Infertile Couples

[Zero_One]

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?

 

[Zahmir]

Sex is both procreative and unitive.

A major difference is that while a homosexual couple could not under any circumstances conceive a child during a sexual act, an infertile couple, in a sense, “can.” What I mean here is that they are not opposed to life and would accept a child with open arms if one should be conceived. A homosexual cannot ever expect a child to be conceived.

A homosexual act, i.e. homosexual sex, is not at all unitive, for this “union” is a perversion of God’s creation. Sex between two people, man and woman, one or both of whom are infertile does not violate the unitive aspect of the sexual act.

 

[Zero_One]

In some cases there is a sense that even infertile couples “might” conceive a child. However, in others - say, the woman has gone through menopause or, even more definitively, the woman has had her ovaries and/or uterus removed (for legitimate reasons), or the man has had his testicles removed (for legitimate reasons) - there is absolutely no chance at all of a child being conceived.

God could, I suppose, decide to work a miracle in such a case, but it seems to me God could just as easily cause a man to become pregnant. How are these (admittedly) extreme cases to be reconciled with Catholic teaching?

According to the Catechism, homosexual sex is wrong because it is closed to the transmission of life. It makes no mention of homosexual sex not being unitive. I don’t think there is any way to argue that it is not unitive, without excluding certain forms of sexual expression between married couples which is not immoral (provided it is followed by procreative intercourse). In other words, it is not solely vaginal intercourse which is unitive, though of course that is the sole procreative sexual expression.

 

[I_A]

Sex is procreative and unitive. Lets just talk about the procreative here.

A male and a female are made in a way to procreate. Sex is ordered to new life, if things were functioning properly. Homosexual relationships are not ordered to new life. Sexual relationship with an intertile couple it is still ordered towards new life, just because biology is broken so to speak doesn’t change what God made it for.

Its kind of a seat of the pants explanation, I’m sure somebody has a better way to put things. I’m not even sure if what I said is right.

 

[thistle]

In some cases there is a sense that even infertile couples “might” conceive a child. However, in others - say, the woman has gone through menopause or, even more definitively, the woman has had her ovaries and/or uterus removed (for legitimate reasons), or the man has had his testicles removed (for legitimate reasons) - there is absolutely no chance at all of a child being conceived.

God could, I suppose, decide to work a miracle in such a case, but it seems to me God could just as easily cause a man to become pregnant. How are these (admittedly) extreme cases to be reconciled with Catholic teaching?

According to the Catechism, homosexual sex is wrong because it is closed to the transmission of life. It makes no mention of homosexual sex not being unitive. I don’t think there is any way to argue that it is not unitive, without excluding certain forms of sexual expression between married couples which is not immoral (provided it is followed by procreative intercourse). In other words, it is not solely vaginal intercourse which is unitive, though of course that is the sole procreative sexual expression.

There is always a chance to conceive. God has already performed such miracles. How about Sarah, the wife of Abraham. How about Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary who bore John.

homosexual sex is wrong for several reasons.

• its a disordered and unnatural act
• its an act that is not open to life
• sex is only allowed within a marriage which can only be between a man and woman

 

[LittleDeb]

In some cases there is a sense that even infertile couples “might” conceive a child. However, in others - say, the woman has gone through menopause or, even more definitively, the woman has had her ovaries and/or uterus removed (for legitimate reasons), or the man has had his testicles removed (for legitimate reasons) - there is absolutely no chance at all of a child being conceived.

And invitro-fertilization *might *conceive a child too. That doesn’t make IVF or homosexual acts moral. What I found helpful is to examine it from both ends of the spectrum. It is helpful to look at the design to understand. An infertile couple (post menopausal etc.) uses the same design in their marital act as the fertile couple.

I tend to differenciate infertile sex from sterile sex for clarity, though some people don’t use the same terms. For my discussions I use terms that I have defined clearly. I define infertile to be something unintentional and sterile to be intentional. For example I would say a pregnant woman is infertile while a contracepting woman is sterile. A man who is infertile from cancer is different from a man who is sterile from vasectomy. Those are terms I have found to be clear when explained that way.

With that said I would then say that a homosexual act is a sterile act. While both people might be objectively fertile, their act is sterile. It is not not an infertile act. An infertile act follows the design but is objectively infertile. A couple who has lost their fertility to disease is still within the design of fertility. Lacking a uterus, ovaries or testicles doesn’t make the person cease to be male or female, it just makes him or her objectively infertile.

By design a sterile act is not procreative. It can also be argued that a sterile act is also not unitive, but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Charybdis]

The whole point of sex when infertile (sterile) is that it is a natural condition!!! The Lord has willed it to happen. The couple has not done anything against the natural condition and has not frustrated the act at all!

I can’t believe that people think that just because a women enters menopause that that’s it, throw her to the side of the road cuz she can’t have sex anymore since she can’t conceive a baby!!!

Ridiculous!!! These are the natural rythms of life which God has ordained. The Church recongnizes this and blesses those couples who have gone through the procreative years and can now share in the unitive aspects of their marriage…

 

[Polaris]

The whole point of sex when infertile (sterile) is that it is a natural condition!!! The Lord has willed it to happen. The couple has not done anything against the natural condition and has not frustrated the act at all!

I can’t believe that people think that just because a women enters menopause that that’s it, throw her to the side of the road cuz she can’t have sex anymore since she can’t conceive a baby!!!

