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

[Traditional_Ang]

CrossoverManiac:

And the surest way to Hell is heaping burdens on the shoulders of other people. Christ Himself rebuked the Pharisees for such action.

CrossoverManiac:

You’ve got it only partly right. I’ll let our Lord speak for Himself from the Gospel of Matthew:

*Matt. 6:1-2, 5: “(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.”

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.”*

Matt. 6:16: "When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

*Matt: 15:3-9: He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’

“But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”*

*Matt. 23:13-19; 23-36: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before men and women. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. Because of this, you will receive a very severe condemnation.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’

Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.’ You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?

Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.*

How many of these sound like “heaping burdens on the shoulders of people”?

The Church lays no burdens for which the Church does not supply help to carry.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

pgoings:

In the first place, I’m not saying that the Church is wrong. I am saying that the application of moral principles to certain medical questions has not yet been authoritatively addressed by the Church.

In the second place, could we dispense with the sarcasm and condescension? I don’t see how it’s at all helpful.

Pgoings:

I’m sorry if I offended you, or if you believed that I was being condescending.

If you believe that your position is consistant with the Authoritative Teaching of the Church, could you try to show me how that Moral Teaching would be applied so that one would arrive at the result you arrived at?

I’ve dealt with quite a few other Catholics on this, and most of them have agreed that what I was sayng was consistenat with the teaching of the Church on this, even when they disagreed with me and wished it weren’t so.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

CrossoverManiac:

So, then you agree that Genesis315 is saying about this is consistent with the Teaching of the Church? and…

CrossoverManiac:

God didn’t say this woman shouldn’t have her uterus removed. That was the Church. So, yes, it is a tradition of men.

…That what you’re saying conflicts with the Teaching of the Church on this issue?

Both the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church state that MARY and Joseph were celebate and have done so since before the first East-West Schism. Are you saying they’re wrong? or, That MARY and Joseph shouldn’t have remained celebate? or, That that has no application to Christians in todays world?..

CrossoverManiac:

Since you have such a strong faith in abstance and celebacy, maybe you should set an example for us and abstain for the rest of your life since you seem so quick to pin that burden on others.

…For all you know, he already is by being a Catholic or celebate Orthodox priest… Did you know that quite a few priests and deacons, and even a few bishops posts on this board?

The Church’s Law is designed to help prepare us for Heaven. Are you saying the Church is wrong to try to do that? or, Are you saying that the Church doesn’t really know what she’s doing, and that she’s as much a “blind guide” as the Pharisees Jesus condemned?

In Christ, Michael

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Traditional Ang:

…That what you’re saying conflicts with the Teaching of the Church on this issue?

Both the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church state that MARY and Joseph were celebate and have done so since before the first East-West Schism. Are you saying they’re wrong? or, That MARY and Joseph shouldn’t have remained celebate? or, That that has no application to Christians in todays world?..

Oh please don’t make me puke. Stop hiding behind Mary and Joseph because I’m sure they’re sick of you using that red herring. Marriage and sex goes hand and hand. I’m not going to debate over the virginity of Mary outside her pregancy with Jesus. But that was a special case in which a woman was bearing God in a miracleous birth. These women can’t even have children, not without risking their lives in the process. And now you and the Church wants to deny them an intergral part of marriage?!? No, the Church isn’t anti-sex Sure it isn’t.

…For all you know, he already is by being a Catholic or celebate Orthodox priest… Did you know that quite a few priests and deacons, and even a few bishops posts on this board?

And if he wants to live that life, he’s welcome to it. But he has no right to ask a married couple to do the same.

The Church’s Law is designed to help prepare us for Heaven. Are you saying the Church is wrong to try to do that?

Preparing people for Heaven has nothing to do with destroying the union between a married man and woman, which you and the anti-sex factions in the Church are trying to do.

or, Are you saying that the Church doesn’t really know what she’s doing, and that she’s as much a “blind guide” as the Pharisees Jesus condemned?

They sure act the part at times.

 

[Linnyo]

CrossoverManiac:

Oh please don’t make me puke. Stop hiding behind Mary and Joseph because I’m sure they’re sick of you using that red herring. Marriage and sex goes hand and hand. I’m not going to debate over the virginity of Mary outside her pregancy with Jesus. But that was a special case in which a woman was bearing God in a miracleous birth. These women can’t even have children, not without risking their lives in the process. And now you and the Church wants to deny them an intergral part of marriage?!? No, the Church isn’t anti-sex Sure it isn’t.

And if he wants to live that life, he’s welcome to it. But he has no right to ask a married couple to do the same.

Preparing people for Heaven has nothing to do with destroying the union between a married man and woman, which you and the anti-sex factions in the Church are trying to do.

They sure act the part at times.

You can spot the men in this thread, can’t you? Especially the unmarries ones!

 

[setter]

Linnyo:

You can spot the men in this thread, can’t you? Especially the unmarries ones!

Sometimes those with less emotionally at stake are in a better position to objectively ascertain a given situation and properly apply the principles of Catholic moral theology; and offer guidance to the faithful in knowing and doing the will of God in the particulars of their daily discipleship walk with Jesus.

