§ 2. On Mutilation of Oneself

756. Principles. I. Mutilation of oneself is illicit of itself. For man possesses absolute dominion neither over life nor over the body.

The sin will be grave or light according to the matter. Concerning irregularity contracted by reason of mutilation, see n. 1946.

II. Mutilation sometimes becomes licit for preserving the good of the whole. The reason is that, although mutilation is against the particular order, nevertheless it is required by nature or the universal order. This universal order requires that whatever is lower be ordered to what is higher. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 65, a. 1 ad 1; St. Alph., III, n. 373.

III. This mutilation is licit for a private man. Reason: a part of the body is not like the life of man, to which the other things that are in man are ordered, and over which, therefore, man cannot have power (St. Thomas, ibid., ad 2). Therefore, with the conditions placed as above, a private man can accomplish mutilation by his own action.

Hence: 1. It is licit for him to cut off for himself a hand bound by a chain, in order to flee a fire, or to avoid death to be inflicted by a beast or tyrant (Lugo, de Just., disp. 10, n. 22); it is licit for a virgin to disfigure herself, in order to turn procurers away from herself; it is licit by a small mutilation to render oneself fit for a lucrative art.

2. It is not licit to castrate oneself, nor to permit this to be done to oneself by another, for preserving chastity and overcoming temptations. The reason is that such a remedy does not remove temptations, and besides it deprives one of a power of the greatest moment. Cf. Antonelli, I, n. 287. Otherwise one must speak of cutting off the organ of pleasure in a woman (Lehmkuhl, I, 735).

3. It is not licit to castrate boys, even consenting ones, that they may be useful for singing. Indeed not a few permit this from custom, and from the good that comes to those boys themselves; but among most the negative opinion has prevailed; for conservation of the voice is not a good of such moment that what nature so greatly reproves may be licit (III, 374). Cf. Benedict XIV (de Syn., l. XI, c. 7), who learnedly proves that the Supreme Pontiffs never approved the castration of singers.

4. Likewise, it is not licit to exercise grave cruelty upon oneself on account of private advantage, for example for a young man, so that, by help of a grave and lasting sickness, he may obtain immunity from military service; for a poor man, so that, on account of a mutilated body, he may obtain more abundant alms.

5. A woman cannot permit her ovaries to be cut out, unless there is question of conserving life. To be sure, in our times the operation is easily accomplished; but from this it does not become licit (Antonelli, II, n. 277).

756 bis. This new mode of mutilation consists in this, that in a man the seminal ducts are divided by a very brief operation throughout in the scrotum: from this it happens that the man cannot procreate offspring, although he remains apt for copulation. This mutilation is temporary, if namely it happens (which, however, only a most skilled man can effect) that the divided parts of the ducts are joined together again.

They say that vasectomy can be sought or permitted by married persons for this end, that they may more freely enjoy the act of matrimony, without having to fear the burdens that would follow from new offspring. It is also imposed by public authority with this intention, that it may be guarded against lest unhealthy offspring be begotten by a man infected with disease.

Leaving aside for now the question whether vasectomy induces the impediment of impotence (concerning this matter in the treatise on Matrimony), let us see whether this operation is licit in itself.

Principles. I. Vasectomy constitutes grave mutilation. Reason: all organs that serve for the conservation of the species are conferred by the Creator for undertaking a grave function; therefore their conservation is of the greatest moment, and it is consonant with reason that all things that are more intimately connected with the procreation of life be withdrawn from the discretion and dominion of private persons.

II. Vasectomy is gravely illicit mutilation. The question is not whether vasectomy is licit, supposing that it must be done to restore or preserve the health of the body: the principles explained above (n. 756) are too clear. The question is whether, on account of the ends indicated above, notwithstanding the gravity of the mutilation, vasectomy can be called licit.

And one must respond: entirely in the negative, indeed that it is prohibited under grave sin. The reasons are: 1. Vasectomy sought by married persons serves for nothing except unbridled pleasure, and very often carries with it injury to the right of the other spouse. Besides, even if we suppose that vasectomy is therefore sought lest the woman suffer great inconveniences from a new childbirth, it will always be verified that these evils can be avoided by continence; therefore mutilation is not a necessary means.

2. Vasectomy imposed by public authority constitutes an aggression against the intimate goods of an innocent man, which were given to him by the Creator, so that the human species might rightly be propagated. The reason of the common good indeed avails against malefactors, who can be deprived of life or liberty; it avails also against those who can spread disease outwardly, and therefore it is right for lepers to be separated from others; nevertheless it does not avail against an innocent man who would wish to preserve his members and use his native right. Public authority indeed ought to consult the common good, but in those things that pertain to better being, the primary rights of private persons must not be injured. Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 42, p. 417; Wouters (ap. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 43, p. 340); Gury-Ferreres, II, n. 856 ter; Ferreres, de Vasectomia duplici.