what to do if your spouse is "fixed"?

[OraLabora]

You seem to be trying to undermine the guy’s credentials on the basis that you cannot find any evidence of his authority (which is suprising as its all over the Net). You also seem to have overlooked the fact that his conclusions are also based on well researched dialogue and study of the views of highly respected moral theologians whom he has referenced.

To counter his conclusions I think we need to offer the OP something more than the fact we just don’t like him or what he writes.

A theologian’s opinion is not a definitive teaching of the Church. It is an opinion, albeit one hopes a learned one. The Church in fact encourages theological debate, on issues she has not yet pronounced one way or the other. Before, for instance, issuing Humanae Vitae, the Holy Father solicited the varied opinions of theologians before finally issuing the encyclical.

The only definitive teaching we have on the subject, is that we are to lead chaste lives, in the context of our situation, which for a married couple is to only engage in sexual relations with each other, forsaking all others, in a manner open as open to life as our circumstances permit. A post-menopausal couple, for instance, does not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods. A couple who are sterile through surgery or treatments for medical reasons, does not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods. A newly baptized Catholic couple who were sterilized voluntarily when whilst non-Catholics do not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods, because they are always infertile. Similarly, a Catholic couple who were voluntarily sterilized but repented with sincere contrition, do not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods. You might be able to argue that the Catholic couple should be held to a higher standard than a couple who were sterilized before becoming Catholic, but I think with that argument you are undermining the healing and reconciliation that Jesus makes available to us in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The sin is forgiven once and for all, and the penance imposed by the priest in the confessional cannot be a life-long or decades-long burden. What might make sense, and is in fact mentioned in scripture, is for a couple to periodically, by mutual agreement, undertake prayerful periods of abstinence that are not necessarily tied to a couple’s fertility cycle, since in this case there is no fertility cycle, nor is there any obligation as to the frequency of such periods of abstinence. A couple could decide to abstain only once a year as a prayerful reminder of their regret. But that’s a different matter, and even in scripture, that is not an obligation but a suggestion, requires the mutual consent of both parties, and is entirely voluntary.

We are free to interpret what chastity means to us in this particular case, and to seek to apply it to our lives, and if in prayerful accord with one’s spouse one wants to abstain in a manner mimicking a woman’s natural cycle, then by all means do so. What we are not permitted to do, is impose a burden on others in the same situation, or even suggest that there such a burden, where the Church does not.

Moreover it shouldn’t be required of couples in this situation to study the works of various theologians to come to a conclusion. The advice the couple receives in the confessional, and the grace thereby obtained, should be sufficient. We are not all called to become experts in theology. What we are all called to do is to transform our own lives.

 

[kingston1]

If the wife was Catholic and the surgery was reversable without major risk and good chance of success then it would be expected (as a sign of true repentance) that the reversal operation be undertaken. If it was judged that these conditions could not be met then the mainstream moral-theology view would be that they only have sex during her infertile period (as a sign of not surrepticiously benefitting from the sterilisation).

However, it is the husband who is Catholic not the wife.
It is his duty to do work within the limits of their relationship to try and pursuade her of these principles over time. However if she is sincerely unable to accept all these things (which is quite possible as even Catholics find such teaching hard to take) then he has reached the limits of what God asks of him. However if opportunity arises for carrying out even some of these principles without damaging the relationship then the husband is called to do so.

that sounds pretty reasonable for him to do what he can without damaging the marriage… thanks.

 

[OraLabora]

that sounds pretty reasonable for him to do what he can without damaging the marriage… thanks.

It’s not reasonable if he’s trying persuade her that there’s a burden on her shoulders that the Church herself does not impose.

His job is to try to slowly evangelize her (and only if necessary use words, paraphrasing St. Francis… that is, by his own actions and example, and no, that does not mean withholding the marital debt to prove a point). It is not his job to burden her unnecessarily.

 

[kingston1]

It’s not reasonable if he’s trying persuade her that there’s a burden on her shoulders that the Church herself does not impose.

