vasectomy

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Apr 1 2005, 10:25 AM'] Hi G.C.  I just need to clarify something. I did not say that sometimes God intervenes and allows conception. Conception as a rule is natural without direct absolute intervention. Sometimes even when conception physically would seem almost impossible God could and has intervened and made it happen. Abraham and Sarah would be an example. A modern example is the couple that doctors say can't get pregnant but do anyway. Hope that clears up what I intened to say.

In Christ,
Brian [/quote]
Brian,

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

Abraham and Sarah couldn't have children because of natural reasons, not because they weren't trying. In other words: Abraham and Sarah did not intervene with nature. God didn't have to undo anything that Abraham had done. It wasn't Abrahams will to not have kids.

God ALWAYS respects our free will. So, you seem to think that God, if He wants, will MAKE you have a child... not so. You have purposefully willed against nature and God to forever stop conception. Now, that being said, not all vasectomies are 100% effective, and therefore nature (and God's plan) might just happen despite your attempt to stop it. This isn't God making a baby against your free will. God is now only working partially with you, via the very small percent chance that natures course will take place despite your effort to frustrate it.

If I felt I could do better without 2 arms, do you think that God would appreciate me severing off one of them?

I can not comprehend how we, humans, think that we know better how to design / operate our bodies! We think we know how to operate that which God has created! And I'm guilty of this too! Don't get me wrong. I always am trying to rationalize something that may benefit me physically, etc. against God's actual plan for nature. It's in our own nature to do this (fallen nature that is).

If God intended sex to be had for pleasure only at our wish, then don't you think He might have installed an on/off switch to our sperm??

Fortunately for us, He has actually created a natural period of time where a woman is infertile. We can work with nature and God in every way and still be responsible family planners. But if we decide that God's way is the wrong way, or unacceptable for whatever reason, we're only asking for trouble.

I respectfully ask that you pray and honestly reconsider what you've done.

May God's wisdom fill your heart.

God bless.

Edited April 1, 2005 by Jake Huether

[Philippe]

wow i totally forgot i posted this, thank you for answering my question. I also think it is a mortal sin to have sex afterwards because you are not open to life which is the problem with contraception. The way i see it is that a vasectomy is contraception that lasts a really long time. If we are against contraception should we not also be against vasectomys?

[Briguy]

Philipe, Thanks for the nice post. On page one I gave scriptures from 1 Cor. 7 that show that the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife clearly is to deter adultery. God has made intamacy a pleasurable thing and gave us a drive toward it. Yes, to populate the earth. In making the experience enjoyable and giving us a drive toward it He knew that the drive would cause problems as we are by nature sinners. Therefore we are insrtructed by GOD'S WORD that a husbands body is his wives and a wives body is her husband. The reason you don't hold back is to stop temptation. So, we can conclude that a husband or wive that "holds back" from intamacy is possibly causing the other partner to be tempted or worse, fall into sin. Therefore, to take it farther it is against God's word to hold back and so it is a sin not to be intimate in the marriage relationship regardless if the intent is to get pregnant. Does that make sense. I can't get my wife pregnant anymore but if we would stop being intimate with eachother we would both be subject to more temptation toward adultery. That is what Paul taught. No one has attempted to refute that at all.

Jake, thank you also for the charity you showed in your post. May God give you peace at this time. I have to say that I did not understand your point very well. You accept the Free Will part of what I said and even said that God would not make a person have a baby, but then you say that we should not tamper with our bodies. As I write this I guess I see where you were going now. We are created perfectly by God so don't mess with our body, in terms of taking away something God created. By that argument contraception, without surgery should be OK because it saves Free Will but does not alter God's creation. I won't argue that a Vasectomy is a pemanat change to my body, unless of course it doesn't work totally. I could say that if God intened me to have another child he would make it happen regardless of what I did. I don't believe I need to make that argument. The thing is this. Conception happens as a result of "knowing" (Biblical term) a person of the opposite sex. Sometimes the sperm inpregnate the egg and sometimes they don't. It is a natural process God set up so the world would be filled with people. He also wants us to be good stewarts with what we have. If through prayer a couple is led to stop having children, for the betterment of their family that is a choice. Since we know from scripture that holding back is not the way to stop the process then it is simple logic that other ways are OK. A Vasectomy stops any sperm from entering a woman so is the best way to preserve the ability to plan your family but be faithful to the obligations of a spouse that keep adultery at bay. I know I rambled but hope I made some sense anyway.



To all Catholics who read this. May God grant you peace and give you strength at this time when you are grieving the death of the Pope.


In Christ,
Brian

[cmotherofpirl]

I have yet to see a Church document that states it is a mortal sin to have sex after a vasectomy if it has been confessed and forgiven, or that it is a condition to be reversed in order to be forgiven.

