marital relations after a vasectomy
#21
(03-19-2018, 10:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-19-2018, 09:06 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 1. that was my point.  that if a women used hysterectomy for sterilization if she went to confession later and was repentant, she would not be barred from ever having sex again.

Yes, but as I noted, rare is the case that a hysterectomy is used principally for sterilization, so it's a marginal case. Usually a hysterectomy is used for a disease and the sterilization is an effect, not the end sought.

(03-19-2018, 09:06 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 2. so then the logic dictates that a couple can not have sex while the women is taking any medication that could cause a miscarriage?  cause although the intent was not a miscarriage the medication will cause this.  this would also apply to cancer treatments.  as long as the couple is treating the women's cancer they can not have sex.  cause the ens result will be a miscarriage.  do this also apply to women with other unrelated severe medical problems?  if her doctor tells her she is unhealthy and overweight and this will cause miscarriages until she fixes the problem is she obligated to not have sex until she loses weight?  i'm really not into arguing for birth control pills anyways since i think even for a single women who doesn't have sex its a bad idea.  there are so many issues with the pill in general, i don't like it.  the other stuff i am more interested in but not the birth control pill stuff.

The abortifacient effect is an intended contraceptive effect. The idea is that the drug will prevent ovulation, but if it fails at this it will prevent implantation, thus cause abortion. That is the intended effect, so those using it or permitting its use (the man involved) are accepting the possibility that their sexual act will result in an abortion. Thus they are guilty, if they know this effect and choose to have sexual relations anyway, of the sin of murder.

It is formally different when one has a condition, or is taking a medicine which has a risk of miscarriage. Here we can apply double effect. What is willed is not the miscarriage, so there is a possibility of continuing marital relations here because one can will a good thing which has an undesired evil effect for a proportionately grave reason. Individual cases will vary here, so setting any kind of rule or answering specific questions is pointless.

In the first case, there is no possibility of a good effect because the evil effect is the first thing willed, an not an unwanted consequence.

When that contraceptive is used in a medically-necessary case it could be evaluated in the same double effect scenario, but will always fail, because the good effect is the sexual union and secondary ends of marriage, and the evil is the possibility of murder. There can be no proportion between them.

That is different with an ectopic pregnancy where we have proportion between one live being saved by a treatment, and one which will die indirectly as a result of a treatment, something unwilled. Here there is a possibility of proportion.

(03-19-2018, 09:06 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 3. But how often is the case where a couple is married and they don't need each other for support?  So just so I am understanding this, if a couple is married and on their second marriage and have children together and then repents and comes back to the church and agrees to live as brother and sister they have a choice.  Either separate the family and the children are deprived of a father/mother household or the couple can't receive communion?  So then it would be ok if the husband decided to break off the marriage and deprive the children of a father/mother household so he can receive communion?  Maybe I am misunderstanding the situation but its hard for me to imagine the church would encourage the husband and wife to separate from their house depriving the children of what they are owed due to no fault of the child.

Short answer, yes that is the dilemma, but it is not unmerciful at all, because it is a situation created by the parties and the result of their sins.

They have to deal with those effects.

Long answer : the situation is highly individualized. In certain cases where they can avoid the occasions of sin, then perhaps they could continue to live together if there is a grave reason to do so, like children. If there is no grave reason, they only have one choice, separate.

Then there is the question of whether this apparent adulterous relationship is known or could be know by others. If not, they could be admitted to communion. If it could be known or was known, they could not while still living together, for the simple reason that they are externally living in an adulterous union.

If there were an extremely remote possibility or no chance of learning of the situation, provided there is a grave reason to remain cohabiting, public communion could be allowed in some cases. For example if she was married in India, and now is living in France, there is little possibility of her non-marriage being discovered, so it might be possible to allow public communion.

We are still speaking of people who are externally-speaking living in an adulterous relationship. Their internal dispositions do not matter here. They could be great Saints suffering from their past faults and doing great penance, but that doesn't matter. They are still living in an objectively adulterous relationship, as the assumption is and always must be that people who are living together as man and wife are acting as man and wife.

