Vasectomy question


#1

I have a follow up question regarding today's Q and A with the apologist...and hope this is the correct place to post it, since we cannot comment directly on the Answers.

It says:

** Re: If a husband chooses to get a vasectomy, how does it effect the salvation of his wife when she protested his decision?**

Answer:
It doesn't. The bad actions of one person cannot effect the salvation of another. In a situation where the wife did not agree with the husband's decision and even, as you said, protested it means that the sin is the husband's and not the wife's. The wife has done nothing wrong and her salvation is not affected.

My follow-up question is this:

In many threads, people have said that the church teaches that you should not appear to "support" or "condone" someone else sinning because that in itself is a sin or a grave matter.
For example, if a parent's daughter who is gay is getting married to her same-sex partner--not only should the parent not attend the service but they should not attend any celebratory parties related to the occasion...because this would be in "support" of the sin.
This is what I have read here by posters and apologists, as I understand it.

So is it the same in this vasectomy situation?
Should the wife discontinue having marital relations with a husband who is not open to life and is treating sex with her as just "lust"?
Each time he has sex with her, he is sinning (I assume?)...he is "using" contraception--and it's worse than condoms or pills, it's permanent. He has permanently disfigured a part of himself meant for procreation.

It seems that if the wife takes part in the sex act, she is condoning and supporting his "sin" by her actions...she becomes part of it...as a mother would by attending her daughter's gay marriage.

What think?

.


#2

No, she should not refuse a sexual relationship with her husband. That would be a sin on her part. She should pray for his conversion of heart.


#3

I didn’t know vasectomy or tubal ligation were sins. I guess you learn all the time.


#4

This question has been answered in the ask the apologist section before. Here are a couple of pertinent answers, the second of which sites direct Church teaching on this matter:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=134113&highlight=sex+contraception+spouse

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=475359&highlight=spouse+contraception


#5

It is not her sin, and she has not condoned it if she protested against it.

I guess sex on his part would fall under “lust”, but. . . . it seems like his sin would be punishing her as well for having to forego marital intimacy, and that doesn’t seem right either.:shrug:


#6

Just wondering…Why?
Sex between a husband and wife is an an expression of their union, not just a reproductive act. That the Catholic Church believes that nothing should impede the reproductinve abilities, does not mean that the two cannnot express their love in this way, which is not ‘lust.’ They must, as a married couple, be open to the possibilities, which, clearly in this case, he took took upon himself to do differently. I cannot see how this would affect her salvation. His action, not hers. She is not participating in the ongoing sin of sterilization; and if she lives with him as if roommates only, is that not an going wrong on her part?

Or am I missing something?

I hope he expresses his regrets if he is truly so, and that he does what he needs to do with the Church.
I hope she forgives him.
I hope both know that in many cases, it can be reversed…not always, but…


#7

Let’s look at it this way…suppose the husband then confesses said vasectomy…the Church does not require a reversal. They could continue with maritial relations with clear conciences.

So why should the wife at this point not continue? She has made it clear to him her (and the Church’s) view of it. But what should she do beyond that? Withhold sex until he has it reversed?


#8

I hope he expresses his regrets if he is truly so, and that he does what he needs to do with the Church.
I hope she forgives him. and that they continue a full and loving marriage. Reversal optional for themselves not the Church
I hope both know that in many cases, it can be reversed…not always, but…

NO, continue a full and loving marriage and all that that implies.

Sorry for the format; I really have not mastered the use of multiple quotes!!


#9

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:1, topic:311374"]
I have a follow up question regarding today's Q and A with the apologist...and hope this is the correct place to post it, since we cannot comment directly on the Answers.

It says:

** Re: If a husband chooses to get a vasectomy, how does it effect the salvation of his wife when she protested his decision?**

Answer:
It doesn't. The bad actions of one person cannot effect the salvation of another. In a situation where the wife did not agree with the husband's decision and even, as you said, protested it means that the sin is the husband's and not the wife's. The wife has done nothing wrong and her salvation is not affected.

My follow-up question is this:

In many threads, people have said that the church teaches that you should not appear to "support" or "condone" someone else sinning because that in itself is a sin or a grave matter.
For example, if a parent's daughter who is gay is getting married to her same-sex partner--not only should the parent not attend the service but they should not attend any celebratory parties related to the occasion...because this would be in "support" of the sin.
This is what I have read here by posters and apologists, as I understand it.

So is it the same in this vasectomy situation?
Should the wife discontinue having marital relations with a husband who is not open to life and is treating sex with her as just "lust"?
Each time he has sex with her, he is sinning (I assume?)...he is "using" contraception--and it's worse than condoms or pills, it's permanent. He has permanently disfigured a part of himself meant for procreation.

It seems that if the wife takes part in the sex act, she is condoning and supporting his "sin" by her actions...she becomes part of it...as a mother would by attending her daughter's gay marriage.

What think?

.

[/quote]

In this special case, the wife (the innocent spouse) has the natural moral right** to perform the marital act with her husband. For her, nothing is morally wrong.**

Even, **she has the moral obligation to fight against her wrong own mentality for having a nice conjugal sexual life with her husband in order to help her couple, her husband, herself and thus for trying to change the heart of her husband, **via the donation of her body for him (in his favour) and the receiving of his body on her (inside her).

