Help me understand v. sex and infertility

[Binary]

First, let me start by making sure I understand the teaching of the Church about sex.

Our sexuality is a profound, even mysterious gift from God. Given our power of reason and our knowledge of Natural Law, we can determine the dual purposes of sex: unity and procreation. Any sexual act that lacks or obstructs either of these purposes is objectively bad.

The unitive purpose is the simpler one to understand. Besides the obvious physical union, the couple is joined in love when they make a total gift of themselves to the other. This includes the gift of our fertility.(1)

The procreative purpose is not violated when a given sex act fails to bring about new life. The language of the church is that an act is procreative whenever it is “open to the transmission of life,” or when it has “procreative significance.”(2)

Have I at least got that correct?

If so, here are my questions about it:

(1) According to Natural Law, are we not obligated to say that sex where one or both people are infertile is objectively worse than sex between two fertile people? Doesn’t infertility render us incapable giving the same “gift of self” that fertile people can give?

(2) In what sense is sex between infertile people “open to the transmission of life?” If it need only be symbolically open to life, whence the church’s prohibition of marriage for infertile people?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.

 

[BiologyBrain]

(1) According to Natural Law, are we not obligated to say that sex where one or both people are infertile is objectively worse than sex between two fertile people? Doesn’t infertility render us incapable giving the same “gift of self” that fertile people can give?

(2) In what sense is sex between infertile people “open to the transmission of life?” If it need only be symbolically open to life, whence the church’s prohibition of marriage for infertile people?

I think you need to look at your definition of procreative then look at your questions again. In order for sex to be procreative, new life doesn’t have to be formed every time. However, there can be nothing that intentionally prevents new life from forming.

1. Women are naturally infertile the majority of their lives. Men, not so much, but still have varying fertility rates throughout life. However, we are not called to abstain from sex when naturally infertile as long as their is nothing we are doing to increase that infertility (pills, condoms, etc). As long as the act is completed in the same manner it would be in a naturally fertile couple, there is no difference in the morality of the act. A person who is infertile still gives their entire self to their partner. Their entire self just so happens to not include fertility. The spouse accepts their partner as they are - whether fertile or not. That it the gift of self & acceptance of spouse in its fullest meaning. The intent of being open to life (a miracle) is still there whether a couple is cyclicly infertile or permanently infertile.
2. I’m not familiar w/ a Church teaching prohibiting marriage of infertile people. Most people don’t know their infertile (hopefully) until they’re married anyway. However, unknown infertility would not nullify a marriage b/c it is unknown at the time the contract is written. The intent of marriage is not only to have children, it is to accept children if given. Sex between infertile people is open to new life (a miracle) when they do nothing to increase their natural infertility. If the act is completed in the same manner as in a fertile couple, the act remains the same and the intent remains the same. God gave each person their fertility (or lack thereof) with reason/intent. Sometimes miracles do occur. To avoid sex altogether as an infertile person would be denying God the opportunity to work a miracle through you (like he did for Sarah & Elizabeth).

Hope that helps!

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

The Church does not prohibit an infertile person from marrying; She only prohibits those who are utterly incapable of having sex from marrying. This is an important distinction. Even a perfectly healthy woman is only fertile a few days of the month, yet she and her husband may make love whenever they please. And an infertile couple is still capable of uniting themselves in sexual embrace. Furthermore, the Bible is full of women who, after much prayer, were blessed with a child - e.g. Sarah, the wife of Abraham; Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel; Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist. Therefore, childless couples have perfectly good reasons to hope that they may be procreative as well as unitive in their lovemaking.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
(1) According to Natural Law, are we not obligated to say that sex where one or both people are infertile is objectively worse than sex between two fertile people? Doesn’t infertility render us incapable giving the same “gift of self” that fertile people can give?

no, Natural [Moral] Law bonds the man and woman who can and do give themselves to each other for life. The fact that no procreation occurs does not render their bond “worse” (or bad)

(2) In what sense is sex between infertile people “open to the transmission of life?” If it need only be symbolically open to life, whence the church’s prohibition of marriage for infertile people?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.

The marriage is open to life in that the actions are within God’s plan. As long as the couple acts properly they have done their part. Or said another way the couple is not responsible for the biological failures. Now if the male is incapable he is still not responsible for the biology however he cannot perform the husband function so he cannot marry in that state.

 

[Binary]

Biologybrain, I think you’ve perfectly answered my first question. The second, though, remains.

I was really, really hoping not to hear that sex between infertile people is “open to life” because the woman could conceive via a miracle. Miracles transcend the laws of the universe. As such, a woman is as likely to miraculously conceive a child from an illicit sex act, or holding hands, or making a sandwich as she is from normal heterosexual sex while permanently infertile.

