How Does a Priest Treat the Sin of Voluntary Sterilization

Recently, I was asked whether or not we priests hear the sin of sterilization and contraception confessed very often. I replied that I did not hear it as often as I would expect to hear it. Maybe I need to preach more often on the sinfulness of temporary sterilization (contraception) and permanent sterilization (tubal ligation and vasectomy)! In any case, what are some practical steps that a priest can take when responding to a penitent who has confessed voluntary sterilization?

The first point I always make is that it is very good that he or she is asking for forgiveness. (From now on, I will use the pronoun “he” to refer to either gender and to avoid having to use “he/she”.) I assure the penitent that with the words of absolution, he is absolutely forgiven of the sin. However, I also ask the penitent if I might ask for a bit more information about his age and the date of the sterilization surgery. If the penitent and spouse are still in their child-bearing years and the vasectomy or tubal ligation was relatively recent, I strongly encourage him to look into the possibility of undergoing a reversal surgery. As we know, extraordinary burdens cannot be placed on penitents.  However, I ask the penitent at least to investigate the expense and risk of such a procedure and to discuss the matter with his spouse. I make it clear that I am not imposing this task as a penance, but only as something he should do as one who has made a “firm purpose of amendment” to sin no more. If, after discussion with each other and prayer with God, the spouses determine the reversal should be undergone, then they can make steps to do so. On the other hand, they could also decide not to undergo the reversal, after discussion and prayer.

It must be emphasized that extraordinary burdens are not normally required for repentance. John F. Kippley explains: “For example, many poor people have been seduced by public health workers into being sterilized—sometimes at no cost and sometimes even being paid to be sterilized. For such couples, the cost of reversal surgery would be a very severe burden if not simply impossible, and the reversal surgery would not be morally required. In another case, reversal surgery might constitute a grave risk to health or life because of heart conditions, reactions to anesthesia, etc. Such cases would also constitute an extraordinary burden and would eliminate the moral obligation to have reversal surgery.”¹ It is also good to discuss with the penitent his and his spouse’s inclinations and intentions. If the spouses regret the decision, plan to undergo the reversal surgery and are open to God gifting them with more children, then by all means they can either use NFP to try to get pregnant or simply trust in God’s providence.

Important counsel that I would give to the penitent who decides not to have a reversal, would be to invite him to practice periodic abstinence with his spouse throughout the rest of their child-bearing years, assuming they continue to have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. Kippley makes the point that the truly repentant sterilized couple should not be “benefitting” from the sterilization by being able to have relations whenever they would choose. Because of the nature of the sin, intercourse should be restricted to the times of the woman’s cycle when she is naturally infertile. “In this way, [the spouses] will not be taking advantage of their sterilized state, enjoying the fruits of their sin.”² Although some moral theologians would disagree with Kippley’s insistence on this point, he makes a compelling case for it in his article. In any case, the invitation to practice periodic abstinence would be simply that, an invitation. I would make it clear that I would not be proposing it as a penance, but only as something that they might prayerfully consider and that the couple would agree to do together because it would help them to grow closer to God and to each other.

By way of analogy, as a matter of practice, when we confessors treat the sin of stealing (the 7th Commandment), we are encouraged to discuss with the penitent the possibility of restitution. Sometimes it is not possible for the penitent to make direct restitution, for example, when one steals a candy bar from a store and has already consumed it. However, in that case, I might give the penitent the penance of praying a decade of the Rosary for the intentions of the store owner. If the object stolen is of great value, then the confessor and penitent must discuss some form of restitution that takes into account the greater value of the object stolen. I make the analogy between the treatment of the sin of stealing something of great value and the sin of sterilization because I think each action does require some form of serious follow-up on the part of the penitent who is truly repentant. (Furthermore, the truly repentant sterilized penitent realizes that he has “stolen” his fertility not only from his spouse, but also from God to whom his body ultimately belongs.) As a practical matter, we are all going to be doing some form of “follow-up” on this earth or in purgatory for our misdeeds, unless we will have the grace of going straight to heaven. I will be the first one to admit that I am a procrastinator, but I have heard that it’s much easier to do penance for our sins in this world than to wait until purgatory.

One of the alarming facts about sterilization is that it is becoming more prevalent not only among the public at large, but also among American Catholics. Indeed, while Catholics in this country are slightly less likely to use contraception than the general public, they are sterilized at a slightly higher rate. An article published in 2001 studied the recourse to contraception and sterilization among Catholics in the United States between 1988 and 1995. One of the eye-opening findings of the study was that the rate of sterilization among Catholic women doubled over the seven year period. The article’s authors noted: “The most startling trend in contraceptive use among Roman Catholic women between the ages of 15 and 44 is the doubling of the rate of sterilization from about 20% in 1988 to just over 40% in 1995.”³

How does one account for this huge increase among American Catholics in the recourse to sterilization coupled with a corresponding decrease in the use of contraception during the same period? One conclusion that can be drawn is that Catholics find it easier to practice a “one and done” approach to the sacrament of confession. One can be sterilized and confess the sin, and so be “done” with it. Whereas one who contracepts and then confesses, may fall again and have to confess the sin again. Both sterilization and contraception are serious sins, especially when we take into consideration that the contraceptive pill can be an abortifacient. It is an oversimplification and a grave misunderstanding of both the sin and the sacrament to think that one is “done” with sterilization even though it has been confessed.

Our task as pastors, preachers, confessors and teachers is to help spouses realize the amazing gift they have of being collaborators with God in bringing about new life. (Even though I am a celibate, I cannot imagine agreeing to be sterilized. It’s even more difficult for me to imagine a married person desiring to do so.) One of the main ways that we can assist spouses is to give them sound, pastoral and spiritual counsel in the confessional. Another way is to get them into the confessional through our faithful preaching and teaching, and the faithful living of our priestly vocation.

¹ John F. Kippley, “The Repentant Sterilized Couple,”2 (www.nfpandmore.org/The Repentant Sterilized Couple.pdf). This article comprises Chapter 12 of Kippley’s book: Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005). 
 
² Kippley, “The Repentant Sterilized Couple,” 4.
 
³ Richard Fehring and Andrea Shildt, “Trends in Contraceptive Use Among Catholics: 1988-1995,”  Linacre Quarterly, May 2001, 179.