Beyond the child-bearing age

[Hitetlen]

When a married couple is beyond the child-bearing age, or they cannot conceive for some medical reason (after tubal pregnancies, for example) their sex is only directed toward upholding, strenghening their unity through mutual pleasure. What does the Church teach about the “permissible” sexual acts in these instances? Whatever they wish to do in the privacy of their home is OK? (I should hope so but I am not holding my breath…)

 

[sanctareparata]

It’s always the same for every married couple, regardless of whether they are able to have children or not - the man must complete the act inside the woman (no spilling of seed)…no mutual masturbation, etc. The act must always be open to life in case God would still, through some miracle, create life.

 

[BillP]

sanctareparata:

It’s always the same for every married couple, regardless of whether they are able to have children or not - the man must complete the act inside the woman (no spilling of seed)…no mutual masturbation, etc.

Why? To what end?

sanctareparata:

The act must always be open to life in case God would still, through some miracle, create life.

I’ve never understood this. We say we have to perform acts a certain way to allow God to create life. Do we really think we can limit God? Mary became pregnant without intercouse of any kind. And we’re worried that a 2 mil layer of latex or a 10mg dose of progesterone is goign to stop ? Yeah right!

 

[Della]

BillP:

sanctareparata:

It’s always the same for every married couple, regardless of whether they are able to have children or not - the man must complete the act inside the woman (no spilling of seed)…no mutual masturbation, etc.

Why? To what end?

I’ve never understood this. We say we have to perform acts a certain way to allow God to create life. Do we really think we can limit God? Mary became pregnant without intercouse of any kind. And we’re worried that a 2 mil layer of latex or a 10mg dose of progesterone is goign to stop ? Yeah right!

What you are purposing here is “testing God,” which is terribly wrong–it’s the sort of thing Satan tempted Christ to do when he told him to cast himself off the parapet of the temple because “God will send his angels to uphold you.”

While God can do anything, we are not to deliberately stand in his way, defying him to work a miracle that we are doing all we can to work against. What does that tell us about our attitude towards God? That he is an insufferable tyrant who must be appeased instead of our loving Father who knows what is best for us.

As for mutual masturbation, it is allowed if it is the precursor to intercourse–as foreplay. But, neither spouse is to treat the other as a mere object of their pleasure, but as a true lover–giving of themselves in love.

 

[sanctareparata]

About the mm - you can do it so long as the man doesn’t climax during it. Like the above poster said, it can be a part of foreplay, just so long as it doesn’t come to the point of the husband’s climax - that has to be in the woman. Always.

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

What you are purposing here is “testing God,” which is terribly wrong–it’s the sort of thing Satan tempted Christ to do when he told him to cast himself off the parapet of the temple because “God will send his angels to uphold you.”

I don’t see any “testing” involved here, not that I would object to it. So far any “testing” resulted in a resounding failure; it would be interesting to see a positive result, just for the fun of it.

Della:

As for mutual masturbation, it is allowed if it is the precursor to intercourse–as foreplay. But, neither spouse is to treat the other as a mere object of their pleasure, but as a true lover–giving of themselves in love.

And who should decide what is true giving and accepting? Why should anyone interfere with what that couple is inclined to do? What if in their mind another method gives greater bonding and greater expression of love? Indeed there are much more civilized methods, where both parties concentrate on the pleasure of the other one, even at the expense of a delayed gratification of their own…

sanctareparata:

About the mm - you can do it so long as the man doesn’t climax during it. Like the above poster said, it can be a part of foreplay, just so long as it doesn’t come to the point of the husband’s climax - that has to be in the woman. Always.

Ahem, you forgot to specify the orifice… You may not have thought about them, but there are more then one.

These answers are so depressinly dogmatic and predictable.

 

[Della]

Originally Posted by Della:
What you are purposing here is “testing God,” which is terribly wrong–it’s the sort of thing Satan tempted Christ to do when he told him to cast himself off the parapet of the temple because “God will send his angels to uphold you.”

I don’t see any “testing” involved here, not that I would object to it. So far any “testing” resulted in a resounding failure; it would be interesting to see a positive result, just for the fun of it.

