Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

[Guest guest]

Leaving the topic of scrupulosity to those more knowledgeable about theology, I simply wish to posit this question: if I prescribe contraceptives for the purpose of treating gynecologic issues, knowing that there is always an alternative, and I keep even one baby from implanting, am I not culpable?

W. , M.D., FACOG

obdoc2000@...

Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

I don't think so. Your primary intent is not birth control, nor is it the reason the woman is seeking medication or treatment .When there is a serious enough issue that treatment is needed, the woman may not be able to afford other options that might potentially help, or those options might not be reasonably available. I think the principle of double effect would apply in this situation. Sandrock, CNNSent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Yes I agree with Dr and I ask the question: which medical condition needs hormonal contraception?As far as I know there are better medical/surgical alternatives always.Please correct me if I am wrong.Blessings Liliana Cote de Bejarano MD, MPH, CFCP From: <obdoc2000@...> To:

Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Leaving the topic of scrupulosity to those more knowledgeable about theology, I simply wish to posit this question: if I prescribe contraceptives for the purpose of treating gynecologic issues, knowing that there is always an alternative, and I keep even one baby from implanting, am I not culpable?

W. , M.D., FACOG

obdoc2000@...

Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all for their input and to for summarizing the opinions. It seems to me that it would be best to avoid the term scrupulosity here since that refers to excessive concern for matters of little or no importance.

As far as the question, it is important for priests and others to sometimes reply " Here are some truths and principles, but I don't know the answer to your concrete question. " Some times one does not have an exact answer because one's knowledge is limited.

At the same time I think we should " err " on the side of caution. And if we look at this question from the point of view of the principle of double effect it would be hard to find a proportionate cause to allow a possible side effect such as an abortion.

For Catholics, St. 's teaching in 1 Cor 7 is very helpful:The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 

[4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 

[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 

[6] I say this by way of concession, not of command. 

Fr. On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM, cnmnancy@... <cnmnancy@...> wrote:

 

I don't think so. Your primary intent is not birth control, nor is it the reason the woman is seeking medication or treatment .When there is a serious enough issue that treatment is needed, the woman may not be able to afford other options that might potentially help, or those options might not be reasonably available. I think the principle of double effect would apply in this situation.

Sandrock, CNNSent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 

 The question has been asked or inferred:  Is it a matter of being " overscrupulous " to advise a repentant sterilized couple to " practice NFP " , i.e., abstain during the fertile time?  Not at all.  This is what should be done.  For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

 

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

" Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality " (Ignatius)

 

Re: Medical indications for OCP

 

" Scrupulosity " begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

 

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their " fertile period " ? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

-- Fr. R. Vélez765 14th Ave, Apt 1San Francisco, CA 94118Website: www.newmanbiography.com

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Fr. for your thoughtful remarks. We have to respect the concerns of the couple as they wish to avoid harm. I know women who come for post abortion healing that mourn the possible children lost (unintentionally) through their use of OCP. The complexity of this circumstance makes things more difficult to sort out because there is a medical condition being treated. If the couple could use this time to abstain and grow spiritually and emotional until the condition improves or they find another treatment, God will bless them for their sacrifice. It may be considered heroic virtue but with God's grace anything is possible. Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

-- Fr. R. Vélez765 14th Ave, Apt 1San Francisco, CA 94118Website: www.newmanbiography.com

[Guest guest]



With regard to intention, a bad intention can render evil an otherwise good act, but a good intention cannot render good an otherwise evil act.

Kippley

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

I very much agree with Fr 's 2nd paragraph below.

With regard to double-effect reasoning (a better name than " principle of double

effect, " I think, in light of Tom Cavanaugh's book on the topic) and

proportionate reason and caution and scrupulosity ... I think this depends not

only on the gravity of the harm being risked (death of a human person) but also

on a sound assessment of the actual risk of that harm.

(at SLC airport on way back from same conference attended by several other

list members)

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

--- Original Message ---

From: Velez <jrvg98@...>

Sent: June 4, 2012 6/4/12

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 

Thanks to all for their input and to for summarizing the opinions. It

seems to me that it would be best to avoid the term scrupulosity here since that

refers to excessive concern for matters of little or no importance.

As far as the question, it is important for priests and others to sometimes

reply " Here are some truths and principles, but I don't know the answer to your

concrete question. " Some times one does not have an exact answer because one's

knowledge is limited.

At the same time I think we should " err " on the side of caution. And if we look

at this question from the point of view of the principle of double effect it

would be hard to find a proportionate cause to allow a possible side effect such

as an abortion.

For Catholics, St. 's teaching in 1 Cor 7 is very helpful:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife

to her husband. [4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the

husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife

does. [5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season,

that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest

Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. [6] I say this by way of

concession, not of command. 

Fr.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM, cnmnancy@... <cnmnancy@...> wrote:

 

I don't think so. Your primary intent is not birth control, nor is it the reason

the woman is seeking medication or treatment .

When there is a serious enough issue that treatment is needed, the woman may not

be able to afford other options that might potentially help, or those options

might not be reasonably available. I think the principle of double effect would

apply in this situation.

Sandrock, CNN

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 



The question has been asked or inferred:  Is it a matter of being

" overscrupulous " to advise a repentant sterilized couple to " practice NFP " ,

i.e., abstain during the fertile time?  Not at all.  This is what should be

done.  For more than a one-sentence statement, see

http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

 

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

" Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality " (Ignatius)

 

Re: Medical indications for OCP

 

" Scrupulosity " begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or

absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of

scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

 

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how

is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of

them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during

their " fertile period " ? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would

only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of

20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is

needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of

obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

--

Fr. R. Vélez

765 14th Ave, Apt 1

San Francisco, CA 94118

Website: www.newmanbiography.com

[Guest guest]

But I think is referring not to remote intention, but to proximate

intention, which we need to know in order to know whether we have an

intrinsically evil act (contraception and/or abortion) or not to begin with.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

--- Original Message ---

From: Kippley <jfkippley@...>

Sent: June 4, 2012 6/4/12

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

 



With regard to intention, a bad intention can render evil an otherwise good act,

but a good intention cannot render good an otherwise evil act. 

