Female Impotence Questions

[andaloux11]

is the author of the op a man or a woman?

I’m a woman. Judging by the color and the size of your font, I take it you really want to know. LOL.

 

[1ke]

So…honest question:
If a husband cannot get an erection anymore, is it “permissible” for him to use viagra? Or is that similar to using birth control and tampering with the procreative process?

Yes it is fine. It is in no way similar to contraception.

Meaning, if he doesn’t have or cannot keep an erection, and cannot “complete” intercourse…it would mean that God does not want him to to have one (because, as Costello said, God designed sex and marriage)…and he shouldn’t use other means to try and get it. It might mean God does not want this man and woman to have any or any more children.

Not at all. Correcting a defect through moral means is perfectly fine. for example, chemo for cancer, reconstructive surgery for a burn victim, viagra for a man with a disfunction, breast implants for a cancer survivor.

I just can’t find Jesus saying any of these specifics in the bible.
Who is it who interpreted all this? I mean…when you read this in the catechism or other places the rules are written…who was it who decided on these specifics? What person?

The Church, whom Christ gave authority. Are you a Catholic? The bible doesn’t contain lots of things, it cannot possibly contain everything. Christ taught his Apostles, gave them authority as Bishops, and continues to guide the Church through the Holy Spirit. Certainly, all of this is in the bible implicitly. We are given many examples of these theological truths through Christ’s teachings, the words of the prophets and the apostles.

 

[Nate13]

Yes but…who in the church?
A pope?
A group of bishops?
You seem to know a lot …so do you know, specifically or in general, which people in interpreted and decided upon these detailed rules we are talking about here, and what year they did it?

Everything follows accordingly once you have established the definition of lust. Every single rule the Church has on sexuality comes back to what the definition of lust is. All of the “rules” are just the result of logically following to conclusion the implications of what lust means. All you have to establish is when lust was defined. I would argue lust was defined when the original sin occurred, or even before that when by natural law the inherent purposes of our bodies were apparent.

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

There was a time when the purpose of sex was misunderstood to some degree in that the procreative purpose was in some ways thought to be the only purpose of sex, with possibly the unitive meaning trailing farther behind. However as we came to understand how our bodies worked more, it became apparent that the unitive meaning of sex was of great importance as well. These two principles are self-evident and work hand in hand with each other. They are mutually implicit principles meaning you can’t have one without the other.

Bible verses on lust:

Eph 4:22
1 Thess 4:5
2 Pet 2:10
1 Jn 2:16
1 Jn 2:17
Jude 1:7
Mt 5:28
Col 3:5

 

[TrueLight]

That is masterbation, if you are meaning bringing her to climax without intercourse (which is what i took your “taking care of her” euphemism to mean). It is a sin against the sixth commandment.

Hugging and kissing, of course, would not be.

So are you saying he can take care of her as long as she doesn’t climax?

1ke, I’m going to have to confirm that with a priest, if neither of us are too shy to go into the details.

 

[Nate13]

So are you saying he can take care of her as long as she doesn’t climax?

1ke, I’m going to have to confirm that with a priest, if neither of us are too shy to go into the details.

Yes, he can take care of her in the way I think you are implying, i.e non sexual ways (hugging, kissing).

However if you were implying that he could “take care of her” in sexual ways that just did not lead to orgasm, this would be incorrect. It goes back to the definition of lust:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

As you see its not just an orgasm but any amount of sexual pleasure that is pursued outside of the procreative and unitive purposes sexual pleasure was meant to be enjoyed within.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, he can take care of her in the way I think you are implying, i.e non sexual ways (hugging, kissing).

However if you were implying that he could “take care of her” in sexual ways that just did not lead to orgasm, this would be incorrect. It goes back to the definition of lust:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

As you see its not just an orgasm but any amount of sexual pleasure that is pursued outside of the procreative and unitive purposes sexual pleasure was meant to be enjoyed within.

Right. But since procreation is no longer possible in that case, then how about the unitive?

