Thoughts on contraception

[newbetx]

So what do you do when a married Catholic couple has children, one person wants more children, the other doesn’t, and one has no problem with ABC and the other does?

I agree that ABC comes between a married couple except in cases where neither individual wants further children. In that case, sterilization should be an acceptable choice.

Oh, and I am happy to practice NFP but DH has said that he will not make love unless he uses ABC. So I have the choice of either being abstinent with my husband of 10 years or submitting to something that I feel pulls us away from God’s teachings.

His argument is that Jesus and the Bible never said a thing about contraception.

Yes, this is a problem. If he’s not willing to talk to the priest about it, maybe you can get him to read “Theology of the Body for Beginners.” This will address his statement. I suggest you read it first, or together, so that you both can have a good understanding of the teachings.

His sin is not your sin. Please understand that. TOB will explain that. But if you want to change his mind, you will need prayer and some outside help. Others have been in your unfortunate situation and have found some very creative ways to convert their husbands. Good luck!

 

[newbetx]

P.S.: Please don’t reply within the quote blocks. That makes it difficult to quote your posts because text within quote blocks is automatically excluded from the “quote post” feature. (E.g., when I quoted your post, the only thing that showed up in my text window was “quote=newbetx;4867723]” – nothing else.)

OK. I’ll try to do it the hard way. I have to do a lot of cut and paste when we cover multiple subjects or thoughts in the same post. It’s funny, the PM application keeps all the nesting which makes it easier to keep what you want and delete what is not necessary but I imagine it would be difficult to follow all that on thread. How’s this?

Okay, couple of things:

1. If sex is about intent, and HV says that the intent of couples using NFP is the same as couples using ABC, then what makes the NFP couple right and the ABC couple wrong?

HV is a document to address something directly. It’s not the complete teaching. The teaching is in TOB. Again, HV addresses a few very important trees, but is not a complete teaching document about the role of sex in a relationship.

Okay, couple of things:

1. Granted, sex is designed to unify the couple, but the ultimate expression of sexual unity is a child. When an NFP couple decides to abstain to avoid having a child, isn’t God’s design already being thwarted by the NFP couple inwardly if not outwardly?

–Mike

Let me reword and maybe that will highlight the difference.
Granted, sex is designed to unify the couple, but the ultimate expression of Love is chosing to raise a child.

And the rest of the question:
When an NFP couple decides to abstain to avoid having a child, isn’t God’s design already being thwarted by the NFP couple inwardly if not outwardly?

Not necessarily. The CCC is very clear that children are blessings but also we as the parents have the responsibility to prudently raise them and provide for the family. In otherwords, we are not required to have absolutely every baby physically possible. We do have to insure adequate consideration to the health of the mother and the well being of the family in general. That is why it is different for every couple. Each has it’s own limitations from a physical, emotional and financial perspective.

Does that make sense? It’s not an “all or nothing” proposition. God DOES provide us a method for limitiing our children. It’s called “controlling ourselves.” and we, today, thankfully have the knowledge to use NFP effectively.

The INTENT again is not to “just avoid conception” and certainly not for selfish reasons. The couple is expected to be in communications with God for direction. One may say “yes” and the other “no.” At that point, the answer is “No.” BOTH have to take responsibility for the action, together.

There was a thread like "Why is DH’s ‘no’ of more value than my “yes?”

Hope that clears things up.

 

[newbetx]

Let’s not get the issues confused here. Premarital sex is wrong regardless of whether or not ABC is used because it’s sex outside of marriage. We’re just focusing on whether or not ABC is acceptable for sex in marriage.

Having children isn’t the only reason to get married, but according to Church teaching it is one of the reasons – my limited understanding is that one of the couple’s goals in getting married should be to raise one or more children, even though those children may not be their biological children.

–Mike

Nice concise post. I wish I was concise

Let me add:

I am so ashamed to say that I have been so ignorant of the details of my faith.

I always thought I was a good catholic because I love God with all of my heart. I thought that that was all that mattered.

You may have being sarcastic, but I can relate very well. I AM not too ashamed to say that I was very ignorant of my faith. Now I’m only ignorant. Some improvement but more to come if I’m blessed with paying attention to the subjects here on CAF.

