Beyond the child-bearing age

[1ke]

CuriousInIL:

You indicated that forced intercourse was not unitive. I am trying to understand if that is the only exclusion.

If you are looking for a finite, distinct list I cannot give you one. I gave an example-- rape-- which is an exception to the norm, and likely pretty rare when all marriages are taken together.

There are, I suppose, other instances when the act is not unitive, and therefore sinful for one or both parties. This is a matter of properly formed conscience.

 

[1ke]

maryj:

I am 43 yrs old. and was told in the confessional that Not being open to life at my age is a non-issue and I shouldn’t be concerned about it.

Whether or not you should be “worried about it” depends completely on what you mean by “not being open to life”.

If you mean: merely a positive intention to have no more children … I agree with the priest.

If you mean: a positive intention to have no more children by using contraception until menopause or through sterilization… then the priest is misinforming you.

maryj:

He follows the teachings of the Catholic church to a “T” .

Then you probably meant the former and not the latter, as an orthodox priest who follows the Catholic church teaching to a “T” would not tell a person it is OK to contracept.

maryj:

and frankly aren’t I confessing to Christ in that confessional. Isn’t he being lead by the Holy Spirit? Just my experience.

Yes, you are confessing to Christ, through the priest. And, while the Holy Spirit does guide all of us, individual priests do not have the charism of infallibility in the confessional.

 

[Catholic2003]

This is from a set of notes on non-reproductive sex from a Philosophy of Love and Sex course at Georgetown University by Professor Alexander Pruss:

An analogy would be this. Standard intercourse is like eating. Intercourse by an infertile couple is like a pregnant woman’s having breakfast even though she expects to throw it up due to morning sickness. Homosexual acts, oral sex and masturbation are like stuffing food into one’s ear or nose or some other place not connected with the stomach. Contraception is like inducing vomiting after one eats, like the Romans did at their orgies in order to eat more.

Even if you expect to throw up due to (morning) sickness, that still doesn’t make sticking food in your ear right. Similarly, even though normal intercourse is expected to be infertile, that still doesn’t make oral sodomy right.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Catholic2003:

This is from a set of notes on non-reproductive sex from a Philosophy of Love and Sex course at Georgetown University by Professor Alexander Pruss:

Even if you expect to throw up due to (morning) sickness, that still doesn’t make sticking food in your ear right. Similarly, even though normal intercourse is expected to be infertile, that still doesn’t make oral sodomy right.

But most who expect to throw up would not eat.

 

[MelaniePutnam]

I am 25 years old, and I just want to say that my husband and I are going through this exact issue right now. I have a horrible cystic lung disease that I just discovered at 20 weeks gestation with my now 3 month old son. The devastating thing now is that although we desperately wanted to have as many children as God would bless us with, we are not able to have anymore now b/c of my lung situation. Another pregnancy will lead to other horrible issues including another extremely premature birth and further damage to my lungs. What is sad in this instance is that my husband is afraid of ejaculation in my body although we are practicing NFP b/c he is afraid that I could end up pregnant. I have very irregular cycles and this makes our available days for intercourse very few and far between using the NFP method. This is difficult, and it would be easy to engage in acts such as mutual masturbation to get around the intercourse issue. Or even to just start artificial birth control. I understand fully and totally agree with how horrible the use of contraception is. However, this blog helped out greatly in explaining why we should not engage is sexual activities ending up in ejaculation outside my body. I do very much value my Catholic faith and do not feel that a true Catholic or believer in any faith should be able to pick and choose the parts of the faith that work for their lives. This will be a daily cross and sacrifice for my husband and I in our marriage, but we will do it knowing that we will be blessed down the road with our lives. If we are lukewarm, like it says in the bible, we will be vomited out of the Lord’s mouth. And picking and choosing what works in our lives is being lukewarm in my opinion. Thanks for all of the great words here.

 

[Newbie2]

sanctareparata:

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!

I’ve wondered a bit about that as well…at least as far as intent goes, and in very specific situations; not just for “convenience”.

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.

And if there’s a…shall we say…mistake in timing?

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.

Reinacting??

OK, let’s say that the wife has had an ovariohysterectomy; no chance of pregnancy, and intercourse is…say more comfortable for the woman or helps prevent vaginitis or whatever when a condom is used.

Is that “testing” God?

All acts of intercourse are objectively ordered to both the unity of the spouses and procreation whether any specific act is subjectively fertile or not. No marital act is “only” for mutual pleasure.

To use the sexual act in a way other than an unaltered (objectively) procreative and unitive act of intercourse is to pervert the act in a manner which is both contrary to God’s Law and beneath human dignity.

