RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION
AND RELATED MATTERS
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
July 31, 1993
 

 


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_31071994_uterine-isolation_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_31071994_uterine-isolation_lt.html


2019 CDF Dubia on Hysterectomy in Certain Cases


 

 

 CONGREGATION for the DOCTRINE of the FAITH

 CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION”
AND RELATED MATTERS
(Responsa ad proposita dubia circa «interclusionem uteri» et alias quaestiones)
July 31, 1993

AAS 86 (1994) 820-821 Communicationes 26 (1994) 169-170; DocCath 91 (1994) 877; LE 5520; Dokumenty, II, 32

RESPONSA
AD PROPOSITA DUBIA
CIRCA « INTERCLUSIONEM UTERI »
ET ALIAS QUAESTIONES *

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

The Cardinal Members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in answer to the questions examined in ordinary session decreed the following replies:

Patres Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei, propositis in ordinario cœtu quae sequuntur dubiis, respondendum esse censuerunt ut infra ad singula:

Q. 1.WHEN the uterus becomes so seriously injured (e.g., during a delivery or a Caesarian section) so as to render medically indicated even its total removal (hysterectomy) in order to counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother, is it licit to perform such a procedure notwithstanding the permanent sterility which will result for the woman?

D. I. Utrum liceat ablatio etiam totalis uteri (hysterectomia), cum ipse uterus graviter laedatur (uti accidit v.gr. in partu vel in sectione caesarea) et secundum medicorum iudicium suadeatur ad praecavendum matri instans grave periculum vitae vel sanitatis, etiamsi mulier hinc sterilitate permanenti afficiatur.

R. Affirmative.

R. Affirmative.

Q. 2.When the uterus (e.g., as a result of previous Caesarian sections) is in a state such that while not constituting in itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman, nevertheless is foreseeably incapable of carrying a future pregnancy to term without danger to the mother, danger which in some cases could be serious, is it licit to remove the uterus (hysterectomy) in order to prevent a possible future danger deriving from conception?

D. II. Utrum liceat auferre uterum (hysterectomia) eo proposito ut praeveniatur forte eventurum periculum ex conceptione, cum ipse uterus (ex. gr. ob praecedentes sectiones caesareas) in tali condicione versetur, quae, etsi ex se mulieri non afferat praesens periculum vitae vel sanitatis, sinat tamen praevidere hoc impedimento fore ut praegnatio eveniat sine periculo matris; quod periculum in quibusdam casibus etiam grave evadere posset.

R. Negative.

R. Negative.

Q. 3.In the same situation as in no. 2, is it licit to substitute tubal ligation, also called “uterine isolation,” for the hysterectomy, since the same end would be attained of averting the risks of a possible pregnancy by means of a procedure which is much simpler for the doctor and less serious for the woman, and since in addition, in some cases, the ensuing sterility might be reversible?

D. III. Utrum in eadem condicione, de qua in superiore n. II agitur, liceat in hysterectomiae locum substituere tubarum ligationem (quae procedendi ratio etiam « interclusio uteri » vocatur), hoc animadvertendo, quod idem exitus hoc modo obtinetur, scilicet praecavere pericula forte eventurae praegnationis ratione simpliciore pro medico et minus gravi pro muliere, ac praeterea quod in quibusdam casibus sterilitas ita procurata reverti potest.

R. Negative.

R. Negative.

 

 

 Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a question on the liceity of a hysterectomy in certain cases

Responsum” della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede ad un dubbio sulla liceità dell’isterectomia in certi casi, 03.01.2019

 

 

Explanation

Explicatio

In the first case, the hysterectomy is licit because it has a directly therapeutic character, even though it may be foreseen that permanent sterility will result. In fact, it is the pathological condition of the uterus (e.g., a hemorrhage which cannot be stopped by other means), which makes its removal medically indicated. The removal of the organ has as its aim, therefore, the curtailing of a serious present danger to the woman independent of a possible future pregnancy.