I want to say, the written word lacks much of what is required for good communications. Some say written words are only 10% of what is wanting to communicate. So while we may seem to be judgmental, many of us are not trying to judge. (I’ll admit, there are some here that just like to rag on others. For them, I appologize.) The goal of CAF is to answer questions on Catholic theology with compasion and charity. Again, that is the goal. We here are human and we fall short sometimes.

 

[mpartyka]

How’s this?

Works great. Thanks!

Let me reword and maybe that will highlight the difference.
Granted, sex is designed to unify the couple, but the ultimate expression of Love is chosing to raise a child.

Aren’t you now separating the unitive from the procreative?

…we are not required to have absolutely every baby physically possible.

I know that, but whenever a couple says, “We want to have sex, but we’re not going to have sex today because our having sex would likely cause us to have a baby,” that couple has basically stated that their intent in having sex is not procreative, even if the act itself externally conforms to procreative standards.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

We can choose to stay inside, or wear sunglasses or a hat and go outside.

Yes, and I liken NFP to “choosing to stay inside” and ABC to “wearing sunglasses or a hat and going outside.”

Fertility is healthy…Please show me where in Scripture that fertility is considered a diseased state.

Oops. I meant only to say that “natural infertility” was looked upon as an infirmity by women in Scripture. Plus, I was interpreting “natural infertility” as “barrenness”, which probably isn’t what you meant.

“The primary purpose of the marital act is procreation.”

Right. And the marital act will either succeed or fail in its primary purpose depending on a number of factors.

Yes, we have a disconnect. Your standard list is inaccurate. For one, you personally, haven’t the slightest clue why married couples have sex. Nor should you know. It isn’t any of your business.

Don’t blame me if you choose to chicken out rather than offer a plain response to my erroneous list. If I’m wrong about why married people have sex, correct me.

We as humans are to engage in activities for the purpose of the activity and then enjoy the pleasure that results.

What that says, though, is that to initiate sex your intent must be to have a baby (because that’s the activity’s designated primary purpose), right? Or would you say you can be intent on a different purpose other than the primary purpose?

–Mike

 

[LittleDeb]

Mike,

I don’t know how many different ways I have to say this for you. When a couple engages in sex they must intend to be procreative…“ordered towards life.” Let me give an example that might help you, or it might confuse things more.

They original premise of your thread seemed to be that basically a couple who is already expecting a baby has no business having sex. You said because that is lust. Since “reproduction” is impossible, your personal belief was that sex while pregnant was objectively about lust. I totally, 100% disagree with that, and here is why that will hopefully answer your original concern.

If a woman is already pregnant, then what they are doing in the marital act is “ordered toward creation” or “ordered towards the natural end.” See the way it works is, when there is one bun in the oven, another will not start cooking.

That is how the design works. That is how creation is setup. Sex is not detrimental to the baby in utero. So the act is still “ordered toward creation.” It does nothing to thwart what has already been created. It does nothing to break the design.

Contraception breaks the design. Period. We keep trying to find analogies to help you understand that and you just seem to want to go off on your many tangents. You are arguing conflicting points in this thread. In one post you say that all sex that cannot result in a baby is objectively lust. In another post you argue that contraception should be allowed in marriage. Which one is it?? Are you arguing for lust, or are you arguing for contraception? Contraception breaks the design. Before 1930 **ALL **Christian churches held that belief. Scripture didn’t change, the writings of the ECFs didn’t change. Yet, your argument seems to hinge on a “deeper understanding of biology.” Really? That’s all you’ve got?

When I said that the reasons a couple engages in sex is none of your business, is because it isn’t. The only real answer is, “because they had the desire and they acted on it.”

The primary purpose of the marital act is procreation. It is not that hard to understand. The purpose of the act is ordered towards creation. That makes it a pretty big thing. It means it is not something we engage in lightly, like chewing gum or reading the funny pages. Those are things most people do “for pleasure” (even though that is not the purpose, pleasure is the result even in those cases.)

I wish I understood your purpose on this topic. You seem to be going in circles.

 

[mpartyka]

When a couple engages in sex they must intend to be procreative…“ordered towards life.”

