Vasectomy

[defenderoftruth]

So just a question here folks: What about spouses that are infertile are they just “getting a physical pleasure” out of the marital bond? Since there can be no children? I’m not talking about a “problem with getting pregnant couple” but a in fact completely sterile couple.

If you say somehow it’s different I say how? What about the wife that goes to have a VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarian) and she bleeds out and has to have an emergency partial hysterectomy (and yes I fear that greatly because I’m attempting a VBAC this time) would my marriage be just for “kicks” because I can no longer have children?

Like I said “heart condition” not wanting to have kids because you just don’t want kids is one thing but because you love you wife and are concerned about her health and get fixed over a life and death issue to me is something TOTALLY different.

Of course I may be way off and wrong.

 

[Castello]

Sterility, either something you are born with or something you acquire (age, illness or injury) is not an impediment to a valid marriage.

God made the rules, we simply have to live by them. It baffles me how we want to think God is so impotent that He can create the world and rise from the dead and turn a bit of bread into Flesh, yet, he cannot figure out marriage and sex. Heck, I do not want to worship a God who is that inept!

We idolize this life. Do we know grasp that this life is not the goal? If I die while following God, that difficult and narrow path, I may live with Him forever. That is so much better than the alternative.

 

[agapewolf]

I will have to disagree taking away the procreative part of sex can but doesn;t always take away the rest of its meaning. Otherwise everyone who got sterilized or was on the pill and so on would have dissappointing sex lives and trust me that isn;t the case! Things are not that black and white.

Disagree all you want, but what I’m talking about is Theology of the Body.

 

[Slinger]

I don’t want to derail this thread but it had me thinking after reading so many posts about all of these things.

The Catholic church (according to these boards) does not allow marriage unless it can be physically consummated. How then, would complete abstinence be allowed for an extended period of time? Does this mean you must at least have sex once but no more is okay or acceptable?

I’m not meaning to start a big debate but, perhaps, someone could explain that.

 

[twoangels]

You all are acting like I am telling him to get a vasectomy. I “charted” (is that a better word than calender?) when I used NFP and kept meticulous records on temperature with the correct kind of thermometer, checked my mucus, and breastfed to boot. The couple to couple league’s stats saying 99% effective is a farce-sorry but it’s true. Not something someone should trust with their life. Guess what, “NFP is the cure all” people, it didn’t work. 3 kids in 3 years, 2 from NFP.

I would agree that NFP is definitely not a cure-all. I think its wrong when it is promoted as such. Also sticking to the principals of ecological breastfeeding is near impossible. You cannot be working if ecological breastfeeding is going to work and if you’re not doing ecological breastfeeding, you should be charting starting around day 56 after you’ve given birth. Breastfeeding then makes charting very confusing. The most conservative route can leave you abstaining for a month and restricting sex to only to the end of the day.

However once a child is completely weaned from breastfeeding and all those hormones are out of your symptom, a woman’s cycle should return back to normal. Its getting through breastfeeding that is tough. I don’t know why so many women think that if they’re using a pacifier and their baby is over 6 months that charting and abstaining is no longer necessary.

However, by the OP post, it would seem to indicate that his wife is no longer breastfeeding and thus that an actual cycle of fertility can be observed. This is much easier than breastfeeding.

 

[Castello]

I don’t want to derail this thread but it had me thinking after reading so many posts about all of these things.

The Catholic church (according to these boards) does not allow marriage unless it can be physically consummated. How then, would complete abstinence be allowed for an extended period of time? Does this mean you must at least have sex once but no more is okay or acceptable?

I’m not meaning to start a big debate but, perhaps, someone could explain that.

A Josephite marriage - one where they agree not to have sex - is permitted as long as both are physically ABLE to consummate. (I am able to eat that entire box of candy, that does not mean I choose to do it.) It is only to be done under Spiritual direction, and, if either party requests the marital debt, the other must render it.

That is they type of marriage that St Terese the Little Flower’s parents had for the first years of their marriage.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t want to derail this thread but it had me thinking after reading so many posts about all of these things.

It’s too late for that.

It doesn’t look like the OP is coming back anyway.

 

[kbachler]

I disagree. It’s just sex. Being able to ignore our baser instincts frees us to discover our true humanity. Marriage is a tight bond because of the love one has for another–and it does not have to constantly be proven with physical release. I dated my now husband for 5 years and witheld sex the entire time. Was it difficult? Of course. But not impossible and our relationship sure didn’t suffer from it. The couple should try new activities and hobbies together to bond in the absense of sex. It CAN be done, and the couple does not have to suffer unreasonably.

I think if a couple can’t be together just because sex is absent, there is probably something more that needs to be addressed.
Emotional violence? Really? Now if the decision wasn’t mutual, then yes I would agree. That’s where your quote from the Bible comes from. But if the couple comes to the conclusion together, then they’ll be stronger for it in the future.

God gave us those “baser” instincts (btw - what makes them “baser” other than opinion?). Clearly a full sexual relationship with one’s spouse is an important part of the human experience and therefore is part of our “true humanity”. And actually, research shows that chemicals released during sex actually increase bonding.

In summary, your statement above is not very convincing.

 

[lo_amo87]

God gave us those “baser” instincts (btw - what makes them “baser” other than opinion?). Clearly a full sexual relationship with one’s spouse is an important part of the human experience and therefore is part of our “true humanity”. And actually, research shows that chemicals released during sex actually increase bonding.

In summary, your statement above is not very convincing.

I’m not saying sex between a married couple is a bad thing. As I said, it’s the icing on the cake. But going without it for a while is not going to ruin the relationship and if it does than the couple has issues to work out and should be seeing a councelor. Besides the fact that all of this is a mute point if the couple does not decide to do it together. If this is not an absolutely mutual decision, then yes, I cannot imagine the outcome would be very good.

