Infertile Couples

[Transformer]

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?

Sex betwen two infertile spouses may almost certainly not create life, but it is not contraceptive. Everything the couple is doing is totally open to the creation of life (we assume). They are not acting against openness to life or cutting off sex from procreation in any way. In fact, they are participating in sex exactly as God intends it. Only the circumstances prevent the creation of new life, not anything the couple did. Contraception comes when a conscious choice is made to cut an act of sex off from procreation, not when the circumstances unfortunately prevent the creation of life.

Homosexual sex, by contrast, is never, ever procreative, and it wasn’t designed to be. It cannot ever be sex as God intends. The infertile spouses are engaging in marital sex that unfortunately will not produce life, but the couple is totally open to life themselves, while two homosexual people are participating in an act that is by its very nature against procreation.

There is also, of course, the matter that sex must image the love Christ has for his Church, and only a man and a woman can accomplish that as men were designed to imitate Christ’s love and woman the returned love of the Church in sex. Two men or two women cannot accomplish that, so homosexual sex is wrong even beyond its being against procreation.

I hope this helps, God bless.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Sex betwen two infertile spouses may almost certainly not create life, but it is not contraceptive. Everything the couple is doing is totally open to the creation of life (we assume). They are not acting against openness to life or cutting off sex from procreation in any way. In fact, they are participating in sex exactly as God intends it. Only the circumstances prevent the creation of new life, not anything the couple did. Contraception comes when a conscious choice is made to cut an act of sex off from procreation, not when the circumstances unfortunately prevent the creation of life.

Homosexual sex, by contrast, is never, ever procreative, and it wasn’t designed to be. It cannot ever be sex as God intends. The infertile spouses are engaging in marital sex that unfortunately will not produce life, but the couple is totally open to life themselves, while two homosexual people are participating in an act that is by its very nature against procreation.

There is also, of course, the matter that sex must image the love Christ has for his Church, and only a man and a woman can accomplish that as men were designed to imitate Christ’s love and woman the returned love of the Church in sex. Two men or two women cannot accomplish that, so homosexual sex is wrong even beyond its being against procreation.

I hope this helps, God bless.

I suppose a gay couple and an infertile couple could both be open to life, and both would have the same success at pregnancy.

 

[Transformer]

I suppose a gay couple and an infertile couple could both be open to life, and both would have the same success at pregnancy.

They could both be thinking openness to life, but their actions would differ. The infertile couple would be participating in sex exactly as God intended it and truly imaging Christ’s love for his Church. All of their actions would be procreative.

By contrast, the homosexual couple would be freely engaging in an act that cannot ever create life, and was never intended to. That isn’t merely a matter of circumstance; the act itself is against procreation.

Undoubtedly, both an infertile couple and a homosexual couple could be thinking “I sure want children.” However, only one of the couple’s actions would be open to life in the Christian sense.

 

[HoppityRedux]

They could both be thinking openness to life, but their actions would differ. The infertile couple would be participating in sex exactly as God intended it and truly imaging Christ’s love for his Church. All of their actions would be procreative.

By contrast, the homosexual couple would be freely engaging in an act that cannot ever create life, and was never intended to. That isn’t merely a matter of circumstance; the act itself is against procreation.

Undoubtedly, both an infertile couple and a homosexual couple could be thinking “I sure want children.” However, only one of the couple’s actions would be open to life in the Christian sense.

If neither can conceive, open is merely a state of mind.

 

[Transformer]

If neither can conceive, open is merely a state of mind.

Wow, we’re posting really fast.

But open is not merely a state of mind. Is someone who fights an injustice knowing that he cannot destroy it merely thinking about it? Is someone who makes himself totally open to the creation of life knowing that he cannot create life merely thinking about it? Of course not.

Christians are called to love when it almost certainly will not have an effect, and to hope when the goal will almost certainly not be met. Why should openness to life be different?

Christopher West’s Good News about Sex and Marriage may cover this line of objection, I don’t remember for sure. I recommend it anyway.

God bless.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Wow, we’re posting really fast.

But open is not merely a state of mind. Is someone who fights an injustice knowing that he cannot destroy it merely thinking about it? Is someone who makes himself totally open to the creation of life knowing that he cannot create life merely thinking about it? Of course not.

Christians are called to love when it almost certainly will not have an effect, and to hope when the goal will almost certainly not be met. Why should openness to life be different?

Christopher West’s Good News about Sex and Marriage may cover this line of objection, I don’t remember for sure. I recommend it anyway.

God bless.

Yes. If all you are accomplishing is state of mind, then you are just thinking about it. I just tried to levitate. Didn’t work again. Just the same light-headed feeling.