This is why a young man who is rooming with a young lady who is not his sister, as much as they profess they are chaste, will be denied absolution and communion as long as the cohabitation continues. They are objectively and externally in an illicit relationship, and causing scandal, even if there is no sexual or lustful contact, or even interest.

Thus if they are not man and wife, externally they are living in adultery, and if there is a possibility of that becoming public, then the scandal that would ensue if they are given public communion cannot justify allowing them to communion.


(03-19-2018, 09:06 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 4. So what and who deems it impossible?  The sterilization reversal.  As with all surgeries a risk of death is carried with it.  Now obviously the risk is low to how well the procedure can be performed today but is there a line for reversal.  If the chance of death is only 5% would one have to reverse it?  What about 50%?  What about 90%?  Like does a spouse have to reverse a vasectomy if the doctor says he can do it but there is a 90% chance of death due to underlying health problems?  Who deems what is an acceptable % to reverse the procedure?

It is a prudential decision. You are expecting rules for all cases. That is impossible. Only general principles can be given.

Ultimately it will be the confessor who will decide if there is sufficient grounds to justify not having the reversal.


As it comes to the birth control thing, I am not even going to bother.  I have no desire to support taking the pill so I won't waste either of our time.

1. Where does the church say a man is refused absolution simply for living in a house with a women who is not a sister or mother or wife?  I understand your premise about scandal but I have never heard or read anywhere a man can not live as a roommate with a women or be refused absolution.  Does this also apply to living with other men when it might be inferred that they are homosexuals?  Would a man living with another man in a highly predominate gay city with a very large gay population be refused absolution because of the scandal of being considered a homosexual.  Cause let's be honest, as much as it is unfair, two men in their 30's who are well groomed will be gossiped as being gay.  If you could show where the church has taught this I would be interested to see this as I have never seen the church teach this.  I have only heard people come to this conclusion on their own.

2. So then it would not be sinful for the man to separate from the wife while they have young children together?  The church would recommend in this instance that the man and women separate and raise the children as single parents so they can receive communion?  The church would say this is the ideal situation.  She makes no accomidations for the children who through no fault of their own will be deprived of a father/mother household?

3. So if its ultimately up to the confessor doesn't that make reversal of the vasectomy completely subjective and it means it is not always warrented for sex to resume?  I mean if there is no definitive answer then 2 different priests could recommend 2 different things.  What does the penitent do then?  Which is right?  Does he just pick what confessor to follow and ignore the other?  I feel like if there is a requirement for reversal then the church would not leave it up to a priest and at his sole discretion and it be subjective because one person could be forced to get the surgery and one could not be forced to get it, yet both are in the same instance and only one is barred from communion.
Reply
#22
(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: As it comes to the birth control thing, I am not even going to bother.  I have no desire to support taking the pill so I won't waste either of our time.

Trying to understand the morality behind something isn't defending it or supporting it.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 1. Where does the church say a man is refused absolution simply for living in a house with a women who is not a sister or mother or wife?  I understand your premise about scandal but I have never heard or read anywhere a man can not live as a roommate with a women or be refused absolution.

It follows from the scandal. If one is living in a situation that causes scandal and is unwilling to leave it, he has no purpose of amendment. That's essential to a valid confession, so he would be refused absolution if he refused to leave his objectively sinful situation.

Ask any traditional priest, and he will confirm that. It's basic moral theology.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: Does this also apply to living with other men when it might be inferred that they are homosexuals?  Would a man living with another man in a highly predominate gay city with a very large gay population be refused absolution because of the scandal of being considered a homosexual.  Cause let's be honest, as much as it is unfair, two men in their 30's who are well groomed will be gossiped as being gay.  If you could show where the church has taught this I would be interested to see this as I have never seen the church teach this.  I have only heard people come to this conclusion on their own.

First, figuring out morality isn't about finding some document detailing the Church teaching on the matter. Basic moral theology is about following the commandments and the Natural Law. For a man to live with a woman to whom he is not married or who is, because of relation or age, above reproach, is a proximate and unnecessary occasion of sins against the 6th and 9th commandments.

