.

 

[PaulGH]

Thank you for the explanations, they have been very helpful. Let me change the facts. Let’s say that a cradle Catholic gets sterilized while in a recognized Catholic marriage. It would seem to me that baring some obscure health reason the only reason to become sterilized is to prevent conception. If the Catholic proceeds in this way can they ever truly repent for this sin. If this individual’s sole motivation is to prevent conception, nothing else, how can this person be truly penitent. It seems to me that this would be a lasting stain on the persons soul.

There is no sin so great that God will not forgive us if we truly repent. It is certainly possible that a cradle Catholic could be sterilized, even knowing that it is wrong, and then later come to a true repentance for the sterilization. However, please note the very important point that EasterJoy made about the sin of presumption.

 

[Gwendolen]

I am in a debate with my wife’s aunt concerning the Church’s stance on sterilization. Both my wife’s aunt and uncle converted to the Catholic faith later in life. Before he converted my wife’s uncle had a vasectomey. The aunt is of the belief that she and her husband can consumate the marriage act with no adverse consequences. That since the sterilization occurred before their conversion they basically are grandfathered in and able to have sex without the ability to procreate and it not be a sin. My standpoint is that because they are now Catholic this is a sinful act because of the uncle’s sterilization. It is my understanding that since they have willingly removed the ability to procreate from the act, not because of natural factors, this is an immoral act, even though it is between husband and wife. Please let me know your thoughts.

I can’t speak to cradle Catholics, but this is the exact situation my husband and I were in. I will share the pastoral advice we received.

1. You cannot “accidentally” commit a mortal sin, or sin without realizing it. Since when the procedure was performed we (protestant) were not informed it was sinful, a mortal sin was not committed. We were advised by doctors ( a couple of them) not to have more children as another pregnancy would be a threat to my life, as well as the unborn child’s. We were making the best decision we could for our family at the time. He felt that as many Catholics struggle with contraception, he certainly wouldn’t expect a protestant couple to be observing Catholic theology on the matter.
2. Although our act was not “Catholic”, the clergy did appreciate that our motives were to preserve our marital intimacy, and he felt that our marital intimacy was important, even if we were unable to bear children from the marital act. He did not in any way pass judgement on us. He was extremely compassionate about the situation we found ourselves in.
3. He did not expect us to have the procedure reversed (expensive, and could have potential problems of its own) or stop having marital relations. He felt that ceasing marital relations was potentially far more damaging for us as a couple than having them without the ability to procreate (an ability we would loose completely in a few years anyway). He cared deeply about the state of our marriage, especially as my husband is not devout, or planning on converting and would not take kindly to being told we were ceasing relations.

So when this problem was taken to the church, the response was forgiveness, grace, empathy, and compassion, and a desire to have us “come home” to the church. He did make sure our marriage was a first marriage for both of us, so there would be no issues there. If we had faced what you were suggesting, to be honest, we would have run in the opposite direction.

 

[mountee]

I can’t speak to cradle Catholics, but this is the exact situation my husband and I were in. I will share the pastoral advice we received.

1. You cannot “accidentally” commit a mortal sin, or sin without realizing it. Since when the procedure was performed we (protestant) were not informed it was sinful, a mortal sin was not committed. We were advised by doctors ( a couple of them) not to have more children as another pregnancy would be a threat to my life, as well as the unborn child’s. We were making the best decision we could for our family at the time. He felt that as many Catholics struggle with contraception, he certainly wouldn’t expect a protestant couple to be observing Catholic theology on the matter.
2. Although our act was not “Catholic”, the clergy did appreciate that our motives were to preserve our marital intimacy, and he felt that our marital intimacy was important, even if we were unable to bear children from the marital act. He did not in any way pass judgement on us. He was extremely compassionate about the situation we found ourselves in.
3. He did not expect us to have the procedure reversed (expensive, and could have potential problems of its own) or stop having marital relations. He felt that ceasing marital relations was potentially far more damaging for us as a couple than having them without the ability to procreate (an ability we would loose completely in a few years anyway). He cared deeply about the state of our marriage, especially as my husband is not devout, or planning on converting and would not take kindly to being told we were ceasing relations.

So when this problem was taken to the church, the response was forgiveness, grace, empathy, and compassion, and a desire to have us “come home” to the church. He did make sure our marriage was a first marriage for both of us, so there would be no issues there. If we had faced what you were suggesting, to be honest, we would have run in the opposite direction.

