not trolling

[poppinskw]

But she could go after her baptism and do a confession, correct? But it's not mandatory?

There wont be a baptism, I have already been baptised hmmm twice I think thats enough even for me

 

[poppinskw]

Okay, thanks for the clarification Carrye.

Are you clear now, poppins?

Yes I am clear now thanks so much

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

This is my opinion, nothing more, so take it as such . . . no more and no less. I would say that, according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, one should confess, in sacramental confession, all that one becomes aware of that was objectively grave matter, even if one, at the time in the past, was not aware that it was objectively grave matter. While one's personal culpability will, no doubt, be mitigated based upon one's own level of knowledge at the time, one should still confess that which he/she later came to realize was grave matter, even if he/she was not aware that it was grave matter in the past. To use an imperfect analogy, if I hurt someone or harm someone, unknowingly/unintentionally, and only later come to understand the wrongness of my actions, I should still apologize and ask forgiveness, once I come to the realization that I committed the wrong . . . even if I didn't realize it when I actually did it.

I completely agree with this.

 

[seamonster]

.

If a doctor warns a woman not to have children again or she will die in childbirth, is it still immoral, or are there certain circumstances in which it would be allowed, such as the above situation?

 

[poppinskw]

This is my opinion, nothing more, so take it as such . . . no more and no less. I would say that, according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, one should confess, in sacramental confession, all that one becomes aware of that was objectively grave matter, even if one, at the time in the past, was not aware that it was objectively grave matter. While one's personal culpability will, no doubt, be mitigated based upon one's own level of knowledge at the time, one should still confess that which he/she later came to realize was grave matter, even if he/she was not aware that it was grave matter in the past. To use an imperfect analogy, if I hurt someone or harm someone, unknowingly/unintentionally, and only later come to understand the wrongness of my actions, I should still apologize and ask forgiveness, once I come to the realization that I committed the wrong . . . even if I didn't realize it when I actually did it.

Good opinion, thank you, and most helpful.

 

[Skripper]

One other thing . . . I think there is at least some biblical support, at least for the concept, in what Jesus says here:

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Luke 12: 47-48)[/font]

While I'm not quite sure exactly how, I think it's tied in there . . . somehow.

 

[GK]

One other thing . . . I think there is at least some biblical support, at least for the concept, in what Jesus says here:

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Luke 12: 47-48)[/font]

While I'm not quite sure exactly how, I think it's tied in there . . . somehow.

I think it is. I think it's similar to venial sin. We are still held accountable for all our actions, even if God, in his grace, saves us from them. We are still responsible for actions we did not know were sinful and there will still be consequences for those sins, both here in the present and after death. This is why God, in his mercy, has given us purgatory.

(Just had to open that one up.. )

 

[Carrye]

We are still held accountable for all our actions, even if God, in his grace, saves us from them. We are still responsible for actions we did not know were sinful and there will still be consequences for those sins, both here in the present and after death. This is why God, in his mercy, has given us purgatory.

Indeed! There are two aspects of sin:
- Infinite - requires an infinite sacrifice; Christ
- Finite - requires finite reparation; we must do it - on this earth or in purgatory

 

[Combatchuc11]

where in Jesus' teachings can I find information on purgatory and also, along the lines of bluenovember, are you saying that if a woman will pretty much die if she gives birth to another child (which is what the doctors told my wife's mom after her last birth) that she should just abstain from sex from the rest of her life because she'll probably die if she gets pregnant again?

 

[Carrye]

where in Jesus' teachings can I find information on purgatory

Scripture + Tradition = Jesus' teachings

 

[GK]

where in Jesus' teachings can I find information on purgatory and also, along the lines of bluenovember, are you saying that if a woman will pretty much die if she gives birth to another child (which is what the doctors told my wife's mom after her last birth) that she should just abstain from sex from the rest of her life because she'll probably die if she gets pregnant again?

Abstaining from sex is one option. Abstaining from sex (with her husband, we are assuming) during her fertile times is another option. So is trusting in the Lord that he will protect her. IOW, the idea that her only three options are to abstain, die, or sin, is a bit too simplistic and not a full picture of the situation.

 

[CarrierOfChrist]

Abstaining from sex is one option. Abstaining from sex (with her husband, we are assuming) during her fertile times is another option. So is trusting in the Lord that he will protect her. IOW, the idea that her only three options are to abstain, die, or sin, is a bit too simplistic and not a full picture of the situation.

Excellent point you make here

 

[ctay]

What if a women has cancer and she has to have a hysterectomy is it a sin?

 

[Carrye]

only three options are to abstain, die, or sin

Though you have to admit, it'd make for a great tshirt slogan.

 

[Carrye]

What if a women has cancer and she has to have a hysterectomy is it a sin?

No, it would not be sinful because it is being done as a medical treatment for a medical disease, not for contraception.

 

[Skripper]

where in Jesus' teachings can I find information on purgatory and also, along the lines of bluenovember, are you saying that if a woman will pretty much die if she gives birth to another child (which is what the doctors told my wife's mom after her last birth) that she should just abstain from sex from the rest of her life because she'll probably die if she gets pregnant again?

As Carry said, Scripture + Tradition = Jesus' teachings. And romecoming has given a pretty good response to another part. You may also find this helpful:

Purgatory: A Scriptural Doctrine

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

What if a women has cancer and she has to have a hysterectomy is it a sin?

No.

 

[seamonster]

No, it would not be sinful because it is being done as a medical treatment for a medical disease, not for contraception.

Right. But how is this different from a woman getting her tubes tied/husband having a vasectomy if a future birth will cause her to die? Both actions are preventing death, but in the case of cancer, it's okay?

 

[Carrye]

Right. But how is this different from a woman getting her tubes tied/husband having a vasectomy if a future birth will cause her to die? Both actions are preventing death, but in the case of cancer, it's okay?

Having tubes tied/husband having a vasectomy are contraceptive measures, which separate the unitive and procreative nature of the sexual act. As such, they are immoral. Treating cancer that a person has right now by doing the same procedure is therapeutic, and the goal is treatment of the illness and preservation of life. That's also different from saying I'm going to have a hysterectomy now to prevent cancer later, which would be immoral.

 

[GK]

Right. But how is this different from a woman getting her tubes tied/husband having a vasectomy if a future birth will cause her to die? Both actions are preventing death, but in the case of cancer, it's okay?

There's clearly a line, though the line is not always clear. What is clear is that the woman and her husband should make the decision with the help of their priest and not take my word for it on a forum.

I think the difference here is that that cancer could kill her (or just injure her) whether she has sex or not, where the issue of a possible future pregnancy possibly causing problems is not nearly as clear a danger as a current cancer and it's only a problem if she gets pregnant, and even then, only a possible problem.