The marriage is a contract and an institution, both of them; it is not only an institution. The beauty of marriage is here. The simple fact of giving her own body to her husband and of receiving the body of his husband in continuing the marital act is a wonderful behaviour: she is like a Jesus who sends his helps, his graces, his mercies: the marital act is before all a prayer, a liturgy, a gift, a good thing, a meriting act (a goodly donation of himself or of herself and / or a charitable donation of himself or of herself). The marital act is an act of love from her for him, she needs to be a true wife for converting him, via the donation of her own body.

Only, a wrong acception of the catholic morality coming from some heresies or ideologies can perturb the point of moral view of the innocent spouse*. She is free of sins of her husband; she is not in the sinful way, she is only a passive agent, she is not active: no moral problematic for her. * She has the natural moral right of getting the conjugal sexual pleasures and of reaching the female orgasms during the marital act with her husband, even in this particular situation.


#10

So is it the same in this vasectomy situation?
Should the wife discontinue having marital relations with a husband who is not open to life and is treating sex with her as just “lust”?

**No, no, no no, no, the wife should not discontinue of having marital relations with a husband who is not open to life??? ??? Why a such thought, why a such analysis??? By principle, for her if the marital act is normal, the marital act is open to life. No issue for her wife. The question is to know what is the good acception of the notion of opening to life for the wife???

The wife should not discontinue of is treating sex with her as just “lust”? Why do you have a negative thought about her or an presumption of immorality about her physical desire for her husband??? The conjugal sexual desire is not lust??? Do you have a large view of the notion of " lust "??? The intentions of marital act, that are morally permissible, are numerous. Do you know them??? Why do you want to punish, twice, the innocent spouse? Are you serious? Are you a human being? Do you know the catholic morality in the details with all the subtleties? Why do you want to do her a nun, I mean no conjugal sex? **

Be careful with the moralism, the rigorism, the puritanism, the scrupulism. The scrupulosity is a dangerous road, it is a mental and moral disease: that is a very wrong way of acting and of thinking.


#11

The sin of voluntary sterilzation is not like the sin of contraception. Contraception is an ongoing act; sterilization happens at a point in time. For the wife, assuming that she did not consent or encourage the vasectormy, there is no issue of cooperating with the sin.

The wife is not required to discontinue sexual relations. There is no sin involved in the marital act with a sterilized person. The sin occurred at the time of the surgery.

On the other hand, she is not required to continue to have sex with her husband either if he has not repented. Getting a vasectormy, especially if over the objections of his wife, is a grave sin against the marriage. In this way, it is more similar to a past sin of adultery than to contraception.


#12

Each time he has sex with her, he is sinning (I assume?)…he is “using” contraception–and it’s worse than condoms or pills, it’s permanent. He has permanently disfigured a part of himself meant for procreation.

*The direct and voluntary vasectomy is sinful for husband. It is, only, one act with permanent effect (effects in long time), but there is only one act who per se is immoral and sinful.
Sorry, but the vasectomy has no abortive effects like some pills. Sorry again, the vasectomy is not like the condoms, no denaturation of the materiality of marital act. This type of contraception is the same than the others. Thus, the natural moral regime of the morality for the innocent spouse is not the same. Actually, the natural moral regime of vasectomy is less strict than the others for the innocent spouse.

It seems that if the wife takes part in the sex act, she is condoning and supporting his “sin” by her actions…she becomes part of it…as a mother would by attending her daughter’s gay marriage.*

It seems that if the wife takes part in the sex act, she is condoning and supporting his “sin” by her actions…she becomes part of it…as a mother would by attending her daughter’s gay marriage.

What think?

NO, NO , NO ,NO. the natural moral regime of morality of the innocent spouse is in function of each type of contraception: materiality of marital act with the special conditions given by the catholic church in the details with all the subtleties.


#13

[quote="fpt, post:12, topic:311374"]
Each time he has sex with her, he is sinning (I assume?)...he is "using" contraception--and it's worse than condoms or pills, it's permanent. He has permanently disfigured a part of himself meant for procreation.

The direct and voluntary vasectomy is sinful for husband. It is, only, one act with permanent effect (effects in long time), but there is only one act who per se is immoral and sinful.
Sorry, but the vasectomy has no abortive effects like some pills. Sorry again, the vasectomy is not like the condoms, no denaturation of the materiality of marital act. This type of contraception **is not *
the same than the others: **in reality, it is not a contraception, it is a sterilisation.* Thus, the natural moral regime of the morality for the innocent spouse is not the same. Actually, the natural moral regime of vasectomy is less strict than the others for the innocent spouse.

It seems that if the wife takes part in the sex act, she is condoning and supporting his "sin" by her actions...she becomes part of it...as a mother would by attending her daughter's gay marriage.

It seems that if the wife takes part in the sex act, she is condoning and supporting his "sin" by her actions...she becomes part of it...as a mother would by attending her daughter's gay marriage.

What think?

NO, NO , NO ,NO. the natural moral regime of morality of the innocent spouse is in function of each type of contraception: materiality of marital act with the special conditions given by the catholic church in the details with all the subtleties.

[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.