Sexuality w/in Marriage

[Ruthie]

“These elderly marrieds can adopt children…”

Not so. Every adoption agency has an age limit. I’m too old, and I’m 53.

I forget who posted the silly thought that using a condom is OK, since God can make miracles.

There’s a little think called intent here.

I’m past menopause. I know that it is highly unlikely for our marital act to result in a pregnancy. But God could do for me what He did for Sarah. And I’m open to that. He can also allow a woman to get pregnant during the infertile part of her cycle.

Using a condom, however, is a deliberate act which intends to deny to God the ability to create a child.

As for challenging God to make a child in spite of a condom, have you never read Matt 4:7 (NAB)?

Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’ "[10]

 

[Daniel_Kane]

A few points -

The married couple and only the married couple are ministers of the sexual act. The homosexual commentary is irrelevant even as an example as it is a disordered use of sexuality (as is pre and extra marital sex).

That being said, the married couple, as ministers of the act may have or not have a sexual union at any time, for any reason. They and they alone, are the arbiters of the act. Their reasons may be good or sinful and only the couple can answer for their reason why or why not they united sexually.

The first purpose of the sexual union is the procreation and education of children. The second is the “mutual consolation of the spouses” and related, the third is a remedy for concupiscence. While there is a natural hierarchy to the purposes, not all “purposes” are likely or possible at every day or at every stage of life. None the less the married couple may engage or not engage in the marital act at any time.

The first purpose is the procreation and education of children. The continued martial embrace during pregnancy or following NFP to space pregnancy supports the procreation and education of children. The resources of any married couple are limited. At the same time, mutual consolation (love) and remedy of concupiscence are similarly valid reasons.

While the married couple may enjoy the martial embrace at any time they deem worthy, they may not enjoy it any way. Sodomy and acts that distort the one flesh union (condoms and other barriers) are always and in every case sinful. Similarly, are act that distort the natural function of the male or female (surgery or contraceptives) are similarly wrong because in a real sense, you are not making a total gift of self, you are deliberately holding your fertility (and by extension God’s creative power) out of the martial embrace. This is in every case, for any reason a sin and a abuse of human intellect against the intellect of God, disrupting God’s design for humans.

At the same time, it is great that God gave us an intellect to cure disease. At times, couples are faced with an illness or injury whose cure or treatment injures or destroys the reproductive capacity of the couple. This of course, is sad but we should be thankful that such treatments exist because often apart from this treatment death or serious injury results.

So in the case of couples who have suffered injury or disease to the reproductive tract, they are free like all couples to enjoy the marital embrace at any time because it still provides for the procreation and education of children (via family stability and the example of marital love), still consoles and remain as a remedy for concupiscence.

Similarly so, those who by the design of God are beyond their reproductive years. They, like all of the married have similar right.

The form of the martial embrace is the same and must always be the same, the total gift of self. At one time or another the material intention of embrace may vary by temporary or permanent circumstance. But at all times, as long as the purposes of marriage are upheld the embrace is always unitative and procreative.

 

[bear06]

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?

We cannot go against God’s natural law as he designed it. He designed our bodies to at times be infertile, go through menopause, etc. He did not design us to thwart His natural law via unnatural means.

 

[vluvski]

It is not about the intent!

This is precisely why so many people become confused regarding the difference between calculated periodic abstinence with NFP and condoms or ABC. In both, the intent is to avoid pregnancy.

The issue is how you go about exercising this intent. If the sex act includes a deliberate action that thwarts the possibility of a natural pregnancy, then it is a contracepted, non-procreative act.

I’m borrowing/modifying this analogy from Christopher West. You wouldn’t call someone up, say “Hey, tonight would be a terrible night for you to come over to dinner, but if you really want to come over, we’ll welcome you.” (contracepted/condom sex claiming that God will perform a miracle if He really wants you to have a child) You simply wouldn’t call them up in the first place (don’t have sex at that time).

Or maybe you would call and say, “Hey, was just thinking about you today, we’d really like to have you over to dinner sometime.” The prospective guest understands they are welcome any time, but recognizes that some times may be better for you than others. You (the caller) would also understand that the guest just might take you up on the invitation at an inconvenient time. (sex during infertile times)

Then there are times when you do want company. You issue a specific invitation, and sometimes they accept and other times they decline. (deliberately timing sex to conceive.)

By the way, nice post Daniel Kane.

 

[setter]

cynic:

your not allowed pleasure and/or emotional gratification from the act are not to be sought ins isolation! that’s 90% of the argument made against contaception.

Is your point that the marital act is one ball of wax and to attempt to slice and dice at the whole renders whatever sliced/“isolated” proportion of the act illicit? If so, then I would agree. (excuse my simple analogy)

 

[Dubervilles]

So pretty much the only way to 100% completely assure that my husband and I will not have a child is to be abstinent our entire marriage–isn’t that also sinful?

 

[setter]

Dubervilles:

So pretty much the only way to 100% completely assure that my husband and I will not have a child is to be abstinent our entire marriage–isn’t that also sinful?

Marital continence (abstinence) is not inherently sinful. One would want to consult with a priest if one chooses to abstain from marital relations without a serious reason for a prolonged period of time.

 

[antonius]

setter:

Marital continence (abstinence) is not inherently sinful. One would want to consult with a priest if one chooses to abstain from marital relations without a serious reason for a prolonged period of time.

I don’t think it is moral for “one” to choose marital abstinence unilaterally – unless perhaps you are referring to the “one flesh” that both spouses have become.

 

[setter]

antonius:

I don’t think it is moral for “one” to choose marital abstinence unilaterally – unless perhaps you are referring to the “one flesh” that both spouses have become.

The latter as in the one entity of holy matrimony.

 

[bear06]

antonius:

I don’t think it is moral for “one” to choose marital abstinence unilaterally – unless perhaps you are referring to the “one flesh” that both spouses have become.

St. Therese’s parents lived “as brother and sister” for an extended period of time. They did so, however, with permission and not without their spiritual advisor.