There is a rhythm to married life and many times that you abstain from sex: periods, late pregnancy and childbirth, illness , surgeries etc.
When your marriage is going thru these times do you say my appetite for sex is so important that if I don't get it I am going to run off and committ adultery? That would mean your selfish desires are more important than your marriage. It would mean you are using your wife, not loving your wife.Vasectomys are wrong because you are directly interfering with God's plan. When you get one you are saying I will give you all of myself, except the part that gives life or has a consequence.
Contraception is saying the same thing. Natural Family planning is different , you are putting no barriers between you and your wife, you are careful with your timing, and if God wants to bless you with a child He will. You also learn to love your wife without actual intercourse, and treat her as gift instead of an outlet for your pleasure. It strengthens your mariage and your capacity for pleasure [since anticipation is half the fun ]




Doesn't St Paul also say that periodic abstinence is a good thing?

[Briguy]

Pirl, you made some good points. There is a difference that needs to be clear. When a married couple are both healthy, the desire for sexual relations should be at a peak. If one person has surgery that will lower the drive of both of the people in the couple. The two are one. When both are healthy and the drive is there but the outlet is not then Paul says that temptation is greater. He says sure abstain, but only for an appointed time, that meaning a time with a set ending, and with that not long periods. Short periods are fine and temptation should not enter during them. If a couple can't get pregnant anymore, for medical reasons(like a hysterectomy), by your standars they should just stop having sexual relations because there is no procreating occuring, no chance at a child because there is no womb. Paul's words are God's words and they are clear. You can't pretend that the Bible does not say what it says.

In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

We don't have to pretend that the Bible doesn't say what it does. The problem is you are twisting the Bible out of proportion. You claim that St. Paul told couples to marry as a way to deter lust, but the purpose of marriage is not simply so someone can 'get their freak on'. If a man is having sex with his wife simply as an outlet for sexual desire, he is using her in the worst possible way. I don't know any woman who wants to be used by her husband. Man must learn to control his lustful desires and offer it up to God.

If you have delibrately made a move to cut off any possibility of life in your marriage, then yes, sexual relations must stop. You have opted into the lies of the culture of death. The same culture which tells us that all forms of contraception and abortion are acceptable.

If you are married and participating in the sexual act and withholding your fertility from your wife, you are in essance telling your wife that you do not care to give her all of you. That you will simply use her for your own personal pleasure toy and refuse to be open to life.

I challenge you to look at what the whole Bible has to say and read a study on theology of the body and the culture of life. I'll even send you a free copy if you email me a mailing address.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 4 2005, 09:03 AM'] I have yet to see a Church document that states it is a mortal sin to have sex after a vasectomy if it has been confessed and forgiven, or that it is a condition to be reversed in order to be forgiven. [/quote]
Cmom, think about it this way. Having a sex using a condom is a sin right? Imagine if (this sounds disgusting but it illustrates the point) a person had sex using a condom, and never bothered to take the condom off. If they confessed having sex using a condom, and they just left the condom on, and continued having sex, that would be sinful. If a person has a procedure which causes sterility, and it can be reversed, I think it would be sinful to continue having sex until that procedure is reversed.

Sorry for the disgusting analogy.

[Philippe]

i agree with crusdader

[Dave]

Actually, a man who has had a vasectomy is NOT morally required to get it reversed. To do so can be expensive and difficult. But rather than abstain from sex, the couple could abstain from sex during the wife's infertile times -- like NFP. This is what I have read on the EWTN Q&A section more than once.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Mar 31 2005, 01:19 PM'] Can I assume that none of you are married?  Sex within marriage has more then one purpose. There is a sexual drive that God creates in each of us (almost all people anyway). God made the sexual experience pleasing. He did so by design. He would then not have made it only to reproduce. Someone above said it unites and indeed it does and that is why fornication is so wrong. Anyway, read the Bible verses below. We can plainly see that a husband and wife having a healthy intimate relationship drives away the chance for adultery as the God given drive is fulfilled in the marriage. That is the clear meaning of the verses from 1 Cor. 7 below (NASB).


1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is (A)good for a man not to touch a woman.
2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5(B)Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that ©Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

We need only in these matters to consult the Bible for our clear answers.

In Christ,
Brian [/quote]
Briguy,

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.
[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm#2370"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sec...t2art6.htm#2370[/url]

[quote]2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159


Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160[/quote]
Natural Family Planning is not artificial contraception.