As regards the homosexual situation, no. It's one thing to live with a gay man, which would constitute a proximate occasion of sin for him and possible scandal, but it's another to simply be living with a roommate. A normal person does not automatically assume two men roommates are a gay live in couple, especially if one is a devout Catholic.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 2. So then it would not be sinful for the man to separate from the wife while they have young children together? 

Depends.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: The church would recommend in this instance that the man and women separate and raise the children as single parents so they can receive communion? The church would say this is the ideal situation.  She makes no accomidations for the children who through no fault of their own will be deprived of a father/mother household?

I said it was a highly individualized situation, so we can't make generalizations like this.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 3. So if its ultimately up to the confessor doesn't that make reversal of the vasectomy completely subjective and it means it is not always warrented for sex to resume?  I mean if there is no definitive answer then 2 different priests could recommend 2 different things.  What does the penitent do then?  Which is right?  Does he just pick what confessor to follow and ignore the other?  I feel like if there is a requirement for reversal then the church would not leave it up to a priest and at his sole discretion and it be subjective because one person could be forced to get the surgery and one could not be forced to get it, yet both are in the same instance and only one is barred from communion.

First, he shouldn't be confessor shopping.

Secondly, most priests will be unlikely to wildly differ in the matter, if they are good priests.

Lastly, when he confesses the first time he should have the desire to have the reversal. If it proves impossible, he asks a priest or confessor if his reasons are good enough. If they are not, the priest will say so. If they are he will judge the man does not have to have the reversal now, or perhaps never has to have the reversal.

Again, it's highly individualized, since we're dealing with the prudential application of principles. Priests may differ, but the case would probably be usually quite obvious.
Reply
#23
(03-19-2018, 11:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: As it comes to the birth control thing, I am not even going to bother.  I have no desire to support taking the pill so I won't waste either of our time.

Trying to understand the morality behind something isn't defending it or supporting it.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 1. Where does the church say a man is refused absolution simply for living in a house with a women who is not a sister or mother or wife?  I understand your premise about scandal but I have never heard or read anywhere a man can not live as a roommate with a women or be refused absolution.

It follows from the scandal. If one is living in a situation that causes scandal and is unwilling to leave it, he has no purpose of amendment. That's essential to a valid confession, so he would be refused absolution if he refused to leave his objectively sinful situation.

Ask any traditional priest, and he will confirm that. It's basic moral theology.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: Does this also apply to living with other men when it might be inferred that they are homosexuals?  Would a man living with another man in a highly predominate gay city with a very large gay population be refused absolution because of the scandal of being considered a homosexual.  Cause let's be honest, as much as it is unfair, two men in their 30's who are well groomed will be gossiped as being gay.  If you could show where the church has taught this I would be interested to see this as I have never seen the church teach this.  I have only heard people come to this conclusion on their own.

First, figuring out morality isn't about finding some document detailing the Church teaching on the matter. Basic moral theology is about following the commandments and the Natural Law. For a man to live with a woman to whom he is not married or who is, because of relation or age, above reproach, is a proximate and unnecessary occasion of sins against the 6th and 9th commandments.

As regards the homosexual situation, no. It's one thing to live with a gay man, which would constitute a proximate occasion of sin for him and possible scandal, but it's another to simply be living with a roommate. A normal person does not automatically assume two men roommates are a gay live in couple, especially if one is a devout Catholic.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 2. So then it would not be sinful for the man to separate from the wife while they have young children together? 

Depends.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: The church would recommend in this instance that the man and women separate and raise the children as single parents so they can receive communion? The church would say this is the ideal situation.  She makes no accomidations for the children who through no fault of their own will be deprived of a father/mother household?

I said it was a highly individualized situation, so we can't make generalizations like this.