Kippley

 

Re: Medical indications for OCP

 

" Scrupulosity " begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or

absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of

scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

 

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how

is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of

them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during

their " fertile period " ? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would

only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of

20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is

needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of

obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Dear , great chapter and your thoughts are definitely from one who has been in the thick of things. I think your thoughts on the role of true conversion of heart following a sterilization are an excellent example of how the laity can help enlighten clergy who, while observing the rigors of chastity, don't live out our exact example of marital love. For those who may not read the chapter, you state , "...I remain convinced that it is necessary for the repentant sterilized couple to refrain from sexual relations during the fertile time even if they cannot reverse the sterilization. First of all...I think it is psychologically impossible for a couple to enjoy sterilized sexual relations during the fertile time without reaffirming a

contraceptive will. That refusal to practice the normal periodic abstinence of normally fertile couples (who have sufficiently serious reasons to avoid pregnancy) is a sign of "a perduring contraceptive intention"...It must be remembered that the whole purpose of sexual sterilization is to enable the sterilized couple to have dishonest intercourse - permanently contraceptive sex - at the normally fertile time. That purpose is pursued each and every time a sterilized couple have relations at the normally fertile time. In my opinion, the requirement that the sterilized couple refrain from relations during the normally fertile time is no different from that of Jesus to the woman caught in adultery: "Go and sin no more". I find your thoughts very true. Moreover, as you state elsewhere in the chapter, although couples may be forgiven their sin of sterilization and given a penance by the Priest, there is an

ontological need, which you call metanoia, which calls the couple to live out their conversion with a desire to abstain during the fertile period. They may not realize this yearning for quite some time, and for those whom are "forgiven" and who don't change their behaviour, they may never discover those hidden truths. For those of us who are not sterilized, and who practice NFP, we realize that the more we obey God's Law on marital love, the more our hearts are conformed to pleasing Him. In other words, to deprive the couple of the opportunity to live out their penance in this way would actually probably hinder their appreciation of the very lesson they need to learn. But, i realize that some would consider this an "undue burden" on the couple. Blessings, Dr. Peck, MD, CCD, ABFM, Marquette NFP Instructor

Pecks Family Practice, PLC

1688 W Granada Blvd, Ste 2A

Ormond Beach, FL 32174

(386) 677-2018 fax: (386) 676-0737 cell: (386) 212-9777

"I have chosen you from the world, says the Lord, and have appointed you to go out and bear fruit, fruit that will last, alleluia" (Cf. Jn 15:16,19) From: Kippley <jfkippley@...> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 9:42 AM Subject:

Scrupulosity or doing what's right?



The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

It ought to be discussed much more fully I think. I share the concern, and I think Father 's words of caution are very true and accurate.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

405-947-2228 (office)

405-834-7506 (cell)

405-947-2307 (FAX)

pedullad@...

"...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores)

Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Alright if as a matter of personal piety , But to go beyond that and to require abstinence for absolution when conversion, repentance, and true spiritual sorrow for the sin of sterilization has occurred is going beyond what the Church would say pastorally.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

405-947-2228 (office)

405-834-7506 (cell)

405-947-2307 (FAX)

pedullad@...

"...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores)

Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

The question has been asked or inferred: Is it a matter of being "overscrupulous" to advise a repentant sterilized couple to "practice NFP", i.e., abstain during the fertile time? Not at all. This is what should be done. For more than a one-sentence statement, see http://www.nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf .

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]



Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Simply put one may not require abstinence in order to absolve the sin.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

405-947-2228 (office)

405-834-7506 (cell)

405-947-2307 (FAX)

pedullad@...

"...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores)

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]



Dominic,

Let us be clear about the sin under discussion because there are actually two different sins. One is the sin of sterilization. The other is the sin of engaging in contraceptively sterilized intercourse, and that's what we are discussing.

As I understand your position, which is not at all uncommon, contraceptively sterilized intercourse supposedly does not require a change of heart that involves a change in behavior. That makes it the only sin I can think of that does not require a change of heart and intended behavior as a condition for absolution.

I have great difficulty with that position.

For additional clarity, let us imagine that the sin was fornication or sodomy. Do not repentance, forgiveness, and absolution involve the resolution not to commit the sin again, that is, to practice abstinence? And if complete abstinence can be required of the unmarried man and woman, why cannot periodic abstinence be required of the repentant sterilized couple?

Sincerely,

F. Kippley

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Dominic and , I see the advice to make couples aware of NFP as a voluntary extra step they could take in addition to their penance. This would not be an obligation per se, but as helpful information the Priest could give the couple. It would be analagous to offering info about rachels vineyard to a woman who has just confessed the sin of abortion. Her absolution is real and not contigent upon attending the workshop, but the astute Priest may realize that this experience would aid in her healing and future growth. The young woman who has an abortion may not truly realize the gravity of her sin until she carries, delivers and cares for her first newborn child. The sin is made all the more real once she truly understands how precious that life is/was. It is similar with sterilization. In His Peace, rebeccaSent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: Dominic <pedullad@...>Sender: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:11:08 -0400 (EDT)< >Reply Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right? Simply put one may not require abstinence in order to absolve the sin.Sincerely yours,Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)405-947-2228 (office)405-834-7506 (cell)405-947-2307 (FAX)pedullad@..."...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores) Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right? Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly. We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate. What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors? Sincerely, F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius) Re: Medical indications for OCP "Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote: You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! BlessingsSent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Perfect ! It is not our job to give the penance or the absolution. If we are asked what we would do in the circumstance we can offer our advice. Letting priests know about the option of periodic abstinence is a great ideas for couples who have beensterilized because it might help the couple heal as suggests. Our diocese is looking at starting a foundation for couples who want to have reversals and can't avoid them as yet another way to respond to the heroic efforts of the couples who regret their sterilization decision. Remember that many couples do these things out of ignorance not defiance or evil intent. Also we should never put the marital act between a repentant married couple in the same boat with sodomy and fornication. Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F Kippley

NFP International

www.NFPandmore.org

"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?

And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way.

Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Sorry ..I am at a midwives conference... I was responding to Dr. 's question when I replied about double effect.While pregnancy/conception is a possibility with OCP use, it does not always or even often happen to the best of our knowledge. When a woman is 100% suffering with a problem and she is unable to obtain an alternative treatment, doesn't the current, real and existing problem outweigh the "possible" conception? And couldn't that be mitigated as well by instructing in the use of fertile signs to avoid conception? Sandrock CNMSent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

[Guest guest]

I apologize for being a ny-come-late to this discussion, and maybe I missed the part I hope to contribute.

If a couple is truly sorry for getting sterilized, and does not have a serious reason for preventing conception so that they are open to a new life, then an argument can be made for their continuing to have marital relations during the fertile time while praying that the rare (but real) sterilization failure may occur for them.

Another approach would be for them to be making sacrifices to save money toward a reversal in an attempt to restore the body to wholeness. Perhaps that would be a more abundant source of grace than abstaining during the fertile time.

Blessings.