Love and hope are states of mind.

 

[renee1258]

Maybe I’m a little more sensitive to this as a woman. Currently I’m in a extending state of infertility, because I’m breastfeeding full time which suppresses ovulation. It is like the body saying, you shouldn’t get pregnant now, because I have a new born. Technically when you are pregnant, you are infertile also. I’m still a sexual being, with sexual organs.

So as a woman I’m rather disturbed how people can easily interchange my sexual organs with non-sexual organs. When one performs oral sex or their anus is being used in anal sex, that is NOT a sexual expereince for that person since they aren’t using their sexual organs. They are merely an orrifice to be used by another.

We can be respect and greatly care for those who have same sex attraction, but not at the expense of degrading female sexuality to a mere orrifice that can be interchange with any other opening in the human body female or male. I don’t think it is anyone’s intent to be so hateful towards women and their sexuality, but that is exactly what is occuring when you compare one’s natural infertility to sexuals acts that do not include the coponent of women’s sexual organs.

Love isn’t a state of mind, it is an action. An action when it comes to the love within sexuality, two people of the same sex can never perform.

Consider this…

From Love is not Love from Modestly Yours

Shakespeare presents a case for love that emphasizes action as opposed to feeling.

Last year I heard a rabbi tell a story about himself and his father. The rabbi’s father was flying into New York from Israel the next day, and his son, the rabbi telling the story, suddenly realized that he woudn’t be able to pick his father up at the airport because he had important meetings to attend that day. He called his father to tell him that he wouldn’t be able to pick him up, that he loved him, and that he hoped he could find someone else to drive him or possibly call a taxi. He told his father how sorry he was and how much he loved him but that he just couldn’t do it.
His father said, “Son, I really do need you to pick me up at the airport.”
His son replied, “Father, I love you so deeply but I just can’t do it. I have very important meetings tomorrow.”
And his father said, "Stop loving me so much and just pick me up at the airport."
The rabbi’s father was teaching his son a lesson about love, which contains the same message as Shakespeare’s poem. Love is not love!
Ironically, telling his father he loved him was getting in the way of acting like a loving son. The feeling of love really carried very little weight. It was the action that has depth, resonance, and meaning. And so, of course, he cancelled his meetings and picked his father up at the airport.

 

[renee1258]

I forgot the poem…

Love is Not Love

Here is Shakespeare’s poem below. Enjoy.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no, it is an ever-fixèd mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand’ring bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his heighth be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

 

[Polaris]

Maybe I’m a little more sensitive to this as a woman. Currently I’m in a extending state of infertility, because I’m breastfeeding full time which suppresses ovulation. It is like the body saying, you shouldn’t get pregnant now, because I have a new born. Technically when you are pregnant, you are infertile also. I’m still a sexual being, with sexual organs.

So as a woman I’m rather disturbed how people can easily interchange my sexual organs with non-sexual organs. When one performs oral sex or their anus is being used in anal sex, that is NOT a sexual expereince for that person since they aren’t using their sexual organs. They are merely an orrifice to be used by another.

We can be respect and greatly care for those who have same sex attraction, but not at the expense of degrading female sexuality to a mere orrifice that can be interchange with any other opening in the human body female or male. I don’t think it is anyone’s intent to be so hateful towards women and their sexuality, but that is exactly what is occuring when you compare one’s natural infertility to sexuals acts that do not include the coponent of women’s sexual organs.

Love isn’t a state of mind, it is an action. An action when it comes to the love within sexuality, two people of the same sex can never perform.

Consider this…

From Love is not Love from Modestly Yours

Shakespeare presents a case for love that emphasizes action as opposed to feeling.

Last year I heard a rabbi tell a story about himself and his father. The rabbi’s father was flying into New York from Israel the next day, and his son, the rabbi telling the story, suddenly realized that he woudn’t be able to pick his father up at the airport because he had important meetings to attend that day. He called his father to tell him that he wouldn’t be able to pick him up, that he loved him, and that he hoped he could find someone else to drive him or possibly call a taxi. He told his father how sorry he was and how much he loved him but that he just couldn’t do it.
His father said, “Son, I really do need you to pick me up at the airport.”
His son replied, “Father, I love you so deeply but I just can’t do it. I have very important meetings tomorrow.”
And his father said, "Stop loving me so much and just pick me up at the airport."
The rabbi’s father was teaching his son a lesson about love, which contains the same message as Shakespeare’s poem. Love is not love!
Ironically, telling his father he loved him was getting in the way of acting like a loving son. The feeling of love really carried very little weight. It was the action that has depth, resonance, and meaning. And so, of course, he cancelled his meetings and picked his father up at the airport.