(03-19-2018, 10:53 PM)havok579257 Wrote: 3. So if its ultimately up to the confessor doesn't that make reversal of the vasectomy completely subjective and it means it is not always warrented for sex to resume?  I mean if there is no definitive answer then 2 different priests could recommend 2 different things.  What does the penitent do then?  Which is right?  Does he just pick what confessor to follow and ignore the other?  I feel like if there is a requirement for reversal then the church would not leave it up to a priest and at his sole discretion and it be subjective because one person could be forced to get the surgery and one could not be forced to get it, yet both are in the same instance and only one is barred from communion.

First, he shouldn't be confessor shopping.

Secondly, most priests will be unlikely to wildly differ in the matter, if they are good priests.

Lastly, when he confesses the first time he should have the desire to have the reversal. If it proves impossible, he asks a priest or confessor if his reasons are good enough. If they are not, the priest will say so. If they are he will judge the man does not have to have the reversal now, or perhaps never has to have the reversal.

Again, it's highly individualized, since we're dealing with the prudential application of principles. Priests may differ, but the case would probably be usually quite obvious.

1. So your arguing its intrisically evil to live with the opposite sex if not family or married?  I guess I am lost.  So if a person confesses lying and the priest knows they live with a roommate who is a female he will refuse the man absolution until he moves out?  Does that mean if he is in a contract for a year and can't get out he will be denied absolution for a year?

2. But your using you perception about the gay men.  That's you.  Look how much the gay agenda is pushed.  Its really not out of the norm for 2 men to be living together as roommates for years and for people to assume they are gay.  Its unfair but not uncommon.  If 2 friends live together for years as single men, people will start to assume they are a gay couple.  Its just the world we live in currently.  Thus according to that logic men can not live with the same roommate or other men for long periods of time.

3. I agree its highly individualized.

4. First its not confession shopping as I specifically asked about two different men with two different priests.  But even go with the same man.  He confesses the vasectomy.  Then years later he brings it up in confession again because it still bothers him what he has denied his wife.  The first said don't redo the vasectomy, the one years later said you have to.  Since its subjective, the priests have different answers for the man.  What does he do?

If he's a good priest is a very subjective statement.  I may think someone is a good priest if he gives extremely harsh penances and you may think a priest is good who gives lighter penances and focuses on God's mercy.  Even among trad priests there is a difference.  I have been in confession where one was very caring and compassionate with me and my sins and another who was the exact opposite.  Both different.  Who a person considers a good priest is so subjective.

My point which you seem to be agreeing with is reversal is not mandated for sex to resume for the couple.  Its individualized and its up to their confessor.  There is no mandate a reversal must happen for sexc to resume.  It is up to the priests judgement.
Reply
#24
I don't think I will ever get over the horror of the idea that there are men who will voluntary do this to themselves.

Just terrifying.
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • havok579257
Reply
#25
(03-20-2018, 08:20 AM)BC Wrote: I don't think I will ever get over the horror of the idea that there are men who will voluntary do this to themselves.

Just terrifying.

completely agree.  why would you ever voluntarily let someone cut down there is beyond me.
Reply
#26
I personally know 8 people who owe their lives to vasectomy reversal.
Reply
#27
(03-20-2018, 09:36 AM)havok579257 Wrote:
(03-20-2018, 08:20 AM)BC Wrote: I don't think I will ever get over the horror of the idea that there are men who will voluntary do this to themselves.

Just terrifying.

completely agree.  why would you ever voluntarily let someone cut down there is beyond me.

Yep, I agree.  Hence the part of my OP where I stated I have a fear of allowing someone to play slice 'n' dice down there. :D

Interesting information. I learn something every day here.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
#28
(03-20-2018, 10:24 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I personally know 8 people who owe their lives to vasectomy reversal.

Are they also pretending to be women on TV?
[-] The following 2 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • havok579257, Jeeter
Reply
#29
(03-21-2018, 10:56 AM)FultonFan Wrote:
(03-20-2018, 10:24 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I personally know 8 people who owe their lives to vasectomy reversal.

Are they also pretending to be women on TV?

Nope.

Their dads were pretending to be Catholics before the reversals, however. ;)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)