Steve Koob, Director

One More Soul

From: rbamer2@...Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:22:29 +0000Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic and , I see the advice to make couples aware of NFP as a voluntary extra step they could take in addition to their penance. This would not be an obligation per se, but as helpful information the Priest could give the couple.It would be analagous to offering info about rachels vineyard to a woman who has just confessed the sin of abortion. Her absolution is real and not contigent upon attending the workshop, but the astute Priest may realize that this experience would aid in her healing and future growth. The young woman who has an abortion may not truly realize the gravity of her sin until she carries, delivers and cares for her first newborn child. The sin is made all the more real once she truly understands how precious that life is/was. It is similar with sterilization. In His Peace, rebecca

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

From: Dominic <pedullad@...>

Sender:

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:11:08 -0400 (EDT)

< >

Reply

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Simply put one may not require abstinence in order to absolve the sin.

Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)405-947-2228 (office)405-834-7506 (cell)

405-947-2307 (FAX)pedullad@...

"...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores)

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

After thinking about this for a while last night and early this morning, a few tentative (and somewhat verbose) thoughts ...

- When I teach the senior-level Sexual & Medical Morality course, this question sometimes comes up – i.e. what a couple should be advised to do if they’ve been sterilized and have then repented. I answer that (among other things) it seems like a good idea to suggest practicing periodic continence – assuming that getting the sterilization reversed would not be practical (for medical, economic, or any other reasons) – as a way of abstaining from the fruits of one’s past sin, so to speak. I don’t intend to alter this answer in the future.

- I also don’t think I’d want to suggest to a couple or to a priest that this should be regarded as absolutely essential for forgiveness. I agree with that repentance generally involves both a change of heart and a change of actions (and that being genuinely ‘pastoral’ doesn’t entail – is in fact contradicted by – “holding back†regarding the genuine requirements of repentance and virtue). But let’s ask the question – if a couple (either man or woman) undergoes contraceptive sterilization, and doesn’t repent, then what exactly is the nature of their continuing sinful action? Is it something like ‘having marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? Or is it something more like ‘intending the continuing infertility of their acts of marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? In other words – is the sinful ‘action’ more like an external one (the sort of thing we most often have in mind when we speak of ‘action’), or an internal one – a sin of ‘thought’? Obviously the latter kind of sin is possible – some sins are internal sins of thought only – and in the case of such a sin, the change in ‘action’ that’s required when one repents is a change in that internal action of thought.

- Suppose, then, that a couple genuinely regrets that they have done something that results in their acts of intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time, being instead infertile. They have been converted in ‘thought.’ They have perhaps even looked into sterilization reversal – or into adoption – though have ascertained (either quickly or after some investigation) that neither of these is likely to work for them (sterilization reversal would not succeed or would not be affordable or whatever – and they would not be regarded by adoption agencies as good candidates for adoptive parenthood). Again – I think that it would still be a good thing for such a couple to practice periodic continence as a manifestation of their repentance – as an act of penance – and also as something that can be good in itself for one’s growth in virtue and in the spouses’ relationship with each other and with God (e.g. – because it involves self-control – a good thing). But I think I’d be somewhat reluctant to conclude that such a couple is simply not repentant in any real/significant sense – and is unable to be forgiven – if they didn’t practice periodic continence. (This point is, I think, basically the same as Steve Koob’s.)

- A “thought experiment†involving a possible analogy: Consider a couple who are of normal reproductive age but who are permanently infertile due to natural causes – not causes that they have in any way brought about (not, e.g., surgical sterilization). Suppose that such a couple are actually happy about their infertility. Perhaps they do not have adequate reason to want to avoid children, but they want to avoid children anyway. Or, perhaps they do have adequate reason, but don’t want to have to bother practicing periodic continence as the means toward avoiding procreation. (Perhaps in the absence of natural infertility, they’d even be contracepting rather than using NFP.) Is there a sin here? I suspect so. Is it a sin primarily of ‘thought’? It seems so to me. What would repentance have to look like? I would say – conversion of their thoughts (the details would depend on the details of the sinful thoughts from which they were converting). Would repentance necessarily have to involve practicing periodic continence? I doubt it. (Would we tell an infertile couple who are from the beginning unhappy about their infertility that they need to practice periodic continence in order to avoid sinning? Again, I doubt it.)

- And getting back to the issue that I think provoked this discussion – i.e., the case of a couple who’re rendered infertile by treatment for a gynecological condition – this seems more like the case of natural infertility than like the case of infertility due to intentional sterilization. I.e. – if a couple are infertile due to hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer – or due to hormonal treatment for something like endometriosis – or whatever similar kind of treatment one might think of (in many such cases, we seem to be dealing with treatments for conditions that would themselves compromise fertility “anyway,†i.e., even if not treated) – then, even to the extent that one would want to counsel periodic continence for a couple who have repented (or whom one is trying to convince to repent) of intentional sterilization – I don’t think it would follow that one would need similarly to counsel periodic continence for the couple infertile as a “side effect†of medical treatment.

- Of course, even if periodic continence wouldn’t be required of such a couple in order to avoid the sin of contraception, there remains the distinct question of whether it should be counseled due to concern that intercourse during part of the woman’s cycle might sometimes lead to fertilization followed by early abortion. I don’t think I have anything to add to what I and others have already said about that – i.e. – I think it depends on factors like a careful analysis of the likelihood of this abortifacient effect (which, again, others need to work out).

From: Kathy Schmugge

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:57 PM

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Perfect ! It is not our job to give the penance or the absolution. If we are asked what we would do in the circumstance we can offer our advice. Letting priests know about the option of periodic abstinence is a great ideas for couples who have beensterilized because it might help the couple heal as suggests. Our diocese is looking at starting a foundation for couples who want to have reversals and can't avoid them as yet another way to respond to the heroic efforts of the couples who regret their sterilization decision. Remember that many couples do these things out of ignorance not defiance or evil intent. Also we should never put the marital act between a repentant married couple in the same boat with sodomy and fornication.

