Sexuality w/in Marriage

[GordonBOPS]

I’m needing some direction on this issue: The Church obviously doesn’t teach it is immoral for a post-monopause woman to have sex with her spouse - even though there is no possible procreative end. What is the rationale?

 

[Ham1]

As long as the couple leaves open the possibility of procreation and does nothing to deliberately frustrate conception, then they are acting in accord with God’s law. God, after all, sometimes chooses to make impossible things happen.

 

[John-the-Seeker]

Read about Abram and Sarah. All things are possible with God. It is only when we attempt to block the will of God in our lives that sin occurs.

 

[Black_Jaque]

What is the rationale?

The rationale is that we humans are flat-out incorrect in thinking that a post menopausal woman is incapable of conceiving and bearing children. It’s just doesn’t happen very often at all.

See the story of St. John the Baptist’s conception.

Most importantly, the capability of the woman’s conception is in God’s hands and we have done nothing to stay God’s hand in the matter. That’s why sex during the non-fertile phases of a woman’s cycle is still licit.

 

[GordonBOPS]

OK… THat’s what I thought - but wasn’t sure. What about a woman, whose had a historectomy due to cancer?

 

[Black_Jaque]

OK… THat’s what I thought - but wasn’t sure. What about a woman, whose had a historectomy due to cancer?

The historectomy was done intending to stop a fatal disease. What fault is it of man that she had this disease and the only procedure available to save her life would render her infertile?

The church maintains that sex under those circumstances is still OK.

In fact I don’t know if there is any situation where a married couple can sin by engaging in sex. They may be able to sin while engaging in sex, but I don’t think the sex itself is sinful.

Say you are kneeling down before the Blessed Sacrament and you bump your knee really hard. You use God’s name as you shout in pain. Did that suddenly make the act of kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament sinful? Or did you just sin while doing something good?

 

[setter]

GordonBOPS:

OK… THat’s what I thought - but wasn’t sure. What about a woman, whose had a historectomy due to cancer?

The *procreative potential * of the husband is still existant whether the wife is naturally (pregnancy, post-menopausal, monthly fertility cycle) or surgically infertile.

 

[GordonBOPS]

OK - And where I’m going with this is to tie the procreative aspect of the marital act (and its potential and nonpotential for leading to life) to why sexual acts with the same gender are violative of the basic goal of procreation as compared to one who has sexual acts with one who is simply not capable of providing the “material” for life to come to being. Thx

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Each and every sexual act must be both procreative (meaning open to life) and unitive.

Open to life does not mean able or likely to conceive, it means willing to accept God’s gift if He so chooses to give it.

Foe example, if a woman or man during sex were thinking “wow, this hysterectomy is great, now I don’t have to worry about pregnancy!” that could be very sinful. But the sex itself is not the problem.

---

It is yet another situation where motive makes all the difference.

---

Malia

 

[vluvski]

setter:

The *procreative potential * of the husband is still existant whether the wife is naturally (pregnancy, post-menopausal, monthly fertility cycle) or surgically infertile.

While your conclusion is correction, your logic is flawed. There is nothing about the other partner’s “procreative (=reproductive) potential” that makes the sex act legitimate within marriage. You could have a couple where both the husband and the wife were infertile for any reason, and sex between them could still be considered “procreative” though not reproductive.

The act of sex, absent of any means against conception, is inherently procreative because God created it to be in favor of creation. Our priest explained that being procreative is not just limited to reproduction but also being fruitful in other ways. The unitive aspect of sex within marriage brings about this fruitfulness, thus fulfilling the procreative aspect as long as no means has been used to frustrate it.

Homo"sex"ual “sex” can never, ever be procreative, nor can it be unitive in the sacramental sense though these poor individuals may very well experience a closeness because of their actions.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

GordonBOPS:

OK - And where I’m going with this is to tie the procreative aspect of the marital act (and its potential and nonpotential for leading to life) to why sexual acts with the same gender are violative of the basic goal of procreation as compared to one who has sexual acts with one who is simply not capable of providing the “material” for life to come to being. Thx

Homosexual acts could be compared more likely to contraception rather than an infertile person.

In both the parties themselves are doing something to render the act sterile where an infertile person did not make that choice (and if they did make the choice to be sterilized they can repent and be forgiven).

---

An infertile woman could hope and pray that God work a miracle through her and her spouse and give them a child…a homosexual couple is going against Natural Law therefore that would never happen.

---

Malia

 

[GordonBOPS]

OK, And I’m not defending… I’m just playing “devil’s” advocate. OK, so, we say that the intent of NOT concieving IS a problem - homosexual acts may not actually include an intent against conception. So, what logically cuts against this? Anyone? Again, i know that God created them Male and Female…etc…

 

[vluvski]

It is not about the intent. A married couple may not be actively trying to conceive or may even be hoping they don’t, but as long as they aren’t taking action to prevent that from happening, their sex act is licit.

The same can never be said of homosexual sex- even if they INTEND to have children, their so-called sex act is inherently contraceptive (against conception) because having sex with a person of the same sex actively prevents conception.