Wonderful response. I completely agree.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is no sin so great that God will not forgive us if we truly repent. It is certainly possible that a cradle Catholic could be sterilized, even knowing that it is wrong, and then later come to a true repentance for the sterilization. However, please note the very important point that EasterJoy made about the sin of presumption.

Right. When one party has been sterilized, the married couple is not required to abstain from sexual relations thereafter as a condition of demonstrating repentance. They are in the situation of a couple who are (or believe themselves to be) sterile due to circumstances beyond their control. This is true of the repentant sinner, too, of course: the past is out of his control. Sometimes, too, people who believe themselves to be infertile find that doctors are sometimes mistaken.

 

[agapewolf]

Thank you for the explanations, they have been very helpful. Let me change the facts. Let’s say that a cradle Catholic gets sterilized while in a recognized Catholic marriage. It would seem to me that baring some obscure health reason the only reason to become sterilized is to prevent conception. If the Catholic proceeds in this way can they ever truly repent for this sin. If this individual’s sole motivation is to prevent conception, nothing else, how can this person be truly penitent. It seems to me that this would be a lasting stain on the persons soul.

This doesn’t change anything
the only lasting sin is one that isn’t repentant from of an action that continues to happen.

The consequences of sin can remain, that doesn’t mean the action continues. A sin has to be an actual choice/decision/action of some kind.

 

[dchezik]

It’s important to avoid legalism and excessive focus on externals in issues like this.

Catholic teaching on human sexuality is that marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are all facets of ONE jewel, not individual goods that can be separated. What happens if you try to remove just one facet from a jewel? The whole jewel is badly damaged.

[If a man is sterile through no voluntary act of his own, is it ok for him to have sex with his wife? Is this removing one facet from the jewel?]

Contraception/sterilization is sinful not just arbitrarily (it’s on the list!), but because it alters the very meaning of the sexual union of the couple.

[Is it ok for a woman to have sex with his husband if she is past menopause?]

When a couple INTENTIONALLY defeats their natural fertility in order to indulge in sexual intimacy without babies resulting, it’s not really intimacy anymore. Their intention changes the very essence of the contact and the damage is cumulative over time. The trajectory contraception causes is an attitude towards sex that is selfish instead of giving.

[Many women report more satisfying sex when they believe there is no chance of conception.]

Now to your questions. People who chose sterilization have sinned because they have taken a permanent action/intention to forever divorce their sexual intimacy from babies. But the ACTION can be repented of and forgiven in confession. If that confession actually includes genuine repentance for the sterilization, then they are absolved and can have relations normally. They will forever need to actively work hard to avoid having their sexual intimacy becoming one of mutual selfishness instead of mutual giving, but once the INTENTION to contracept is removed, that outcome is no longer certain. Some people find that they need to reverse the vasectomy to restore the selflessness regulator God built into human sexuality, but the Church does not teach that this is morally required in all cases.

[By whose authority do you make these dogmatic pronouncements? Did God reveal them to you personally? Are you the pope incognito? Shouldn’t you at least preface these statements with “In my opinion…”? I really believe you are promoting a harmful false doctrine in a dogmatic way.

I’m a psychologist and I advise that this couple go ahead and enjoy sex all they want! The intimacy is much more likely to bring them closer together. In fact, one legal reason to grant a divorce is the failure to engage in sexual relations.] .

 

[TrueLight]

Dchezik,

Please use the quote button on every section you mean to quote. I can’t separate your comments from the person you’re quoting.

 

[manualman]