First Congrats on the child.

And I do not mean any disrespect to woman, and I would NEVER think of reducing them down to an orafice. Yet if you think about it the church does do this. A man who has his testicles but not his penis is not allowed to get married, however a woman who has had her complete organs removed it is still able to get married because she still has an orafice that can be used, even though it is no longer lined with the same tissues that were suppose to be there. Her sex organs are not important in the eyes of the church just the males are.

Love is action. I will agree with that. So should not the Gay men show there love for each other?
Also I thought about the organ use and not to be vulgar but both sex organs are being used in male gay sex. One of the reasons that anal sex occurs is that it does not cause pain to the recieving partner but in fact it stimulates the prostate of the receiving male partner which is suppose to feel very good. They are both being used and excited for the happines and bonding of the two partners. The one is not being used just as orafice for the other partner. Also another side thought why would God have created the prostate where he did and make it capable of simulation since it would never be stimulated in heterosexual sex.

 

[Brendan]

According to the Catechism, homosexual sex is wrong because it is closed to the transmission of life…

No, homosexual sex is wrong on two factors. First, because it is intrinsically morally disordered. The order, or direction of the act is towards fornication and in that is make false parody of natural (God instituted) marriage.

Sex is only morally permissable within the bonds of natural marriage. This is only possible between one man and one woman, contrary to what ever any civil law might say.

Homosexual sex is therefore ALWAYS fornication.

An man and a woman may enter into marriage. This may occur even if one or both are infertile (but not impotent). Then, and only then may the marital act be unitive. Without the marriage bond, there is no valid union, so no unitve act.

 

[Transformer]

And I do not mean any disrespect to woman, and I would NEVER think of reducing them down to an orafice. Yet if you think about it the church does do this. A man who has his testicles but not his penis is not allowed to get married, however a woman who has had her complete organs removed it is still able to get married because she still has an orafice that can be used, even though it is no longer lined with the same tissues that were suppose to be there. Her sex organs are not important in the eyes of the church just the males are.

A man without a penis cannot marry because he cannot consumate marriage without one. A woman without some of her internal sexual organs truly can, and even if she almost certainly cannot produce a child or even feel pleasure, there is more to openness to life than assured reproduction, and there is certainly more to the unitive aspect of sex than pleasure. Does the Church “value” male sexual organs more than female ones? Not really, but the Church accepts the fact that external male sexual organs must be present for intercourse, while not all internal female organs must be.

Love is action. I will agree with that. So should not the Gay men show there love for each other?

Not only should they show their love for one another, they are required to. The only appropriate response to another person is love. However, sex is most certainly not the only way to love someone, and is in fact holy only when it images Christ’s love for his Church. But homosexual sex cannot do that, both because it is in-and-of itself against procreation, and because God designed unions between the sex to image that love, but unions among the sexes. If marriage is the sacrament of the love between Christ and his Church, men are designed to imitate Christ in that relationship, and women are designed to image the Church in that relationship, the design simply wasn’t ever meant for homosexual sex.

 

[Giannawannabe]

I suppose a gay couple and an infertile couple could both be open to life, and both would have the same success at pregnancy.

This is inaccurate. I’ve known many “infertile” couples who, after years of not conceiving, have become pregnant. I’ve never, ever known a gay man to become pregnant. Lesbians require sperm to become pregnant;they are unable to become pregnant without a man.
As part of an infertile couple, I know that there is still a possibility each month that I could become pregnant. The"parts" are all here to achieve that. We unite our will with God’s will in this matter. So far, God has told us “no” to conceiving. He may say “yes” at some point. That is being open to life. We continue to use our “parts” the way God intended. When heterosexual couples do not use their “parts” the way God intended that is also not being open to life. That would be the same with homosexual couples.
When God discontinues fertility naturally (i.e. menopause, pregnancy, etc.), that is his Will. We are still called to use our “parts” the way God intended.
I think the idea that homosexuality is God’s Will is just an opinion. There’s much research to support that many persons with homosexual tendencies have become that way due to abusive or disordered upbringing. As someone else mentioned, if someone is born with homosexual tendencies (which again, has not been entirely proven), than it should be considered a cross to bear and much sacrifice in life is expected. Infertility has been our cross to bear. It is painful. It is something that is not natural. Yet God has given it to us. We are expected to carry our cross with dignity. We know that it is against God’s law to engage in “unnatural” fertility treatments/procedures to become pregnant. So, we do not do them. It would be an easy route to take to fulfill this desire to have a baby. I’m sure we could achieve pregnancy if we underwent certain procedures which are against Church teaching. However, we are called to something higher. I honestly have the deepest empathy for those with homosexual tendencies. It is always lonely to have a cross from God that is difficult and against nature.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I suppose a gay couple and an infertile couple could both be open to life, and both would have the same success at pregnancy.