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Without getting into the moral aspects of the issue a tubal reversal is not cheap, not easy, not without complications and not very successful; it requires microsurgical techniques, can be done more easily now by robotic procedures which not everyone is trained and they are usually done by the very Repro Endo docs doing the IVF procedures. It frequently is not covered by insurance and has all the risks of any major surgery with anesthesia, infection, bleeding etc and increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy . I know the secular facts don’t outweigh moral considerations, but once absolved with true contrition there is not “cause” to do the reversal, morally speaking, and as far as abstinence during the fertile window that would be up to the couple once they learned NFP techniques and chose to use it based on their own personal decisions as to how they wished to approach it. Most docs when doing tubal sterilizations do as much destruction as possible to the tubes to avoid “wrongful life” suits with the failure rates and either burn the tubes in 3 places, cut and tie them and remove a piece or place clips or rings around them which are permanent and cause permanent damage to the tube with occlusion and now with the newer trans uterine procedures, it will remain to be seen what their failure rates are, but I don’t believe anyone is trying to remove the springs or the occlusive gel place in the tubal ostia to block it. Just some other facts.Les Ruppersberger, D.O. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Steve KoobSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:48 AM Subject: RE: Scrupulosity or doing what's right? I apologize for being a ny-come-late to this discussion, and maybe I missed the part I hope to contribute. If a couple is truly sorry for getting sterilized, and does not have a serious reason for preventing conception so that they are open to a new life, then an argument can be made for their continuing to have marital relations during the fertile time while praying that the rare (but real) sterilization failure may occur for them. Another approach would be for them to be making sacrifices to save money toward a reversal in an attempt to restore the body to wholeness. Perhaps that would be a more abundant source of grace than abstaining during the fertile time. Blessings. Steve Koob, DirectorOne More Soul From: rbamer2@...Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:22:29 +0000Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right? Dominic and , I see the advice to make couples aware of NFP as a voluntary extra step they could take in addition to their penance. This would not be an obligation per se, but as helpful information the Priest could give the couple.It would be analagous to offering info about rachels vineyard to a woman who has just confessed the sin of abortion. Her absolution is real and not contigent upon attending the workshop, but the astute Priest may realize that this experience would aid in her healing and future growth. The young woman who has an abortion may not truly realize the gravity of her sin until she carries, delivers and cares for her first newborn child. The sin is made all the more real once she truly understands how precious that life is/was. It is similar with sterilization. In His Peace, rebecca Sent via BlackBerry by AT & TFrom: Dominic <pedullad@...> Sender: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:11:08 -0400 (EDT)< >Reply Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right? Simply put one may not require abstinence in order to absolve the sin.Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)405-947-2228 (office)405-834-7506 (cell)405-947-2307 (FAX)pedullad@... " ...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself. " (Inter Insignores) Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right? Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes " beyond what the Church would say pastorally. " The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least " probable " and perhaps " probabilior, " i.e., " more probable. " There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly. We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate. What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors? Sincerely, F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org " Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality " (Ignatius) Re: Medical indications for OCP " Scrupulosity " begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote: You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their " fertile period " ? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! BlessingsSent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

Thank you for a very thorough and thoughtful analysis.One argument I would make is that unlike sterilization, those using a pill have an ongoing involvement in the process (taking a pill every day) that is rendering them partially-sterile. (It could be argued the IUD is more like sterilization in that it is a single event causing the partial sterility, but unlike it in that it can be easily removed at any time). Even though the contraceptive effect is secondary and in our argument an "unintended" consequence (although some may desire it), I wonder whether the daily involvement (and therefore affirmation of) the process could make someone more culpable IF we were to say that there is a non-negligible abortifacient effect.Any extra thoughts ?Thanks,

Bouchard, MDFamily Medicine ResidentUniversity of Calgary

On 2012-06-06, at 10:53 AM, E. wrote:

After thinking about this for a while last night and early this morning, a few tentative (and somewhat verbose) thoughts ...

- When I teach the senior-level Sexual & Medical Morality course, this question sometimes comes up – i.e. what a couple should be advised to do if they’ve been sterilized and have then repented. I answer that (among other things) it seems like a good idea to suggest practicing periodic continence – assuming that getting the sterilization reversed would not be practical (for medical, economic, or any other reasons) – as a way of abstaining from the fruits of one’s past sin, so to speak. I don’t intend to alter this answer in the future.

- I also don’t think I’d want to suggest to a couple or to a priest that this should be regarded as absolutely essential for forgiveness. I agree with that repentance generally involves both a change of heart and a change of actions (and that being genuinely ‘pastoral’ doesn’t entail – is in fact contradicted by – “holding back” regarding the genuine requirements of repentance and virtue). But let’s ask the question – if a couple (either man or woman) undergoes contraceptive sterilization, and doesn’t repent, then what exactly is the nature of their continuing sinful action? Is it something like ‘having marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? Or is it something more like ‘intending the continuing infertility of their acts of marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? In other words – is the sinful ‘action’ more like an external one (the sort of thing we most often have in mind when we speak of ‘action’), or an internal one – a sin of ‘thought’? Obviously the latter kind of sin is possible – some sins are internal sins of thought only – and in the case of such a sin, the change in ‘action’ that’s required when one repents is a change in that internal action of thought.

- Suppose, then, that a couple genuinely regrets that they have done something that results in their acts of intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time, being instead infertile. They have been converted in ‘thought.’ They have perhaps even looked into sterilization reversal – or into adoption – though have ascertained (either quickly or after some investigation) that neither of these is likely to work for them (sterilization reversal would not succeed or would not be affordable or whatever – and they would not be regarded by adoption agencies as good candidates for adoptive parenthood). Again – I think that it would still be a good thing for such a couple to practice periodic continence as a manifestation of their repentance – as an act of penance – and also as something that can be good in itself for one’s growth in virtue and in the spouses’ relationship with each other and with God (e.g. – because it involves self-control – a good thing). But I think I’d be somewhat reluctant to conclude that such a couple is simply not repentant in any real/significant sense – and is unable to be forgiven – if they didn’t practice periodic continence. (This point is, I think, basically the same as Steve Koob’s.)

- A “thought experiment” involving a possible analogy: Consider a couple who are of normal reproductive age but who are permanently infertile due to natural causes – not causes that they have in any way brought about (not, e.g., surgical sterilization). Suppose that such a couple are actually happy about their infertility. Perhaps they do not have adequate reason to want to avoid children, but they want to avoid children anyway. Or, perhaps they do have adequate reason, but don’t want to have to bother practicing periodic continence as the means toward avoiding procreation. (Perhaps in the absence of natural infertility, they’d even be contracepting rather than using NFP.) Is there a sin here? I suspect so. Is it a sin primarily of ‘thought’? It seems so to me. What would repentance have to look like? I would say – conversion of their thoughts (the details would depend on the details of the sinful thoughts from which they were converting). Would repentance necessarily have to involve practicing periodic continence? I doubt it. (Would we tell an infertile couple who are from the beginning unhappy about their infertility that they need to practice periodic continence in order to avoid sinning? Again, I doubt it.)

- And getting back to the issue that I think provoked this discussion – i.e., the case of a couple who’re rendered infertile by treatment for a gynecological condition – this seems more like the case of natural infertility than like the case of infertility due to intentional sterilization. I.e. – if a couple are infertile due to hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer – or due to hormonal treatment for something like endometriosis – or whatever similar kind of treatment one might think of (in many such cases, we seem to be dealing with treatments for conditions that would themselves compromise fertility “anyway,” i.e., even if not treated) – then, even to the extent that one would want to counsel periodic continence for a couple who have repented (or whom one is trying to convince to repent) of intentional sterilization – I don’t think it would follow that one would need similarly to counsel periodic continence for the couple infertile as a “side effect” of medical treatment.

