Vasectomy for medical reasons, high risk pregnancies..anyone deal with this?

[TeresaAnn]

Each act of the marital embrace must be objectively procreative (ie, nothing done to make it sterile–whether that be surgery that removes fertility for birth control, chemicals, or physical barriers) whether the act is subjectively procreative or not (a woman is not always fertile, a man may be infertile, a woman may be pregnant). Sterilization mutilates healthy body parts and makes them not work properly for no reason other than non-fertility. Of course a diseased body part may be removed (hysterectomy).

NFP keeps the act objectively procreative, even if the woman is subjectively not fertile. Nothing interferes with the act.

You might want to check out the Catechism on these topics.

Thanks for answering my question Jennifer. So, it looks like it comes down to two reasons…

1. Each act of the marital embrace must be objectively procreative

Doesn’t the use of methods like NFP for years on end ultimately interfere with a couple’s chances of being objectively procreative? Not in the same way as the other ways you mention but the result is none the less the same. We have figured out how to have sex without getting pregnant. Which is fine because of the unitive benefits for the couple.

1. Sterilization mutilates healthy body parts and makes them not work properly for no reason other than non-fertility.

This is fine but we have to be careful where we draw the line on this. When is surgery ok, and not ok? Is it ok to give someone else a kidney? What about breast reduction surgery? Cleft lip? Etc. I haven’t looked, there may be some guidance in the Catechism about this.

This is obviously a well established teaching of the church and I’m not out to change it. It doesn’t really effect me. I have my children am now single and celibate and plan on being so for the rest of my life.

However, If I were someone who is married and had been told that a pregnancy could be fatal I would feel very differently about the strength of the reasoning behind these teachings. NFP is not 100% effective of course and a celibate marriage would be very damaging to the couple.

 

[TeresaAnn]

It’s not about what the couple is doing during the infertile time, it’s about what they’re doing during the fertile time (if of course they are TTA). Infertile time is irrelevant.

Hi HouseArrest,
Sorry I’m not familiar with what TTA means and I’m not sure I’m catching what you are saying. So is it that abstaining during the wife’s fertile period is seen as a sacrifice or offering?

 

[YADA]

However, If I were someone who is married and had been told that a pregnancy could be fatal I would feel very differently about the strength of the reasoning behind these teachings. NFP is not 100% effective of course and a celibate marriage would be very damaging to the couple.

Your analogy is faulty … you impose a greater standard on half of the equation …

A pregnancy that could be fatal may not be … in fact women who have been told that a pregnacy could be fatal have had problem free pregnancies and healthy children with easy deliveries …

Women have also gotten pregnant while taking birth control pills, after having their tubes tied and after their husbands have had vesectomies …

So why does [in your analysis] NFP have to be 100% effective when the prognosis [a problematic pregnancy] has no 100% certainty and neither does the AFB alternatives?

 

[TeresaAnn]

Well, I guess it just comes from how I live my life as a Mom. I know that I am supposed to be here, MUST be here to raise my children. That’s the reason I’m on this earth. I feel that putting my life at risk is unresponsible and I won’t do that to them. So for me, I wouldn’t be playing with the chances.

I’m not sure if you would gamble with your wife’s life? At least your children would have you. I am all my children have.

I’m pretty sure sterilization is the safest way to go. NFP would be the riskiest. I don’t believe in other forms of birth control.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Thanks for answering my question Jennifer. So, it looks like it comes down to two reasons…

1. Each act of the marital embrace must be objectively procreative

Doesn’t the use of methods like NFP for years on end ultimately interfere with a couple’s chances of being objectively procreative? Not in the same way as the other ways you mention but the result is none the less the same. We have figured out how to have sex without getting pregnant. Which is fine because of the unitive benefits for the couple.

1. Sterilization mutilates healthy body parts and makes them not work properly for no reason other than non-fertility.

This is fine but we have to be careful where we draw the line on this. When is surgery ok, and not ok? Is it ok to give someone else a kidney? What about breast reduction surgery? Cleft lip? Etc. I haven’t looked, there may be some guidance in the Catechism about this.