Not only have you ignored the rest of my comments, but this plainly shows you have no idea what the relationship between God and man is that Christ revealed to us. How predictable in one who thinks and sees without the benefit of the true spiritual dimension of life.

Originally Posted by Della:
As for mutual masturbation, it is allowed if it is the precursor to intercourse–as foreplay. But, neither spouse is to treat the other as a mere object of their pleasure, but as a true lover–giving of themselves in love.

And who should decide what is true giving and accepting? Why should anyone interfere with what that couple is inclined to do? What if in their mind another method gives greater bonding and greater expression of love? Indeed there are much more civilized methods, where both parties concentrate on the pleasure of the other one, even at the expense of a delayed gratification of their own…

Oh c’mon. We all know when we are giving of ourselves and when we are just being selfish. You don’t need anyone to tell you that.

Originally Posted by sanctareparata

About the mm - you can do it so long as the man doesn’t climax during it. Like the above poster said, it can be a part of foreplay, just so long as it doesn’t come to the point of the husband’s climax - that has to be in the woman. Always.

Ahem, you forgot to specify the orifice… You may not have thought about them, but there are more then one.

Here you are just being cute. You know perfectly well which orifice sanctareparata is referring to. Frankly, I’m disappointed that all you could come up with is this bit of inanity that answers nothing.

These answers are so depressinly dogmatic and predictable.

No, dear Hitetlen, it is you are are being depressingly dogmatic and predictable with you tired worldly understanding of the most beautiful relationship men and women can have with each other. Truly disappointing.

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

Oh c’mon. We all know when we are giving of ourselves and when we are just being selfish. You don’t need anyone to tell you that.

That is the point, precisely. I don’t need anyone to tell me that, still these posts insinuate that they know better.

Della:

No, dear Hitetlen, it is you are are being depressingly dogmatic and predictable with you tired worldly understanding of the most beautiful relationship men and women can have with each other. Truly disappointing.

You mean that I follow my best understanding as far as I am concerned? What is dogmatic about that? Yes, the most beautiful part is the giving oneself to the other with true love and caring. After a hysterectomy and tubal pregnancies (and removal of the ovaries) there is NO chance of conception, and still the dogmatic approach is pressed.

Even if under “normal” circumstances it might make sense not to avoid pregnanices, such an approach does not apply when it is impossible to conceive. No eggs, no uterus, no pregnancy. What is the point of avoiding other methods of lovemaking in such a case? A dogmatic method is to disregard to why’s and wherefore’s and go along with the established method, even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[sanctareparata]

Regardless of your own personal opinions, if you engage in acts that cause your husband to ejaculate outside of you, then that is point blank masturbation. It is nothing else. And masturbation is ALWAYS GRAVELY SINFUL. It doesn’t matter if your ovaries are there are not, it doesn’t matter if your uterus is there or not, it doesn’t matter if your husband had a vasectomy. Masturbation is masturbation. Some people don’t like to hear that the Church is making calls on what can or cannot be done in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I for one am quite happy that She is looking out for our souls. It’s one less thing for me to worry and wonder about.

Also, if you’re so against hearing the truth of the issue, then why the post? You made it sound as though you really wanted to know the answer - not just battle us to defend your own opinion. ???

 

[Hitetlen]

sanctareparata:

Regardless of your own personal opinions, if you engage in acts that cause your husband to ejaculate outside of you, then that is point blank masturbation. It is nothing else. And masturbation is ALWAYS GRAVELY SINFUL. It doesn’t matter if your ovaries are there are not, it doesn’t matter if your uterus is there or not, it doesn’t matter if your husband had a vasectomy. Masturbation is masturbation. Some people don’t like to hear that the Church is making calls on what can or cannot be done in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I for one am quite happy that She is looking out for our souls. It’s one less thing for me to worry and wonder about.

Also, if you’re so against hearing the truth of the issue, then why the post? You made it sound as though you really wanted to know the answer - not just battle us to defend your own opinion. ???

