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.
Natural Family Planning would have been the moral choice in this situation, not sterilization. NFP is safe, effective, and it has absolutely no side effects. Also, it makes both the husband and the wife assume responsibility for their fertility. Unlike sterilization and contraception, NFP does not make the woman renounce her fertility just for the sake of being a sex object.
And what do you think I used for BC, and yet here I sit with 3 kids.Struggling to feed and clothe them as a single mother,I doubt God is going to hold my decision againsts me. There is just too much at stake to risk another pregnancy.
"Natural Family Planning would have been the moral choice in this situation, not sterilization..."
And in all charity, that was uncalled for.
Reading a book about Mother Angelica right now, I mean WOW, what a woman she is. I am so amazed by her childhood, the way that she grew up in a neighborhood reminds me of the "Godfather" movie, seriously. Rita Rizzo was her name. God bless her always.
I rarely watch TV, but I did watch EWTN for the first time in a looooong time a couple of weeks ago. They had a re-run from "Mother Angelica Live." It was the first time I had seen her speaking on religious topics.
WOW is right.
The is no biblical injunction against contraception. It's a church-made law by a (supposedly) celibate priesthood. That was my original point and it is still my point.
"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."
Yep! He can possibly understand his work more fully in the divorced area, also, as many protestant clergymen are divorced and remarried.
Not within my household.
"So this is not a Catholic only issue."
When we took our NFP classes it was thru a Baptist Church! The message is getting to some! :o)
Man cannot create life; no power on earth can guarantee the birth of a baby. The key to that decision is in the hands of God alone. He is the third Partner in the conception of every child. If you block or prevent that a couple is saying that they do not want God in their marriage.
_________________________________________
Well said...
NFP works if you're disciplined about it. My wife and I have used it for nearly six years without any issues.
Just because you have a male M. D. who has never experienced menstruation, does that mean that you would not take his advice about cramps, etc.????
Your argument is empty.
Your point is without merit.
Your citation and your analysis is without sense.
Just like the prohibitions against polygamy, slavery, and abortion, the ban against contraception is based primarily upon reason and natural law.
It's a church-made law by a (supposedly) celibate priesthood.
Historically, opposition to contraception wasn't just a Catholic phenomena. Every mainstream protestant denomination prohibited contraception until 1930 when the Anglicans decreed it to be morally permissible in only the most dire circumstances. Most protestant denominations continued their prohibitions well into the 1950's and 1960's.
The exception does not negate the general rule. Celibate men are in control of the Catholic Church and as such have little real life experience on issues of marriage and children yet presume to pontificate about these things to the rest of us. That's why Paul's advise to Titus is so important, IMO. He advised Titus to find godly older women to instruct the younger women on these issues, which is how it should be. Single, celibate men should be careful about presuming to tell women how to run their households.
Talk about quoting the Bible out of context. Onan's sin has nothing to do with "contraception" as we understand it and about refusing to take care of his late brother's widow. He wanted to pretend he was doing his brotherly duty to Er. Onan sexually abuse Tamar (in a manner of speaking) because he didn't have the guts to simply tell Judah, "No. I won't take Tamar." It was about Onan's greed and his desire to save face that brought about G-d's wrath.
To interpret this text to apply to a married couple's mutual decision to not have children or to delay having children is spurious at best.
David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible elaborates further on this point.
a. According to the custom of levirate marriage (later codified into law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10), if a man died before providing sons to his wife, it was the duty of his brothers to marry her and to give her sons. The child would be considered the son of the brother who had died, because really the living brother was acting in his place.
i. This was done so the dead brother's name would be carried on; but also, so the widow would have children who could support her. Apart from this, she would likely live the rest of her life as a destitute widow.
b. Onan refused to take this responsibility seriously. He was more than happy to use Tamar for his own sexual gratification, but he did not want to give Tamar a son he would have to support, but would be considered to be the son of Er.
c. Onan pursued sex as only a pleasurable experience. If he really didn't want to father a child by Tamar, why did he have sex with her at all? He refused to fulfill his obligation to his dead brother and Tamar.
d. Many Christians have used this passage as a proof-text against masturbation. Indeed, masturbation has been called "onanism." However, this does not seem to be the case here. Whatever Onan did, he was not masturbating! This was not a sin of masturbation, but a sin of refusing to care for his brother's widow by giving her offspring, and of a selfish use of sex.
Above quote from David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible courtesy of Studylight.org. Genesis 38 commentary
Read Tamar's excellent analysis for why Scripture doesn't speak to the issue of contraception at all. If reason and natural law are the basis for this prohibition what do reason and natural law say about the perfectly reasonable decision not to expend ourselves as brood mares and impoverish ourselves trying to raise 12-14 children? Who has standing to tell us what sort of life we will make for ourselves and the children we choose to have? A celibate priest with no scriptural basis for his decision? I think not my friend. There is no natural law basis for the decision to waste ourselves physically or economically raising countless children we need not have and neither one's neighbor nor a priest has the right to even suggest the nature of the loving relationship a couple may have.
See, this is why it's so nice that we all get to decide how to worship in this country, right? I don't have to go to your church, and you don't have to go to mine. :)
What was uncharitable about my post? I did not personally attack her. I used the passive voice. I'm sorry but direct sterilization is intrinsically evil and is never justified.
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.