You’re still not making sense. Procreative isn’t just “ordered towards life” – it’s “ordered towards the creation of life”. It seems like you’re trying to take the “creation” out of “procreation” and still have it be “procreative” in some sense. (Again, I’m not saying that a procreative act has to succeed in creating life to be procreative.) So if you’re going to talk about “procreative intent,” you have to include somewhere in the meaning of that term the intent to create life.

Question: Do you agree with the statement in Humanae Vitae that the couple who uses NFP and the couple who uses ABC share the same intent (i.e., to make as certain as possible that children do not result from sex)?

They original premise of your thread seemed to be that basically a couple who is already expecting a baby has no business having sex. You said because that is lust.

Actually, that was one of the Church Fathers who said that. (I don’t have my references available at the moment, or I’d look it up.)

Contraception breaks the design. Period.

I understand that contraception interferes with the mechanics of the marital act. Mechanics is a separate issue from intent.

Intent: “What do you mean to accomplish or keep from happening?”
Mechanics: “How do you mean to carry out your intent?”

When I said that the reasons a couple engages in sex is none of your business, is because it isn’t. The only real answer is, “because they had the desire and they acted on it.”

The desire for what? If it wasn’t a child they were desiring, what were they desiring? What was the objective? What was the goal? If it wasn’t a child, and it wasn’t pleasure, what was it?

–Mike

 

[newbetx]

I know that, but whenever a couple says, “We want to have sex, but we’re not going to have sex today because our having sex would likely cause us to have a baby,” that couple has basically stated that their intent in having sex is not procreative, even if the act itself externally conforms to procreative standards.

–Mike

Sorry. Rushed for time. Will get back to the first half later…

The above makes no sense. How can a couple intend NOT to have sex and then have intent to have sex at the same time?

And I see in a later post that you have rejected Little Deb’s (church’s) definition of procreative. We must agree on a standard set of definitions if we are to communicate.

 

[mpartyka]

LittleDeb,

When I said that the reasons a couple

engages in sex is none of your business, is because it isn’t. The only real answer is, “because they had the desire and they acted on it.”
The desire for what? If it wasn’t a child they were desiring, what were they desiring? What was the objective? What was the goal? If it wasn’t a child, and it wasn’t pleasure, what was it?

I had a little epiphany this morning that might have answered my question. You’re talking about a desire for the act itself, aren’t you?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

The above makes no sense. How can a couple intend NOT to have sex and then have intent to have sex at the same time?

And I see in a later post that you have rejected Little Deb’s (church’s) definition of procreative. We must agree on a standard set of definitions if we are to communicate.

I think I realize what the disconnect is now.

What does “have sex” mean, in your (or the Church’s) vocabulary? Put another way, what actions absolutely must occur for a couple to accurately say, “We had sex”?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

The original premise of your thread seemed to be that basically a couple who is already expecting a baby has no business having sex. You said because that is lust.

Actually, that was one of the Church Fathers who said that. (I don’t have my references available at the moment, or I’d look it up.)

Found it.

There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. – St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage 5

–Mike

 

[newbetx]

I think I realize what the disconnect is now.

What does “have sex” mean, in your (or the Church’s) vocabulary? Put another way, what actions absolutely must occur for a couple to accurately say, “We had sex”?

–Mike

We use the terms intercourse and marital embrace. I use this sometimes in order to not be so graphic: “Tab P in slot V” intending for the Male to “finish” inside female. I’ll have to see if the church has something more “official.” “Sex,” in our culture, has been used to refer to an action when typically, it was meant to refer to one’s gender.

 

[mpartyka]

Okay, I’m starting to get a clearer picture here. What’s been confusing is the constant mixing of two entirely separate issues: intent and mechanics. I would classify each of these issues into two categories: procreative and non-procreative. The definitions of these categories would be as follows:

I1) Procreative intent – To produce a child IS one of the reasons the couple is initiating sex.
I2) Non-procreative intent – To produce a child IS NOT one of the reasons the couple is initiating sex.

M1) Procreative mechanics – NO action has been or will be taken to prevent sperm from reaching an egg during the sex act.
M2) Non-procreative mechanics – SOME action has been or will be taken to prevent sperm from reaching an egg during the sex act.

