Sterilization: Why It Is Wrong

Catholic Herald ^ | 1/15/04 | Fr. William P. Saunders

[new cruelty]

I recently saw the movie "Cheaper by the Dozen." In it, the father, played by Steve Martin, states that he has had a vasectomy. This has caused some discussion among friends, especially because some people think that after 12 children one logically should have a vasectomy. Why does the Church teach that sterilization is wrong? — A reader in Ashburn

Before addressing the morality of sterilization, we must first remember that each person is a precious human being made in God’s image and likeness with both a body and a soul. Vatican II’s "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" asserted, "Man, though made of body and soul is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day" (no. 14). St. Paul also reminds us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and therefore we should not degrade our bodily dignity by allowing the body to participate in the act of sin. Moreover, such sin hurts the body of the Church.

Therefore, we are responsible to care for our bodily needs with proper nourishment, rest, exercise and hygiene. A person must not do anything to purposefully harm the body or its functions. For example, at times, we take medicine — over-the-counter as well as prescribed — to preserve our bodily health. However, we must not bring harm to our body by abusing legitimate drugs or using drugs known to be harmful.

Circumstances arise when a person may need surgery. To preserve the well-being of the whole body and really the whole person, an organ that is diseased or functioning in a way that harms the body may be removed or altered. For instance, surgery to remove an appendix that is about to rupture is perfectly moral as is surgery to remove a mole which appears to be pre-cancerous. However, cutting off a perfectly healthy hand, thereby destroying not only that bodily part but also its functions, is an act of mutilation and is morally wrong.

With this brief outline of principles, we can turn to sterilization. Here a distinction is made between direct and indirect sterilization.

Direct sterilization means that the purpose of the procedure was simply to destroy the normal functioning of a healthy organ so as to prevent the future conception of children. The most effective and least dangerous method of permanent sterilization is through vasectomy for a man and ligation of the fallopian tubes for a woman. Such direct sterilization is an act of mutilation and is therefore considered morally wrong. Regarding unlawful ways of regulating births, Pope Paul VI in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" (1968) asserted, "Equally to be condemned ... is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary" (no. 14). The Catechism also states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law" (no. 2297).

Indirect sterilization is morally permissible. Here surgery, or drug or radiation therapy, is not intended to destroy the functioning of a healthy organ or to prevent the conception of children. Rather, the direct intention is to remove or to combat a diseased organ; unfortunately, the surgery or therapy may "indirectly" result in the person being sterilized. For instance, if a woman is diagnosed with a cancerous uterus, the performance of a hysterectomy is perfectly legitimate and moral. The direct effect is to remove the diseased organ and preserve the health of the woman’s body; the indirect effect is that she will be rendered sterile and never be able to bear children again. The same would be true if one of a woman’s ovaries or if one of a man’s testes were cancerous or functioning in a way that is harmful to overall bodily well-being. The caution in this discussion to uphold the morality is that the operation is truly therapeutic in character and arises from a real pathological need.

Lastly, further caution must be taken concerning the role of the state in this area. Pope Pius XI in his encyclical "Casti connubii" (1930) warned, "For there are those who, overly solicitous about the ends of eugenics, not only give certain salutary counsels for more certainly procuring the health and vigor of the future offspring ... but also place eugenics before every other end of a higher order; and by public authority wish to prohibit from marriage all those from whom, according to the norms and conjecture of their science, they think that a defective and corrupt offspring will be generated because of hereditary transmission, even if these same persons are naturally fitted for entering upon matrimony. Why, they even wish such persons even against their will to be deprived by law of that natural faculty through the operation of physicians."

Pope Pius XI was prophetic in his teaching, since shortly thereafter the world witnessed the eugenics program of Nazi Germany which included massive sterilization of those deemed "undesirable." In our world, various civil governments still toy with the idea of sterilization to solve welfare problems. Perhaps we may reach the point where health insurance companies pressure individuals to be sterilized rather than risk having children which may require high care.

Pope John Paul II warned in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life" ("Evangelium Vitae") of "scientifically and systematically programmed threats" against life. He continued, " ... We are in fact faced by an objective ‘conspiracy against life,’ involving even international institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life" (no. 17).

In all, the Catholic teaching on this issue respects the dignity of the individual in both his person and action.

Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls and a professor of catechetics and theology at Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria.

[new cruelty]

I thought this was an interesting article on a subject I had not given much consideration. My wife jokes that after we have three kids, its snip time for me. At least I think she is joking.

[2banana]

MR. HARRY BLACKITT: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.

MRS. BLACKITT: What are we dear?

MR. BLACKITT: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.

MRS. BLACKITT: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?

MR. BLACKITT: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.

MRS. BLACKITT: But it's the same with us, Harry.

MR. BLACKITT: What do you mean?

MRS. BLACKITT: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.

MR. BLACKITT: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.

MRS. BLACKITT: Really?

MR. BLACKITT: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.

MRS. BLACKITT: What, you mean... lock the door?

MR. BLACKITT: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid- sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.

MRS. BLACKITT: What d'you mean?