Ridiculous!!! These are the natural rythms of life which God has ordained. The Church recongnizes this and blesses those couples who have gone through the procreative years and can now share in the unitive aspects of their marriage…

So God willed the sterility, but not for that individual to be a homosexual? The answer is no they are both evils caused by the fall, not god according to the church, as I understand it. What I do not understand, why is one evil accepted and the other not?

Also I do not believe anyone is saying that after that after a woman is no longer fertile during the marriage is void but infertilility straight off from the begging. A woman who has her ovaries removed due to cancer is still allowed to get married. Is she not being selfish and destroying the fertility of the man she marries. An elderly woman does the samething to a man who remains fertile his entire life again a marriage at that point in time is pure selfishness. The same claim used against the homosexuals.

Also I have quick question along these lines which again does not make sense logically. The church not allow a eunuch to get married, but does a woman who has had her complete reproductive organs to get married… Why?

 

[wjp984]

there are plenty of others that no better than me on the subject but here is what I think. A women who has her ovaries removed can still enjoy the sexual unity between a man and a women and the man can enjoy it too since the actual sexual act is not prevented. Hypothetically, if there is a miracle, the women could have a child and then science can come up with some wierd explanation like there must have been some leftover egg that was not removed and got feritlized. I would not be surprised if this has already happened before. A homosexual couple can never be open to life. In the case of the eunuch, there is no chance for even the sexual unity to occurr. Sex is not possible. Therefore, the rule makes perfect sense to me.

Finally, here is my opinion on whether the women is being selfish in destroying the man’s fertility. The answer is probably no. I would think that it would be just for the woman to inform the man about her condition before getting married though otherwise there might be deceit involved. However, if the man is still in love with the women and they get married they will work through the issue. In fact, here is a positive to this horrible negative. Think of how many infants or children are abandoned and in need of a mother and a father. With an infertile couple, there is the chance for these children to perhaps get that chance through adoption. Basically, without the infertility, the couple probably would never have considered the option of adopting and providing a good life for one of these children. Finally, then there is one less thing to worry about in regards to the sex. Natural family planning would not be necessary so sex could be a large part in the unifying aspect of the marriage and if a miracle occurrs then of course the infertile couple will welcome it and be overjoyed.

 

[Polaris]

Sorry I pasted the wrong clip board item to the srcreen and I can not figure out how to edit on this new system)

I meant to say a woman whom does NOT have her sex organs. The sex act is not completed because like eunich sex never occurs would it not be similiar to sodomy.

 

[wjp984]

not quite so. While the male needs the sex organs for an orgasm the female does not. I refer back to my other post for why it is not a problem.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I’d say the answer to the question posed in the initial post is that folks approve of certain behaviors, and disapprove of others. They have no high-minded reason why - they just do. Then they just cast about and find anything to support their approval. It doesn’t have to be consistent. Look at all the nonsense spouted about racial superiority over the years.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

All sexual acts must remain objectively procreative, but subjectively reproductive.

Homosexual acts are neither objectively procreative, *nor *subjectively reproductive. Sex between infertile couples remains objectively procreative, yet subjectively may not be reproductive.

Thus, sex between infertile couples is morally licit as it always remains objectively procreative

 

[Polaris]

All sexual acts must remain objectively procreative, but subjectively reproductive.

Homosexual acts are neither objectively procreative, *nor *subjectively reproductive. Sex between infertile couples remains objectively procreative, yet subjectively may not be reproductive.

Thus, sex between infertile couples is morally licit as it always remains objectively procreative

What exactly is procreative according to you because according to the online dictionary it is defined as

1 Capable of reproducing; generative.
or
2 Producing new life or offspring

You can not be procreative if you are infertile.

 

[PRmerger]

What exactly is procreative according to you.

Procreation means to bring forth life. Not necessarily only biologically, but renewal of the life of the married couple, renewal of the life of the family…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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?

I think your answer is the church recognizes the “act” between a man and women who have married each other as a part of their vocation. That is why marriage is a sacrament. Yes, the church has rules on the “act”. In the other scenario you have two people not in a vocation, not in unity(by church definition), and not practicing God’s instruction. Unity by church standards involves the married couple entering in to a promise with God to forever be one (unity). Thus their unity standard is reserved to that agreement, not based on feeling close to another.
Hope that helps

 

[renee1258]

We should also note, it isn’t homosexuality or same sex attraction that is sinful but unnatural acts. Many heterosexual engage in the very same sinful acts of homosexuals, i.e. oral sex, anal sex, and mastubation. Even if a couple through a lifetime of love do not bear a child, they are still engaging in a natural sex act. Two people of the same sex can never engage in a natural act of sex.

 

[Polaris]

Procreation means to bring forth life. Not necessarily only biologically, but renewal of the life of the married couple, renewal of the life of the family…

… Im sorry, I still do not get it becuase if you say it that way it opens it up to everyone including gays.

 

[Corki]

So God willed the sterility, but not for that individual to be a homosexual? The answer is no they are both evils caused by the fall, not god according to the church, as I understand it. What I do not understand, why is one evil accepted and the other not?

“to be a homosexual” is not evil. It is disordered. It is also disordered for a woman to be infertile before menopause. Neither is an evil condition. They are conditions that differ from the way that man and woman were designed before the fall.

Neither is accepted more than the other. Both are considered crosses to bear. In a perfect world, neither would occur.

 

[Liberian]

Zero One,

Apart from procreation, there is all the rest of the image of Christ and the Church in the sexual relationship between husband and wife. And since in Heaven there are Christ and Church rather than Christ and Christ, a homosexual relationship is not a faithful reflection as a sexual relationship is supposed to be.

• Liberian