The Church has got to be kidding on this one, right?

[snoopy]

Pug:

Yes, perhaps I misunderstood! I do that often.

I posted what I did because snoopy compared it to an appendix about to burst, which is a current danger to the person, hence my discussion of a uterus that is a current danger, rather than one that is just fine if left alone. Presumably the appendix will not be just fine if left alone. I agree with snoopy in the case when the uterus can’t be left alone.

My point is that we are not talking about a healthy, viable organ anymore. The point was that the uterus would rupture if pregnancy occured. The uterus is then obviously not able to do its job anymore and is a danger to the woman and baby. If it can’t even hold a mere pregnancy, something that it was designed to do, it can’t be healthy. And if an organ is unhealthy and worn out and dangerous, by all means get rid of it. There is nothing in the church that says if an organ is sick and diseased, that it can’t be removed. I had my gall bladder removed because it was not able to do its job anymore. Is that a sin too? I am not advocating sterilization, (tubal or vasectomy), just the removal of an unhealthy organ.

 

[fix]

jack roscoe:

Great discussion. In the final analysis, as Catholics we are required to form our conscience based upon the teachings of our church. All of her teachings combined with scripture and tradition.

When making the decision to use birth control (not NFP), a person must use their rightly formed conscience to decide. No sin is committed if this is followed. If the woman, for example, in a marriage is convinced that having another child will end their marriage and her husband will not use NFP, she may decide to use birth control without sinning. For Catholics, a rightly formed conscience is the final arbiter for which we will be held accountable.

There is a primacy of truth, not a primacy of conscience.

Perhaps these will help?:

**2039 **… At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

… someone countered that if this were so then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven since they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience. Another responded with utmost assurance that of course this was indeed the case. There is no doubting the fact that Hitler and his accomplices who were deeply convinced of their cause, could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, the objective terribleness of their deeds notwithstanding, they acted morally, subjectively speaking. Since they followed their albeit mistaken consciences, one would have to recognize their conduct as moral and, as a result, should not doubt their eternal salvation. Since that conversation, I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience, that, in other words, a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false. For, subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples which follow therefrom do not justify man…

CONSCIENCE AND TRUTH Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[setter]

snoopy:

My point is that we are not talking about a healthy, viable organ anymore. **The point was that the uterus would rupture if ** pregnancy occured. The uterus is then obviously not able to do its job anymore and is a danger to the woman and baby. If it can’t even hold a mere pregnancy, something that it was designed to do, it can’t be healthy. And if an organ is unhealthy and worn out and dangerous, by all means get rid of it. There is nothing in the church that says if an organ is sick and diseased, that it can’t be removed. I had my gall bladder removed because it was not able to do its job anymore. Is that a sin too? I am not advocating sterilization, (tubal or vasectomy), just the removal of an unhealthy organ.

You are overlaying present tense and future tense to a presently non-existant health threat to the woman (organism) and a future potential assessed serious/lethal health threat to the woman(organism) and child.

This is the error that folks engage in when they attempt (intentions aside) to seek a “medical exception” to perform direct sterilization. An assessed potential health risk associated with a future pregnancy is never licit grounds for [direct] sterilization. The key point for Catholic moral theology: The condition has to pose a current serious health risk to the organism in order for the consequence of [indirect] sterilization to be morally permissible.

Here is a quick and simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not: Consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman – If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral.

 

[Linnyo]

jack roscoe:

RLG94986,

Great reply but, alas, incoreect in its judgement section. This is the key quote:

“He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

If one has a rightly formed conscience but honestly believes following the church teaching will wreak havoc on one’s marriage, one’s children, one’s faith, then the person may, no must, follow their conscience. It is upon our decisions of conscience that we will be judged. Don’t you see that each of us are free to choose and if we have honestly studied our faith and sought guidance, then we, who are to be judged ultimately, must decide our course.

I totally agree. |You have put into words the way I feel about decisions. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, it probably is and if you go ahead and do it you can expect consequences.

 

[rlg94086]

Sounds like your infallible conscience has decided. We do have free will…we are free to sin and turn away from the Church.

Linnyo:

I totally agree. |You have put into words the way I feel about decisions. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, it probably is and if you go ahead and do it you can expect consequences.

 

[fix]

Linnyo:

I totally agree. |You have put into words the way I feel about decisions. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, it probably is and if you go ahead and do it you can expect consequences.

Conscience is a pupil, not a teacher. It must be formed correctly. It does not invent truth.