BTW – Any thoughts regarding my post #149 response to you?

 

[fix]

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION”
AND RELATED MATTERS

**

Q

**. 2.When the uterus (e.g., as a result of previous Caesarian sections) is in a state such that while not constituting in itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman, nevertheless is foreseeably incapable of carrying a future pregnancy to term without danger to the mother, danger which in some cases could be serious, is it licit to remove the uterus (hysterectomy) in order to prevent a possible future danger deriving from conception?

R. Negative.

…In point of fact, the uterus as described in no. 2 does not constitute in and of itself any present danger to the woman. Indeed the proposal to substitute “uterine isolation” for hysterectomy under the same conditions shows precisely that the uterus in and of itself does not pose a pathological problem for the woman. Therefore, the described procedures do not have a properly therapeutic character but are aimed in themselves at rendering sterile future sexual acts freely chosen. The end of avoiding risks to the mother, deriving from a possible pregnancy, is thus pursued by means of a direct sterilization, in itself always morally illicit, while other ways, which are morally licit, remain open to free choice…

 

[fix]

CrossoverManiac:

When the uterus can become life-threatening with the onset of pregency, that uterus is diseased. That’s like a doctor telling a person with a messed-up leg that he wouldn’t need an operation to repair the damage done to it if only he’d learn to accept being confined to a wheelchair.

No, that is not an accurate analogy. The uterus is not diseased presently. To remove it so one may not have a disease if one became pregnant is direct sterilization, which is always wrong.

 

[snoopy]

CrossoverManiac:

When the uterus can become life-threatening with the onset of pregency, that uterus is diseased. That’s like a doctor telling a person with a messed-up leg that he wouldn’t need an operation to repair the damage done to it if only he’d learn to accept being confined to a wheelchair.

Thank you. This is exactly the point I was trying to make, but just gave up because it seemed so pointless to keep trying. Evidently we are not totally in the minority, because I know of a couple of very, very conservative priests who feel the same way.

 

[setter]

snoopy:

Thank you. This is exactly the point I was trying to make, but just gave up because it seemed so pointless to keep trying. Evidently we are not totally in the minority, because I know of a couple of very, very conservative priests who feel the same way.

With your implication of tacit approval that one may do evil that some hope for good may be arrived at, can you please provide one authoritative Church document that supports your position? I have yet been able to locate one nor have I ever seen one presented. Until then, any laity or clergy who advocates for direct sterilization is in direct opposition to authoritative Church teaching.

 

[snoopy]

setter:

With your implication of tacit approval that one may do evil that some hope for good may be arrived at, can you please provide one authoritative Church document that supports your position? I have yet been able to locate one nor have I ever seen one presented. Until then, any laity or clergy who advocates for direct sterilization is in direct opposition to authoritative Church teaching.

Actually it is not direct sterilization, but indirect sterilization as a result of a diseased uterus being removed. More accurately it is a hysterectomy, and the church as I understand approves of them when a doctor recommends it and the woman with the help of God decides it is the best way to maintain her health when it is being threatened.

 

[pgoings]

fix:

Therefore, the described procedures do not have a properly therapeutic character but are aimed in themselves at rendering sterile future sexual acts freely chosen.

This is an accurate statement of what the Church teaches. However, its correct implementation depends on evaluating whether the uterus in a specific case is or is not “itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman,” which is a medical, rather than theological or ethical, question. Thus, unless there is absolutely no risk to the woman’s health unless conception occurs, there is no total prohibition of a hysterectomy.

This important point seems to have been neglected by several posters, who have asserted that unless there are presenting gross symptoms, such as bleeding or a detectable tumor, a hysterectomy would be illicit.

 

[setter]

Actually it is not direct sterilization, but indirect sterilization as a result of a diseased uterus being removed.

If the below post is what you are referring to, then the procedure is indeed direct sterilization and morally illicit:

Originally Posted by CrossoverManiac

When the uterus can become life-threatening with the onset of pregency, that uterus is diseased. That’s like a doctor telling a person with a messed-up leg that he wouldn’t need an operation to repair the damage done to it if only he’d learn to accept being confined to a wheelchair.

Originally Posted by** fix**

No, that is not an accurate analogy. The uterus is not diseased presently. To remove it so one may not have a disease if one became pregnant is direct sterilization, which is always wrong.

More accurately it is a hysterectomy, and the church as I understand approves of them when a doctor recommends it and the woman with the help of God decides it is the best way to maintain her health when it is being threatened

.
I see that you left the Church out of your consultation sequence between the doctor and woman.

