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.
If you are not married, you should not have relations. Thus, no "birth control" of any kind would be necessary and certainly not sterilization.
I sympathize with you but your decision was wrong. BTW, you are not the only woman who has had problem pregnancies. Still, NFP is the only moral way for couples to deal with this situation.
"Celibate men are in control of the Catholic Church "
You keep saying that. It sounds so funny to hear it said as if being celibate is some horrible thing. It's also funny because they are not "in control" of the church. The Holy Spirit is in control. Jesus established the Catholic Church and promised to be with us always.
I know you don't believe that and will come back with some Scriptural reference to attempt to back up your belief. We can get into that back and forth battle if you want. Just know in advance that nothing will take me away from the Catholic Church. Nothing could get me to leave Jesus in the Eucharist.
Birth control of any kind just reduces a woman into a sex object free for the taking. God's Law is so much more beautiful. Why on Earth would you not want to follow His perfect plan?
I was married, to a Catholic man who thought as you do. That I should use NFP and if any pregnancys slipped through then I was suppose to give the child up for adoption because he didn't want any kids. I'm not a breeder for childless people. I had 2 children in that marriage before it was over. I started having problems carrying my second child.
My 3rd child happened because I'm human and I had another relationship. I had life threatning problems with him, my baby was in danger of dying everyday of that pregnancy, I lived with the fear of losing my child 24/7 of those months.
Even when he was finally big enough to birth he was in trouble, he was breech and one leg slippped out while his other was bent up inside me, I had to have an emergency C-section while they raced to get him out my belly before he came all the way out the natural way and ripped us both apart.
I should also say I have fast birthing times, my very first child in under 3 hours, second in 45 minutes and my 3rd was a frikkin race to surgery. I don't get much time to deal with issues that come up.
No way was I going to put me or another child in danger and leave my other children orphans.
I was in my 30's at the time and knew there would be more relationships in my life. Steralization was recomended and I agreed.
There is Scriptural reason for no contraception. It was given already. I don't buy Tamar73's interpretation. I'll stick with the Early Church Fathers on this one! I thank God for giving us a Church to help settle these differences.
The Church does not state that you have to be a brood mare. You won't find any particular number listed in the Catechism for how many children you are supposed to have. You are upset about something that does not even exsist.
You REALLY should look into taking a Natural Family Planning class. It's cheaper than artificial birth control and so much healthier for your body. I have 3 children by choice. We hope for more. Not everyone using NFP has a big family.
Your attitude about priests seems so ugly. They are servants of God. They love Him so much they have completely dedicated their lives to Him. They are not evil men plotting behind closed doors all the ways they can attempt to make your life miserable. Priests just want to guide us in God's law so that we may have the joy of eternal life with God. I hope one day you can see that.
My argument made no mention of any biblical passage so the reference above is irrelevant to my post.
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?
Your offensive and inflammatory hyperbole against mothers of large families notwithstanding, there are many licit means available to limit pregnancies for those with legitimate reasons to do so.
Who has standing to tell us what sort of life we will make for ourselves and the children we choose to have?
God, and those whom he has given the authority.
A celibate priest with no scriptural basis for his decision?
Even if there were a perfectly clear scriptural prohibition against contraception, I suspect many mainline protestant denominations would just fabricate a legalistic loop hole to allow their perversions. Despite the unambiguous biblical ban on homosexual sodomy, many large denominations have already begun to permit this as a permissible lifestyle for their congregates and clergy to live out openly.
I think not my friend.
Based on what you have written here, I doubt that you would acknowledge anyone as having any moral standing above your own.
There is no natural law basis for the decision to waste ourselves physically or economically raising countless children
It is far more likely that anyone who claims that children are a physical or economic waste even understands what natural law is.
neither one's neighbor nor a priest has the right to even suggest the nature of the loving relationship a couple may have.
BINGO!!! There we go! Just as Justice Scalia so eloquently predicted, any attempt to justify immoral sexual activity will ultimately lead to a defense of all perversion, such as sodomy, polygamy, and bestiality. You just made the most compelling case against contraception on this whole thread!
After we figured out how my last pregnancy occurred (again - using NFP) we thought it was taken care of.
The truth is...NFP is not 99% effective. They don't really know how long sperm can live - obviously.
I could 4 -5 more babies trying to "figure it out".
NFP is not for everyone and I'm surprised anyone thought it could be the solution for every couple.
It isn't.
Your ex-husband sounds like a nut-case. I never heard of anyone using NFP who would place a baby up for adoption if one were conceived.
But that being said, even if someone has a legitimate reason for not having more children, including health reasons, that still does not justify sterilization. The whole point of the article was that direct sterilization is always wrong. A good end does not justify a bad means. If that were the case, then abortion would be morally permissible if the individual had a good reason for getting one. Or murder. Or theft. Etc.
eyeroll.... well I guess that's just one more sin in my bag I'll have to answer for. I only have so much of myself and money to give. The three kids I have pretty much drain me I don't know what good I could have been for anymore more and I really didn't have the body or mentality to find out.
"eyeroll.... well I guess that's just one more sin in my bag I'll have to answer for. I only have so much of myself and money to give. The three kids I have pretty much drain me I don't know what good I could have been for anymore more and I really didn't have the body or mentality to find out"
We've all got plenty of sins in our own bags.
Inevitably this ban on contraception comes down to how much a woman can take. As it turns out...we don't always have endless supplies of energy, health, stamina, patience, or perseverence.
Enjoy the chains of your blindness and revel in others telling you what to do and believe.
Never heard of him and have no idea who he is.
Yes, if your not Catholic I suppose it would make no sense.
YEAH! Thank goodness that we don't have men as obstetricians and gynecologists! They've never been pregnant or have menstruated!
AND, so glad that there are no young doctors who work with geriatrics!
Oh, wait......
As a single mother, you shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant, right?
Wrong, I'm human and it only takes one lonely night...besides I didn't plan on being single for the rest of my life. My children are now all old enough to handle a man in my life and I'm not old enough to be past child bearing yet.
But other than Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit, has a baby ever been born without a couple having sex?
Exactly. If a married couple is having sexual problems, a celibate individual should not be counseling them through that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I assumed that you were Catholic.
"I got a little soured when the priest told me I should still stay married to the man who physically abused me, had affairs, demanded I use no birth control and give any children produced up for adoption."
You were talking to the wrong priest.
It should have been (and still could be) easy for you to obtain an annulment based on what you have shared about this man.
"Meanwhile the church is full of homosexuality and pedophilia... I'm not impressed."
Well...parts of the Church are...the homosexuality that is.
Pedophilia actually is not rampant - most of the abuse cases were comitted by ephebophiles (men attracted to teenage boys).It's a well known fact that the MSM doesn't want to admit to.
The Church leadership has been addressing the homosexuality problem and is now doing a review of seminaries to see what can be practically done.
Problems like this take time unfortunately.
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.