I was interested in the answer, and I received what I was “afraid” to hear. I always wonder how can people follow a dogma even if it makes no sense at all. (Just an example: in the biblical times it made very good sense not to consume pork: it gave one a good chance to get a nasty disease. Nowadays this rule is nonsense, still many people follow it.)

You see, I understand the rationale during the child-bearing age, even if I disagree with the concept. My disagreement is irrelevant, since I accept the reasoning behind the rule, even if I do not follow it. In my eyes it is the mindless application of a rule (not on your part, on the church’s part!) is what makes the whole authority-concept unacceptable.

There is a good saying: There are two kinds of fools; one says, this is old and therefore good. The other kind says: this is new and therefore better. I am not against tradition, per se, I am merely agaist it when it makes no sense.

(A little clarification is in order: ejaculation does not necesserily happen outside the woman’s body in some instances, though it may happen outside the vagina.)

 

[sanctareparata]

Well, you know where the ejaculation belongs.

Not eating pork wasn’t a dogma, by the way. It was a discipline - a practice. Dogmas and doctrines don’t change.

 

[Della]

You mean that I follow my best understanding as far as I am concerned? What is dogmatic about that? Yes, the most beautiful part is the giving oneself to the other with true love and caring. After a hysterectomy and tubal pregnancies (and removal of the ovaries) there is NO chance of conception, and still the dogmatic approach is pressed.

I don’t understand why you keep using the term “dogmatic” here. We don’t obey the Church because it is dogmatic but because we trust the authority Christ gave to it to decide matters of faith and morals. So, it is God himself we are trusting and obeying. Besides, the word dogma isn’t a dirty word. It merely means that something is absolutely true–it’s just a definition not a limit on anyone’s freedom.

Even if under “normal” circumstances it might make sense not to avoid pregnanices, such an approach does not apply when it is impossible to conceive. No eggs, no uterus, no pregnancy. What is the point of avoiding other methods of lovemaking in such a case? A dogmatic method is to disregard to why’s and wherefore’s and go along with the established method, even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

These things are not barriers to full intercourse. Indeed, you were the one that put forward the idea that God can do anything, so if he can do anything, why stand in the way of his performing a miracle? Others have thought they could not become pregnant and have been surprised and delighted when they did.

We’ve alreayd established that foreplay is fine. So, why not complete the act? I’m not talking about mere cuddling and kissing here, and I don’t want to get graphic on a site young people might be reading, but you know the difference between “other forms of lovemaking” and doing everything except the final act. Why not do what is natural to do in such cases instead of limiting you and your spouse to foreplay alone?

 

[Myangel]

Della:

Indeed, you were the one that put forward the idea that God can do anything, so if he can do anything, why stand in the way of his performing a miracle? Others have thought they could not become pregnant and have been surprised and delighted when they did.

God did bless Sarah and gave Abraham (100 years old) and Sarah (90 years old) a son! Anything is possible with God.

 

[dulcissima]

Hitetlen:

There is a good saying: There are two kinds of fools; one says, this is old and therefore good. The other kind says: this is new and therefore better. I am not against tradition, per se, I am merely agaist it when it makes no sense.

To be honest with you, I used to think, “Oh, I agree with the Church, excpet for this or that.” As I have studied and given things more thought, I have found that in almost every instance, the Church understood better than I did. In the one or two instances where I still don’t understand the Church teaching, I am willing to just submit to their authority. Afterall, this is the Church given to us by Jesus Christ himself. We have two thousand years of tradition of the best minds applying themselves to understanding the will of God. I think I am in good hands with the Church. If I were to spend every minute of everyday of the rest of my life, reading the Bible, reading everything I could get my hands on, I could not even approach the wisdom of the Church. What a waste of time too. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[CuriousInIL]

sanctareparata:

Regardless of your own personal opinions, if you engage in acts that cause your husband to ejaculate outside of you, then that is point blank masturbation. It is nothing else. And masturbation is ALWAYS GRAVELY SINFUL. It doesn’t matter if your ovaries are there are not, it doesn’t matter if your uterus is there or not, it doesn’t matter if your husband had a vasectomy. Masturbation is masturbation. Some people don’t like to hear that the Church is making calls on what can or cannot be done in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I for one am quite happy that She is looking out for our souls. It’s one less thing for me to worry and wonder about.