 

[fix]

setter:

I notice that for many folks, moral imperatives get displaced and discarded in favor of what they consider what is reasonable and humanly possible. The rationalizations often tangent to: God would not expect this of any couple; accusation of rigid adherence to “the letter of the law”; a compassionate “solution” for the sake of marriage stability that presents as akin to choosing between the lesser of two evils; … I observe the unfortunate response by many Catholics of denial, open rationalizations, self-justification, over focus on the compassion of God to the exclusion of His justice.

After reading the responses it occurs to me it comes down to a correct formation of conscience. Too often it seems we neglect to form it properly and we confuse opinion and emotions with truth.

The question becomes what is a correctly formed conscience and how is that accomplished?

 

[Writer]

snoopy:

If a woman’s uterus is in danger of rupturing, then it is worn out. If it is worn out then she should have a hysterectomy. I can see no sin there. Good grief, if a woman’s appendix is ready to rupture, then it should be removed also. No one will dispute removal of an appendix, why should the uterus be any different.

I agree with you to a point. I also think the earlier comment regarding abstinence in marriage was intended to mean something more along the lines of withholding one’s self from the spouse in a one-sided, or selfish way. I would suggest from what we know of Mary and Saint Joseph that there was no a selfish bone in their bodies, so I think applying this argument to them would be silly.

Getting back to the original point, I think the bottom line is the purpose of the surgery. If a side effect of a required medical procedure is sterility, but it is not the purpose in and of itself, than it is okay. But I am just a new Catholic here, so I could be wrong.

Some Catholics I ahve observed on these forums seem to betray a Christian Science mentality to medical care–pray about it, and God will make it better–but I would encourage us to also permit healers (such as Saint Luke) to perform their gift of medicine as well, and sometimes we should simply trust their judgement.

 

[patg]

fix:

The question becomes what is a correctly formed conscience and how is that accomplished?

And would the only litmus test for it being properly formed be that it completely agrees with church teaching (or doesn’t disagree with church teaching)? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a waste of time.

 

[fix]

patg:

And would the only litmus test for it being properly formed be that it completely agrees with church teaching (or doesn’t disagree with church teaching)? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a waste of time.

How about this?:

…For Newman, conscience is objective, hard work, a challenge to self, a call to conversion, a sign of humility; and this sits uncomfortably for those who see freedom as the right to reject what is unpalatable. Many will say: “You can interpret conscience this way if you want to — I’ll even defend your right to do so! But my own view is very different.”

The only answer to this is to explain and to defend the existence of moral truth. In theory, this should not be too difficult. After all, everyone agrees that there is a basic truth of the matter in cases of social justice, children’s protection, the immorality of torture, lying and cheating in public life, and so on.

But the twist is that many people who accept moral truths in some area of life reject moral truth especially in areas such as sexual morality, and perhaps also in life issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Moral truth is a great ally when it is on your side; but when it grates against your own convenience it can be tempting to treat it as an anachronism. But either there are or there are not moral truths, and if there are, these will have something to say about unpopular matters as well as more fashionable causes.

The Pope argues that in their consciences human persons encounter moral truth, freely embrace it, and personally commit themselves to its enactment. This account (see “Veritatis Splendor,” 54-64) builds upon Newman’s theory of conscience as man’s free adoption of God’s law. Conscience is neither apprehending an alien law nor devising our own laws: rather, conscience is freely accepting the objective moral law as the basis of all our choices. Thus forming and following a Christian conscience is a dignifying and liberating experience; it means not resentfully following God’s law but freely embracing it as our life’s ideal. …

This specifically Catholic view rejects the mistaken primacy of conscience doctrine and clearly asserts the primacy of truth…

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ZPELLNEW.HTM

 

[snoopy]

Writer:

Getting back to the original point, I think the bottom line is the purpose of the surgery. If a side effect of a required medical procedure is sterility, but it is not the purpose in and of itself, than it is okay. But I am just a new Catholic here, so I could be wrong.

Some Catholics I ahve observed on these forums seem to betray a Christian Science mentality to medical care–pray about it, and God will make it better–but I would encourage us to also permit healers (such as Saint Luke) to perform their gift of medicine as well, and sometimes we should simply trust their judgement.

Exactly, The purpose of the procedure is not for sterility, but to remove an unhealthy, worn out, diseased organ. Hysterectomys are performed all the time because the uterus is prolapsed, for bladder reconstruction, or because the uterus is in danger of rupturing. That is only good medicine and common sense.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

I heard Christopher West say at a seminar something that struck me. It is such simple common sense. He said we only need those laws that we are not conformed to. His example was that a man who would never consider killing his wife does not need a law that says, “Do not kill your wife.” the husband’s will is all ready conformed to the law.

There are laws that we need to protect us when our wills are not fully conformed to it. Human nature with its strong sexual appetites rebels much against God’s law for marital chastity. The Church is not a unfeeling dictator. She is trying to protect us against our own bad choices.