The example of the person enjoying sex because of a sterilization does not apply to homosexual sex. That is an indication that they have not repented of a previous sin. You cannot simultaneously repent of the sin of the contraceptive nature of homosexual sex while committing it.

I can’t think of any case where the SEX ACT itself between a married couple would be immoral in and of itself, but homosexual sex is never moral.

 

[contemplative]

GordonBOPS:

I’m needing some direction on this issue: The Church obviously doesn’t teach it is immoral for a post-monopause woman to have sex with her spouse - even though there is no possible procreative end. What is the rationale?

Someone threw this argument at me once…He wondered why a post menopausal woman and an old man should be allowed to get married.

I said that it is quite likely that this elderly couple already have children, grandchildren and maybe even greatgrandchildren. In this case they are still life giving as parents and grandparents in the form God intended.

 

[setter]

vluvski:

While your conclusion is correction, your logic is flawed. There is nothing about the other partner’s “procreative (=reproductive) potential” that makes the sex act legitimate within marriage. You could have a couple where both the husband and the wife were infertile for any reason, and sex between them could still be considered “procreative” though not reproductive.

The act of sex, absent of any means against conception, is inherently procreative because God created it to be in favor of creation. Our priest explained that being procreative is not just limited to reproduction but also being fruitful in other ways. The unitive aspect of sex within marriage brings about this fruitfulness, thus fulfilling the procreative aspect as long as no means has been used to frustrate it.

Homo"sex"ual “sex” can never, ever be procreative, nor can it be unitive in the sacramental sense though these poor individuals may very well experience a closeness because of their actions.

Thank you for that clarification and correction. You are quite right that the “act of sex” – the reproductive organs and procreative potential (the procreative good) – is of its very nature always good and inherently procreative, as is the positive language of the body in married conjugal love.

 

[mercygate]

GordonBOPS:

OK, And I’m not defending… I’m just playing “devil’s” advocate. OK, so, we say that the intent of NOT concieving IS a problem - homosexual acts may not actually include an intent against conception. So, what logically cuts against this? Anyone? Again, i know that God created them Male and Female…etc…

Catholic sexual ethics go back to natural law: Tab A goes into slot A. Tab A does not go into Tab A.

Homosexual acts are inherently, BY THEIR NATURE, incapable either of procreation or of enhancing the unity between a man and a woman who are married until death and open to life.

 

[cynic]

What about during pregnancy? The act is inherently sterile once conception has already taken place. There’s no ‘chance of a miracle’ like there could be for old people or an infertile couple. There is no procreative potential there at all. The procreative purpose had already been fulfilled. How do Catholics reconcile this? Sex for unity alone sounds a lot like sex for intimacy/pleasure, which if I’m not mistaken, is not regarded very favourably (ie pleasure/initimacy can never be the goal, but it is the goal, since it’s all that left at that stage).

 

[vluvski]

contemplative:

Someone threw this argument at me once…He wondered why a post menopausal woman and an old man should be allowed to get married.

I said that it is quite likely that this elderly couple already have children, grandchildren and maybe even greatgrandchildren. In this case they are still life giving as parents and grandparents in the form God intended.

This miss the mark a little as well, because it implies that a couple desiring marriage who has never been married or had children and who are past childbearing age are not entitled to a valid marriage. This is not the case.

A more appropriate argument is that their marriage can be life-giving without being reproductive. A marital vocation and call to holiness within this union is independent of a couple’s ability to reproduce.

The problem is that most people confuse “procreative” with “reproductive.”

 

[mercygate]

cynic:

What about during pregnancy? The act is inherently sterile once conception has already taken place. There’s no ‘chance of a miracle’ like there could be for old people or an infertile couple. There is no procreative potential there at all. The procreative purpose had already been fulfilled. How do Catholics reconcile this? Sex for unity alone sounds a lot like sex for intimacy/pleasure, which if I’m not mistaken, is not regarded very favourably (ie pleasure/initimacy can never be the goal, but it is the goal, since it’s all that left at that stage).

The couple is doing nothing to prevent pregnancy. And there have been “miracles” – I witnessed one a couple of decades ago.

We “reconcile” the idea of a couple having intercourse during pregnancy on the grounds that God is a wanton hedonist! The unitive function of the act is a desirable thing. After all, a non-contracepting couple could have daily intercourse about 300 times for every time their union produces a child.

 

[dulcissima]

cynic:

What about during pregnancy? The act is inherently sterile once conception has already taken place. There’s no ‘chance of a miracle’ like there could be for old people or an infertile couple. There is no procreative potential there at all. The procreative purpose had already been fulfilled. How do Catholics reconcile this? Sex for unity alone sounds a lot like sex for intimacy/pleasure, which if I’m not mistaken, is not regarded very favourably (ie pleasure/initimacy can never be the goal, but it is the goal, since it’s all that left at that stage).

When a husband and wife who are expecting a child engage in sexual relations, it is a celebration and reenactment of that life giving act. The same is true for couples who are past the child bearing years.