Cruciform,
You could have posted this, rather than assume anyone worth your time should be willing to read all of it.
"To summarize: man's moral good is constituted by his willingness to recognize
the inherent goodness of those real human goods which, together,
go to make up the whole human good and to choose to act in ways
that manifest his love for their goodness and for the Summum Bonum
of whom they are created participations.
He ought not to be willing to act in ways that repudiate these human goods
and in effect declare them to be, here and now, positively evil.
This claim imagines an inherent Platonic "goodness" to things which they cannot have.
All 'goodness' actually comes from God alone.
Nothing can be inherently 'good', except God.
(cf. Mk. 10:18, Lk. 18:19 )
Any goodness that an object, idea, ideal, law, principle, historical event, act,
or being acquires,
it acquires from God, through a context and existence and
Sitz im Leben which is also provided by God.
Exactly the same can be said of holiness. True holiness is sourced by God alone,
and all other holiness is acquired by context or a fiat provided by God,
and is dependent and derivatory.
For example, the holiness of
a holy object in the Temple of God has no
intrinsic or inherent holiness nor goodness.
It acquires any holiness by its dedication to a purpose,
and its assignment of holiness by God and His Torah.
The holiness of both objects and even people made in the image of God
is a derivative holiness which is utterly dependent upon the holiness of God,
and that holiness has no independent reality, existence, or power apart from God,
who sustains both the holiness and the context which gives the holiness recognition
and meaning.
This is why when a holy object like a temple cup touches an unholy object,
it is defiled.
It has no inherent power of holiness or goodness in it. (cf. Haggai 2:12-13).
Whereas,
Jesus, who possessed inherent goodness and holiness,
was able to touch a leper or a dead person, and
uniquely,
was not defiled but instead the leper was cured,
and the dead person made alive and whole.
Jesus' holiness and goodness was not a derivative holiness but a source-holiness.
Now lets look at the rest of the foolishness of Roman Catholic gobbledyguck:
The human power to generate new human life is an inherently human
and personal power, participating in the goodness of the human person.
Procreation is not "inherent", nor automatically given to all humans at all times,
nor is it necessary to define a person as fully human.
Children, old people, the barren, the eunuchs have no such power but are still
fully human according to Jesus
(cf. Matt. 19:12, Luke 18:16)
Sterilization is an act that is deliberately intended to reject the goodness
of this human personal power and the inherent relationship that
it has to the other great human sexual power to enter into a communion
of conjugal friendship with another human person in an act
expressive of their acceptance of each other completely.
(1) First of all "intent" cannot be known by human beings,
but can only be assessed indirectly via fallible external signs and evidence.
No one has the power to discern wills or read minds.
Thus WHY a person would sterilize or self-sterilize even if they knew their act would
have the consequence of sterilization is in doubt and at best evaluated on
incomplete knowledge and fallible reason.
As a matter of fact in the present case, while castration of the testicles or removal
of ovaries may result in permanent sterilization,
(2) the tying of fallopian tubes (or even the tying of semen tubes)
has no guarantee of either temporary or permanent sterilization.
Sterilization can only mean permanent loss
by definition, but the medical procedures
referred to here don't apply to this definition.
(3) There is no 'inherent' relationship of matrimony, conjugal relation, or spousal matching,
inherent in the possession of mere 'gender', even potentially or by promise.
Even God makes no promises to individuals to all have 'perfect matches' or be
granted spousal rights, conjugal relations, or holy sacraments by the mere possession
of a penis or a potential for womanhood.
God does make group promises, saying that eunuchs for the kingdom will receive
in some sense both families and children in this life and the life to come.
But this is not a literal promise of many wives for each martyr or new children for old.
These are promises fulfilled in a new relationship inside the body of believers,
in which all become brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters.
Its a communal promise, not a conjugal promise.
(3) Contrary to the claim above, men and women can and do give up 'conjugal rights'
or privileges sometimes permanently for the sake of the gospel.
This is not a rejection of inherent goodness in having the ability to reproduce,
but rather a devaluing of sex, marriage, and procreation to a higher good, namely
the furtherance of the Kingdom of God on earth.
Sterilization is thus an act that of its very nature attacks the ethical or moral good
of the human person and that is, consequently, intrinsically evil. "
Thus this is a false claim, based on false logic, and in contradiction to known Bible doctrine:
Its not intrinsically evil to sterilize people if there is a medical or even community benefit.
Its not intrinsically good to retain the ability to reproduce, when there is no likelihood
nor purpose in fulfilling that potential act, or when it might displace more important
goals with higher goods at stake, namely the good of the Gospel of Christ.
A man may be a voluntary eunuch for the kingdom of God by either abstinence,
or by self-castration if he so chooses. It makes no difference since the result is the same:
He becomes an asexual being dedicated fully to the furtherance of the gospel
in circumstances where there is no opportunity nor purpose in procreating.
Also, a woman may at any time devote herself by a vow of virginity,
to dedicate herself to complete committed service to God and the gospel.
Roman Catholic Priests and Nuns do this all the time.
I am no fan of priestly celibacy, because I do not believe in a special 'priesthood'
beyond that of the office of Israel and Christians.
But I see no reason to condemn voluntary celibacy in the cause of the gospel.
Jesus acknowledged that option.
Finally, sterilization for medical reasons including the greater good of the community,
such as in the prevention of the transmission of disease or genetic defects,
is perfectly permissible with animals, and probably equally permissible with humans,
provided the reasons are actually medically and scientifically sound and certain.
But again I am no fan of eugenics or forced sterilization of supposedly inferior persons,
the sick, the elderly, the retarded, the handicapped etc. because men have proven themselves
incapable of acting in true scientific interest without bigotry, prejudice and racism
affecting their judgement.
The Roman Catholics have provided no legitimate case against sterilization
in appropriate settings, as popular as their position among humanitarians is.
The arguments quoted above are worthless and moreover, unChristian.
linger: "It was painful to hear but ultimately seemed the best course to Jessica Mann and her family. Because of a dangerous tumor in her brain, her doctor gently suggested that she take steps to make sure that she could not get pregnant again.