In primo casu, actio hysterectomiae licita est, quia indolem directe therapeuticam habet quamvis sterilitas permanens inde secutura praevideatur. Pathologica enim condicio uteri (v. gr. aliqua haemorrhagia quae aliis modis obturari nequit) causa est cur iuxta artem medicam eius ablatio indicetur. Quae igitur ablatio tamquam finem proprium habet avertere grave periculum quod matri instat, nulla habita ratione futurae praegnationis forte eventurae.

From the moral point of view, the cases of hysterectomy and “uterine isolation” in the circumstances described in nos. 2 and 3 are different. These fall into the moral category of direct sterilization which in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Quaecumque Sterilizatio (AAS LXVIII 1976, 738-740, no. 1) is defined as an action « whose sole, immediate effect is to render the generative faculty incapable of procreation ». And the same document continues: « It (direct sterilization) is absolutely forbidden ... according to the teaching of the Church, even when it is motivated by a subjectively right intention of curing or preventing a physical or psychological ill-effect which is foreseen or feared as a result of pregnancy ».

Aliter autem, ordine morali spectato, se habent casus actionum hysterectomiae et « interclusionis uteri » prout describuntur in numeris II et III; qui quidem speciem sterilizationis directae induunt, quae in documento Quaecumque sterilizatio (AAS 68 [1976], 738-740, n. 1) definitur ut actio quae « immediate hoc solummodo efficit ut facultas generativa incapax reddatur ad consequendam procreationem ». « Absolute, ergo — idem documentum prosequitur — interdicta manet iuxta doctrinam Ecclesiae, non obstante quacumque recta intentione subiectiva agentium consulendi curae vel praeventioni mali sive physici sive psychici, quod ex praegnatione praevidetur vel timetur eventurum ».

In point of fact, the uterus as described in no. 2 does not constitute in and of itself any present danger to the woman. Indeed the proposal to substitute “uterine isolation” for hysterectomy under the same conditions shows precisely that the uterus in and of itself does not pose a pathological problem for the woman. Therefore, the described procedures do not have a properly therapeutic character but are aimed in themselves at rendering sterile future sexual acts freely chosen. The end of avoiding risks to the mother, deriving from a possible pregnancy, is thus pursued by means of a direct sterilization, in itself always morally illicit, while other ways, which are morally licit, remain open to free choice.

Revera, uterus, prout describitur in n. II, nullum praesens periculum in se et per se mulieri affert. Propositum enim substituendi « interclusionem uteri » in locum hysterectomiae iisdem condicionibus praecise demonstrat uterum suapte natura problema pathologicum mulieri non constituere. Quare procedendi rationes supra expositae indolem proprie therapeuticam non habent, sed efficiuntur ut steriles reddantur futuri actus sexuales, qui libere ponuntur. Finis vitandi pericula matri, orta ex fortuita praegnatione, obtinetur per sterilizationem directam, quae ex se ipsa semper moraliter illicita est, dum aliae viae moraliter licitae semper liberae electioni apertae manent.

The contrary opinion which considers the interventions described in nos. 2 and 3 as indirect sterilizations, licit under certain conditions, cannot be regarded as valid and may not be followed in Catholic hospitals.

Opinio contraria, iuxta quam supra expositae agendi rationes, in numeris II et III, tamquam sterilizatio indirecta considerantur, quae quidem certis condicionibus licita est, nequit valide sustineri, neque in praxim catholicorum valetudinariorum admitti potest.

During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, the Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II approved these responses adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered them to be published.

Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus Pp. II, in Audientia infrascripto Cardinali Praefecto concessa, supradicta responsa adprobavit et publici iuris fieri iussit.

Rome, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 31st of July 1993.

Ex aedibus Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei, die 31 Iulii 1993

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Iosephus Card. Ratzinger
Praefectus

+ Alberto Bovone
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary

+ Albertus Bovone
Archiep. tit. Caesarien. in Numidia
Secretarius

 


 

 

AAS 86 (1994), 820-821.


xcxxcxxc  F ” “ This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 1990....x....   “”.