His job is to try to slowly evangelize her (and only if necessary use words, paraphrasing St. Francis… that is, by his own actions and example, and no, that does not mean withholding the marital debt to prove a point). It is not his job to burden her unnecessarily.

I am agreeing that if he does what he can to let her know that he is open to children but in a loving way and she decides it is not going to happen that is all he can do as the catholic party.

I absolute agree that the man should not be heavy handed so as to not damage the marriage…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…
A post-menopausal couple, for instance, does not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods. A couple who are sterile through surgery or treatments for medical reasons, does not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods. A newly baptized Catholic couple who were sterilized voluntarily when whilst non-Catholics do not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods, because they are always infertile. Similarly, a Catholic couple who were voluntarily sterilized but repented with sincere contrition, do not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods. …

The sin is forgiven once and for all, and the penance imposed by the priest in the confessional cannot be a life-long or decades-long burden. … A couple could decide to abstain only once a year as a prayerful reminder of their regret. But that’s a different matter, and even in scripture, that is not an obligation but a suggestion, requires the mutual consent of both parties, and is entirely voluntary.

…What we are not permitted to do, is impose a burden on others in the same situation, or even suggest that there such a burden, where the Church does not.

Moreover it shouldn’t be required of couples in this situation to study the works of various theologians to come to a conclusion. The advice the couple receives in the confessional, and the grace thereby obtained, should be sufficient. We are not all called to become experts in theology. What we are all called to do is to transform our own lives.

OL this is well argued and I want to agree with you, I really do.
There are some very fine points you have gone astray on wrt actual Church Teaching “under the hood” which means to that degree your conclusions are somewhat hard to justify in places.

As hinted below re others, your understanding of the Catholic principles of repentance is
incomplete. “Restoration/satisfaction” is a necessary element of true sorrow. If we don’t want to fix the temporal damage done (and which we may continue to do) then our sorrow is imperfect (it may be acceptable to God given our immaturity but it is still imperfect).
Kids want to be sorry for batting the ball into the neighbours window…but do they want to play cricket down at the park instead of the tight back-yard afterwards? No they don’t. They will, if mum lets them get away with it, just go back to the same old pattern and promise not to do it again. But of course they will get excited and eventually break the neighbours window again. This is not mature sorrow. Mature sorrow causes a change in discipline, lifestyle.

Sterilisation is an injustice to God, a mutilation of our bodies and (in the context of continued conjugal union) an ongoing contraceptive act.

You attempt to put this situation on a par with the irreversible and natural sterility of old age. That appears just a tad disingenuous. That is following nature, it was not a contraceptive decision.

The same with “a couple who are sterile through surgery or treatments for medical reasons, does not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods.” This is not relevent. Their treatments are not mutilations but possibly life-saving interventions. Of course this discussion does not apply to them.

You mention " A newly baptized Catholic couple who were sterilized voluntarily when whilst non-Catholics do not have to mimic abstinence during fertile periods, because they are always infertile." Well, these principles equally apply to them at their time of reception into the Church. The fact that they do not mention such things to the receiving priest or he doesn’t want to know … so they get through does not amount to a denial of the principles.

It is not about placing any extra burden on Catholic couples.
There is no extra burden being spoken of here other than the one they were trying to avoid through sterilisation in the first place.

Please note that if a reversal of a sterilisation procedure was judged too risky, or success unlikely then of course this is not a burden that needs to be countenanced.

But the continued ongoing acts of contraception are an issue that has to be faced.
The need for abstinence is not about being a burden, its about not contuing to contracept/sin. Ongoing wilful, contraception cannot be “forgiven” by a single get out of jail free card Confession. That is not mature thinking. If one is truly repentant one will want to give God back an adult justice if it is reasonably possible.

If one is truly open to having more children (after voluntary sterilisation) then of course abstinence is not required. But then, such persons would be want to looking at a reversal wouldn’t they? And if they were not sterilised (and didn’t want more kids) they would be wanting to practise some form of NFP requiring abstinence anyway wouldn’t they?

