Posted on 04/20/2006 4:48:53 PM PDT by Coleus
Our neighbors told us that their sons and wives (all of whom are Catholic and educated in Catholic elementary and high schools), each couple with two children apiece, don’t plan to have any more children and to make certain everyone recently had surgical procedures performed to prevent conception. The sons had vasectomies and their wives had their fallopian tubes sutured. Our friends think this is a form of birth control, and we agree with them. Has the Church addressed this matter?
Without question, the couples in question clearly intended to disregard the Church’s teaching on contraception and did so by being surgically sterilized. The Cathechism teaches, "Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood" (#2398). Sterilization destroys this good of marriage, i.e. having children. While contraception is in itself contrary to the moral law, another moral issue here is the purposeful act of direct sterilization, an intrinsically evil act.
Before addressing the morality of sterilization, we must first remember the moral foundation upon which the teaching is built. 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" (#14). St. Paul also reminds us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 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 purposefully to 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul also reminds us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 is 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" (#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" (#2297).
However, indirect sterilization is morally permissible. Here surgery, or some protocol, e.g. 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, such a 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 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 which is harmful to overall bodily well-being. Keep in mind, to be morally right, the operation or protocol must be 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 social welfare problems. We may reach the point where health insurance companies pressure individuals with certain genetic histories 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" (#17).
In all, the Catholic teaching on this issue respects the dignity of the individual in both his person and action.
Excellent scientific point! (And logical too!)
Again, the Catholic Church stands alone against contraception and sterilization!!!!!
God bless our mother, the Church! Always putting forth sound teaching! (I agree sometimes people don't want to hear the truth though!)
There is an even more sure fire method to avoid pregnancy, but then, I guess maybe your husband doesn't like celibacy. Seriously, non one can expect heroc virtue from anyone except themselves.
Why are you posing a question that seems to be filled with hyperbole and personal attack?
Speak to the issue -- don't act like a politician, please.
You haven't heard of the practice of Natural Family Planning, it would seem. Please check out the posted link.
But his knowledge is only by the book, not by personal experience. There IS a difference, which is why I refuse to have a male gynocologist.
I'm thankful that priests are not married. Their lives are devoted to God, prayer and the parish. They don't have wives, in-laws, children, etc. to take them away from their work. Being a priest is a very demanding job.
Again, I would say that since most priests have little real-life experience with issues of sex, marriage, childbirth, child rearing, etc., their advise doesn't mean much to me. Advise and counsel from someone who has actually "been there and done that" is a lot more meaningful.
Titus 2:3-5 states, "Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored."
My point in quoting this text is that even Paul (who was not married) understood that men, celibate ones in particular, have no business giving out martial advise to women. That's why he counseled Titus to find godly older women to do that job.
I am way to blunt to be a politician.
| (Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning |
||
| Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning |
|
||||||||||||||
| Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage |
And not a single one of your quotes tells me not to ever stop fathering babies. There is no biblical injunction against contraception. There is plenty of interpretation by (supposedly) celibate men telling people how to manage their sex lives.
Not having sex is still another way to avoid having children. If supposedly using birth control is keeping God from fertilizing us then avoiding the whole marriage 'rights'is not only keeping God from giving us with children it is also denying our partner a sexual relationship...we're not suppose to do that.
"Since I'm the one responsible for carrying and raising the babies I have I believe I should have a say in when enough is enough."
When my OB said, "Enough! You are putting your life in danger, that was my clue."
The body cannot tolerate Multiple C-sections (old verticle incision, not the new procedure) without a possible rupture killing both mom and baby.
"He said, "Be fruitful and multiply". The church added "without end""
God does not expect "without end". That is why he made our bodies the way he did. Women can not have children their entire lives. God knew our bodies couldn't endure childbirth in our 60's. We have a limited time frame in our lifespan to have children. I trust God knew what he was doing. The church is simply following His plan. It's a shame that so many discard it.
I have the same experience--3 c-sections. I asked my doctor if I could weather a 4th and he told me a story about when he was in medical school he watched a woman bleed to death from uterine rupture. I guess it's one of those few things that happen during pregnancy where the survival rate for mom and baby is just about nil.
After that, my husband decided to have a vasectomy--my doctor said tubal ligations cause a host of hormonal problems for women. It was a very painful decision and I still wish we could have more children, but not at the risk of my children not having a mother.
If consent is to be the buzz word in all matters sexual, then mutual consent not to have sex does not end a sexual relationship:it just makes a radical change. It's a hard choice, sort of like accepting a Down's syndrome child rather than snuffing its life out. You make that sacrifice. Again, I do not expect anyone to be heroic, and on a daily basis, most of us fail to do even our duties on small matters much less make great, life-altering sacrifices.
Truth is not determined by majority vote.
That's what happens when the clergy is celibate and doesn't experience the reality of marriage and kids.
A throwaway response, so you can avoid grappling with the issues. The Catholic clergy is simply re-iterating what was common Christian teaching among all Christians until 1930.
And what about all of us who (a) are not celibate; and (b) don't contracept; and (c) most certainly experience the reality of marriage and kids? Doesn't our opinion count for anything?
That's another throwaway response, to avoid addressing the real issues.
Read what Martin Luther said about contraception sometime. For heaven's sake, read what Mahatma Gandhi, not even a Christian but a virtuous pagan, said after the Anglicans caved to culture in 1930 and approved contraception.
I've really "been there and done that". Married 17 1/2 years, four kids, changed countless diapers, been in the delivery room with my wife for all four births, been up in the middle of the night cleaning vomit off the rug, you name it, I've done. (Except for giving birth and nursing, and I don't really have that option.)
Don't contracept. Use NFP, and be generous in giving life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.