Sterilization as Contraception

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.

It is not the Catholic religion per se that forbids artificial birth control, but the Will of God through divine and natural laws. If fact, the Bible - Genesis 38:8,9,10 - states that God punished it by death because it is "a detestable thing."

Whether or not we obey God's laws and the teachings of His Church is up to each of us. The problem reduces itself to: how much do we love God and how much do we value our own souls and the souls of others?

>>>>>>>>>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?

You don't count, because the media and the broader culture regard anyone with more than three children (at most) as a freak. This goes hand in hand with regarding anyone who values or practices chastity as a freak. Today, most Americans regard consequence-free sexual pleasure as the summum bonum of existence, and woe to him who suggests it might not be.

My last child was conceived just six months after the previous section so my doctor was understandably worried. The incision hadn't even had time to really heal well.

Talk about one scared momma! Fear played a huge part in that, but gave birth to a wonderful kid..it was a difficult pregnancy though and the recovery was just awful.

There are times when you do have to listen to what medicine says.

I have a cousin who now has 5 boys all under the age of 9. When his wife became pregnant with the third they began losing some of their liberal friends. Even some of the family members are making snarky comments. People just don't get it.

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

*************

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

I wonder if everyone bashing the Church's position realizes that until the Church of England approved the use of birth control for married couples. It was the universal teaching of both the Catholic and Protestant churches that A Birth Control was wrong. Birth control was condemn by the reformers in very strong language.

I suggest those who insist on sneering at the Churh's teaching at least read the reasoning behind it. Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae can easily be found on the internet.

Also there is a growing movement among Protestant Evangelicals who have come to the conclusion that Birth control is contrary to Biblical teaching.
So this is not a Catholic only issue.

>>>>>>>I have a cousin who now has 5 boys all under the age of 9. When his wife became pregnant with the third they began losing some of their liberal friends. Even some of the family members are making snarky comments.

Yes, that is the experience of my sister (who has five children) and a good friend (who has six).

It's definitely my experience too.
6 kids and pregnant with my 7th.
I have become disillusioned about NFP and am seriously considering a tubal ligation after this baby is born.
I have many health problems and am exhausted and cranky.

I'm having a hard time believing it is the will of God to have more kids than we can care for.

Advise and counsel from someone who has actually "been there and done that" is a lot more meaningful.

One of my favorite priests at my Church is a grandfather. He entered the seminary as a young man, dropped out, married, raised children, had grandchildren, became widowed, re-entered the seminary and is now ordained a priest. He has lots of experience in marriage and child-rearing.

Interestingly enough, his advice on the catechism is the same as his fellow priests without the experience.

I'm not using ANY birth control. It strikes me as weird to be married and use birth control. I always thought of BC as something that unmarried couples used to avoid getting pregnant.

I have become disillusioned about NFP and am seriously considering a tubal ligation after this baby is born.

Please don't do that. Have you consulted with CCLI or another solid NFP teaching establishment about your NFP practice?

"Bingo. If I marry and have just one child, there - I've multiplied!"

Actually, you haven't multiplied because two (you and your wife) have become one (your child.) If you have three, then you've multiplied. A society needs to have a birth rate of 2.0 to sustain itself. Russia has a birth rate of 1.3 and will see its population cut in half by 2050.

"As a Protestant, I'm glad my clergyman is married and has a family, so he can more fully understand his work and the people with whom he works."

Your statement betrays a misconception held by many Protestants: that all Catholic Priests are unmarried. It also ignores the existence of Deacons.

There happen to be many married Priests in the eastern Catholic churches, although this is not the norm in the U.S. There are also men who, having become widowed, become Priests. It's not that unusual.

Most Deacons are married, and in the western (Roman) Catholic church, Deacons are often the de facto clergy for a specific Parish.

Your statement implies that a clergyman who is not married cannot fully understand his work and the people with whom he works. Have you considered, however, that celibacy might be something of an advantage because you can more objectively evaluate what you see? Even if celibacy were a disadvantage, a point which I do not concede, there are plenty of married clergy (e.g. Deacons) available in the Catholic churches.

I'm aware of the married priests in the Eastern church, and I'm aware of Deacons (I'm Episcopalian). I was merely expressing an opinion. Celibacy is of course a discipline that some choose to adopt; it's not (again, my opinion), the normal human condition.

It's just one of many reasons I'm not Catholic.

"Spoken like a typical man who attends a church run by celibate men."

Your comment is unnecessarily inflammatory. It's also factually inaccurate.

There are numerous ordained men in the Catholic churches who are or who have been married. Most Deacons are married. There are many married Priests in the Eastern Catholic churches, and even a few married Priests in the western (Roman) Catholic church. And then there are those who became Priests after being widowed.

Your comment also implies that the church is run solely by men. A point of view that borders on the laughable for those of us who actually attend Catholic parishes, or who have ever had any significant interaction with Nuns. Women, not men, are usually the ones who step forward to run the lay ministries in our parishes. And arguably *the* most powerful and influential Catholic in the U.S. during the last 25 years has been Mother Angelica.

"I have a cousin who now has 5 boys all under the age of 9. When his wife became pregnant with the third they began losing some of their liberal friends. Even some of the family members are making snarky comments. People just don't get it."

Sad to say, this attitude crops up in some Catholic parishes as well. One of the (large) families at my Parish started looking east when they ran into these kinds of issues.

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.