Yes the abstinence thing does sound a bit excessive and conservative and burdensome but is it really? Whence the excessive burden wrt abstinence? (In fact abstinence for the repentant sterilised couple would be much easier than it is for their non-sterilsed peers as they don’t actually have to cope with thermometers and weird cycles etc etc - they just go with putative infertile dates until menopause).

Yes I think a case could be argued that if a couple who attempted to have a reversal procedure were externally blocked in some way (Confessor/doctor advised against it for reasons outlined) then that “putting themselves out there” would mean the later acts of contraception are genuinely beyond their control and therefore not culpable.

Also, if a confused couple sought advice from a reputable parish priest on this matter then they would be doing all God requires of them if they followed his instructions (though revising that on a regular basis) - voluntarily practising chastity as you suggest.

 

[mommamaree]

Yes this is a prudential judgement.
The problem with the “surgery is too risky” approah is that the OP was quite happy with the alleged “risks” when it came to deriving a sinful benefit.
But when it comes to restoring God’s body back to its non-mutilated state (and the downside of being fertile again and the need for chastity) we can expect even saints to lose objectivity on an objective judgment wrt the true level of risk.

Therefore it seems highly likely that the penitent is not in a position to objectively decide this for themselves. That suggests a truly repentant person would want to follow the guidance/advice of other professionals on this point- obviously including an experienced priest and doctor.

This is not always true. OBGYNs have commonly urged women, whose bodies are already cut open on the table for C-sections,to agree to be sterilized “since she is already open”, and are told, while in a vulnerable state like that, that any more pregnancies could be dangerous. I know of a woman who had that happen to her. The doctor made her husband come and look into her open abdomen, after they refused sterilization, and was able to coerce the husband on the spot to agree to it. They have lived with regret ever since that day. They went to confession, but never were REQUIRED to undergo a reversal, nor practice periods of abstinence.
A lot of the sterilization that happens for women happen immediately post C-sections.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to educate, but I must confess I do not find anything you have shared to be compelling enough to change my perspective. Besides, decisions like this are to be made by husband and wife, with the pastoral counsel of their priest and the medical expertise of their doctor. So my opinion doesn’t matter in the long run, and since this is not a matter of faith and morals, but rather is a doubtful thing, there is liberty for people of goodwill to have different opinions.

 

[Della]

I have supplied well regarded moral theological research and references to further authorities in the area. Their arguments well accord with the standard principles regarding of true contrition repentance and restitution. TheChurch cannot possibly be expected to have a big book covering every particular misdeed in the world and what the remedy is for a truly repentant person. That is why the Magisterium offers clear principles - and moral theologians in the field who provide practical implimentation based on those principles.
That is what the OP has been offered.

We all get it that you disagree. But you are a nobody, as am I.
If you want your personal disagreement to carry weight try and find someone educated and respected in his field who applies those same Magisterial principles and comes to a different and accepted view from what I have supplied.

I have been in your shoes and did the leg work.
What I have offered is all I can find.
It differs from the personal intuitions I started out with as well.

What leg work have you done to find an accepted more liberal view that supports your present intuition?

The only “leg work” you have done is to dig up opinions from those who agree with your opinion. You have not quoted one Church document stating that a woman needs to have a reverse operation nor can you–because it doesn’t exist.

And of course I meant that she should do all the Church requires. Duh!!! What you are saying, and then reversing yourself, is that a woman NEEDS to get a reverse operation in order to be truly repentant. NO! NO! NO! NO! she doesn’t. Period. End of the whole silly business.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The only “leg work” you have done is to dig up opinions from those who agree with your opinion. You have not quoted one Church document stating that a woman needs to have a reverse operation nor can you–because it doesn’t exist.

And of course I meant that she should do all the Church requires. Duh!!! What you are saying, and then reversing yourself, is that a woman NEEDS to get a reverse operation in order to be truly repentant. NO! NO! NO! NO! she doesn’t. Period. End of the whole silly business.

I can only lead you to the water Della.

