Marital Relationship Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter tdcjco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tdcjco

Guest
Obviously God intended sexual activity between married partners to be engaged in for the purpose of procreation. I think all here agree with that. But, what if a wife, due to medical necessity, had a hysterectomy? If conception is no longer possible, does all activity become a sin, since both parties are aware the procreation is impossible?
 
No. It is not sinful to engage in marital relations after having been sterilized. It is not and never has been the teaching of the Church that conception must be possible in order for a couple to have relations without sinning. Pregnant women are allowed to have relations, as are those in the infertile part of their period, as are post-menopausal women. The argument against contraception is not that one is avoiding pregnancy, or even that one is having relations while avoiding pregnancy, but is rather the result of a theological and philosophical reasoning about the problem of changing the nature of an act of sex from fertile to non-fertile.
 
thewanderer said:
The sterilization itself was sinful.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If a hysterectomy is performed for the purpose of sterilization, then that it is sinful. If it is performed due to a legitimate medical need (in cases of uterine cancer, for example), then it is not sinful.
 
There was nothing sinful about what you called ‘the sterilization’. It was ordered as being medically necessary to ensure her well being. But, thanks for your compassion, such as it was. If you insist on responding out of a vacuum of ignorance, maybe it’s best that you not respond at all.
 
RyanBlack said:
Not necessarily. If a hysterectomy is performed for the purpose of sterilization, then that it is sinful. If it is performed due to a legitimate medical need (in cases of uterine cancer, for example), then it is not sinful.
Click to expand...
Thanks for correcting me. I forgot about that possibility. 🙂
tdcjco said:
There was nothing sinful about what you called ‘the sterilization’. It was ordered as being medically necessary to ensure her well being. But, thanks for your compassion, such as it was. If you insist on responding out of a vacuum of ignorance, maybe it’s best that you not respond at all.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry that you were offended by my response. I did forget about the above possibility. I did not mean to be judgemental, but I realize that even if the sterilization hadn’t been for medical purposes I still would have been wrong to word my response as I did. I should have said that in such non-medically necessary cases sterilization is grave matter. I hope you can accept my apology.
 
I’ve edited my post to remove the incorrect and offensive parts. Would everyone else mind deleting their posts which refer to it?
 
I should apologize to you, my friend. I overreacted, sorry, it’s a touchy subject with me.thats no excuse to be rude. I’ve corrected my mistake above. Accept my apology,please. Be at peace, brother.
 
On a side note, thanks to the above posters for being polite, civil and understanding with one another. Reading that made my day. Carry on…
 
tdcjco said:
If conception is no longer possible, does all activity become a sin, since both parties are aware the procreation is impossible?
Click to expand...
A marital act can still be “procreative” even if one or both spouses is sterile. A procreative act doesn’t hinge on the fertility of the couple, but rather on the ability to carry the act to completion in the way in which a child is conceived, i.e., man climaxes vaginally. If the sterile couple is able to do this, it is a procreative act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top