Vasectomy? (operation) A sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Proud2bRC said:
Deuteronomy 23

*Exclusion From the Assembly *

1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD .
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
Tina, that is so sad! Perhaps God is calling you to have another child. I’m sure you’ll need some help convincing him to reverse it ,so I have a some thoughts that may help. My husband wanted to do the same thing a couple of years ago because he thought it was only the Pope who thought it was wrong (only the Pope:tsktsk: !) So I did a little looking around and found (I’ve kept this stuff around just in case the thought creeps up on him again) in 78 AD in a letter of Barnabas he called it “wicked”. In 98AD Clement of Alexandria said that it “does harm to nature”. In 225 Hypplytus said that people who do this are “heretics”. At the Council of Nicea in 325 it was said that people who prevent children from being born are barbarians. In 375 Epiphanius said to use sex only to satify makes us eager for corruption. In 795 it was said that people who do this evil act do not retain the reality of marriage and that it is poison to a marriage. In 388 it was said that it is forbidden and a worse sin than fornication. In 400 it was said that it is a shameful act that is cruel and turns wives into harlots. In 401 it is called a damnable sin agaist nature. In addition to what St. John Crysostom said (in my previous post) he said that it was evil, filthy, injures the wife and a grevious sin to prvent the beginning of life is an abomination. St. Jerome (393) said it was an unimaginable sin. Sorry this is so long but maybe it will help convince your hubby. My prayers are with you!
 
SarahSmile said:
Th****at is something that your husband shoul have talked over with you before~hand… now you should pray for your husband’s soul :gopray2:
:blessyou:
Click to expand...

We are both born again Christians (Baptists)! Love the Lord
 
SarahSmile said:
**You are totally right!! Openness is required… but i think that **OpusDei is confused with sexual intercourse. This is required, its to consummate the marriage vows.
Click to expand...

Thank you for referring to Christoper West, he is one of the sources I used. In his book “About Sex & Marriage”, Ch.3, #9, page 54; "No, sex isn’t everything in marriage. But it is so essential to what marriage is that if ther’s no possibility of intercourse ever happening, there’s no possibility of marriage ever happening. To clarify, it has to be definitive and perpetual impotence."

I was equating impotence with infertility, which, in the case of a man, can be the same thing. Especially, when it is the result of surgery; which was my initial point. Canon 1099, the Pope’s “Theology of the Body” homilies and “Gaudium et Spes” are all very clear on this point.

Thanks!
 
40.png
OpusDei:
Didi,
Another point of clarification:
Infertility is an impediment to marriage, and grounds for a declaration of nullity. Knowledge of that impediment may not be present at the time of marriage, of course, therefore not impeding the sacrament. Marriage not only demands openness to life, but also the ability. This can be quite controversial as you can imagine!
God bless!
Click to expand...
Thanks! Yes, I’m sure this can be quite controversial. Yet I also know that couples can enter into a “consecrated marriage” where they decide beforehand not to have intimate relations because of special circumstances. So how does this fit in?

Also, unless someone knows for sure they are infertile (because of a childhood illness or injury or operation) most couples don’t know this until after they are married and are having married relations.

This subject is sensitive for me, because I suffered three miscarriages and was unable to bear a child to term. We now have two wonderful children through adoption. So what if we knew before we were married that I wouldn’t have been able to bear a child? We are still a family with children. Would that not have been “allowed?” Just wondering… :hmmm:
 
oops I left one out, Caesarius of Arles in 522 said "that as often as they could have conceived, is the same number of homicides they will be guilty of. Unless they repent they will be damned to hell."That’s pretty darn harsh but it wasn’t me that said it!
 
40.png
Lorik:
Tina, that is so sad! Perhaps God is calling you to have another child. I’m sure you’ll need some help convincing him to reverse it ,so I have a some thoughts that may help. My husband wanted to do the same thing a couple of years ago because he thought it was only the Pope who thought it was wrong (only the Pope:tsktsk: !) So I did a little looking around and found (I’ve kept this stuff around just in case the thought creeps up on him again) in 78 AD in a letter of Barnabas he called it “wicked”. In 98AD Clement of Alexandria said that it “does harm to nature”. In 225 Hypplytus said that people who do this are “heretics”. At the Council of Nicea in 325 it was said that people who prevent children from being born are barbarians. In 375 Epiphanius said to use sex only to satify makes us eager for corruption. In 795 it was said that people who do this evil act do not retain the reality of marriage and that it is poison to a marriage. In 388 it was said that it is forbidden and a worse sin than fornication. In 400 it was said that it is a shameful act that is cruel and turns wives into harlots. In 401 it is called a damnable sin agaist nature. In addition to what St. John Crysostom said (in my previous post) he said that it was evil, filthy, injures the wife and a grevious sin to prvent the beginning of life is an abomination. St. Jerome (393) said it was an unimaginable sin. Sorry this is so long but maybe it will help convince your hubby. My prayers are with you!
Click to expand...
Wow! this is long, lol, just kinding you are find, I have so much to learn! about this! the number that you are use/talking about ! are they in the Catholic bible? yes? thank you for your prayers! and Everyone here too!
 