I have pointed out to you the Catholic principles that are being contradicted by this scenario wrt:
(a) True repentance requires restitution/satisfaction for the temporal damage caused.
(b) the difficulty of ongoing acts of wilful contraception.

Your response is … its not in the big book of concrete do’s and concrete don’ts so it must be OK .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is not always true. OBGYNs have commonly urged women, whose bodies are already cut open on the table for C-sections,to agree to be sterilized “since she is already open”, and are told, while in a vulnerable state like that, that any more pregnancies could be dangerous. I know of a woman who had that happen to her. The doctor made her husband come and look into her open abdomen, after they refused sterilization, and was able to coerce the husband on the spot to agree to it. They have lived with regret ever since that day. They went to confession, but never were REQUIRED to undergo a reversal, nor practice periods of abstinence.
A lot of the sterilization that happens for women happen immediately post C-sections.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to educate, but I must confess I do not find anything you have shared to be compelling enough to change my perspective. Besides, decisions like this are to be made by husband and wife, with the pastoral counsel of their priest and the medical expertise of their doctor. So my opinion doesn’t matter in the long run, and since this is not a matter of faith and morals, but rather is a doubtful thing, there is liberty for people of goodwill to have different opinions.

I am confused as to what you are objecting to?
I agree with everything you have said.
It is a prudential decision.

That means you start with the principles and then, dependent on human judgements as to what is risky, what is safe, what is likely to be successful etc, one makes a final decision.
Therefore the final call for different people in different circumstances will be different.

But the principle cannot be denied: ongoing sexual acts that are artificially contracepted are “grave matter.” If wilfully, deliberately and freely continued they become, to the degree of freedom involved, culpable.

The only question then is a prudential one over how free the persons involved are in attempting to reverse the situation.
That is a question that truly repentant persons would want to consider and make an objective reflection and judgement on.
The answer may well be that the persons involved are not free because the dangers are too great and it is not reasonable to risk. that is not the point.

The point is you may not counsel people to short-circuit this process. It is grave matter.
To say to God, “I am not even going to look at this because nobody else I know does” or “because my voluntary sterilisation is something in the past and is no longer of present consequence” … these are not the signs of someone with a deep love of God.

This is not surprising, even in the Early Church slavery was considered of no ethical consequence to most Christians. Likewise today many Catholics do not really see any intrinsic wrong in contracepting to keep family size below 3 kids - though they may well follow Church Teaching as one would a beloved parent with dementia. Yet some Catholic couples will have the spiritual maturity and sensitivity of conscience to accept that objective “grave matter” is likely involved here and we surely do God a disservice to advise them otherwise.

There are issues here that the spiritually mature will want to personally face and even if the final decision they make is the same as everybody else (on objective prudential grounds) this spiritual process of growth should not be denied them or their consciences.

 

[mommamaree]

Blue Horizon,
I am not attempting to counsel anyone here. I merely asked for more information, because of the assertions you put forth in the post I originally quoted. I do not find anything you have shared here compelling enough to change my perspective, which is that the requirement of reversal surgery as part or whole of satisfaction is something that I have never heard of and is out of line. I cannot even imagine a situation in which a priest might suggest such a requirement.
You have a habit of talking about what people who are spiritually mature ought to do, and yet you have chastised me in the past for imposing “obligations” upon others when, as you said, I had no right to do so (even though I made it clear I was not imposing obligations, and do not set myself up as an authority, but only provide information out of catechisms I have in my possession). I am beginning to wonder about that trend…

 

[mommamaree]

If the wife was Catholic and the surgery was reversable without major risk and good chance of success then it would be expected (as a sign of true repentance) that the reversal operation be undertaken. If it was judged that these conditions could not be met then the mainstream moral-theology view would be that they only have sex during her infertile period (as a sign of not surrepticiously benefitting from the sterilisation).

However, it is the husband who is Catholic not the wife.