Also, if you’re so against hearing the truth of the issue, then why the post? You made it sound as though you really wanted to know the answer - not just battle us to defend your own opinion. ???

So all ejaculation outside the vagina is masturbation and all ejaculation in the vagina is permissible?

 

[matthias]

Openness to life must always be present. Anything is possible with God. In fact Abraham’s wife Sarah was well past child bearing years and God chose her as a matriarch of our faith. Did menopause impeed God? I think not.

A 100 year old woman although naturally and biologically incapable of child birth can still remain open to God’s will and potential life. I wouldn’t expect it but God can do the most miraculous things and our faith has such a miraculous pregnance as it’s foundation.

 

[CuriousInIL]

matthias:

Openness to life must always be present. Anything is possible with God. In fact Abraham’s wife Sarah was well past child bearing years and God chose her as a matriarch of our faith. Did menopause impeed God? I think not.

A 100 year old woman although naturally and biologically incapable of child birth can still remain open to God’s will and potential life. I wouldn’t expect it but God can do the most miraculous things and our faith has such a miraculous pregnance as it’s foundation.

But, how is ejaculation in the vagina of a woman with out a uterus or ovaries any more open to life than ejaculation just outside of a fertile woman (a situation in which pregnancy results all the time)?

 

[dulcissima]

CuriousInIL:

But, how is ejaculation in the vagina of a woman with out a uterus or ovaries any more open to life than ejaculation just outside of a fertile woman (a situation in which pregnancy results all the time)?

This is what Della was talking about:
What you are purposing here is “testing God,” which is terribly wrong–it’s the sort of thing Satan tempted Christ to do when he told him to cast himself off the parapet of the temple because “God will send his angels to uphold you.”

By ejaculating inside the vagina of your wife, whether or not she is capable of conception at that particular time, you are reaching climax in the manner that God designed to be capable of producing life. If your wife is past childbearing age, you are reenacting the consummation of your marriage and the act that was open to life. You are not intentionally thumbing your nose at God like you would be if you were to ejaculate elsewhere and say, “Oh, I’m open to life God, go ahead, if You want my wife to get pregnant, then you make it happen.” There is quite a difference, and God knows what is in your heart.

Besides, since there is almost a limitless number of possibilities with regard to what can be done as part of the marital act, provided it reaches climax in the way that God intended, why is there even a need for the husband’s climax to take place anywhere else?

 

[CuriousInIL]

dulcissima:

This is what Della was talking about:
**What you are purposing here is “testing God,” which is terribly wrong–**it’s the sort of thing Satan tempted Christ to do when he told him to cast himself off the parapet of the temple because “God will send his angels to uphold you.”

By ejaculating inside the vagina of your wife, whether or not she is capable of conception at that particular time, you are reaching climax in the manner that God designed to be capable of producing life. If your wife is past childbearing age, you are reenacting the consummation of your marriage and the act that was open to life. You are not intentionally thumbing your nose at God like you would be if you were to ejaculate elsewhere and say, “Oh, I’m open to life God, go ahead, if You want my wife to get pregnant, then you make it happen.” There is quite a difference, and God knows what is in your heart.

Besides, since there is almost a limitless number of possibilities with regard to what can be done as part of the marital act, provided it reaches climax in the way that God intended, why is there even a need for the husband’s climax to take place anywhere else?

I am not proposing anything here. I am asking how is ejaculation in the vagina of a woman without a uterus or ovaries any more open to life (assuming open to life means something other than ejaculation in a vagina) than ejaculation just outside of a fertile woman (a situation in which pregnancy results all the time)?

 

[dulcissima]

CuriousInIL:

I am not proposing anything here. I am asking how is ejaculation in the vagina of a woman without a uterus or ovaries any more open to life (assuming open to life means something other than ejaculation in a vagina) than ejaculation just outside of a fertile woman (a situation in which pregnancy results all the time)?

(By the way that first paragraph was a direct quote from Della, spelling and all )

So, if you were to try to impregnate your wife, assuming she was fertile, you would do it by ejaculating somewhere other than in her vagina???