Sexual intimacy for the developmentally disabled

[Riley259]

I work with individuals with developmental disabilities and some of the individuals I work with will express a desire to have sexual contact with others. The typical training in this area involves a more secularized view of sexual education including views that they have the “right” to have sexual contact regardless of the moral context and instructions on masturbation and condom use for more cognitively capable individuals. Does anyone know what the church teaches about individuals with mental retardation who express a desire for sexual contact? What about them marrying and having children or avoiding children if the possibility of retardation in future children is high? These are thorny issues and people who work in this field tend to be pretty liberal in ideas of this matter. Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[BlindSheep]

Now, I don’t know what the Church’s official stance is or even if there is one, but I’m inclined to think that if their disablity would prevent them from being able to raise children, they shouldn’t get married - and I’m quite sure that no one, disabled or not, should be encouraged to have sex outside of marriage.

 

[leo123]

Hello,

I’m porbably not the best person to answer your quest as I don;t know too much, but I have studied mental incompetency, sterilisation and the English law, which in theory has quite a strong moral/philosophical grounding.

In the UK (and the Commonwealth countries e.g. australia, canada, new zealand) the judiciary have been very willing to sterilise almost every single mentally incompetent person, where for example they could not ensure that that person would use contraception. The exception, from the few judges who actually have a proper non-secular reasoning, has been that the carers and parents should exercise much greater control on the people in question rather than simply throwing contraception at the problem.

So, what application does this have if any? Well, be suspicious of the secular “right to have sex” rhetoric, particularly because in many cases it makes so little sense. These people use the language of ‘protecting’ vulnerable people from ‘unwanted preganancy’ but in fact they rarely question whether in fact the vulnerable people will suffer any damage from these sexual relationships. Protecting these vulnberable people in this sense will definately be a top priority opf the Catholic church, not simply seeking to stop fertilisation after sex has occured.

I know, a lengthy post and you probably got very little tangible info from it. lol. that’s why I said I wasn’t the best.

I’ll pray you get a good reply.

god bless

 

[Mom_of_5]

I don’t think the church makes allowances for DD people. In other words, the only acceptable form of birth control would be abstinance. For caregivers of the DD, it can be a difficult job to monitor those who have an active libido. If a DD woman should become pregnant, the only “solution” is to allow her to give birth. I am not sure how the church feels about giving medication that would help diminish the
sexual desire, the practical solution for a very difficult problem.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[LittleRose]

Riley259:

What about them marrying and having children or avoiding children if the possibility of retardation in future children is high?

I imagine that, as with people with no mental disabilities, they must be able to consent fully to a marriage. (i.e. understand what it means for it to be permanent, life-giving, and exclusively faithful to the spouse.) If they are mentally competent to assent to this, I imagine the church would have no problem with them getting married.

Given the church’s pro-life stance, I do not think the church would tell a validly married person not to have children because they might inherit a disorder of some kind.

 

[Liberian]

Riley,

If I may speak from a position of nearly complete ignorance, I would start by saying that sexual intimacy is not a right that we are guaranteed if we want it. I don’t see it in the Catechism and it’s certainly not in the Constitution of the United States. It carries certain responsibilities with it, such as the responsibility of a lifelong commitment to a marriage and the raising of children. If an individual with a developmental disability can handle the responsibility, then I would think that he or she would be free to marry. If he or she cannot, then I would think that he or she should not be engaging in sexual behavior.

• Liberian

 

[coyote]

Well, there is a further complication to the issue.

Many DD adults live independently of parents or paid caregivers. They have as much opportunity to pursue relationships as any other independent adult.