I object to this paragraph.
“Expected” by whom?
Coitus “only during her infertile period”?
Requiring the second doesn’t even make sense logically. What if part of their repentance includes a newfound openness to life, but without the ability to afford a reversal surgery, which likely would not be covered by insurance? Restricting coitus only to infertile period as penance would remove the possibility that even a "miraculous"conception (meaning rare or unlikely but still possible) could ever occur. What priest in his right mind would ever expect either reversal surgery OR coitus only during infertile periods as penance, thereby eliminating any middle path?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I object to this paragraph.
“Expected” by whom?

Mainstream moral theological opinion as stated and sourced.
I have, surprisingly, been unable to find a more liberally argued theological view on this specific issue. If you can find one that supports your personal intuition on the matter I would be very interested as I find this one difficult yet I cannot fault it.
The fact I do not find it palatable doesn’t in itself mean it is wrong.

Coitus “only during her infertile period”?
Requiring the second doesn’t even make sense logically.

The reasons are explained in the source provided. Why do you find it illogical?

What if … without the ability to afford a reversal surgery, which likely would not be covered by insurance?

MM the principle I am attempting to communicate is fairly easy to understand. Its all about restoring justice if reasonably possible. If its unreasonable due to hi-risk, unlikely chance of success, poverty, excessive hardship etc etc then obviously another form of restitution would be sought by the truly repentent. Most people understand this principle wrt theft, why is it so hard to understand wrt sterilisation?

It is a prudential judgement - ie use common sense based on an objective appreciation of the circumstances. You mention poverty. Of course. But an objective common sense decision needs to be made by the allegedly poor person involved. If, for example, they are in exactly the same financial circumstances as when they scrimped and saved to get the sterilisation then surely a sincere conscience would not cry “poverty” if reversal was prudentially judged reasonable in all other respects .

As the article quoted puts it:
“God does not require the impossible, but he does require us to do what is possible
and necessary for right living. Therefore, if it is possible for me to change my behavior to
stop future sins, I must do so.” I believe this statement is sound.

Restricting coitus only to infertile period as penance would remove the possibility that even a "miraculous"conception (meaning rare or unlikely but still possible) could ever occur. What priest in his right mind would ever expect either reversal surgery OR coitus only during infertile periods as penance, thereby eliminating any middle path?

Did you actually read the article I provided? It sounds like you do not understand the reasoning behind it. Have a reread, I think you will find you’ve misunderstood the rationale.

In any case, if you read the source I provided, you will find there is some scholarly debate on this point. That is why, below, I conceded that in certain circumstances voluntary practise of chastity may also be an acceptable view according to the experts.

The point is you may not counsel people to short-circuit this process

Blue Horizon, I am not attempting to counsel anyone here.

Apologies, I should have said “we”, in fact all of us here are advising the OP.

I do not find anything you have shared here compelling enough to change my perspective, which is that the requirement of reversal surgery as part or whole of satisfaction is something that I have never heard of and is out of line. I cannot even imagine a situation in which a priest might suggest such a requirement.

MM thats fine, I am simply providing material to help inform your conscience. If you reflect on it and after further research into the matter you reject it then what more could anyone wish for! (Though I would observe that you may not have reflected or studied it as closely as you might think as you seem to have misunderstood some of the arguments presented in the source I supplied).

you have chastised me in the past for imposing “obligations”

You are mistaken. Prev I simply pointed out that the CCC clearly did not express obligation where you gave the impression that it did. The Church expresses obligations in many places and in many ways. If you source those obligations accurately to posters then nobody can object to you doing so.

So yes, I am here signalling sources who see obligations involved in this scenario. They flow from the inner logic of a truly repentant heart. I repeat it again:

As the article quoted puts it:
“God does not require the impossible, but he does require us to do what is possible
and necessary for right living. Therefore, if it is possible for me to change my behavior to
stop future sins, I must do so.”

I believe this statement is sound.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have this friend and his wife had surgery after his fifth child and got tube tied so she cannot conceive. They were obviously open to children having five of them. Neither were catholic at the time but were non catholic Christians. The husband has since become Catholic and is open to having more children but his wife who is not Catholic is very weary to have a major operation again.