Now, let’s look at the various combinations of intent and mechanics:

I1 & M1 – This is the couple who are trying to have a baby.
I1 & M2 –
I2 & M1 – This is the couple who uses NFP to prevent pregnancy.
I2 & M2 – This is the couple who uses ABC to prevent pregnancy.

Are we on the same page so far?

–Mike

 

[portarica]

Okay, I’m starting to get a clearer picture here. What’s been confusing is the constant mixing of two entirely separate issues: intent and mechanics. I would classify each of these issues into two categories: procreative and non-procreative. The definitions of these categories would be as follows:

I1) Procreative intent – To produce a child IS one of the reasons the couple is initiating sex.
I2) Non-procreative intent – To produce a child IS NOT one of the reasons the couple is initiating sex.

M1) Procreative mechanics – NO action has been or will be taken to prevent sperm from reaching an egg during the sex act.
M2) Non-procreative mechanics – SOME action has been or will be taken to prevent sperm from reaching an egg during the sex act.

Now, let’s look at the various combinations of intent and mechanics:

I1 & M1 – This is the couple who are trying to have a baby.
I1 & M2 –
I2 & M1 – This is the couple who uses NFP to prevent pregnancy.
I2 & M2 – This is the couple who uses ABC to prevent pregnancy.

Are we on the same page so far?

–Mike

It is all about intent. With the teachings of Jesus as the guide we know it is all about truth.

NFP is contraception because the intent is to lessen the frequency of births after intercourse.

Otherwise there is no need for NFP, it is just a way of increasing the odds that the woman won’t get pregnent.

ABC has the same intent .

Peace

 

[LittleDeb]

Okay, I’m starting to get a clearer picture here. What’s been confusing is the constant mixing of two entirely separate issues: intent and mechanics. I would classify each of these issues into two categories: procreative and non-procreative. The definitions of these categories would be as follows:

I1) Procreative intent – To produce a child IS one of the reasons the couple is initiating sex.
I2) Non-procreative intent – To produce a child IS NOT one of the reasons the couple is initiating sex.

M1) Procreative mechanics – NO action has been or will be taken to prevent sperm from reaching an egg during the sex act.
M2) Non-procreative mechanics – SOME action has been or will be taken to prevent sperm from reaching an egg during the sex act.

Now, let’s look at the various combinations of intent and mechanics:

I1 & M1 – This is the couple who are trying to have a baby.
I1 & M2 –
I2 & M1 – This is the couple who uses NFP to prevent pregnancy.
I2 & M2 – This is the couple who uses ABC to prevent pregnancy.

Are we on the same page so far?

–Mike

You are getting warmer here. If you would change the first part to “reproductive” and “non-reproductive,” I might agree with you.

One point might be confusing the situation further for you. The term “using NFP” is very misleading. Church documents refer more to “making exclusive *use *of the infertile phases.”

The phrase you reference is commonly used, but it is not entirely accurate. The couple really isn’t “using anything” except the infertile phase which the non-contracepting, non-NFP couples “use” too.

What NFP couples aren’t “using” is the fertile phase.

The only thing that has been debated down through the years is if the couple must be trying to make a baby every time they have sex. As I said, because of the Puritan and Victorian eras (both are Anglican in thought) people grabbed the pendulum and swung hard back and forth in thought. They found they were at an impasse. Either every single act must be intending to make a baby, or there was no problem with monkeying around with the act itself.

Catholic teaching is not extreme on either count. She says the act must remain un-frustrated. The act must be what it is designed to be, procreative, whether fertile or infertile.

I am aware that some ECFs held the personal opinion that an act must be intending to make a baby to be a licit act. That remains their personal opinion. One huge part of Church teaching is that it is She, and She alone, who determines Her doctrine. As was pointed out waaaaaaay back in this thread, there was a time when general opinion was toward Arianism. Why isn’t that current teaching? Because that was their personal, and incorrect, opinion.

So yes, there is a difference between intent and mechanics. The Church uses the terms intent and means when describing all of these situations. Many ABC couples are not wrong in their intent, just their means. It might not be the right time for them to have another baby. But changing the act of marriage doesn’t, in fact, help them in their marriage.