- Of course, even if periodic continence wouldn’t be required of such a couple in order to avoid the sin of contraception, there remains the distinct question of whether it should be counseled due to concern that intercourse during part of the woman’s cycle might sometimes lead to fertilization followed by early abortion. I don’t think I have anything to add to what I and others have already said about that – i.e. – I think it depends on factors like a careful analysis of the likelihood of this abortifacient effect (which, again, others need to work out).

From: Kathy Schmugge

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:57 PM

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Perfect ! It is not our job to give the penance or the absolution. If we are asked what we would do in the circumstance we can offer our advice. Letting priests know about the option of periodic abstinence is a great ideas for couples who have beensterilized because it might help the couple heal as suggests. Our diocese is looking at starting a foundation for couples who want to have reversals and can't avoid them as yet another way to respond to the heroic efforts of the couples who regret their sterilization decision. Remember that many couples do these things out of ignorance not defiance or evil intent. Also we should never put the marital act between a repentant married couple in the same boat with sodomy and fornication.

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

,

Interesting thought. It seems reasonable – I think I need to kick it around in my mind for a while.

I would want to interpret ‘non-negligible’ in a moral as distinguished from scientific sense – i.e. I would go back to the point that moral (morally adequate) certainty isn’t necessarily identical to scientific certainty (again – whatever one ends up concluding about the merits of Austriaco’s scientific argument – I’m quite convinced he’s right about that philosophical/theological point).

In any case – and here I’m thinking (doing the “kicking it around in my mind”) out loud – I think that one needs to remember that even when something is a “side effect” – in Aquinas’ Latin, praeter intentionem – “beside the intention” – not intended as end or means (the “or means” is important and plays a key role in distinguishing this from, say, proportionalism) – this does not mean that the effect is not in any sense ‘willed.’ At minimum – in doing X which will have (praeter intentionem) effect Y – one is not willing to prevent Y – one is perhaps even willing to ‘allow’ Y.

Thus – on the one hand – a praeter intentionem effect doesn’t have (nearly) the same moral relevance as does an intended (end or means) effect. Under the right conditions, we may (permissibly) allow something as a side-effect that it would be morally unacceptable to intend (as end or means).

On the other hand – there do need to be the right conditions – having to do with things like the degree of goodness/importance of the intended (as end) effect relative to the degree of badness/importance (as I’ve suggested before, I think “importance” would include probability of actual occurrence) of the praeter intentionem effect. If the praeter intentionem effect weren’t in any sense willed, then I don’t think that there would be this moral need for “right conditions.”

So getting back to your suggestion – consider two cases. (1) A woman has a medical treatment for some condition (whatever it might be) that needs to be performed only once – and thereafter will result (praeter intentionem) in some morally significant chance that any given act of sexual intercourse by her could lead to fertilization followed by (elevated) failure to implant. (2) A woman is given a drug for some medical condition that needs to be taken daily – and if and only if she continues to take it, any given act of intercourse by her could (praeter intentionem) lead to fertilization followed by (elevated) failure to implant.

On the one hand – in case (2) there is, daily, a chosen (external) action in which there is a renewal of the will to “allow” the possible abortifacient effect – whereas in case (1) there isn’t.

On the other ... if someone wills to receive/use a one-time treatment for some condition (as in case 1), there is a sense in which the patient (generally, anyhow) would likely continue to will that use/acceptance thereafter – as opposed to (say) concluding that doing so was a mistake. E.g. – I had shoulder surgery last January. Obviously in one sense the choice to have that surgery is now over and done with – it was a choice that I made (past tense) in the several weeks leading up to the operation. But now, I still regard (which is itself a kind of choice) that earlier choice as the right one – I don’t regret it or anything like that – if I could go back in time knowing what I know now (that the surgery would be as successful as possible given my injury but that, given the injury as it was seen more clearly through the arthroscope than it had been seen on X-ray and CT and MRI, this success would nevertheless be only partial and that I’ll need to have a shoulder replacement in possibly just a few years), I would still “do it again.”

This continuing willing of the surgery may not be the kind of continuing willing that is involved in – say – my willing each night before bed to take an Aleve (for the pain that remains due to essentially advanced arthritis in the joint).

So – if the surgery had brought with it any permanent (and undesired/unintended) “side effects” (it didn’t – my shoulder is better now than it was post-injury and pre-op, though not as it was pre-injury, and nothing about me is in any way worse), my continuing willing to do the thing that caused those side effects – not to prevent them – to “allow” them – might be somewhat different than is, say, my continuing willing to take nightly a drug that has the side effect of some irritation of my stomach.

But how psychologically/morally significant is this difference? I’m not sure one way or the other.

BUT – now consider a couple more cases – different from the ones you suggest, if I’m understanding correctly. (3) A woman undergoes – with a contraceptive intention – some one-time “treatment” (procedure, injection, whatever) that results in permanent “sterility” but that might (i.e. the chance is morally significant) sometimes actually allow fertilization but then prevent implantation. (This might be purely hypothetical – I don’t know of any such treatment but I also don’t know that there is no such treatment.) She then genuinely repents of this decision. She then continues to have marital intercourse with her husband (taking such steps as are possible – if any are – to abstain from intercourse during what might still be the fertile time). (4) A woman takes – with a contraceptive intention – daily OC – knowing (assuming for the sake of argument that this is true) that there is a morally significant risk that this will (following intercourse) sometimes allow fertilization and then cause early abortion. She continues to do this (there is no repentance – which in this case would obviously entail stopping the drug). And she continues to have intercourse.

Would there be a moral difference here? I think so. Even if in case (3) the woman and her husband would not be doing moral evil by continuing to engage in intercourse (I’d need to think still more about that but I also need to do other things right now ... I would say that offhand it seems more likely that this would be sinful vs. the case of the couple who’ve repented of standard surgical sterilization, which doesn’t that I know of have any abortifacient effect), I think it would still be different from (4).

That may or may not be helpful.

From: Bouchard

Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:29 PM

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Thank you for a very thorough and thoughtful analysis.

One argument I would make is that unlike sterilization, those using a pill have an ongoing involvement in the process (taking a pill every day) that is rendering them partially-sterile. (It could be argued the IUD is more like sterilization in that it is a single event causing the partial sterility, but unlike it in that it can be easily removed at any time). Even though the contraceptive effect is secondary and in our argument an "unintended" consequence (although some may desire it), I wonder whether the daily involvement (and therefore affirmation of) the process could make someone more culpable IF we were to say that there is a non-negligible abortifacient effect.