By your statement of "consult our bible" it is clear that you do not know the bible very well. The bible [b]is not [/b]an authority - I believe Christ.
Please see
[b]St. Matt 18:17 [/b][color=red]If he refuses to listen to them, [u][b]tell the church[/b][/u]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector[/color]

[b]St. Matt 28:18[/b] Then Jesus approached and said to them, "[color=red]All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [/color]
[b]19 [/b][color=red]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, [/color]
[b]20 [/b][color=red]teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." [/color]

Who's been making disciples since 33 AD - The Catholic Church.

[b]Luke 10:16[/b] "[color=red]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]"

[b]St. Matt 16:18[/b] "[color=red]And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.[/color]"
[b]19 [/b][color=red]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven[/color]."

If I gave you the keys to my house, you would be able to let people in or keep them out... if they didn't do as I wanted, you would keep them out. That is the power that was bestowed on the Office of Peter... which is held by the Pope today, who is the successor of St. Peter.


A house divided falls, those who are not united with the Church established by Christ cause their own fall.

[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.


If you want to remain divided, that is your right. Unless someone can show a direct line of successors to the Apostles that teach the same things today as they did then, then they are not in the Church established by Christ.


Now, back to contraception....

We are to rely on God. The Apostles tell us in the Scriptures that God will not give us what we can't handle... those who use contraception - Where is your faith? Rely on God, not man or man made things. How do we know what God wants? We listen to the people that He sent... the disciples that can be traced to Christ... Not the disciples of Luther, Knox, Calvin, Chick, Billy Joe Bob's Bible Church, etc...

Those disciples - The Catholic Church.

[b]Luke 10:16 "[color=red]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]" [/b]

[b]Please note: [/b][i]Be careful before you reject the ones sent by Christ. If you think the Catholic Church wasn't sent by Christ, better be sure, nothing in history shows otherwise, and if anyone can show otherwise, I'll join that Church because that would be the True Church.[/i]


Since you didn't read the links, you are getting the document dump... read it and learn the reasons why or don't and never know.... your choice bro...



Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful ("fertile") and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God's plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.

Gen. 28:3 - Isaac's prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God's command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 - also, the author's usage of the graphic word "seed," which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan's death.

Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God's plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).

Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God's Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

Deut. 25:11-12 - there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.

1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring "not your will God, but my will be done."

Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God's precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.

Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God's will. With contraception, a couple declares, "God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no." Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.

Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.

Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God's ability to "join" together. Just as Christ's love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife's love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.

Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.

1 Cor. 6:19-20 - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning ("NFP"). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a "work" through which women may be saved by God's grace.

Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word "sorcery." The Greek word is "pharmakeia" which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.





"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" Letter of Barnabas 10:8 (A.D. 74).

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 191).

“[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered." Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 (A.D. 225).

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife." Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.” Lactantius, Divine 6:23:18 (A.D. 307).

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy." Council of Nicaea I, Canon 1 (A.D. 325).

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption." Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 (A.D. 375).

"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion." Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (A.D. 388).

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391).

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 (A.D. 391).

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers…‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]…On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse" [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5:12 (A.D. 395).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]." Jerome, Letters 22:13 (A.D. 396).

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing]…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.” Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7 (A.D. 400).

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny." Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage…to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]…[T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God…by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." Augustine, The Good of Marriage 11–12 (A.D. 401).

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife." Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman." Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522).




God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited April 5, 2005 by ironmonk

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2005, 08:07 PM'] Actually, a man who has had a vasectomy is NOT morally required to get it reversed. To do so can be expensive and difficult. But rather than abstain from sex, the couple could abstain from sex during the wife's infertile times -- like NFP. This is what I have read on the EWTN Q&A section more than once. [/quote]
I don't buy that answer. I've never heard of somebody being able to afford a vasectomy but not a reversal. As far as I know, atoning for sin doesn't have to be cheap and easy.

[Dave]

Oops, there was a typo in my post. I meant to say the couple could abstain during the wife's [b]fertile[/b] times.

But regardless of the money aspect, reversing a vasectomy is something that is VERY difficult medically to do and might not be surgically feasible in every case. And you can choose to buy or not buy what I said, but I got it from EWTN, and they're about as orthodox as you can get.

[Philippe]

ya, but if he was not repented would it be an additional mortal sin each time he had sex?

[IamCatholic]

Why couldn't the man just be abstinent for the rest of his life (if the process couldn't be reversed)? More difficult penances than this were given in the early Church and Middle Ages from what I have see and read and been told, and also, those penances they did were not as a result of a sin in order to prevent something evil from happening (contraception); they were just in order to sacrifice things for God for some sin, not because the consequences would be evil (like they are in this case).

Edited April 5, 2005 by IamCatholic

[crusader1234]

If the reversal fails, thats a different story. But a lot of the time, reversals do work. If a reversal is possible, I think that person is obliged to take that route.