Sex after hysterectomy...Just double checking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Convert_in_99
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bballer32 said:
I donā€™t know. Should she?
Click to expand...
Yes, she can.

Infertility, temporary or permanent, does not matter. What matters is that sex can happen (I.e. no impotence).

By the way, even a healthy woman is naturally infertile most of the time.
 
pensmama87 said:
Yes, she can.

Infertility, temporary or permanent, does not matter. What matters is that sex can happen (I.e. no impotence).
Click to expand...
Ok, that helps a TON!

Itā€™s that sex can happen, not fertilityā€¦correct?
By the way, even a healthy woman is naturally infertile most of the time.
Click to expand...
Ok, this I knew from my little NFP learnings from Theology Class
 
Bballer32 said:
Okā€¦ Just two questions then.
  1. What about the whole ā€œopen to childrenā€ statement during the Rite of Matrimony?
  2. Why donā€™t people just go get hysterectomies or the likes instead of being on contraceptives? A married couple is not supposed to have marital relations while using contraceptives because the option for life is not there. But this way they arenā€™t sinning gravely.
Also, the elderly and the infertile are not the same as hysterectomies because there is still a small chance of bringing forth life.
Click to expand...
The Church has already thought this through.
  1. Open to children simply means they do not put anything in the way of having children, and never have the intention to never have children, even through NFP. This is a matter of intent and can render a marriage invalid from the beginning.
  2. If someone gets a hysterectomy without good reason for the purpose of contracepting, then itā€™s intentional sterilization and is as grave a sin as getting ones tubes tied or having a vasectomy. If a hysterectomy is necessary for medical purposes, then the intention is not contraceptive and the principle of double effect applies. Just because a woman has lost her uterus does not deprive her of the right to sex with her husband.
Even a person who has intentionally sterilized himself/herself and has repented and been absolved (I will not go into the issue of true contrition here), can continue to have marital relations as usual without sin. Reversal of a procedure is not morally required.

ā€œUsing contraceptivesā€ is another story, because they are simultaneously thwarting the life-giving aspect of sex.
 
porthos11 said:
The Church has already thought this through.
  1. Open to children simply means they do not put anything in the way of having children, and never have the intention to never have children, even through NFP. This is a matter of intent and can render a marriage invalid from the beginning.
  2. If someone gets a hysterectomy without good reason for the purpose of contracepting, then itā€™s intentional sterilization and is as grave a sin as getting ones tubes tied or having a vasectomy. If a hysterectomy is necessary for medical purposes, then the intention is not contraceptive and the principle of double effect applies. Just because a woman has lost her uterus does not deprive her of the right to sex with her husband.
Even a person who has intentionally sterilized himself/herself and has repented and been absolved (I will not go into the issue of true contrition here), can continue to have marital relations as usual without sin. Reversal of a procedure is not morally required.

ā€œUsing contraceptivesā€ is another story, because they are simultaneously thwarting the life-giving aspect of sex.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you very much! šŸ˜ƒ
 
Bballer32 said:
Indeed šŸ˜ƒ

Iā€™m in Seminary right now.
Click to expand...
Okay, thatā€™s fair.

Also, a cause for celebration.:tiphat: The world needs more shepherds.

I like Tim Allenā€™s explanation from Home Improvement:
ā€œMomā€™s garbage disposal is stuck in the ā€œonā€ position. Thatā€™s whatā€™s causing the hazard. Fortunately Mom doesnā€™t actually need a garbage disposal.ā€
Click to expand...
ā€“Tim ā€œthe Tool Manā€ Taylor explaining the situation to a house of only boys
Click to expand...
Endometriosis is what happens when the garbage disposal spews up into the kitchen instead of down the drain. This treatment has the best chance of fixing it, which is why the OP is so happy.šŸ™‚
 
Bballer32 said:
Ok, that helps a TON!

Itā€™s that sex can happen, not fertilityā€¦correct?

Ok, this I knew from my little NFP learnings from Theology Class
Click to expand...
Exactly. If fertility was required for moral sex, we couldnā€™t morally use NFP to avoid - but such is permitted by the Church (as is not using NFP or using NFP to conceive).

And as porthos11 mentioned, using contraceptives is not permitted, but one could use hormonal treatments to treat a medical condition, even if it impairs fertility, and would not be morally required to abstain for the duration of treatment.
 
Convert in 99,
As you know, yes, you can continue to have relations.

I would be more than happy to share some information with you about life after a hysterectomy.

I had mine in February.

Just PM me.
 
Bballer32 said:
Sorry :o

Iā€™m not trying to debate. Iā€™m just trying to better grasp and understand this area of our Faith so that I may better relay this to the people I meet in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
The Church is all for the ā€œMarital embraceā€.
Itā€™s fine. Whatā€™s to understand?
You love you wife, you love your husband. You express that love.
I donā€™t see what the problem or conflict is.
Being open to children means avoiding pregnancy.
 
Bballer32 said:
Okā€¦ Just two questions then.
  1. What about the whole ā€œopen to childrenā€ statement during the Rite of Matrimony?
  2. Why donā€™t people just go get hysterectomies or the likes instead of being on contraceptives? A married couple is not supposed to have marital relations while using contraceptives because the option for life is not there. But this way they arenā€™t sinning gravely.
Also, the elderly and the infertile are not the same as hysterectomies because there is still a small chance of bringing forth life.
Click to expand...
A hysterectomy is major abdominal surgery, to removed a diseased uterus.

It isnā€™t done for contraception, but to cure a disease.
 
Kind of funny that people think itā€™s wrong for married people if the wife has a hysterectomy. Also, some people think elderly couples who are married are sexless. The married couples in question are open to life. Itā€™s just that biologically they canā€™t have any children. If a couple in their eighties had a baby, just think how hard it would be on the child.

Anyway I think people take these things way farther than they are expected to.
 
Bballer32 said:
Okā€¦ Just two questions then.
  1. What about the whole ā€œopen to childrenā€ statement during the Rite of Matrimony?
  2. Why donā€™t people just go get hysterectomies or the likes instead of being on contraceptives? A married couple is not supposed to have marital relations while using contraceptives because the option for life is not there. But this way they arenā€™t sinning gravely.
Also, the elderly and the infertile are not the same as hysterectomies because there is still a small chance of bringing forth life.
Click to expand...
  1. Having a hysterectomy is NOT ā€œnot being open to children,ā€ but is curing some serious disease. Infertility is a byproduct, not the intent.
  2. Even in this day and age, there is such a thing as medical ethics - to say nothing of the fine hand of insurance companies and case management. Iā€™m sure there have been isolated cases of hysterectomies as the ultimately contraceptive, but I donā€™t think there are many surgeons willing to do this on a healthy body. Or insurance carriers willing to approve this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top