Any extra thoughts ?

Thanks,

Bouchard, MD

Family Medicine Resident

University of Calgary

On 2012-06-06, at 10:53 AM, E. wrote:

After thinking about this for a while last night and early this morning, a few tentative (and somewhat verbose) thoughts ...

- When I teach the senior-level Sexual & Medical Morality course, this question sometimes comes up – i.e. what a couple should be advised to do if they’ve been sterilized and have then repented. I answer that (among other things) it seems like a good idea to suggest practicing periodic continence – assuming that getting the sterilization reversed would not be practical (for medical, economic, or any other reasons) – as a way of abstaining from the fruits of one’s past sin, so to speak. I don’t intend to alter this answer in the future.

- I also don’t think I’d want to suggest to a couple or to a priest that this should be regarded as absolutely essential for forgiveness. I agree with that repentance generally involves both a change of heart and a change of actions (and that being genuinely ‘pastoral’ doesn’t entail – is in fact contradicted by – “holding back” regarding the genuine requirements of repentance and virtue). But let’s ask the question – if a couple (either man or woman) undergoes contraceptive sterilization, and doesn’t repent, then what exactly is the nature of their continuing sinful action? Is it something like ‘having marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? Or is it something more like ‘intending the continuing infertility of their acts of marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? In other words – is the sinful ‘action’ more like an external one (the sort of thing we most often have in mind when we speak of ‘action’), or an internal one – a sin of ‘thought’? Obviously the latter kind of sin is possible – some sins are internal sins of thought only – and in the case of such a sin, the change in ‘action’ that’s required when one repents is a change in that internal action of thought.

- Suppose, then, that a couple genuinely regrets that they have done something that results in their acts of intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time, being instead infertile. They have been converted in ‘thought.’ They have perhaps even looked into sterilization reversal – or into adoption – though have ascertained (either quickly or after some investigation) that neither of these is likely to work for them (sterilization reversal would not succeed or would not be affordable or whatever – and they would not be regarded by adoption agencies as good candidates for adoptive parenthood). Again – I think that it would still be a good thing for such a couple to practice periodic continence as a manifestation of their repentance – as an act of penance – and also as something that can be good in itself for one’s growth in virtue and in the spouses’ relationship with each other and with God (e.g. – because it involves self-control – a good thing). But I think I’d be somewhat reluctant to conclude that such a couple is simply not repentant in any real/significant sense – and is unable to be forgiven – if they didn’t practice periodic continence. (This point is, I think, basically the same as Steve Koob’s.)

- A “thought experiment” involving a possible analogy: Consider a couple who are of normal reproductive age but who are permanently infertile due to natural causes – not causes that they have in any way brought about (not, e.g., surgical sterilization). Suppose that such a couple are actually happy about their infertility. Perhaps they do not have adequate reason to want to avoid children, but they want to avoid children anyway. Or, perhaps they do have adequate reason, but don’t want to have to bother practicing periodic continence as the means toward avoiding procreation. (Perhaps in the absence of natural infertility, they’d even be contracepting rather than using NFP.) Is there a sin here? I suspect so. Is it a sin primarily of ‘thought’? It seems so to me. What would repentance have to look like? I would say – conversion of their thoughts (the details would depend on the details of the sinful thoughts from which they were converting). Would repentance necessarily have to involve practicing periodic continence? I doubt it. (Would we tell an infertile couple who are from the beginning unhappy about their infertility that they need to practice periodic continence in order to avoid sinning? Again, I doubt it.)

- And getting back to the issue that I think provoked this discussion – i.e., the case of a couple who’re rendered infertile by treatment for a gynecological condition – this seems more like the case of natural infertility than like the case of infertility due to intentional sterilization. I.e. – if a couple are infertile due to hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer – or due to hormonal treatment for something like endometriosis – or whatever similar kind of treatment one might think of (in many such cases, we seem to be dealing with treatments for conditions that would themselves compromise fertility “anyway,” i.e., even if not treated) – then, even to the extent that one would want to counsel periodic continence for a couple who have repented (or whom one is trying to convince to repent) of intentional sterilization – I don’t think it would follow that one would need similarly to counsel periodic continence for the couple infertile as a “side effect” of medical treatment.

- Of course, even if periodic continence wouldn’t be required of such a couple in order to avoid the sin of contraception, there remains the distinct question of whether it should be counseled due to concern that intercourse during part of the woman’s cycle might sometimes lead to fertilization followed by early abortion. I don’t think I have anything to add to what I and others have already said about that – i.e. – I think it depends on factors like a careful analysis of the likelihood of this abortifacient effect (which, again, others need to work out).

From: Kathy Schmugge

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:57 PM

Subject: Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Perfect ! It is not our job to give the penance or the absolution. If we are asked what we would do in the circumstance we can offer our advice. Letting priests know about the option of periodic abstinence is a great ideas for couples who have beensterilized because it might help the couple heal as suggests. Our diocese is looking at starting a foundation for couples who want to have reversals and can't avoid them as yet another way to respond to the heroic efforts of the couples who regret their sterilization decision. Remember that many couples do these things out of ignorance not defiance or evil intent. Also we should never put the marital act between a repentant married couple in the same boat with sodomy and fornication.

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Dominic, I don't know how you or anyone else can say that what I have posited in that chapter goes "beyond what the Church would say pastorally." The ecclesiastical censor rated my opinions as at least "probable" and perhaps "probabilior," i.e., "more probable." There is nothing un-pastoral about telling a couple that if they are repentant and wish they had never had themselves sterilized they should now act as if they had not been sterilized. That is, consider themselves of normal fertility and abstain accordingly.

We are all dealing with the huge problem of what has passed for pastoral theology during the last 43 years -- benign neglect of Humanae Vitae and doing almost nothing to teach it. The Obama birth control mandate simply would not have happened if even 25% to 40% of fertile-age Catholics were not contracepting. And of course, there are some pastors who are already saying and/or will be soon saying that as a matter of pastoral concern we should go along with the mandate.

What was pastorally correct? St. Fisher or his fellow pastors?

