I underwent a vasectomy yesterday. Catholic.com provides the following question and answer in relation to that procedure:
Q: Am I correct in assuming that a Catholic husband who has had a vasectomy cannot receive Communion? If that is true, what is the remedy? Obviously, reversal cannot always be accomplished.
A: A vasectomy constitutes grave matter. Together with full knowledge of the gravity of the action and full and free consent to the action, a mortal sin is committed. Assuming these conditions were met, the remedy is the same as for any mortal sin: the sacrament of reconciliation, through which a person is restored to a state of grace and may again receive Communion. The Church does not require that a sterilized man attempt to reverse the vasectomy. But if he chooses to do so, he might wish to contact One More Soul at www.omsoul.com. [my emphasis]
In his Angelus address on July 17, 1994, Pope John Paul II described the Church's position:
"Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference."
Q: Am I correct in assuming that a Catholic husband who has had a vasectomy cannot receive Communion? If that is true, what is the remedy? Obviously, reversal cannot always be accomplished.
A: A vasectomy constitutes grave matter. Together with full knowledge of the gravity of the action and full and free consent to the action, a mortal sin is committed. Assuming these conditions were met, the remedy is the same as for any mortal sin: the sacrament of reconciliation, through which a person is restored to a state of grace and may again receive Communion. The Church does not require that a sterilized man attempt to reverse the vasectomy. But if he chooses to do so, he might wish to contact One More Soul at www.omsoul.com. [my emphasis]
In his Angelus address on July 17, 1994, Pope John Paul II described the Church's position:
"Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference."
Now I have yet another example of how humanity would be better off without religion. The largest Christian denomination is directing its adherents that birth control is o.k. as long as they go about wasting the sperm in a manner which is "natural". The funny thing is that the Bible does not even condone or condemn permanent forms of birth control. But, of course, you can interpret the Bible to support almost any position you want ....
4 comments:
The Roman Catholic Church would rather see third world countries spend millions of dollars teaching Natural Family Planning techniques, such as the rhythm method and basal body temperature charting, than finance vasectomies and other contraception measures.
You would be hard pressed to find any institution on the planet that is more out of touch with reality than the RC banner. Truly pathetic.
Looks like teaching abstinence may be not that wasteful after all: http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-teaching-abstinence-works-better-than-sex-ed/19341448?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fstudy-teaching-abstinence-works-better-than-sex-ed%2F19341448, but otherwise I think it is not worth discussing at all.
Actually, the only thing I've read about in the bible is that coitus interruptus is forbbiden (somewhere in Genesis says it), when it says something about semen being dropped to Earth, because X guy didn't want to make his woman pregnant.
Besides that, I've only heard about the "sin" of having sex just because, and I believe this kind of surgeries goes against religion, as it helps to have some kind of non-procreation sex.
Anyway, it's stupid to believe that children are sinful just because they are born, and that sex (though creating pleasure and stuff) is wrong and can send you straight to hell
"You would be hard pressed to find any institution on the planet that is more out of touch with reality than the RC banner."
I am a devout Christian, and the statement above is true. This sounds bad, but the Roman Catholic church does now show Christianity.
Post a Comment