Beyond the child-bearing age

[Ortho]

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.

If God wants to make a woman pregnant through a miracle, he doen’t need any help. Or does he?

 

[1ke]

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.

This is not the case. 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. Each act is a renewal of the marriage covenant and is an act of the two partners and God.

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.

Hitetlen:

What does the Church teach about the “permissible” sexual acts in these instances?

The same thing it teaches about all sex acts: each act must be both objectively procreative and unitive, a completed act of intercourse.

Hitetlen:

Whatever they wish to do in the privacy of their home is OK? (I should hope so but I am not holding my breath…)

This statement is misguided on several levels. First, you seem to be under the impression that our bodies are our own-- they are not. As St. Paul tells us-- we were bought with a price. Our bodies are not for our own pleasure alone-- nor for “mutual pleasure” as you put it. Our bodies and our souls are made for God. Everything we do with them impacts our relationship with God.

God is omnipresent, therefore “privacy” before God is not possible.

Doing what pleases self against God’s Law is a deceptive sort of pleasure-- disordered towards selfish ends. Doing what pleases God should be our goal.

 

[1ke]

BillP:

I’ve never understood this. We say we have to perform acts a certain way to allow God to create life.

This frames the issue incorrectly. We perform the act the way God designed it and no other way.

BillP:

Do we really think we can limit God?

We cannot limit God. However, what you are suggesting is something other than limiting. You suggest testing God. Not only that, you imply that God imposes his Will upon us-- this is not true. We can freely reject his will by asserting our own will. We can freely choose to engage in the act in a way other than God designed it-- and we sin by doing so. God allows us this choice, and its consequences.

BillP:

Mary became pregnant without intercouse of any kind.

This is not relevant to the discussion.

BillP:

And we’re worried that a 2 mil layer of latex or a 10mg dose of progesterone is goign to stop ? Yeah right!

Again, I point you to Scripture-- testing God is a sinful enterprise.

 

[1ke]

Hitetlen:

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.

The Church’s teaching makes perfect sense. It is you who do not.

Hitetlen:

You see, I understand the rationale during the child-bearing age, even if I disagree with the concept.

No, I don’t believe you do else you would not have the question that you have. Can you please explain what you believe the rationale to be?

 

[1ke]

CuriousInIL:

So all ejaculation outside the vagina is masturbation

Yes.

CuriousInIL:

and all ejaculation in the vagina is permissible?

When it is a unitive act between spouses, yes. Rape or marital rape, for example, are completed acts of intercourse but they are not unitive.

 

[1ke]

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)?

Unfortunately, this discussion is often framed as “openess to life” when that is not actually the case. To frame it properly, each act must be objectively unitive and procreative. Only a completed act of intercourse meets the criteria of fully unitive and fully procreative, objectively speaking. The fertility of any specific act is subjective, and not relevant.

 

[CuriousInIL]

1ke:

When it is a unitive act between spouses, yes. Rape or marital rape, for example, are completed acts of intercourse but they are not unitive.

And a “unitive act between spouses” is what?

 

[1ke]

CuriousInIL:

And a “unitive act between spouses” is what?

You asked if all ejaculation in the vagina was permissible. Well, the answer to that is no-- not all, only unitive.

The act must be unitive-- forced intercourse is not unitive.

Unitive intercourse is an expression of love between the spouses with mutual consent. Forced or coerced intercourse is not unitive-- it is an act of power and agression of one spouse upon the other.

 

[CuriousInIL]

1ke:

You asked if all ejaculation in the vagina was permissible. Well, the answer to that is no-- not all, only unitive.

The act must be unitive-- forced intercourse is not unitive.

Unitive intercourse is an expression of love between the spouses with mutual consent. Forced or coerced intercourse is not unitive-- it is an act of power and agression of one spouse upon the other.

Sorry I am just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying. Let me try this and tell me if I am right.

“A unitive act between spouses is one in which there is mutual consent.”

 

[1ke]

CuriousInIL:

Sorry I am just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying. Let me try this and tell me if I am right.

“A unitive act between spouses is one in which there is mutual consent.”

I’m not sure I follow your issue with the term “unitive”-- to unite.

 

[CuriousInIL]

1ke:

I’m not sure I follow your issue with the term “unitive”-- to unite.

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

 

[deb1]

CuriousInIL:

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

Could you give some examples curious? YOu have me confused.

 

[maryj]

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.

O.K. without giving too much info…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. Before someone gets all"that Priest is heretic, abuse, abuse…I’ll tell you he is very orthodox. I have never seen an abuse by him or said by him. He follows the teachings of the Catholic church to a “T” and frankly aren’t I confessing to Christ in that confessional. Isn’t he being lead by the Holy Spirit? Just my experience.

 

[CuriousInIL]

deb1:

Could you give some examples curious? YOu have me confused.

Sorry to have confused you (and me for that matter). Retrenching a bit, **sanctareparata **indicated, I thought, that ejaculation outside the vagina was masturbation. I replied with 2 questions:1 was that correct and 2 was all ejacylation in the vagina permissible. 1ke then weighed in that 2 was true only for a unitive act and then I have since been trying to understand that answer and what unitive act means in the context of 1ke’s response to me.

 

[CuriousInIL]

maryj:

O.K. without giving too much info…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. Before someone gets all"that Priest is heretic, abuse, abuse…I’ll tell you he is very orthodox. I have never seen an abuse by him or said by him. He follows the teachings of the Catholic church to a “T” and frankly aren’t I confessing to Christ in that confessional. Isn’t he being lead by the Holy Spirit? Just my experience.

How does being 43 make this a non-issue? I am again confused.

 

[notreallysure]

CuriousInIL:

Sorry to have confused you (and me for that matter). Retrenching a bit, **sanctareparata **indicated, I thought, that ejaculation outside the vagina was masturbation. I replied with 2 questions:1 was that correct and 2 was all ejacylation in the vagina permissible. 1ke then weighed in that 2 was true only for a unitive act and then I have since been trying to understand that answer and what unitive act means in the context of 1ke’s response to me.

My understanding is that folks would say that unitive=non-forced vaginal intercourse to completion. Which IMO is a ridiculous “definition.”

 

[maryj]

CuriousInIL:

How does being 43 make this a non-issue? I am again confused.

Are you confused, or is it that you don’t agree that a woman of 43 years old is past “safe” child bearing years and has no need to confess that she is not open to life. (I’m not talking about birth control but the fact of not being open to being pregnant) Just curious.

 

[BlindSheep]

BillP:

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!

BillP - If the couple really believes God will create life anyway - what is the purpose of the “2 mil layer of latex or a 10mg dose of progesterone”?

 

[CuriousInIL]

maryj:

Are you confused, or is it that you don’t agree that a woman of 43 years old is past “safe” child bearing years and has no need to confess that she is not open to life. (I’m not talking about birth control but the fact of not being open to being pregnant) Just curious.

I certainly can not rule out being confused; it seems a perpetual state for me lately with regard to CAF at the least.
In any case, no I do not agree that a woman of 43 years old is past safe child bearing years although I know it can be very difficult to get pregnant at that age. My mother was nearly 43 when I was born; and at least 25% of the people would agree I have no major problems.

 

[maryj]

CuriousInIL:

I certainly can not rule out being confused; it seems a perpetual state for me lately with regard to CAF at the least.
In any case, no I do not agree that a woman of 43 years old is past safe child bearing years although I know it can be very difficult to get pregnant at that age. My mother was nearly 43 when I was born; and at least 25% of the people would agree I have no major problems.

got ya beat, my mother was 44 (and that was the exact reply I gave to the priest) but then again I’m only at 24% of people would agree that I have no major problems