Questions from dchezik

1. [If a man is sterile through no voluntary act of his own, is it ok for him to have sex with his wife? Is this removing one facet from the jewel?]
2. [Is it ok for a woman to have sex with his husband if she is past menopause?]
3. [Many women report more satisfying sex when they believe there is no chance of conception.]
4. [By whose authority do you make these dogmatic pronouncements? Did God reveal them to you personally? Are you the pope incognito? Shouldn’t you at least preface these statements with “In my opinion…”? I really believe you are promoting a harmful false doctrine in a dogmatic way. I’m a psychologist and I advise that this couple go ahead and enjoy sex all they want! The intimacy is much more likely to bring them closer together. In fact, one legal reason to grant a divorce is the failure to engage in sexual relations.]
5. Of course not. It is the INTENT that does the damage. No intent, no damage.
6. See #1 above. Same goes for those with hysterectomies, repentent couples who had tubes tied, etc…
7. Interesting statement. Is the purpose of sexual intimacy the immediate physical thrill or the long term bonding of the couple? In any event, I’ll admit to a rather small sample size, but my wife tells me that fertile sex is hands down the best. If the primary purpose is maximizes your jollies, then this may be an important point. But if ecstatic thrills are less important than long term intimacy than the point may be moot, eh?
8. Hardly! But I can read and comprehend what I read. What I wrote is 100% consistent with Humanae Vitae, Weigel’s biographical coverage of JPII’s Theology of the Body and the portions of JPII’s “Love and Responsibility” that I’ve managed to digest so far (it’s some HARD reading!) Catholic moral theology is NEVER arbitrary. Sins are only sins because the innately cause harm to the human’s ability to give and receive love. If I’m wrong, please demonstrate it via authoritative catholic citations, not your psychology credentials. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing ME for (asserting a spiritual athority you don’t posses) If you haven’t really read up on the REAL catholic understanding of marriage and human sexuality, here’s a pretty good place to start for you: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html
   Be aware that as products of a messed up American culture, we’ve unknowingly absorbed a LOT of sinful ideas over the years. It IS a bit jolting to be introduced to the fullness of catholic teaching on the matter if you’ve never really paid attention before. Please do read it.

I don’t mean to be dismissive of your field or expertise, but psychology as practiced today seems to ME to be an attempt to create the wheel from scratch when God has pretty much handed us fully built cars to drive in the revelations of Scripture and Tradition. We’re human, so we certainly muck up the implementation rather often, but I’m overall pretty darn impressed with what happens when people genuinely open themselves to Grace reforming their character. Psychology, by contrast, has headed down some rather dark dead end alleys at times. And the deeper meanings of sexuality seems especially to me to be an area where psychology (derailed by the perversions of Kinsey) has made very little progress at all. No offense, just the way I see things.

 

[faithfully]

I’ll admit to a rather small sample size, but my wife tells me that fertile sex is hands down the best. If the primary purpose is maximizes your jollies, then this may be an important point.

I imagine the question for this has more to do with regards to not wanting to risk PG for various reasons.

A woman’s body is designed by nature to actually desire sex during fertile times. They are more sensitive and such. And so it’s quite reasonable when there is no concern about whether or not you get PG, nor does it matter to you one way or the other, it is likely the best sex.

However, if you’re scared to death you’ll get pregnant, Or you just do not want to get pregnant, The mood is often killed and the degree of satisfaction decreased.

 

[tundramom]

I can’t speak to cradle Catholics, but this is the exact situation my husband and I were in. I will share the pastoral advice we received.

1. You cannot “accidentally” commit a mortal sin, or sin without realizing it. Since when the procedure was performed we (protestant) were not informed it was sinful, a mortal sin was not committed. We were advised by doctors ( a couple of them) not to have more children as another pregnancy would be a threat to my life, as well as the unborn child’s. We were making the best decision we could for our family at the time. He felt that as many Catholics struggle with contraception, he certainly wouldn’t expect a protestant couple to be observing Catholic theology on the matter.
2. Although our act was not “Catholic”, the clergy did appreciate that our motives were to preserve our marital intimacy, and he felt that our marital intimacy was important, even if we were unable to bear children from the marital act. He did not in any way pass judgement on us. He was extremely compassionate about the situation we found ourselves in.
3. He did not expect us to have the procedure reversed (expensive, and could have potential problems of its own) or stop having marital relations. He felt that ceasing marital relations was potentially far more damaging for us as a couple than having them without the ability to procreate (an ability we would loose completely in a few years anyway). He cared deeply about the state of our marriage, especially as my husband is not devout, or planning on converting and would not take kindly to being told we were ceasing relations.

So when this problem was taken to the church, the response was forgiveness, grace, empathy, and compassion, and a desire to have us “come home” to the church. He did make sure our marriage was a first marriage for both of us, so there would be no issues there. If we had faced what you were suggesting, to be honest, we would have run in the opposite direction.

THIS! Exactly what happened to me when I confessed.
Steph