Infertile Couples

[HoppityRedux]

I am speaking only about the certain logically possible actions taken by God being “fitting”. God has already spoken of His nature when He stated in Genesis, that He created them “Male and Female”, that the man leave his father and mother, and the two should become “one flesh”. And that they (the male and female couple) “be fruitful and multiply”.

Further, God stated that “I, Hashem, do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

So it is clear that allowing gay “couples” to procreate, even by miracle, would be against God’s unchanging nature, and so, though not impossible (for we speak of God not univocally, but by analogy), but unfitting.

I hope this clarifies.

You certainly can say what would be fitting for God to do. However, my understanding of the concept of the Christian god would say he’s not at all bound by your understanding.

God doesn’t change? Interesting. I thought John said somethig about the word becoming flesh.

 

[noma]

You certainly can say what would be fitting for God to do. However, my understanding of the concept of the Christian god would say he’s not at all bound by your understanding.

No, but He is bound by His nature, which has been revealed in Truth through the Holy Scripture, which is accepted by faith, and for which the informed reason can put an answer to any objection against it.

God doesn’t change? Interesting. I thought John said somethig about the word becoming flesh.

When the Word became flesh, this means that the Son of God assumed a human nature, and so the only possible change would have been a change of addition.

But this is not possible, as nothing can be added to God. As the Angelic Doctor states “Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it… just as in the union of man with God, nothing is added to God by the grace of adoption but what is Divine is added to man; hence not God but man is perfected.” (Rep. Obj. 1, Q. 3, Art. 1, of Part III, Summa Theologica)

So, if the only possible change in the Son’s assuming a human nature is addition, and there is no addition, the Son is not changed in assumption, and so we conclude, as we must by the bare force of logic, that God is unchanged, even in the Incarnation.

I hope this helps clarify.

 

[PRmerger]

It includes reproduction fine, but a sterile couple cant reproduce which means they are not Procreative which means they should not be able to marry if that the point of marriage and sex. I just dont get it! :banghead: Is there anyone who can explain this to me in plain liberalese, thats my first language, Conservativese is my second language

Try looking at it this way: homosexual sex is not a genital union. It is mutual masturbation. It is neither procreative nor reproductive nor unitive.

A heterosexual couple engaging in mutual masturbation is also not engaging in an act which is procreative or reproductive or unitive.

An infertile couple engaged in the marital act is indeed engaging in an activity which is unitive and procreative.

Surely you can see the difference between the sexual act between infertile couples and the mutual masturbation of homosexual couples, right?

 

[Polaris]

Try looking at it this way: homosexual sex is not a genital union. It is mutual masturbation. It is neither procreative nor reproductive nor unitive.

A heterosexual couple engaging in mutual masturbation is also not engaging in an act which is procreative or reproductive or unitive.

An infertile couple engaged in the marital act is indeed engaging in an activity which is unitive and procreative.

Surely you can see the difference between the sexual act between infertile couples and the mutual masturbation of homosexual couples, right?

Unfortunately I really dont. I can partially see the unitive aspect (Purely on the physical level not emotional or spiritual) but hystorectomy takes that away in my mind. Also the church just added the unitive concept and is still considered secondary to the procreative, this is where the majority of the problem exists with me. If you are going to teach PROCREATIVE first in marriage then you cant include an infertile human. It just does not make sense. For instance not even including gays, but hermaphrodites are also barred from marriage in the Catholic Church, infertile couples would be similiar to them, in a sense they are not a complete sex. I just do not understand the logic. If you are going to say one thing stick to it dont make exceptions because it feels good and you pity someone. The church say it doesnt do this but I think this is a clear example of social agenda affecting doctrine.

Thanks for not giving up on me by the away I do appreciate it. Catholic teaching is not clear to me on some things as it is to others.

 

[CRW]

I have been thinking about this lately and was wondering if anyone here had a good answer for me: if the Catholic Church does not allow homosexual relationships, how can it allow sexual relationships between infertile couples? Isn’t infertile sex just as contrary to natural law as homosexual sex, since it is not procreative?

CCC: 1654: Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

1661: The Sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and of the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (cf. Council of Tent: DS 1799).

 

[Giannawannabe]

Unfortunately I really dont. I can partially see the unitive aspect (Purely on the physical level not emotional or spiritual) but hystorectomy takes that away in my mind. Also the church just added the unitive concept and is still considered secondary to the procreative, this is where the majority of the problem exists with me. If you are going to teach PROCREATIVE first in marriage then you cant include an infertile human. It just does not make sense. For instance not even including gays, but hermaphrodites are also barred from marriage in the Catholic Church, infertile couples would be similiar to them, in a sense they are not a complete sex. I just do not understand the logic. If you are going to say one thing stick to it dont make exceptions because it feels good and you pity someone. The church say it doesnt do this but I think this is a clear example of social agenda affecting doctrine.

Thanks for not giving up on me by the away I do appreciate it. Catholic teaching is not clear to me on some things as it is to others.