Sincerely,

F KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.org"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius)

Re: Medical indications for OCP

"Scrupulosity" begs the question. We first need to assess the presence or absence of true moral responsibility, something quite apart from the question of scruples.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, rbamer2@... wrote:

You know I understand where you all are coming from and don't disagree but how is this different from say a couple who have obtained sterilization for one of them and then after having a conversion of heart, decides to practice nfp during their "fertile period"? Do we tell them they are overscrupulous?And just a slight clarification with richards correction noted the couple would only have to use a clearblue digital OPK kit which runs less than $20 for box of 20 and she would probably only need a couple of tests per month. No monitor is needed. It would cost $5 per month that way. Still I agree that it may be overscrupulous to recommend this but what an act of obedience by the couple! Blessings

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

I regularly challenge practitioners to provide even one case where there is not a better alternative to contraceptive medication to treat a gynecologic or fertility disorder, and have not found one since March 1, 1999 when I stopped writing scripts for them. The alternative treatments address and treat the underlying metabolic disorder and are, arguably far less expensive than OCP's at $80 per month or IUD's which cost in the hundreds of dollars. Let's practice authentic medicine and stop relying on the propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry, shall we? In reality, it's our strong suit, and allows those with concerns about the deleterious effects on the environment to align with us.

W. , M.D., FACOG

obdoc2000@...

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

Sorry ..I am at a midwives conference... I was responding to Dr. 's question when I replied about double effect.

While pregnancy/conception is a possibility with OCP use, it does not always or even often happen to the best of our knowledge. When a woman is 100% suffering with a problem and she is unable to obtain an alternative treatment, doesn't the current, real and existing problem outweigh the "possible" conception? And couldn't that be mitigated as well by instructing in the use of fertile signs to avoid conception?

Sandrock CNM

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

[Guest guest]



The issue of what is required of the repentant sterilized couple can be clouded by all sorts of analogies, but the question remains. Is abstinence during the fertile-time a moral "ought" or simply a suggested pious practice? If we want analogies, consider the couple in an invalid marriage. By the teaching of the Lord Jesus, they are living in adultery. Imagine that the man sincerely regrets leaving his true wife for his current legal spouse. Without getting into all sorts of additional details, the question before him is whether he is morally obliged to live as brother and sister or if such abstinence would just be a pious suggestion.

With regard to contraceptive sterilization, does repentance involve saying to oneself, "If I had it to do over again, I would not do it." To put it the other way, if a person says, "I regret what I did but I would do it over again," is such a person repentant? Regretful is not the same as repentant.

If a person/couple is truly repentant and would not do it over again, then the repentant sterilized person or couple is saying that they wish they were still fertile, and that means that they would be practicing periodic abstinence. That is the moral norm. I'm not saying it is easy to live out the moral norm. It is frequently a daily cross, but that's simply the price of Christian discipleship. Periodic abstinence is no different for the sterilized couple than it is for the couple of normal fertility who think they have a sufficiently serious reason to seek to avoid pregnancy.

The widespread no-abstinence-required "pastoral approach" has reduced the moral norm to an optional pious practice, and the entire teaching of Humanae Vitae has been undermined.

Sincerely,

Kippley

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

After thinking about this for a while last night and early this morning, a few tentative (and somewhat verbose) thoughts ...

- When I teach the senior-level Sexual & Medical Morality course, this question sometimes comes up – i.e. what a couple should be advised to do if they’ve been sterilized and have then repented. I answer that (among other things) it seems like a good idea to suggest practicing periodic continence – assuming that getting the sterilization reversed would not be practical (for medical, economic, or any other reasons) – as a way of abstaining from the fruits of one’s past sin, so to speak. I don’t intend to alter this answer in the future.

- I also don’t think I’d want to suggest to a couple or to a priest that this should be regarded as absolutely essential for forgiveness. I agree with that repentance generally involves both a change of heart and a change of actions (and that being genuinely ‘pastoral’ doesn’t entail – is in fact contradicted by – “holding back†regarding the genuine requirements of repentance and virtue). But let’s ask the question – if a couple (either man or woman) undergoes contraceptive sterilization, and doesn’t repent, then what exactly is the nature of their continuing sinful action? Is it something like ‘having marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? Or is it something more like ‘intending the continuing infertility of their acts of marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? In other words – is the sinful ‘action’ more like an external one (the sort of thing we most often have in mind when we speak of ‘action’), or an internal one – a sin of ‘thought’? Obviously the latter kind of sin is possible – some sins are internal sins of thought only – and in the case of such a sin, the change in ‘action’ that’s required when one repents is a change in that internal action of thought.

- Suppose, then, that a couple genuinely regrets that they have done something that results in their acts of intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time, being instead infertile. They have been converted in ‘thought.’ They have perhaps even looked into sterilization reversal – or into adoption – though have ascertained (either quickly or after some investigation) that neither of these is likely to work for them (sterilization reversal would not succeed or would not be affordable or whatever – and they would not be regarded by adoption agencies as good candidates for adoptive parenthood). Again – I think that it would still be a good thing for such a couple to practice periodic continence as a manifestation of their repentance – as an act of penance – and also as something that can be good in itself for one’s growth in virtue and in the spouses’ relationship with each other and with God (e.g. – because it involves self-control – a good thing). But I think I’d be somewhat reluctant to conclude that such a couple is simply not repentant in any real/significant sense – and is unable to be forgiven – if they didn’t practice periodic continence. (This point is, I think, basically the same as Steve Koob’s.)

- A “thought experiment†involving a possible analogy: Consider a couple who are of normal reproductive age but who are permanently infertile due to natural causes – not causes that they have in any way brought about (not, e.g., surgical sterilization). Suppose that such a couple are actually happy about their infertility. Perhaps they do not have adequate reason to want to avoid children, but they want to avoid children anyway. Or, perhaps they do have adequate reason, but don’t want to have to bother practicing periodic continence as the means toward avoiding procreation. (Perhaps in the absence of natural infertility, they’d even be contracepting rather than using NFP.) Is there a sin here? I suspect so. Is it a sin primarily of ‘thought’? It seems so to me. What would repentance have to look like? I would say – conversion of their thoughts (the details would depend on the details of the sinful thoughts from which they were converting). Would repentance necessarily have to involve practicing periodic continence? I doubt it. (Would we tell an infertile couple who are from the beginning unhappy about their infertility that they need to practice periodic continence in order to avoid sinning? Again, I doubt it.)

- And getting back to the issue that I think provoked this discussion – i.e., the case of a couple who’re rendered infertile by treatment for a gynecological condition – this seems more like the case of natural infertility than like the case of infertility due to intentional sterilization. I.e. – if a couple are infertile due to hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer – or due to hormonal treatment for something like endometriosis – or whatever similar kind of treatment one might think of (in many such cases, we seem to be dealing with treatments for conditions that would themselves compromise fertility “anyway,†i.e., even if not treated) – then, even to the extent that one would want to counsel periodic continence for a couple who have repented (or whom one is trying to convince to repent) of intentional sterilization – I don’t think it would follow that one would need similarly to counsel periodic continence for the couple infertile as a “side effect†of medical treatment.