Yes exactly, however the “gay” couple can not fulfill the marriage vocation. In some places they can be civilly married with adopted children, even be a family. The church would even thank them for helping these children as an act of alms. But the church would also remind them there should be no sexual activity. Sexual activity is highly restricted under Church teachings and Canon Law. In regard to say two 60 year olds wishing to marry, and meeting all other criteria- the couple are doing all they can to uphold the sacrament of marriage, it is true they will not produce children however it is also true the man and woman were designed for entering these vocations. The man as Father, Provider and Husband, the woman as Caregiver, Wife and Mother. That is why the church would allow these two to continue to fulfill God’s plan of binding men and woman in marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

quote from PRmerger 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……
Polaris replied: Im sorry, I still do not get it becuase if you say it that way it opens it up to everyone including gays.

No, because procreation includes reproduction, but is not exclusively about reproduction. Gay sexual unions will never fulfill the reproductive component of procreation.

 

[Polaris]

No, because procreation includes reproduction, but is not exclusively about reproduction. Gay sexual unions will never fulfill the reproductive component of procreation.

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

 

[HoppityRedux]

This is inaccurate. I’ve known many “infertile” couples who, after years of not conceiving, have become pregnant. I’ve never, ever known a gay man to become pregnant. Lesbians require sperm to become pregnant;they are unable to become pregnant without a man.
As part of an infertile couple, I know that there is still a possibility each month that I could become pregnant. The"parts" are all here to achieve that. We unite our will with God’s will in this matter. So far, God has told us “no” to conceiving. He may say “yes” at some point. That is being open to life. We continue to use our “parts” the way God intended. When heterosexual couples do not use their “parts” the way God intended that is also not being open to life. That would be the same with homosexual couples.
When God discontinues fertility naturally (i.e. menopause, pregnancy, etc.), that is his Will. We are still called to use our “parts” the way God intended.
I think the idea that homosexuality is God’s Will is just an opinion. There’s much research to support that many persons with homosexual tendencies have become that way due to abusive or disordered upbringing. As someone else mentioned, if someone is born with homosexual tendencies (which again, has not been entirely proven), than it should be considered a cross to bear and much sacrifice in life is expected. Infertility has been our cross to bear. It is painful. It is something that is not natural. Yet God has given it to us. We are expected to carry our cross with dignity. We know that it is against God’s law to engage in “unnatural” fertility treatments/procedures to become pregnant. So, we do not do them. It would be an easy route to take to fulfill this desire to have a baby. I’m sure we could achieve pregnancy if we underwent certain procedures which are against Church teaching. However, we are called to something higher. I honestly have the deepest empathy for those with homosexual tendencies. It is always lonely to have a cross from God that is difficult and against nature.

An infertile couple that conceives is a contradiction. The couple is not infertile.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Yes exactly, however the “gay” couple can not fulfill the marriage vocation. In some places they can be civilly married with adopted children, even be a family. The church would even thank them for helping these children as an act of alms. But the church would also remind them there should be no sexual activity. Sexual activity is highly restricted under Church teachings and Canon Law. In regard to say two 60 year olds wishing to marry, and meeting all other criteria- the couple are doing all they can to uphold the sacrament of marriage, it is true they will not produce children however it is also true the man and woman were designed for entering these vocations. The man as Father, Provider and Husband, the woman as Caregiver, Wife and Mother. That is why the church would allow these two to continue to fulfill God’s plan of binding men and woman in marriage.

Sixty-year-olds are not designed for producing children.

 

[HoppityRedux]

No, because procreation includes reproduction, but is not exclusively about reproduction. Gay sexual unions will never fulfill the reproductive component of procreation.

Neither will a couple in which the woman has had a full hysterectomy.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sixty-year-olds are not designed for producing children.

Actually they are! They simply have out lived that design. Notice humans have menopause via God, and marriage via God which develops a period in which parents can complete the raising of the children prior to death. This reduces orphans, maybe it was planned?.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Actually they are! They simply have out lived that design. Notice humans have menopause via God, and marriage via God which develops a period in which parents can complete the raising of the children prior to death. This reduces orphans, maybe it was planned?.

If it was planned, then the planner did not design 60-year-olds to reproduce.