This is obviously a well established teaching of the church and I’m not out to change it. It doesn’t really effect me. I have my children am now single and celibate and plan on being so for the rest of my life.

However, If I were someone who is married and had been told that a pregnancy could be fatal I would feel very differently about the strength of the reasoning behind these teachings. NFP is not 100% effective of course and a celibate marriage would be very damaging to the couple.

No, NFP doesn’t do ANYTHING to the act. The act is unaltered. The fact that a woman isn’t always fertile is the point. It is not sinful to have marital relations in any part of the woman’s cycle. The Church doesn’t say you MUST be fertile to have sex. Therefore, it’s licit to have sex when the woman is not fertile. It certainly is possible to abuse NFP and not have a grave/serious/just reason to avoid having children. This is something that must be guarded against.

My statement about sterilization and mutilation are very clearly taught. Those other surgical procedures are morally licit as long as you are not putting undue burden on your family and it’s not overly dangerous for you. For instance, giving a kidney might be okay, if you are healthy and the chances of your own death are VERY low.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1147&CFID=8916607&CFTOKEN=94439882
<<Pope John Paul II in 1991, to a Group on Organ Transplants, stated: “Furthermore, a person can only donate that of which he can deprive himself without serious danger or harm to his own life or personal identity, and for a just and proportionate reason. It is obvious that vital organs can only be donated after death.”>>

It goes without saying correcting a deformed/malformed body part is fine. There is nothing immoral about fixing a cleft lift/palate. Even some plastic surgery would be morally licit, while I think others are less licit–I suppose those would be up to the patient and their priest to determine.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Except that sterilization is very immoral, while NFP is licit. Additionally, sterilization is not risk free nor is it conception free. Pregnancies can and have happen after these surgeries.

And finally, if you follow the rules of NFP strictly it is nor more risky than anything else. The least risky way to go is to abstain totally. This certainly won’t “ruin” a marriage, esp if the reason is very serious. The fact of sex remains–it makes babies. That’s one of the main purposes, obviously. Don’t want a baby? Don’t have sex. Would it be a huge sacrifice? certainly, but that is part of being married. It’s the whole for better and for worse/in sickness and health part. Marriage isn’t about being blissfully happy all the time. I’m fairly confidant in saying if I had some sort of life threatening issue regarding having babies, my husband and I could control ourselves.

 

[kage_ar]

Well, I guess it just comes from how I live my life as a Mom. I know that I am supposed to be here, MUST be here to raise my children. That’s the reason I’m on this earth. I feel that putting my life at risk is unresponsible and I won’t do that to them. So for me, I wouldn’t be playing with the chances.
.

The reason you are on this earth, the reason I am on this earth, the reason every human being has ever been on this earth is to know, love and serve God and to live with Him in this life and in the next.

Raising your children is good, however, you cannot put your children before your obedience to God. God loves all of us, including our children, more than we ever could. If it is God’s will for me to die in the next hour, God will care for my family. Should I go to heaven to be with God, I can pray for my family there and do them more good than I can on this earth.

God made our bodies, our sexuality, our reproductive organs - His law is what our bodies are made to follow. He designed NFP and gave us brains to learn how to use it.

Trust God, trust His love and care and put your whole self in His care.

 

[fermat]

Hi HouseArrest,
Sorry I’m not familiar with what TTA means and I’m not sure I’m catching what you are saying. So is it that abstaining during the wife’s fertile period is seen as a sacrifice or offering?

Trying To Avoid (pregnancy). My wife and I are in that camp.

Sacrifice is a good way to explain the abstaining. It is certainly something you can offer to Lord. My wife and I take it to somewhat of an extreme. Her cycle can be so crazy that we typically abstain from the end of the bleeding to three days after she ovulates. That can be three or four weeks in some cases. On paper that doesn’t sound too long, but in practice, we both get a little loopy after about two weeks. The only way to really handle it is to offer it as a sacrifice.

Peace
f

 

[PeterMuz]

Fr. Serpa is correct. One may seek medical treatment for a disease or condition that has the **secondary and unintended effect **of temporary or permanent sterility. For example, I could get chemo for cancer even if it resulted in my ovaries being damaged and no longer producing eggs.