Tina,

Our Bible is the same as yours except for 7 OT books and portions of Daniel and Esther that were demoted to an appendix by Martin Luther in the 16th century. The 7 OT books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch. These books are found in the earliest versions of the Bible in Christian history, and are still considered inspired books of the Holy Bible by both Catholics and Orthodox, and in a ambiguous way, by the Anglicans, despite Protestant objections of the 16th century. They were part of the Septuagint, the Greek Bible that the apostles used in the first century.

Lorik is referring to teachings of the early Church. Think of them as the most ancient Bible commentaries. They are not inspired writings, but their antiquity lends much credibility to their trustworthiness.

The New American Bible online can be found here.
usccb.org/nab/bible/

God bless,

Dave
 
Those numbers are the years in which those comments were recorded. Sorry I should have been more clear.
 
Like Didi, we have two wonderful children through adoption. We chose to adopt since my husband is a paraplegic.
It’s sad to hear people so upset at not having children when there are thousands of children in foster homes that need parents. They get moved around every few months, live without stability, and are often discriminated against. Many foster kids end up in jail or homeless, so important is that feeling of belonging.
We applied as foster-adopt parents and got a little boy 6 weeks later. There are many toddlers and infants who need homes as well as older kids.
Fostering or adoption requires mature people able to tolerate uncertainty, but it’s something to consider.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Tina,

Our Bible is the same as yours except for 7 OT books and portions of Daniel and Esther that were demoted to an appendix by Martin Luther in the 16th century. The 7 OT books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch. These books are found in the earliest versions of the Bible in Christian history, and are still considered inspired books of the Holy Bible by both Catholics and Orthodox, and in a ambiguous way, by the Anglicans, despite Protestant objections of the 16th century. They were part of the Septuagint, the Greek Bible that the apostles used in the first century.

Thanks 1988, I was thinking why does Baptists/Protestant! don’t use the other books 7 OT! and so on! I remember my Grandmother talking about this! when I was a little girl, she was a Lutheran! I just remember very little.

Lorik is referring to teachings of the early Church. Think of them as the most ancient Bible commentaries. They are not inspired writings, but their antiquity lends much credibility to their trustworthiness.

The New American Bible online can be found here.
usccb.org/nab/bible/

God bless,

Dave
Click to expand...
early teaching! ok cook 🙂 thanks Dave
 
40.png
Lorik:
Those numbers are the years in which those comments were recorded. Sorry I should have been more clear.
Click to expand...
No problem here! thanks, Lorik 🙂
 
40.png
OpusDei:
Thank you for referring to Christoper West, he is one of the sources I used. In his book “About Sex & Marriage”, Ch.3, #9, page 54; "No, sex isn’t everything in marriage. But it is so essential to what marriage is that if ther’s no possibility of intercourse ever happening, there’s no possibility of marriage ever happening. To clarify, it has to be definitive and perpetual impotence."

I was equating impotence with infertility, which, in the case of a man, can be the same thing. Especially, when it is the result of surgery; which was my initial point. Canon 1099, the Pope’s “Theology of the Body” homilies and “Gaudium et Spes” are all very clear on this point.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Thats wonderful that you have that book, I have it right here with me on the computer table!! 😃
 
40.png
OpusDei:
Didi,

Another point of clarification:

Infertility is an impediment to marriage, and grounds for a declaration of nullity. Knowledge of that impediment may not be present at the time of marriage, of course, therefore not impeding the sacrament. Marriage not only demands openness to life, but also the ability. This can be quite controversial as you can imagine!

God bless!
Click to expand...
Infertility is NOT an impediment to marriage or grounds for an annulment. Impotence is. Perhaps you got those two mixed up.
 
40.png
OpusDei:
Thank you for referring to Christoper West, he is one of the sources I used. In his book “About Sex & Marriage”, Ch.3, #9, page 54; "No, sex isn’t everything in marriage. But it is so essential to what marriage is that if ther’s no possibility of intercourse ever happening, there’s no possibility of marriage ever happening. To clarify, it has to be definitive and perpetual impotence."

Were not Joseph and Mary in this situation? Due to her perpetual virginity there was no posibility of intercourse yet they were still a family and a marriage still took place. I have never read Mr. West’s Book. Does it explain this conflict better?
Click to expand...
 
Consider that someone who chooses voluntary sterilization may someday realize - and bear forever - the realization that there was a time in their life when they didn’t trust God.

Thank God we can confess and get absolution for our sins.
 
I have said this on another thread. This is the crust of it all in my humble opinion. IN previous thread, it was said that you must be open to life. Now is it being open to life if you purposely abstain from intercourse on fertile days? Whether you use artificial or natural methods. the end result is the same. No Baby. Does the means justify the end? Again you are purposely denying a pregnancy when you in conscience and purposely abstain knowing you are fertile. Again, I support the church’s teaching whole heartedly. Logically nfp is just as much contraception as the pill when used to prevent pregnancy. The end is the same. So what is the real question. Is it being open to life or just the ability to procreate.

.
 
40.png
Lorik:
The Bible is very clear on this in Deut.23:2.
Click to expand...
**Deuteronomy 23
**2 “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

What does this have to do with getting a Vasectomy?

brandon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top