I have had years to contemplate your question—being an “infertile” couple. Let me just give you some thoughts…nothing theological per se. First off, most “infertile” couples do not know that they are unable to conceive when they marry. Persons who can not knowingly engage in sexual intercourse before marrying and cannot complete the sex act should not marry. Infertile couples CAN complete the sex act and as mentioned above really don’t know (if they’ve remained chaste/pure before marriage as they are called to do) if they are infertile until they have been married for awhile.
Secondly, I think you are thinking of “sterile” couples vs. “infertile” couples (as has been mentioned a few times). Infertile couples are simply unable to conceive at some point. In the vast majority of cases, couples are diagnosed “infertile” only to conceive. I think that needs to be clarified. Infertile is not the same as sterile.
Another point, even in the case of sterile couples (as long as their reproductive organs appear to be in working order), they may not know of their sterility until after they marry. Hermaphrodites/homosexuals absolutely know with certainty that they will not conceive. There is no assumption that they may be able to produce life. Therefore, they are not “open to life”.
When someone physically can not have sexual relations OR they attempt to be sexual with someone of the same sex, it is clear that they can not conceive and/or they cannot engage in the unitive aspect as their bodies were made to do. I think that’s important to note. By the very design of our bodies, we were made to engage in sexual relations in a certain way. If, we can’t or won’t “do it” the way God intended, then no marriage can take place.
Men are made to be fertile for life. Fertility may decrease, but they can conceive a child well into old age. Women, by God’s design, will come to a point in their life, when they no longer produce eggs. This is a natural, God made/planned fact. It is not something purposely done. It is God’s design. A couple who are married, can still engage in sexual intercourse and be respectful of God’s design.
Also, as Catholics, we understand marriage to be a Sacramental bond. When something is discovered after marriage (i.e. infertility) or a couple is married for years and the woman goes through menopause, a marriage is still valid. They have made a promise before God “for better or for worse” for “sickness and in health”. The unitive aspect of sex will help the couple remain faithful to their Sacramental bond.
It is also important to understand that much of the Catholic belief is simply being faithful to God and faithful to Church teaching. As an infertile couple, we could have engaged in reproductive techniques/treatments that are not approved of by the Church. Although, at the time, I was angry and resentful that I “couldn’t” have treatments, etc. to achieve pregnancy, I now see God’s plan for us. By carrying the cross of infertility and offering up my pain for others, I see things differently. We have 3 great kids(adopted). We were meant to be adoptive parents. In that way, we share our generosity and have been open to the lives that God wanted us to parent.
Anyway, I understand your confusion. I hope my explanation helps? Again, it is not a theological response, but my thoughts on infertility, as part of an infertile couple.

 

[porriwiggle]

When was the last time there was a child born to a 60+ woman without transplant?

Is that a rational basis upon which to base social policy?

When my Mother-in-law was in hospital, a few years before she died, there was a woman in with her who had started her periods again at age 65. She was examined by the doctors and they found nothing whatsoever wrong with her, she was ovulating again and she regained her fertility after a period of about 15 years.

This was about 35 years ago and I do not know the sequel to this (ie whether or not she did in fact conceive) but it goes to show that it could indeed be possible for someone to have a child naturally at that age.

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately I really dont. I can partially see the unitive aspect (Purely on the physical level not emotional or spiritual)

Yes–especially on a physical level it is manifestly clear that homosexual unions are not unitive.

but hystorectomy takes that away in my mind.

Why?

If you are going to teach PROCREATIVE first in marriage then you cant include an infertile human. .

When an infertile couple engages in the marital act, their lovemaking is still* ordered towards procreation*. God has designed one way for the transmission of life, and an infertile couple is engaging in this design.

Surely you can see, (i.e. “visualize”), that this act is quite different from a homosexual “union”!

 

[CRW]

I have been thinking about this lately and was wondering if anyone here had a good answer for me: if the Catholic Church does not allow homosexual relationships, how can it allow sexual relationships between infertile couples? Isn’t infertile sex just as contrary to natural law as homosexual sex, since it is not procreative?

Married couples known to be sterile remain open to life. They never intentionally complete a sexual climax with the desired intention not designed for the generation of life. Their sexual union is still, a most important point, a genital union, created by God and His intentions for the procreation of children.

Same sex sexual unions, by the union of genitals, are impossible and prohibit the God created design for the generation of life. Likewise, masturbation or ejaculatory oral or anal sex by married couples equally hinders the procreated act.

Matrimonial consent is an act of will which a man and a woman by a covenant give and accept one another for the purpose pf establishing a marriage. The woman gives herself as a wife to the man, and the man gives himself as a husband to the woman, and they mutually accept each other as such.

The Church teaching that every marital act should be open to conception means that one should never do anything that would make conception impossible. Therefore couples who are sterile can perform the marital act. In this case they are expressing their love without doing anything to stop procreation.

Pope John Paul II stated: Sexual union is a “test of life and death”; when spouses become one flesh, “they find themselves in the situation in which the powers of good and evil fight and compete against each other” (Body, (June 27, 1984).

 

[Brendan]

Unfortunately I really dont. I can partially see the unitive aspect (Purely on the physical level not emotional or spiritual) but hystorectomy takes that away in my mind. .

\

The unity exists on an ontological level. The souls of a married couple exist in a unique relationship (the two shall be become as one flesh)

They are configured to assist each other in a unique way in their journey to heaven.

The marital act is the defining physical expression of that unity, and is a sacramental. Therefore the marital act unites the couple in their sacrament in much the same way that Holy Water unites us to the sacrament of Baptism.

That is why the unitive aspect of the marital act is only possible within the bonds of marriage. Homosexual sex, adultery or fornicaiton is not unitive but disunitive.

In addition, since the act is a sacramental, it is a seperate dimesion to the marital act from the procreative one. It exisits as long as the marriage bond exists, because it is an expression of the marriage bond.