Vasectomy

[Corki]

I agree with (a) but I don’t see it as relevant to the outcome. If it is, I suppose that doctors could develop a “Catholic” IUD that is permanently attached via an operation (physical alteration/mutilation), so that the women could just confess once and get it over with.

For (b), the IUD doesn’t “act” as a result of sexual relations any more than the vasectomy. Every day, all the time, the vasectomy prevents sperm from reaching the prostate, whether the man has sexual relations or not. And every day, all the time, the IUD makes the uterus inflamed and inhospitable, whether the woman has sexual relations or not. In both cases, the physical changes that take place because of the one time medical event only have contraceptive consequences when sexual activity occurs.

A vasectomy is contraception under the definition of Humanae Vitae just as much as an IUD is. They are both deliberate acts to decrease or eliminate fertility. If you are going to compare vasectomy to being naturally medically sterile, then it makes just as much sense to compare an IUD to having a medical condition like endometriosis.

Can you point me to where it says that in Humanae Vitae? The CCC says:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

Note that direct sterilization and contraception are listed as two unacceptable means.

I am not a HV expert but with a quick look, I found:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

This also seems to speak of contraception and direct sterilization as being two separate kinds of unlawful birth control methods.

HV, admittedly, somewhat confuses the point since it sometimes uses the word contraceptive as an adjective. In other words using a contraceptive (noun) or having a sterilization surgery would both result in contraceptive (adj) intercourse.

 

[debval]

Been there and done that.

My husband had a vasectomy and then had it reversed when we came to understand the teachings of the Church.

If you are unable to reverse it then you should not take advantage of it. In other words you should still be using NFP if your wife is not in menapause.

FYI for everyone reading this post, it may apply to you or to someone you know. The military will do reversals for FREE at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio. Every man that is active duty qualifies for the surgery. Please get the word out. Isn’t it nice that they will fix what they broke!

 

[Just_Lurking]

This also seems to speak of contraception and direct sterilization as being two separate kinds of unlawful birth control methods.

Good point, you are correct. I was thinking of the more general concept of “unlawful birth control methods”, which includes both vasectomies and IUDs.