MR. BLACKITT: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you,...

MRS. BLACKITT: Oh, yes, Harry.

MR. BLACKITT: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.

MRS. BLACKITT: Ooh!

MR. BLACKITT: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.

MRS. BLACKITT: You what?

MR. BLACKITT: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

MRS. BLACKITT: Have you got one?

MR. BLACKITT: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'

MRS. BLACKITT: Well, why don't you?

MR. BLACKITT: But they-- Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien episcopal supremacy.

NARRATOR #1: But, despite the attempts of Protestants to promote the idea of sex for pleasure, children continued to multiply everywhere.

[new cruelty]

ROTFLOL. I always enjoyed that skit.

[sweet_diane]

Fortunately for me, after 43 years of being a member of the Protestant Reformed Church I have never come across the likes of Mr and Mrs Blackitt.

While I haven't always understood why some of my brothers and sisters in Christ believe and/or worship as they do, I've never felt it necessary to publicly condemn or mock them for believing and/or worshiping as they do.

[BenLurkin]

The only way to end poverty is to sterilize the poor.

It is not about eugenics, its about ending the tragic cycle of poverty.

As for "snip-snip" time, it is she who must get operated on. Remind her of Strom Thurmond.

Remind her that though you desire a long happy relationship together to the end, something might just happen to her and the kids.

You could (and should) begin anew even late in life, while she, alas, could not. Therefore it is she who must have the procedure.

[shiva]

Smart wife......I don't think she is joking either so get ready (snip, snip).

[new cruelty]

so get ready

hehe.< /nervous laugh> Its a quick and painless procedure. No worries.

Yeah, that will be the day.

[tkathy]

My husband's had a vasectomy for a number of years now. Worked out just fine, disaster isn't coming to the poor of the world yet.

[discostu]

Ummmmm, wow. What a load.

People break out of the cycle of poverty all the time, what keeps people in it is a government that rewards poverty. Sterilization is not the answer there not by a long shot, that IS eugenics and trying to recast it otherwise is lying to yourself. We need to end the government programs that encourage the poor to descend to abject poverty, thus giving them a reason to move up in life.

As for who should get snipped, you can die leaving her alive and she COULD and SHOULD begin anew. Actually given the life expectancies of the genders by your logic it should ALWAYS be the man who gets snipped since they will probably die younger thus leaving the woman to begin anew.

[BenLurkin]

". . .that IS eugenics . . ." How So? Are you saying there is a link between genetics ans poverty?

" . . . given the life expectancies of the genders . . ." Life expectancy yes. Fertility/abilty to successfully carry child to term - no way.

"What a load" Let's have a conversation before you come on that strong, FRiend.

[shiva]

Once mama decides she wants you sheared, you gonna do it or there will be hell to pay till you do. Besides, you don't know the benefits that come with it. Your wife's 'headaches' suddenly disapear and heaven fills your bedroom.Woo!Woo!

[NCPAC]

To even hint that self sterilization - for any reason - may be somehow wrong or "immoral" is ludicrous. Talk about a non-issue!

[Minn]

It is a wonderful thing to be snipped.

[new cruelty]

...you gonna do it or there will be hell to pay till you do. Besides, you don't know the benefits that come with it. Your wife's 'headaches' suddenly disapear and heaven fills your bedroom.Woo!Woo!

LOL.

I don't know I can handle any more heaven that I already have. But anyway... Now that I think about it, you are right about the benefits for some... My brother-in-law got a motorcycle out of the deal he made with my sister.

[discostu]

Once you start deciding people of a certain category, whether you're deciding that category by race distance between the eyes or income level, aren't allowed to breed you are practicing eugenics. By seeking to break the cycle of poverty by ending breeding you are saying there's a genetic link to poverty.

Depends on if the woman is having kids or not. We're learning that on the female side fertility is like any other physical activity: practice makes perfect. Women that don't have kids lose the ability very early, women that keep having kids keep the ability for a long time (my grandmother's sister had her last of 13 at age 46, no complications).

Another thing to consider when deciding who should have the nip and tuck based on the possibility of wanting to reverse that decision is that tube tying is easier to undo than vascectomies.

I plead lack of morning caffiene, you're right I came on too strong and I apologize, thanks for giving me a second chance.

[vikk]

Your post is more funny than the Monty Python skit!

[John H K]

While I haven't always understood why some of my brothers and sisters in Christ believe and/or worship as they do, I've never felt it necessary to publicly condemn or mock them for believing and/or worshiping as they do.

I think a lot of Protestants don't realize that about 98% of the practicing Catholics (I'm talking regular churchgoers, not just Easter and Christmas people) basically ignore almost everything coming out of Rome.

Especially anything about prohibiting all forms of birth control.

[ArrogantBustard]

Once mama decides she wants you sheared, you gonna do it or there will be hell to pay till you do.

I really feel sorry for anyone stuck in a "relationship" like that...

[BenLurkin]

It is not entirely tongue in cheek.

But I'd just as soon my fellow FReepers laugh in the morning as anything else.

[lainde]

bttt