I guess we’ve nailed down the exact part of this teaching that I don’t understand.

 

[buckr02]

I was really, really hoping not to hear that sex between infertile people is “open to life” because the woman could conceive via a miracle. Miracles transcend the laws of the universe. As such, a woman is as likely to miraculously conceive a child from an illicit sex act, or holding hands, or making a sandwich as she is from normal heterosexual sex while permanently infertile.

You sure you don’t want to rethink what you just said?

Anyway, there have been cases where people who have been declared infertile have conceived, so it’s not unheard of. But beyond that, sex between infertile people is not “open to life” because the woman could conceive via a miracle, it is “open to life” because the couple is doing nothing to prohibit the possibility of life. Even if the chances of conceiving are zero, a couple can still be open to the possibility.

Look at this way, the chances of me being able to fly tomorrow are, I’d say, pretty slim. But I’m pretty open to the idea and will certainly not try anything to hinder my chances

 

[Rico_S]

Binary:

The language of the church is that an act is procreative whenever it is “open to the transmission of life,”

Can you point to a specific document where the church officially declares that each marital embrace must be “open to the transmission of life?” This phrase gets tossed about in these types of discussions, but I do not think that this is not what the Church means by “procreative.” (assuming that we all agree that “open to life” actually means “open to life”)—and I think therein lies your problem. What does the church mean by procreative?

Here is a link that can explain it better than I can. lifeissues.net/writers/cat/cat_03conjugalact.html

For the act to be procreative in the eyes of the church, it simply must be ordered toward procreation. It does not mean that there must be some chance that life is transmitted. It must retain the procreative nature of the act itself, unaltered, even if there is no openness to life. (e.g. NFP). or possibilily of transmission of life (e.g. infertility).
Hope that helps.

–Rico

 

[Binary]

Thanks Rico, this is exactly what I needed to know. I read the whole thing, but I the answer can be found in an early sentence, “…the moral difference between the Church’s view of marital intercourse and the contraceptive view does not seem to be based on whether or not a possible procreation is prevented. The views differ because the conjugal act (fertile or infertile) is an act in fulfillment of a natural human inclination to procreate, and contraceptive sex is an act in which that tendency has been deliberately frustrated.”

 

[BiologyBrain]

Biologybrain, I think you’ve perfectly answered my first question. The second, though, remains.

I was really, really hoping not to hear that sex between infertile people is “open to life” because the woman could conceive via a miracle. Miracles transcend the laws of the universe. As such, a woman is as likely to miraculously conceive a child from an illicit sex act, or holding hands, or making a sandwich as she is from normal heterosexual sex while permanently infertile.

I guess we’ve nailed down the exact part of this teaching that I don’t understand.

If you understand the first, why not the second? Its really the same principle. Although, I’m glad the first made sense!

Just b/c conception can’t occur b/c of infertility, the couple is not prohibiting conception from occuring. Therefore, the sexual act is just as procreative as it is for a fertile couple during their naturally infertile times and/or their fertile times. Its the intent & the action that makes the act procreative - not the actual begetting of new life (although that is obviously the main point). If the man & woman insert tab A into slot B without taking contraceptives and/or preventing the act from coming to completion, they are being procreative. It doesn’t matter if container C in the woman is naturally inhospitable/closed to harboring new life. It doesn’t matter if particle D in the man isn’t full strength. If they’re acting in the God-given manner w/o any inhibition of action, they are open to new life if God gives it to them. Granted, scientifically, biologically, and logically they may know that’s not going to occur. However, even in a normally fertile couple, it is God’s gift that allows them to generate new life through their marital embrace. The couple themselves can’t bestow life on their own. They must have interaction from God (ensoulment, animation, etc).

Just b/c a woman is naturally infertile (whether b/c of menopause, pregnancy, breast feeding, time in her cycle, etc) does not mean she cannot be procreative. The same is true for a man. The intention of the act must be such that it occurs in a natural manner (tab A in slot B) w/o anything to artificially inhibit progress. The gift of self includes the gift of fertility and conversely also the gift of infertility. Most infertile couples don’t look at infertility as a gift, but just ask a very fertile couple about the gift of infertility & they’ll act like its gift-wrapped and the best thing ever! (I should know, I’ve been pregnant 6 times in 2 years… I’m fertile, but not a hospitable incubator.) The acceptance of spouses includes acceptance of their weaknesses & strengths.

I don’t know if I made it any clearer or just muddled it up more!