An assessed health risk associated with a potential future pregancy …

…does not constitute in and of itself any present danger to the woman. Indeed the proposal to substitute “uterine isolation” for hysterectomy under the same conditions shows precisely that the uterus in and of itself does not pose a pathological problem for the woman. Therefore, the described procedures do not have a properly therapeutic character but are aimed in themselves at rendering sterile future sexual acts freely chosen. The end of avoiding risks to the mother, deriving from a possible pregnancy, is thus pursued by means of a direct sterilization, in itself always morally illicit, while other ways, which are morally licit, remain open to free choice…

 

[fix]

pgoings:

This is an accurate statement of what the Church teaches. However, its correct implementation depends on evaluating whether the uterus in a specific case is or is not “itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman,” which is a medical, rather than theological or ethical, question. Thus, unless there is absolutely no risk to the woman’s health unless conception occurs, there is no total prohibition of a hysterectomy.

The vatican statement address the OP. In the first post he related the question as it was presented concerning sterilization and female reproductive issues. Given the information presented in the OP it seems the Vatican statement clearly shows it would be direct sterilization to remove the uterus.

This important point seems to have been neglected by several posters, who have asserted that unless there are presenting gross symptoms, such as bleeding or a detectable tumor, a hysterectomy would be illicit.

Well, each case is different. One would have to assess all the medical opinions and apply the moral teaching in question. Frank signs and symptoms are part of any diagnosis and prognosis, but other variables need to be considered that would be specific to each patient.

 

[snoopy]

I see that you left the Church out of your consultation sequence between the doctor and woman.

An assessed health risk associated with a potential future pregancy …

Here is where you and I butt heads. I maintain that if uterus is diseased, a woman can undergo a hysterectomy, and you maintain that it is not diseased under the same scenario. Don’t you think that is a question for a doctor to answer, as you and I are not medical doctors. I feel that when we have each completed 12 years of medical school then we will be qualified to judge whether a woman needs a hysterectomy or not. I am advocating leaving the diagnosis up to the doctor, woman and God, and you seem to insist that the uterus is some kind of pagan God, and to remove it would immediately send a woman to hell. I have never heard, and am a cradle catholic, that removal of a diseased uterus as recommended by a doctor is illicit. I understand that you have documents that you want to keep pulling out to plead your case, but, and I am beginning to sound like a broken record here, that what we are talking about is indirect sterilization, not direct sterilization. We are NOT talking about the same thing.I hear you saying that there is no such thing as a diseased uterus, or at least you will not acknowledge that fact, when doctors all over the world have said otherwise for centuries.

 

[fix]

snoopy:

Here is where you and I butt heads. I maintain that if uterus is diseased, a woman can undergo a hysterectomy, and you maintain that it is not diseased under the same scenario. Don’t you think that is a question for a doctor to answer, as you and I are not medical doctors. I feel that when we have each completed 12 years of medical school then we will be qualified to judge whether a woman needs a hysterectomy or not. I am advocating leaving the diagnosis up to the doctor, woman and God, and you seem to insist that the uterus is some kind of pagan God, and to remove it would immediately send a woman to hell. I have never heard, and am a cradle catholic, that removal of a diseased uterus as recommended by a doctor is illicit. I understand that you have documents that you want to keep pulling out to plead your case, but, and I am beginning to sound like a broken record here, that what we are talking about is indirect sterilization, not direct sterilization. We are NOT talking about the same thing.I hear you saying that there is no such thing as a diseased uterus, or at least you will not acknowledge that fact, when doctors all over the world have said otherwise for centuries.

We need to define what we mean be diseased. In the OP the questioner related that the uterus would only be a problem if pregnancy occured. That implies the organ is not currently pathologic. If no pregnancy happend the patient would suffer no diminishment of function or experience any deleterious effects.

 

[Linnyo]

setter:

Sometimes those with less emotionally at stake are in a better position to objectively ascertain a given situation and properly apply the principles of Catholic moral theology; and offer guidance to the faithful in knowing and doing the will of God in the particulars of their daily discipleship walk with Jesus.

BTW – Any thoughts regarding my post #149 response to you?

Sure. I think that this seems reasonable. After all, most woman are not going to put themselves through the trauma of a painful operation without good cause and there are far simpler ways to ensure that there are no more babies. If it is necessary for a celibate woman to be sterilised or have an op to ensure good health, then it would be reasonable to assume that if a sexually active woman has the same symptoms then she should also be able to have the same treatment if that is necessary.

 

[Tony333]

As a woman whom will die if I become pregnant again I assure you I’m not suffering by following the authority of Christ’s Church. I use NFP and have for nine years. Our marriage has been incredably blessed since we fully embraced the churches teaching and decided to place our trust in God.

I will not say to God I know this is what your church demands of me but I can not trust you in this matter, after all my health and life are at stake. If by following NFP with very conservative standards as is allowed in my circumstance and I get pregnant the God’s will be done.

I was reading in another post…that practicing NFP to keep from getting pregnant is a SIN

 

[CrossoverManiac]

I totally agree!! Our sexual appetites are so corrupted, I have to wonder if the apple in the Garden of Eden was related to sexuality.

That’s utter garbage made up by anti-sex theologans.

 

[InnocentIII]

That’s utter garbage made up by anti-sex theologans.

I notice you go in for the reasoned and rational approach to debate as opposed to the emotive and illogical style generally favoured here.