- Of course, even if periodic continence wouldn’t be required of such a couple in order to avoid the sin of contraception, there remains the distinct question of whether it should be counseled due to concern that intercourse during part of the woman’s cycle might sometimes lead to fertilization followed by early abortion. I don’t think I have anything to add to what I and others have already said about that – i.e. – I think it depends on factors like a careful analysis of the likelihood of this abortifacient effect (which, again, others need to work out).

From: Kathy Schmugge

[Guest guest]

no this is not the pastoral practice of the Church, but I won't be able to convince you. Still, not worth losing peace over it. I would consult the vatican though. I don't think you'll get the answer you are looking for.

Peace.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

405-947-2228 (office)

405-834-7506 (cell)

405-947-2307 (FAX)

pedullad@...

"...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores)

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

The issue of what is required of the repentant sterilized couple can be clouded by all sorts of analogies, but the question remains. Is abstinence during the fertile-time a moral "ought" or simply a suggested pious practice? If we want analogies, consider the couple in an invalid marriage. By the teaching of the Lord Jesus, they are living in adultery. Imagine that the man sincerely regrets leaving his true wife for his current legal spouse. Without getting into all sorts of additional details, the question before him is whether he is morally obliged to live as brother and sister or if such abstinence would just be a pious suggestion.

With regard to contraceptive sterilization, does repentance involve saying to oneself, "If I had it to do over again, I would not do it." To put it the other way, if a person says, "I regret what I did but I would do it over again," is such a person repentant? Regretful is not the same as repentant.

If a person/couple is truly repentant and would not do it over again, then the repentant sterilized person or couple is saying that they wish they were still fertile, and that means that they would be practicing periodic abstinence. That is the moral norm. I'm not saying it is easy to live out the moral norm. It is frequently a daily cross, but that's simply the price of Christian discipleship. Periodic abstinence is no different for the sterilized couple than it is for the couple of normal fertility who think they have a sufficiently serious reason to seek to avoid pregnancy.

The widespread no-abstinence-required "pastoral approach" has reduced the moral norm to an optional pious practice, and the entire teaching of Humanae Vitae has been undermined.

Sincerely,

Kippley

Re: Scrupulosity or doing what's right?

After thinking about this for a while last night and early this morning, a few tentative (and somewhat verbose) thoughts ...

- When I teach the senior-level Sexual & Medical Morality course, this question sometimes comes up – i.e. what a couple should be advised to do if they’ve been sterilized and have then repented. I answer that (among other things) it seems like a good idea to suggest practicing periodic continence – assuming that getting the sterilization reversed would not be practical (for medical, economic, or any other reasons) – as a way of abstaining from the fruits of one’s past sin, so to speak. I don’t intend to alter this answer in the future.

- I also don’t think I’d want to suggest to a couple or to a priest that this should be regarded as absolutely essential for forgiveness. I agree with that repentance generally involves both a change of heart and a change of actions (and that being genuinely ‘pastoral’ doesn’t entail – is in fact contradicted by – “holding back†regarding the genuine requirements of repentance and virtue). But let’s ask the question – if a couple (either man or woman) undergoes contraceptive sterilization, and doesn’t repent, then what exactly is the nature of their continuing sinful action? Is it something like ‘having marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? Or is it something more like ‘intending the continuing infertility of their acts of marital intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time’? In other words – is the sinful ‘action’ more like an external one (the sort of thing we most often have in mind when we speak of ‘action’), or an internal one – a sin of ‘thought’? Obviously the latter kind of sin is possible – some sins are internal sins of thought only – and in the case of such a sin, the change in ‘action’ that’s required when one repents is a change in that internal action of thought.

- Suppose, then, that a couple genuinely regrets that they have done something that results in their acts of intercourse during what would otherwise be the fertile time, being instead infertile. They have been converted in ‘thought.’ They have perhaps even looked into sterilization reversal – or into adoption – though have ascertained (either quickly or after some investigation) that neither of these is likely to work for them (sterilization reversal would not succeed or would not be affordable or whatever – and they would not be regarded by adoption agencies as good candidates for adoptive parenthood). Again – I think that it would still be a good thing for such a couple to practice periodic continence as a manifestation of their repentance – as an act of penance – and also as something that can be good in itself for one’s growth in virtue and in the spouses’ relationship with each other and with God (e.g. – because it involves self-control – a good thing). But I think I’d be somewhat reluctant to conclude that such a couple is simply not repentant in any real/significant sense – and is unable to be forgiven – if they didn’t practice periodic continence. (This point is, I think, basically the same as Steve Koob’s.)

- A “thought experiment†involving a possible analogy: Consider a couple who are of normal reproductive age but who are permanently infertile due to natural causes – not causes that they have in any way brought about (not, e.g., surgical sterilization). Suppose that such a couple are actually happy about their infertility. Perhaps they do not have adequate reason to want to avoid children, but they want to avoid children anyway. Or, perhaps they do have adequate reason, but don’t want to have to bother practicing periodic continence as the means toward avoiding procreation. (Perhaps in the absence of natural infertility, they’d even be contracepting rather than using NFP.) Is there a sin here? I suspect so. Is it a sin primarily of ‘thought’? It seems so to me. What would repentance have to look like? I would say – conversion of their thoughts (the details would depend on the details of the sinful thoughts from which they were converting). Would repentance necessarily have to involve practicing periodic continence? I doubt it. (Would we tell an infertile couple who are from the beginning unhappy about their infertility that they need to practice periodic continence in order to avoid sinning? Again, I doubt it.)

- And getting back to the issue that I think provoked this discussion – i.e., the case of a couple who’re rendered infertile by treatment for a gynecological condition – this seems more like the case of natural infertility than like the case of infertility due to intentional sterilization. I.e. – if a couple are infertile due to hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer – or due to hormonal treatment for something like endometriosis – or whatever similar kind of treatment one might think of (in many such cases, we seem to be dealing with treatments for conditions that would themselves compromise fertility “anyway,†i.e., even if not treated) – then, even to the extent that one would want to counsel periodic continence for a couple who have repented (or whom one is trying to convince to repent) of intentional sterilization – I don’t think it would follow that one would need similarly to counsel periodic continence for the couple infertile as a “side effect†of medical treatment.

- Of course, even if periodic continence wouldn’t be required of such a couple in order to avoid the sin of contraception, there remains the distinct question of whether it should be counseled due to concern that intercourse during part of the woman’s cycle might sometimes lead to fertilization followed by early abortion. I don’t think I have anything to add to what I and others have already said about that – i.e. – I think it depends on factors like a careful analysis of the likelihood of this abortifacient effect (which, again, others need to work out).

From: Kathy Schmugge