Vasectomy? (operation) A sin?

[SDA2RC]

Deuteronomy 23

*Exclusion From the Assembly *

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

Here is the verse from the USCCB: “No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the LORD.”

A Vasectomy does neither of these… in addition, these are part of the Mosaic law which the church no longer observes. If we did we would also have to not allow illegitimate children into Church for 10 (verse 3)generations.

Or follow these instructions in Verses 11 and 12: “If one of you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he shall go outside the camp, and not return until, 12 toward evening, he has bathed in water; then, when the sun has set, he may come back into the camp.” But… hey I wish we still observed this one in verse 20 "You shall not demand interest from your countrymen on a loan of money or of food or of anything else on which interest is usually demanded. 21 You may demand interest from a foreigner, but not from your countryman, so that the LORD, your God, may bless you in all your undertakings on the land you are to enter and occupy. My point is that to pull this verse out of its context and claim that it is giving us instruction on vasectomy and is binding on us, but ignore the parallel instruction around it is scripturally dishonest. This verse is part of a set of laws that are no longer observed by the Christian Church. This verse is not speaking of vasectomy. Brandon

 

[1ke]

joshua1:

Now is it being open to life if you purposely abstain from intercourse on fertile days?

Yes, one can be open to life and abstain from intercourse on a fertile day. There is no positive law stating one must engage in sexual intercourse every day. Many couples do not have intercourse because they are tired, on a business trip, sick, or any number of other reasons. Knowing that one has fertile signs on a given day does not REQUIRE one to act on it. However, if one DOES choose to act on it, one may not do anything before, during, or after the act to alter it and make it IN-fertile. Notice, one must engage in an act and then alter it in order to contracept. One does not have to act on the knowlege that one is in the infertile period either.

joshua1:

Whether you use artificial or natural methods. the end result is the same. No Baby. Does the means justify the end?

The distinction is NOT between artificial or natural. The distinction is between contracepting and not contracepting. The Church does not teach it is immoral to space or plan children. Therefore the end is not in question. The means are different, and one is immoral while the other is not. The ends do NOT justify the means-- the MEANS are exactly the issue. One means is moral, the other immoral. Two different means can achieve the same end-- just as stealing or working can provide material goods for one’s use.

joshua1:

Again you are purposely denying a pregnancy when you in conscience and purposely abstain knowing you are fertile.

Yes, that is true. And, the Church does not teach that it is wrong to do so.

joshua1:

Logically nfp is just as much contraception as the pill when used to prevent pregnancy. The end is the same.

Two things having the same end does not make them equivalent morally-- ie, stealing and working both gain money, but while the end is the same the means are completely different morally. You are trying to equate the means because they have the same end. No one has ever stated the Church teaches against the end-- only that the Church teaches against a particular means (contraception).

NFP is not contraception by definition. Contraception is an ACTION that renders an act of intercourse sterile. Abstaining is not an act of intercourse, it is a non-action.

joshua1:

So what is the real question. Is it being open to life or just the ability to procreate.

Please clarify, I do not follow this statement. Neither of these appear to be the question to me.

 

[Rascal]

SarahSmile:

Anything that keeps a person from reproducing is wrong… since that is partly why we are here. If we are called to married life than we are called to have children.

Um, be careful what you say! Abstaining is a way of keeping someone from reproducing. Since we are all (presumably) abstaining while posting here, I would suggest posting at forums.Catholic.org is not a sin!

Perhaps someone already point it out, but I did’t want to read through all the posts…

 

[MMC]

Here’s a question–maybe this has been answered already here and I’m just dense.

If someone has a vasectomy and later his first wife dies and he decides to marry again, is he bound to reverse the vasectomy? Or is it valid for him to marry the second wife without reversing the vasectomy, provided he has repented from his sin?

I thought I had heard years ago that he would not be bound to reverse the vasectomy as long as he was repentant.

 

[joshua1]

Didi:

Just a quick clarification – if we are called to married life, we are called to be open to having children. There are some couples who are infertile and instead of adopting, choose not to pursue having children. This makes them no less a family as long as they are conforming to God’s will in their lives!

What about the couple who wants to be married but never want to have any children. And to top it all off, they want to use NFP to acomplish that goal? Should they get married at all.

 

[1ke]

joshua1:

What about the couple who wants to be married but never want to have any children. And to top it all off, they want to use NFP to acomplish that goal? Should they get married at all.

No they should not marry. A permanent disposition against children (ie, you WILL not to have children… not talking about infertility) is an impediment to a valid marriage.