Can he be with her as man and wife? That is his question to me.

I said I believe so since it is out of his control and it was due to circumstance not intentional and willful disregard for Church teaching.

Any thoughts? I am not looking for “ask your priest” as I assume that has already taken place but sometimes the answers they give in my experience are a bit vague and open to interpretation.

I have managed to find further expert opinion on this matter as below…
Nothing new to be added - except that sterilisation is not an impediment to Catholic marriage unless the person is formally unrepentant. That does not mean there is not a personal obligation even on the repentant person to seek a reversal if it is reasonable and not burdensome to do so.

WASHINGTON, D.C., 14 JULY 2010 (ZENIT)

Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Can you tell us what is the latest Church teaching about couples seeking a Catholic marriage, wherein one or both of the spouses are impeded from having children by a tubal ligation and/or vasectomy? Can a priest assist at such a marriage, if he were to know about the situation? Or is it enough that he ask them to consider a reversal? Seems like these cases are becoming an epidemic, and every priest seems to be handling this question differently. — Fr. I.S. Belleville, New Jersey, USA

E. Christian Brugger and William E. May offer the following response.

People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage. Catholic Canon Law teaches: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (can. 1084, no. 3).

To contract a valid marriage, one must possess the capacity and the will to enter into a permanent and procreative-type of union. (The procreative part requires only that one be capable of having true intercourse, not that that intercourse must be fertile. More on this below.) If a priest knows that a person requesting marriage in the Church has sterilized him or herself, he should seek moral certitude that the person intends to contract a valid marriage. But if he knows the person is unrepentant, then he has a reasonable ground for questioning whether that person has a will to enter a procreative-type of union. In our judgment, he should not marry persons who say with an intractable will, “I’m sterilized and I’m not sorry.”

How can sterilized persons intend a procreative-type of union (i.e., be morally “open to life”), since knowing they are sterile they cannot intend to have children? Two things are required for openness to life. First, they must repent of the sin of sterilization. Sincere repentance undoes the moral self-determination against life that they realized in themselves when they chose to be sterilized. To repent of a serious sin such as sterilization requires sacramental confession.

Second, having repented, their conjugal acts remain “open to life” (i.e., are marital acts) insofar as they are: 1) chosen in a “human manner”; and 2) are “per se apt for the generation of a child” (canon 1061, no. 1), although the condition of sterility may make such generation impossible (or at least unlikely). The act is chosen in a “human way” insofar as it’s chosen freely (i.e., is not the result of physical or moral coercion). And it is “per se apt for the generation of a child” insofar as it is an ejaculatory act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, which is the kind of act from which procreation could follow if couples are fertile. (Faithful moral theologians [and canon lawyers] disagree on the question of whether an intentionally contraceptive act of intercourse [e.g., using chemicals or barriers] is “per se apt for the generation of a child." We believe it is not.)

An external sign that a person has repented is that he or she seeks to reverse the vasectomy or ligation. A reversal is not required in order to marry in the Church. And if attempting a reversal were to cause serious burdens (e.g., grave financial difficulty or threat to health), then the attempt would not be morally obligatory. But in the absence of serious burdens, we believe a sterilized man or woman for the good of the marriage should attempt a reversal. This of course would not apply to couples who are past childbearing age.

---

E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation and is an associate professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He received his Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 2000.
William E. May, is a Senior Fellow at the Culture of Life Foundation and retired Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

 

[clem456]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19770513_impotentia_it.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22841

NO it is not necessary to have a reversal in the Church’s eyes.
NO.

 

[mommamaree]

Thank you!

I will admit the Vatican link, being in Italian was hard to decipher.
But the CA apologist answer was clear.

 

[clem456]

Here you go:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=804555

See the attached theological article at the end by Kippley.
(He is a theologian but a married man not a Jesuit afterall. The article is well argued researched and based on the views of very reputable theologians on this point. I do feel he is over conservative on other points.).

The poster you reference is close to denying the power of the sacrament of confession.