 

[Castello]

God gave us those “baser” instincts (btw - what makes them “baser” other than opinion?). Clearly a full sexual relationship with one’s spouse is an important part of the human experience and therefore is part of our “true humanity”. And actually, research shows that chemicals released during sex actually increase bonding.

In summary, your statement above is not very convincing.

Scripture teaches Christians that we are to have discipline over our bodies, to have submission over our “baser instincts”. Our “true humanity” is tainted by the stain of original sin called Concupiscence.

newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

The Church has long taught to mortify our bodies and be the masters of those instincts. To not be gluttons (even in marital sex).

Read St Paul to the Corinthians:

• Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win.
  Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.

Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing.

No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

God gave us those “baser” instincts (btw - what makes them “baser” other than opinion?). Clearly a full sexual relationship with one’s spouse is an important part of the human experience and therefore is part of our “true humanity”. And actually, research shows that chemicals released during sex actually increase bonding.

In summary, your statement above is not very convincing.

Yes, sex is important in marriage, and the Church knows this, which is probably why NFP was developed and supported (to be able to participate in the marital act even when the couple discerns the need to avoid)… but like you mentioned, a full sexual relationship is what is important (sacramental even!), not one thwarted, mutilated, by sterilization. That being said, some couples face situations in life where, after living married life for any period of time, something might happen where they will no longer able to participate in the marital act (for example, a really bad car accident) and they will have to live without participating in the act from then on, and with God’s help, their marriage can stay strong and loving.

 

[kbachler]

Yes, sex is important in marriage, and the Church knows this, which is probably why NFP was developed and supported (to be able to participate in the marital act even when the couple discerns the need to avoid)… but like you mentioned, a full sexual relationship is what is important (sacramental even!), not one thwarted, mutilated, by sterilization. That being said, some couples face situations in life where, after living married life for any period of time, something might happen where they will no longer able to participate in the marital act (for example, a really bad car accident) and they will have to live without participating in the act from then on, and with God’s help, their marriage can stay strong and loving.

Sorry, I have a difficult time believing that the concept of being open to life is only open to the potential life of a new fetus, and not of each of the lives of the participants in the sexual act. The idea that we are somehow given less in life (for example because of the risks in pregnancy) and yet are not supposed to choose to avoid pregnancy in a more effective manor (than for example NFP) is a nonsensical argument. (A person can have less unitive sex via permanent abstinence that is open to the life of the mother but not open to a new fetal life is ok; but more unitive sex via non-abortive ABC that is open to the life of the mother and not open to new fetal life is not ok? I don’t believe that our God who designed such a logical universe, and who could forgive David, forgive Abraham and who gave us a mind to use, would create such a conundrum and punish us for a highly reasonable solution.

 

[elizabethofport]

Its important to recognize that you are not getting a vesectomy to save your wife’s life. You are getting a vesectomy to be able to engage in sexual activity without risking harming your wife’s life. .

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Sending out prayers to this father!

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Sorry, I have a difficult time believing that the concept of being open to life is only open to the potential life of a new fetus, and not of each of the lives of the participants in the sexual act. The idea that we are somehow given less in life (for example because of the risks in pregnancy) and yet are not supposed to choose to avoid pregnancy in a more effective manor (than for example NFP) is a nonsensical argument. (A person can have less unitive sex via permanent abstinence that is open to the life of the mother but not open to a new fetal life is ok; but more unitive sex via non-abortive ABC that is open to the life of the mother and not open to new fetal life is not ok? I don’t believe that our God who designed such a logical universe, and who could forgive David, forgive Abraham and who gave us a mind to use, would create such a conundrum and punish us for a highly reasonable solution.

I think you are talking about respecting life/preservation of life which is very important, but not exclusive from being open to life in sex (which can sound kind of confusing, since the couple is not wanting to conceive, so let’s just say it is not mutilating the procreative aspect of the sex).
God gave us the Church, He founded it. He gave us the Holy Spirit, the Church’s Wisdom. The Church did not come to this conclusion randomly nor just recently.

From Humanae Vitae:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation.

He gave us minds to think, but that does not mean that we can justify any action as long as the results are what we want.

Also from Humanae Vitae:

…it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

He gave us Natural Order, He gave us the Truth, to help us see what is right and wrong. He forgave people that did horrible things, but that does not mean that horrible things are ok. Some consider abortion a highly reasonable solution, nipping life at the bud… that does not make it ok… (aside from the fact that vasectomies aren’t 100% effective either, even for people that follow the rules and wait the amount they have to wait etc… not that it matters, it would still be immoral if it were 100% effective…)

 

[Bobby_Jim]

If you used a calendar with NFP you weren’t doing it right.

I find this a very unhelpful response. I’ve heard this before. We were pretty meticulous about charting, and had 3 conceptions when charting would say it was unlikely. Note that NFP is all about statistics. There will always be some people whose bodies naturally behave a little bit outside (or even a lot outside) what the models predict.

However I also find the general response “well, if NFP doesn’t work for you then you just have to abstain until menopause” a bit too pat of an answer. Reminds me of the description of the Pharisees, placing heavy burdens upon people that they themselves are unwilling to carry. I’m not saying it’s the wrong answer, but I think sometimes it is advice given rather carelessly, as if abstaining from sex with one’s spouse for the next 15-20 years is a decision to be made as easily as what clothes to wear in the morning.

I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone go against church teaching and have sterilization. And if I were considering it, I certainly wouldn’t go to an internet forum for advice from a bunch of strangers! More a matter to talk through with a competent priest or spiritual director who can hopefully talk through the Church’s teaching in a way that is more meaningful for your specific circumstances.

Edit: these were the scholars of the law, not the Pharisees, Luke 11:46.