Immorality is wrong because of what it does in our relationships, with God and with each other. The Church didn’t just jump in and say, “contraception is wrong!” just so She can nose into people’s lives. It is wrong because it says no to God’s design and no to a complete self giving of spouses.

 

[JDaniel]

You are getting warmer here. If you would change the first part to “reproductive” and “non-reproductive,” I might agree with you.

One point might be confusing the situation further for you. The term “using NFP” is very misleading. Church documents refer more to “making exclusive *use *of the infertile phases.”

The phrase you reference is commonly used, but it is not entirely accurate. The couple really isn’t “using anything” except the infertile phase which the non-contracepting, non-NFP couples “use” too.

What NFP couples aren’t “using” is the fertile phase.

The only thing that has been debated down through the years is if the couple must be trying to make a baby every time they have sex. As I said, because of the Puritan and Victorian eras (both are Anglican in thought) people grabbed the pendulum and swung hard back and forth in thought. They found they were at an impasse. Either every single act must be intending to make a baby, or there was no problem with monkeying around with the act itself.

Catholic teaching is not extreme on either count. She says the act must remain un-frustrated. The act must be what it is designed to be, procreative, whether fertile or infertile.

I am aware that some ECFs held the personal opinion that an act must be intending to make a baby to be a licit act. That remains their personal opinion. One huge part of Church teaching is that it is She, and She alone, who determines Her doctrine. As was pointed out waaaaaaay back in this thread, there was a time when general opinion was toward Arianism. Why isn’t that current teaching? Because that was their personal, and incorrect, opinion.

So yes, there is a difference between intent and mechanics. The Church uses the terms intent and means when describing all of these situations. Many ABC couples are not wrong in their intent, just their means. It might not be the right time for them to have another baby. But changing the act of marriage doesn’t, in fact, help them in their marriage.

Immorality is wrong because of what it does in our relationships, with God and with each other. The Church didn’t just jump in and say, “contraception is wrong!” just so She can nose into people’s lives. It is wrong because it says no to God’s design and no to a complete self giving of spouses.

Question: Would an older couple, perhaps not past child-bearing age, but, both having had tubes tied, or cut, as the case may be, and who were married, be permitted to engage in the marital act?

Then, let’s add two scenario modifications: Scenario #1, both know that there is no possibility of pregnancy; and, Scenario #2, both know that there might be a chance, however minute, of a pregnancy.

jd

 

[newbetx]

Question: Would an older couple, perhaps not past child-bearing age, but, both having had tubes tied, or cut, as the case may be, and who were married, be permitted to engage in the marital act?

Then, let’s add two scenario modifications: Scenario #1, both know that there is no possibility of pregnancy; and, Scenario #2, both know that there might be a chance, however minute, of a pregnancy.

jd

I know of no such liimitation by the Church to say a married couple may not have marital relations with each other. It matters not their state of fertility. Do you have something specific you base this question upon?

Now, are you asking if it might be a sin? That can take on a very different conversation based on many factors especially the state of confession each has or has not attained.

 

[mpartyka]

As I said, because of the Puritan and Victorian eras (both are Anglican in thought) people grabbed the pendulum and swung hard back and forth in thought. They found they were at an impasse. Either every single act must be intending to make a baby, or there was no problem with monkeying around with the act itself. Catholic teaching is not extreme on either count. She says the act must remain un-frustrated. The act must be what it is designed to be, procreative, whether fertile or infertile.

I am aware that some ECFs held the personal opinion that an act must be intending to make a baby to be a licit act. That remains their personal opinion. One huge part of Church teaching is that it is She, and She alone, who determines Her doctrine. As was pointed out waaaaaaay back in this thread, there was a time when general opinion was toward Arianism. Why isn’t that current teaching? Because that was their personal, and incorrect, opinion.