 

[thistle]

Right. But since procreation is no longer possible in that case, then how about the unitive?

If sexual intercourse is impossible then no other sexual acts are permitted.

 

[TrueLight]

If sexual intercourse is impossible then no other sexual acts are permitted.

So then older people shouldn’t get married?

 

[Nate13]

Right. But since procreation is no longer possible in that case, then how about the unitive?

Every act must be ordered towards procreation no matter how old or how fertile we are at the time. I’d also add that usually our sex drives have long died away by the time this would be a problem

However I would ask 1ke whether in his opinion the following situation would meet the requirement above:

You have an older man and woman and the man struggles greatly in order to be able to get to the point where it is possible to complete the sexual act. The couple wishes to complete the full act of intercourse though and enters into foreplay and the man takes a Viagra to help the process along. As far as I know there is nothing that says the man has to orgasm first before he can go and help the woman along.

Assuming the couple went into the act with every intent to complete it properly, would it be wrong if the man brought a woman to an orgasm manually or orally as part of foreplay but failed to ever get to the point, before or after the woman did, where he could achieve an orgasm himself and complete the act through intercourse?

 

[TrueLight]

Every act must be ordered towards procreation no matter how old or how fertile we are at the time. I’d also add that usually our sex drives have long died away by the time this would be a problem

However I would ask 1ke whether in his opinion the following situation would meet the requirement above:

You have an older man and woman and the man struggles greatly in order to be able to get to the point where it is possible to complete the sexual act. The couple wishes to complete the full act of intercourse though and enters into foreplay and the man takes a Viagra to help the process along. As far as I know there is nothing that says the man has to orgasm first before he can go and help the woman along.

Assuming the couple went into the act with every intent to complete it properly, would it be wrong if the man brought a woman to an orgasm manually or orally as part of foreplay but failed to ever get to the point, before or after the woman did, where he could achieve an orgasm himself and complete the act through intercourse?

LOL. Talk about complicated. Do the Church’s Canons really cover this sort of minute detail?

 

[TrueLight]

Aha!
if he himself then, for whatever reason, cannot “complete the act”, well, thems just the breaks.
Yes?

 

[Nate13]

LOL. Talk about complicated. Do the Church’s Canons really cover this sort of minute detail?

The only statement that is necessary to directly have in the Catechism, Church canon, etc… is the one on what lust is. Everything logically follows from that one statement on almost every part of Church sexual teaching. After you have possession of this principle you can seek direction in its application from your priest, websites like this one, prayer to God, etc…

In my example I obviously twisted and pulled the principle around, possibly to the breaking point but even I’m not sure anymore haha. Hopefully someone can help clear out the mess. It basically comes down to whether it is alright or not for the man to pursue helping the woman achieve orgasm first, before he does. My own judgement has me leaning towards yes.

 

[Nate13]

Aha!
A loophole!
The man in this case could “intend” to complete the act…there is no way of knowing for sure if he will be able to or won’t…in the meantime, he can “take care of” his wife during the process which intends to complete…and after she is “taken care of”, if he himself then, for whatever reason, cannot “complete the act”, well, thems just the breaks.
Yes?

Your already in trouble though if you approach the situation as a “loophole”. Even if we find that the action itself is moral, your intent at that point is immoral since you are just looking for a way to get to the sexual pleasure. If you aren’t capable of a pure intent, then you would not be capable of completing the act in a non-sinful manner.

 

[Nate13]

So…might I then assume you don’t know the answer to my questions?

I wasn’t asking about lust. I know everything there is to know 'bout lust.

I was curious who in the church was the one or the group who created/decided/interpreted these specific, detailed rules we are discussing and debating here?
(eg, the husband is not allowed to help his wife “complete the act” if he himself is unable to have intercourse with her, or vice versa…)

Pope?
Bishops?

And…when was it all decided upon, these specifics above?
Any Catholic expert on site know?

uh… that would be God who gave us the ability to be able to reason in a way that relates to reality.

I will start with the principle of lust for example and work my way down to show that homosexuality is wrong.

1. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2. Homosexual intercourse can never be ordered towards the procreative purpose of sex by virtue of the self-evident purposes of our sexual faculties.
3. Thus all homosexual acts committed with the intent of seeking sexual pleasure are morally wrong, no matter whether the intent or consequences of the action are good.

For a moral action to be wrong it only requires 1 of 3 things to be wrong: intent, circumstances of the action, the ends of the action/consequences. In this case the circumstances of the action are morally wrong, thus the action is wrong.

The rules for determining the morality of an action are also necessary I guess. These are gained mostly from our ability to reason and the Bible as well though. The Church just reiterates and constantly defends all these Truths that are already laid out.

If you want a defense for the definition of lust exactly as is, read the Theology of the Body.

 

[Nate13]

That’s okay.
I’ll forget I know about the loophole.

I will try to forget about anything relating to the idea of older people having sex
Also don’t cheer yet because I’m probably wrong. It’s happened before and it will probably happen again. Things aren’t right just because they “seem” right…

 

[Catholic90]

The vast majority of “older women” would much prefer a hug, cuddle, and a kiss to anything more! The sex drive is largely decreased by then.

 

[Equites_Christi]

That’s okay.
I’ll forget I know about the loophole.

God knows if you honestly intended to complete the act. He also knows if you did not honestly intend to complete the act, but engaged in it anyways.

And He will hold you accountable for it.

 

[w_s_s]

Aha!
A loophole!
The man in this case could “intend” to complete the act…there is no way of knowing for sure if he will be able to or won’t…in the meantime, he can “take care of” his wife during the process which intends to complete…and after she is “taken care of”, if he himself then, for whatever reason, cannot “complete the act”, well, thems just the breaks.
Yes?

Not really.

You seem to be describing a situation in which a man, knowing that he cannot complete the sexual act, “pretends” to hope that he can.

The problem is that God cannot be deceived. What you are describing seems to be someone committing a mortal sin while lying to himself and to God about what he is doing.

 

[Nate13]

Nate, you’re killin’ me.

Someone wrote these specific rules you speak of down somewhere, did they not? Someone did the “reasoning” for the Official Rulebook?

Who and When?!

Please, no more lust.

Haha I don’t think you get that “the way to reason” is not subjective. If your asking who laid down these rules for how to determine the morality of an action I honestly do not have an answer for you. The reason I don’t know, is because my belief in them has nothing to do with the Church. If I was not Catholic I would believe them anyways. If you get a secular ethics textbook you will find a similar layout of how to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Its the ability to reason given to us by God…what more can I say?

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
  The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).[39]

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Btw, your thought process, above, proves my earlier point:

If a husband has not been able to get an erection for 20 years…but both husband and wife still believe each time they try, it could possibly happen…then they can have sex every night and try, he can help her have The Big O in the process, and if in the end, he cannot “penetrate” her (Oy vey, I hate talking about sex like I’m an encyclopedia) then no harm done, the wife is happy, they’ve had “unitive” sex, he feels great about it, and all is well.
They can continue on like this until they croak, and they will be will within the limits of, um, “permission” because they are good on intent, circumstances, and end result.
Yay for them!

Yes you are correct. In the same way that a woman who is barren could continue to have sex even though a chance of procreating is 99.99999% out of the realm of possibility, the couple could continue to try and complete the sexual act.

Honestly though how young are you? (no need to answer-rhetorical question) If you really think this is a big deal come back when you are 70,80 and let us know then when its actually been applicable…

Actually on second thought… I don’t want to hear about that.

 

[Nate13]

Not really.

You seem to be describing a situation in which a man, knowing that he cannot complete the sexual act, “pretends” to hope that he can.

The problem is that God cannot be deceived. What you are describing seems to be someone committing a mortal sin while lying to himself and to God about what he is doing.

Yeah but think about the intermediate time men go through where things work sometimes but not always… There are definitely instances where this could happen and a male could, in good conscience, go in with a pure intent to complete the act and things would just not work out.