So using that formula, if a woman has had an ovariohysterectomy and/or the man has had his boys removed for, say, testicular cancer, any subsequent act of intercourse is “contrary to God’s Law and beneath human dignity” since it cannot be objectively procreative?

 

[Fran65]

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?

I’m with you here! Great post
God bless
Karen

 

[Fran65]

I have a horrible cystic lung disease that I just discovered at 20 weeks gestation with my now 3 month old son. The devastating thing now is that although we desperately wanted to have as many children as God would bless us with, we are not able to have anymore now b/c of my lung situation. Another pregnancy will lead to other horrible issues including another extremely premature birth and further damage to my lungs. What is sad in this instance is that my husband is afraid of ejaculation in my body although we are practicing NFP b/c he is afraid that I could end up pregnant. … …This will be a daily cross and sacrifice for my husband and I in our marriage, but we will do it knowing that we will be blessed down the road with our lives. If we are lukewarm, like it says in the bible, we will be vomited out of the Lord’s mouth. And picking and choosing what works in our lives is being lukewarm in my opinion. Thanks for all of the great words here.

Hi Melanie,
I’m really sorry about your diagnosis. You are not on your own. I have a life threatening heart condition that can cause sudden death. Sexual activity of any kind can throw my heart into a dangerous state. Although Drs have told us it ‘should be okay’ it is scary. As a result we are celibate and will probably stay that way as I don’t see anything changing with my condition. It is a cross to bear. You are in my prayers.
God Bless
Karen

 

[Spirithound]

These answers are so depressinly dogmatic and predictable.

Well what did you expect? That just because a natural change has taken place, leading to natural infertility, unnatural means can be used? No. The morality of actions doesn’t change.

 

[RainbowGirl82]

I find it extremely hard to believe that God would torment someone for eternity just because the man did not ejaculate inside the woman’s vagina. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that a loving God would torment anyone for eternity.

 

[Luke_K]

I find it extremely hard to believe that God would torment someone for eternity just because the man did not ejaculate inside the woman’s vagina. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that a loving God would torment anyone for eternity.

This is off-topic, but you seem to have a significant misunderstanding that needs to be corrected.

God does not send people to hell. He does not torment someone for eternity.

Hell is a state of being which results from us choosing ourselves over God. When we die and behold God in all his glory, hell is the experience of our total inward, selfish focus, and the realization of the infinite goodness that we ourselves have forfeited.

You find it hard to believe that hell could result from what you consider a minor offense. Our personal level of repulsion to a sin does not change the reality of how wrong it is.

“For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away…At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face.” -St. Paul

 

[budgie2]

The menopause is a natural end to a woman’s fertility imposed by God. I personally cannot see why anybody would have conscientious objections to have sex after the menopause and for a couple who use periodic abstinence surely the end of the menopause is a bonus. We are also making love to show affection to our husband and wife and strengthen our marriage, not purely to have children. As long as a couple are not deliberately thwarting through unnatural means their chance to have children there is no sin, although in certain circumstances the use of a contraceptive which does not act as abortifacient is in accordance with conscience. Not all Catholic couples use NFP or periodic abstinence and some couples rely on faith in God and prayer.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Wow, Melanie, what a cross to bear

May God make your marriage visibly fruitful in other ways, so that you may be encouraged to know that your suffering is not in vain!

 

[notsure]

Not all Catholic couples use NFP or periodic abstinence and some couples rely on faith in God and prayer.

Using prayer as a contraceptive? How is that working for you?

 

[Spirithound]

Using prayer as a contraceptive? How is that working for you?

Not married, not sexually active, but prayer makes all my problems go away.

 

[vincentv]

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.

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…

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.

 

[vincentv]

vincentv:
As I understand it, everything is acceptable as long as the act ends in sexual intercourse. If the woman is beyond child bearing age then there is no way one can say she prevented conception. What if the man has ED, which cannot be helped by any means? Is he supposed to abstain from any sexual pleasure with his wife after many years of a healthy and pleasurable sex life with his spouse?

 

[new_nana]

I don’t understand why any married couple beyond the child bearing age would want to engage in the marital act outside the vagina.

There is a possible exceptiion, in the case where the older woman finds intercourse very painful, in spite of following doctor’s recommendations of gels and prescriptions, and she ends up with urinary tract infections anyway. What are the recommendations in this case? Is the couple to abstain from the marital act altogether? What if the woman can deal with it, but the husband finds it difficult to abstain?

Thanks for your suggestions.