A vasectomy is **not **a treatment for a medical condition nor is the resulting sterility unintended. It’s purpose is to make the man sterile. The sterility is not an unintended side effect.

Regarding the Pill’s or any treatment that might cause a miscarriage as a *secondary *effect, this too could be permissable in a proportionate circumstance.

For example, a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer of the uterus can only be treated by removing the uterus. That would cause the death of the child because currently there is no medical solution that would allow the child to continue to grow outside the womb. The death of the child is the *unintended *consequence of proceeding with treatment for the life threatening medical condition. A woman could *morally *choose to undergo this treatment even though it may result in the death of the child depending upon age of gestation, or she *could *choose to exercise heroic virtue and wait until the child is born to seek treatment (as St Gianna Molla did).

Now, would “acne” or “cramps” or “irregular period” be a *proportionate *reason for a treatment that in theory **could **cause miscarriage but is **not **known to do so with certainty (i.e. *potential *abortifacient properties of the Pill)? Moral theologians are split on this.

I suggest reading about the Principle of Double Effect.

The OP’s situation is very concrete, and there is no medical condition that would be treated by a vasectomy or tubal ligation. It is simply a matter of the doctor recommending sterilization rather than a moral means of child spacing such as NFP.

So I started writing an answer to fermat and thought I should look down and make sure someone else didn’t already make the same points. You made all the points I was going to make. Great minds think alike I guess. Very good answer.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

However, If I were someone who is married and had been told that a pregnancy could be fatal I would feel very differently about the strength of the reasoning behind these teachings. NFP is not 100% effective of course and a celibate marriage would be very damaging to the couple.

This statement is faulty for several reasons.

Having any tubes tied/snipped, “the Pill” or any other form of artificial contraception is not 100% effective at preventing pregnancies. I have read that NFP, when practiced properly, is >99% effective. The only way to be 100% sure that you do not become pregnant is to abstain. It is the couples cross to bear, so to speak.

Doctors have a responsibility to tell their patients the risks involoved and to be conservative in their outlook of potential problems. With good reason - i.e. can you say malpractice? We don’t know how fatal another pregnancy could be. Is it a 1% chance? 50%? 75%?

I’d suggest that the OP look into getting other opinions from doctors, specifically, ones that are pro-life/pro-NFP and/or deal with high risk pregnancies. I think the Pope Paul VI institute or whatever it’s called is a good place to start.

 

[Corki]

1. Each act of the marital embrace must be objectively procreative

Doesn’t the use of methods like NFP for years on end ultimately interfere with a couple’s chances of being objectively procreative? Not in the same way as the other ways you mention but the result is none the less the same. We have figured out how to have sex without getting pregnant. Which is fine because of the unitive benefits for the couple.

I just want to comment on part of this post. You bring out a good point which is that the result may be the same but the intent is different. This is why the Church teaches that NFP can be used for good reason. If the couple has poorly formed reasons for wanting to delay another child, they would be interfereing with being objectively procreative, even with NFP and that could potentially be sinful. My priest defined those poorly formed reasons as being reasons based in selfishness. With the high use of ABC among Catholics, I think it is pretty rare that someone who is making the sacrifice to use NFP doesn’t have good reasons but it could happen.

 

[TeresaAnn]

The reason you are on this earth, the reason I am on this earth, the reason every human being has ever been on this earth is to know, love and serve God and to live with Him in this life and in the next.

Raising your children is good, however, you cannot put your children before your obedience to God. God loves all of us, including our children, more than we ever could. If it is God’s will for me to die in the next hour, God will care for my family. Should I go to heaven to be with God, I can pray for my family there and do them more good than I can on this earth.

God made our bodies, our sexuality, our reproductive organs - His law is what our bodies are made to follow. He designed NFP and gave us brains to learn how to use it.

Trust God, trust His love and care and put your whole self in His care.

Of course kage_ar I realize where God fits in my life, just as you said. My mistake for not stating the obvious and just getting to the point.