 

[snoopy]

setter:

An assessed potential health risk associated with a future pregnancy is never licit grounds for [direct] sterilization. The key point for Catholic moral theology: The condition has to pose a current serious health risk to the organism in order for the consequence of [indirect] sterilization to be morally permissible.
.

Oh really? My dad just had a colonoscopy and they removed polyps just in case they may become cancerous later on. My friend had a double mastectomy on breasts that did not have cancer–yet–, but through genetic testing and the fact that several close women in her family developed it at an early age, the professionals thought she was at a serious risk. These are examples of “an assessed potential health risk.” It is not a current serious health risk. I believe the church would say these examples are ok, but I’m talking about something more serious. A current health risk associated with an unhealthy, worn out, diseased organ. Again, I’m not talking about sterilization. I’m talking about the removal of an unhealthy organ.

 

[fix]

snoopy:

Oh really? My dad just had a colonoscopy and they removed polyps just in case they may become cancerous later on. My friend had a double mastectomy on breasts that did not have cancer–yet–, but through genetic testing and the fact that several close women in her family developed it at an early age, the professionals thought she was at a serious risk. These are examples of “an assessed potential health risk.” It is not a current serious health risk. I believe the church would say these examples are ok, but I’m talking about something more serious. A current health risk associated with an unhealthy, worn out, diseased organ. Again, I’m not talking about sterilization. I’m talking about the removal of an unhealthy organ.

A polyp is pathological even if not cancerous. Removing them is not equal to removing an organ. Removing a breast, based on medical advice that it may become cancerous, seems illicit to me. I would like to read what folks trained in moral theology say about it.

 

[Rebecca_New]

To remove or alter the body for this is self mutilation. There is a psychological negativity about it that I am sure no one realizes until it is too late. Many people who have had these proceedures reversed had reported a return of lost self esteem. Stand back and listen to the experienced-you don’t have to go through the pain and discomfort that so many people have.

 

[pgoings]

Here is a quick and simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not: Consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman–If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral.

This seems rather facile. In many case the uterus has been damaged through pregnancy and childbirth, something that would not happen to a single, celibate woman. Further, it is now suggested by several studies that a uterus which has been damaged in such a way that would make further pregnancies risky is probably already pre-cancerous, making a hysterectomy generally both medically advisable and morally licit. It is only when the risk is solely and unquestionably associated with a future pregnancy that a hysterectomy becomes morally problematic.

 

[maryj]

Linnyo:

I totally agree. |You have put into words the way I feel about decisions. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, it probably is and if you go ahead and do it you can expect consequences.

We lost this ability in the garden of eden, that was one of the lovely things we had before the sin of adam and eve. Take a simple bible study and you will find out this fact to be true. We no longer have the capability of knowing what is right or wrong without some kind of conscience battle.We will not be able to JUST make the correct decision without somekind of differing of opinions, even within ourselves. Before the sin Adam and Eve ALWAYS knew what was right or wrong.

 

[paramedicgirl]

pgoings:

This seems rather facile. In many case the uterus has been damaged through pregnancy and childbirth, something that would not happen to a single, celibate woman. Further, it is now suggested by several studies that a uterus which has been damaged in such a way that would make further pregnancies risky is probably already pre-cancerous, making a hysterectomy generally both medically advisable and morally licit. It is only when the risk is solely and unquestionably associated with a future pregnancy that a hysterectomy becomes morally problematic.

Hi pgoings, are you able to provide a reference for these studies?

 

[Seatuck]

Bella3502:

The overwhelming majority of Catholic couples use some form of artificial birth control. They have common sense and I’m pretty sure that they would disagree with you…

I’m not sure I care what they think.They do not have common sense if they choose mortal sin. But I do care what God thinks. He made my body with fertile and infertile times. He gave me the intellect , wisdom and courage to know how and when to plan my family with my spouse in concert with His will.

 

[snoopy]

Rebecca New:

To remove or alter the body for this is self mutilation. There is a psychological negativity about it that I am sure no one realizes until it is too late. Many people who have had these proceedures reversed had reported a return of lost self esteem. Stand back and listen to the experienced-you don’t have to go through the pain and discomfort that so many people have.

I assume you are talking of removing breasts or uteruses or other organs that are dangerously at risk. Well, my mother died of breast cancer. Let me tell you there is unbelievable psychological negativity that came with her death. To call this self-mutilation is wrong, cruel and dangerous with no signs of charity extended. I don’t understand what you mean by having these procedures reversed. Who would want their pre-cancerous breasts put back on even if you could?
I must be missing something.