The Honourable Henry Thynn was born on December 30, 2016. His father was Lord Weymouth, but Lady Weymouth, 30 years old, did not give birth. That duty went to an unnamed American lady who, for a consideration, undertook to carry the baby to term. Apparently US laws on surrogacy are more secure than ours. I am not concerned here with the morality of such an arrangement but rather with the situation of any married woman for whom a pregnancy would be medically dangerous.
Lady Weymouth, 30 years old, has a rare condition called hypophysitis. It is a complex condition which had caused difficulties with her first pregnancy, and could seriously threaten her life if she had a second one. But for my purposes her condition stands in place of many commoner conditions which foresee dangers in pregnancy. I think in particular of a close friend who, after four children, was told that she should have no more because of her increasing tendency to blood-clotting. She was 32. It must have been a difficult decision.
If we stand back from Catholic moral theology, we might think that the choice would be sterilisation. I know that, in the case of my friends, the couple considered this since they were faced with an imperative to avoid a conception. Their other possible choices were to use completely safe methods of contraception, or to cease marital congress for some 20 years and the arrival of menopause. They rejected contraception as the best approach, not only for aesthetic reasons but also because the degree of danger, through faulty methodology or practice, was too high a risk when failure would mean the threat of maternal death.
Would this couple be better advised to reject refraining from marital congress? There was a time when the Church believed, and Augustine taught, that the sexual aspects of marriage were regrettable and only justified by the need for reproduction. It was taught that although marital congress, being ordered by God, could not itself be condemned provided there was explicit intention to reproduce, it was effectively impossible to partake without being guilty of at least venial sins of lust. This teaching was never seriously questioned until the late 19th century, but step by reluctant step the establishment has gradually accepted that, notwithstanding the obvious perils of lust, a married couple having a fine time in bed is a good thing.
We now understand that marital congress is at the centre of the intimacy which draws the couple together, completing and maintaining the concept of two into one flesh which Adam and Eve first expressed. And science complements this by noting the hormone release which itself draws the couple together. Of course there are times, even long times, when congress must be eschewed; these must be borne with supportive love. But to opt, as my friend might, to refrain for some 20 years would be a hazardous choice, and inconsistent with the relationship of marriage.
So we might expect them to choose sterilisation. I don’t suppose they were much concerned with Catholic moral theology. But in our circumstances, Catechism in hand, we should be. It is of course permitted to remove damaged organisms for the good of the body. But to, for instance, ligate healthy fallopian tubes in order to achieve permanent sterility is gravely wrong, irrespective of reasons. It comes under the condemnation of “mutilation”. Humanae Vitae confirms this prohibition “whether of the man or the woman”. Vasectomy for the husband would be a permanent loss of function – which he might require were he widowed and remarried. But it is harder to see why my friend’s fertility is of value to her life or her marriage when she must never use it.
But moral theology does not see it this way. The appeal is to natural law from which we may read from human structures what God requires. There are no exceptions, though in this case some might feel that the outcome is extreme. But in fact there have been exceptions. Although never formally approved, the Church was complicit in the castration of young males for the Vatican choir. Much more recently the gift of a kidney between living persons was regarded as a mutilation. What was once taught as an intrinsic evil is now hailed as an instance of heroic love.
Is this another case of a definitive law, long maintained in our moral tradition, which must nevertheless yield to particular circumstances? I am not going to tell you what my friend and her husband decided, but let’s imagine that they consulted you about this decision. How would you have advised them? You might dodge the problem by saying that it is a matter of conscience for them. But you can’t dodge me. If you were in their position, what would you decide?
Visit secondsightblog.net and tell us what you think.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.