As far as risking my life feeling God will care for my family if i die? We’ll have to disagree. While this may happen, I’m sure God expects the risk to be of dire need. leaving those other (?) children to be raised in less than great circumstances because of an NFP miscalculation? I wouldn’t presume to know. Maybe parents aren’t really all that important afterall.

Anyway folks, I sincerely wish you and your families many blessings and will leave the decisions to yourselves. You are living it, I am not.

My God bless you,
Teresa Ann

 

[TeresaAnn]

I just want to comment on part of this post. You bring out a good point which is that the result may be the same but the intent is different. This is why the Church teaches that NFP can be used for good reason. If the couple has poorly formed reasons for wanting to delay another child, they would be interfereing with being objectively procreative, even with NFP and that could potentially be sinful. My priest defined those poorly formed reasons as being reasons based in selfishness. With the high use of ABC among Catholics, I think it is pretty rare that someone who is making the sacrifice to use NFP doesn’t have good reasons but it could happen.

Thank-you Corki, that was my point. Yes, you probably are right about the number of couples in this category.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Of course kage_ar I realize where God fits in my life, just as you said. My mistake for not stating the obvious and just getting to the point.

As far as risking my life feeling God will care for my family if i die? We’ll have to disagree. While this may happen, I’m sure God expects the risk to be of dire need. leaving those other (?) children to be raised in less than great circumstances because of an NFP miscalculation? I wouldn’t presume to know. Maybe parents aren’t really all that important afterall.

Anyway folks, I sincerely wish you and your families many blessings and will leave the decisions to yourselves. You are living it, I am not.

My God bless you,
Teresa Ann

TeresaAnn,

I don’t mean to nit pick, so sorry if I come across as a jerk.

No form of contraception (or combination therof) is 100% effective either. We can come close, but there still is a small chance of a pregnancy. People can also fubar artifical means as well - people can miss a day on the pill, take the wrong pill, put on a condom the wrong way, etc.

NFP, when practiced properly, is as effective as artifical means. I think people have some issues trying to accept this fact.

 

[TeresaAnn]

Thanks ComputerGeek25, no apologies needed

I guess I shouldn’t worry more than the couples involved. I pray for all high risk pregnancies anyway, I will pray for the continued success of these couples practicing NFP or similar.

May God bless you all and give your little ones an extra little hug for me.

Teresa Ann

 

[BiologyBrain]

Fr. Serpa’s answer was entirely accurate and consistent with Church teaching on the topic.

Regarding the Pill’s or any treatment that might cause a miscarriage as a secondary effect, this too could be permissable in a proportionate circumstance.

I strongly disagree w/ this statement. The pill (or any birth control) does not cause ‘unintended’ miscarriages IMO. The effect of inhibiting implantation is designed into the drug - that’s intentional! Especially when most frequently the drug is used for that purpose - preventing pregnancy!

I’ve had 4 unintended miscarriages through no fault of my own (except perhaps for the way God made me & that technology hasn’t caught up with His design). To equate my unintented miscarriages to someone who takes a drug (birth control) that is labeled as inhibiting implantation (on the package inserts - usually in the physician’s information) is a disservice to me and my lost children. IMO that cheapens the suffering that I went through during my unintended miscarriages. I did not make a choice that resulted in the loss of my children. I did not have that ‘luxury’. There are other options available that do not have a side effect (one of the primary effects of birth control) of destroying a baby. One such option is to take the drug, but abstain from marital relations while on the drug. If people did that, I’m sure there’d be more pressure on them (and drug companies/doctors) to find alternative treatments. However, taking birth control then knowingly having marital relations is the easy way out with this line of reasoning.

Now, would “acne” or “cramps” or “irregular period” be a proportionate reason for a treatment that in theory could cause miscarriage but is not known to do so with certainty (i.e. potential abortifacient properties of the Pill)? Moral theologians are split on this.

This section is why I was in doubt of Fr. Serpa’s answer. I see many examples (on CAF as well as in real life) of women using this type of reasoning to excuse their use of birth control when the real issues at hand aren’t truly ‘life or death’ like the possibility of killing the baby w/ birth control. For instance, one woman I know uses this reasoning to prevent heavy bleeding during pregnancy. She has somewhat heavy bleeding during her cycle as well, but the real danger comes from being pregnant. She comforts herself with the ‘double effect’ that she’s not intentionally harming her unborn children by using birth control. However, since the intent and/or true danger comes from pregnancy - double effect does not really hold water in this instance. Another woman I know uses this reasoning b/c her kidneys cannot sustain both her and a growing baby. She is also generally anemic, so she has birth control to control her periods. She comforts herself w/ the double effect as well. However, is that truly a proportionate reason? Again, I side w/ the apologists & moral theologians that err on the side of life and say “No”.

So on the whole, I agree that the simple statement that birth control is allowable for medical treatment. However, it needs to be explained more clearly and other options must be explored. Also, it needs to be explained/explored as to the morality of having marital relations while taking birth control. My doubt is that it is moral to continue having relations while taking birth control, not simply b/c of the effect of inhibiting implantation, but also for the other reasons birth control is disallowed by the Church. Fundamentally, birth control - whatever its prescribed use - is going to remove one or both of the required aspects of Catholic marital relations - procreation and unity. This removal of the required aspects of Catholic marital relations precludes this act or taking these drugs.

For what its worth, here are some examples of why I feel the way I do about abstaining from relations while taking such a drug…

BC for Rheumatoid arthritis?
Birth control for extreme reasons
Birth control for medical reasons
Double effect and contraception/NFP
Birth control/map

Many/most of these have been answered by a solidly Catholic pro-life ob/gyn with 35+ years experience. If he’s aware of alternatives (to birth control) and advocates them and/or abstinence if there is no other option, then all good ob/gyn’s/Catholics should be aware & open to these options.

 

[budgie2]

A more ethical double method of pregnancy prevention is NFP with abstinence in a woman’s fertile time plus non-spermicidal, non-lubricated condoms during a woman’s infertile period. This is better than a vasectomy but not 100% in accordance with the Church’s teaching but could be justified for severe reasons and risk of life to mother. This would be 98% effective (NFP) plus 90% (non-spermicidal, non-lubricated condom) as far as I know. Non-spermicidal condoms can be used in a woman’s fertile time but this would reduce the effectivity rate.

 

[kage_ar]

A more ethical double method of pregnancy prevention is NFP with abstinence in a woman’s fertile time plus non-spermicidal, non-lubricated condoms during a woman’s infertile period. This is better than a vasectomy but not 100% in accordance with the Church’s teaching but could be justified for severe reasons and risk of life to mother. This would be 98% effective (NFP) plus 90% (non-spermicidal, non-lubricated condom) as far as I know. Non-spermicidal condoms can be used in a woman’s fertile time but this would reduce the effectivity rate.

Budgie - condoms are not ethical, they are immoral. This is 100% contrary to God’s teaching and can never be justified.

 

[fermat]

For me, I think this all comes down to how much of a cross you are willing to bear. I don’t want to offend God, so I will take the path that is least likely to do that. The only way I know how is to abstain if during those times where pregnancy is likely, even if that means weeks or months. It is a small, small price to pay for the reward later. Should I be able to finish the race and be with Christ, then I know that this suffering will be so insignificant compared to being with Him.

 

[rayne89]

A more ethical double method of pregnancy prevention is NFP with abstinence in a woman’s fertile time plus non-spermicidal, non-lubricated condoms during a woman’s infertile period. This is better than a vasectomy but not 100% in accordance with the Church’s teaching but could be justified for severe reasons and risk of life to mother. This would be 98% effective (NFP) plus 90% (non-spermicidal, non-lubricated condom) as far as I know. Non-spermicidal condoms can be used in a woman’s fertile time but this would reduce the effectivity rate.

More accurately this is 100% against Church teaching. Condoms are against Church teaching. Justified by whom? So we should trust in a piece of latex more than the Holy Spirit to guide our Church on what is moral in regard to sexual relations? Thanks God but you know in this one case we feel we have more wisdom in this area than the Church. No thank you.