See? This is the exact same garbage I get every time. “That’s just personal opinion.” It doesn’t matter that every ECF who spoke on the subject said the same thing. “That’s just personal opinion.” Well, how do you know “that’s just personal opinion”? You don’t have anything from those eras saying, “This is what the Church definitively teaches as of A.D. 150, or 250, or 450, etc.” All you have to go on is (1) what the ECFs themselves taught explicitly and (2) what the Catholic Church today teaches explicitly, and beyond all sense and reason you’re siding with the known teachings of today over the known teachings of yesterday!

I’m now going to try to spell out my thoughts as clearly as I can.

Here is the consistent teaching of the ECFs:

I1 & M1 – This is the couple who are trying to have a baby – This couple is blameless.
I2 & M1 – This is the couple who uses NFP to prevent pregnancy – This couple is in venial sin, but the sin is excused by reason of the sacrament of marriage.
I2 & M2 – This is the couple who uses ABC to prevent pregnancy – This couple is in mortal sin.

Here is the present-day teaching of the Catholic Church:

I1 & M1 – This is the couple who are trying to have a baby – This couple is blameless.
I2 & M1 – This is the couple who uses NFP to prevent pregnancy – This couple is blameless.
I2 & M2 – This is the couple who uses ABC to prevent pregnancy – This couple is in mortal sin.

The only difference in teaching between then and now is that it is no longer considered venial sin to engage in marital relations solely for reasons other than to get pregnant, but this change is significant. Why? Because the change has created a cognitive dissonance in most Catholics that did not exist in the days when the views of the ECFs still held sway.

Consider how ridiculous it sounds to hear someone say, “It’s okay to covet, so long as you don’t steal”? How about, “It’s okay to want somebody dead, so long as you don’t actually kill him”? How about, “It’s okay to lust, so long as you don’t fornicate”? Jesus Himself rejected such nonsensical prevarications. Yet the Catholic Church today says, “It’s okay to desire sex without offspring, so long as you don’t use artificial contraception.”

The ECFs, on the other hand, brooked no such nonsense. They taught, “It is bad to covet; it is worse to steal. It is bad to desire someone dead; it is worse to murder him. It is bad to lust; it is worse to fornicate.” And, in total consistency, they taught, “It is bad to desire sex without offspring; it is worse to use artificial contraception.”

What the Orthodox and the Protestants have done in permitting artificial contraception is nothing more than their being logically consistent in their modern view of sex within marriage. If you’re going to tell married couples that it’s okay to desire sex for whatever benefits may exist apart from offspring, then it must also be okay for couples to take whatever steps they find necessary to secure for themselves sex without offspring. The Orthodox and Protestants are not, as you said, “starting from the child and working backwards.” Rather, they are starting from their teaching concerning sex in marriage and are extending it toward its logical conclusions!

But what is the Catholic Church doing? It’s starting with the same teachings about sex in marriage, but it’s not logically extending them outward into the actions of the married couple. It’s telling them, “It’s okay to want sex without offspring. You should want it,” but then it backhands them and says, “But you can’t have it!” There is a major inconsistency here, and the reason that so many Catholics ignore the Church’s authority concerning birth control is that this inconsistency is so plain to see!

So what can the Church do to return consistency to its teaching? It has two options: Allow ABC to married couples, so that its teaching concerning contraception becomes consistent with its teaching regarding sex in marriage, or return its teaching regarding sex in marriage to the teaching of the Fathers (i.e., that the only truly legitimate reasons for sex in marriage are the begetting of children and the avoidance of fornication).

The former road, I would argue, is impossible because of all the papal statements made against ABC. What about the latter road, though? Can the Church return to the mind of the Fathers and teach about sex as they saw it? Or is the Church equally constrained to cast a positive light on sex and continue its uneasy compromise with the world?

–Mike

 

[JDaniel]

I know of no such liimitation by the Church to say a married couple may not have marital relations with each other. It matters not their state of fertility. Do you have something specific you base this question upon?

Now, are you asking if it might be a sin? That can take on a very different conversation based on many factors especially the state of confession each has or has not attained.

Yes. I know two people, not presently married, who want to get married. Both are Catholic and both have been to confession to receive absolution for the tubals. I do not want to give them bad advice. I have suggested that they see their priest, but, they know that I participate in the forum and one wanted me to ask the question here.

1.) They are both currently not married.
2.) They both have older children; they are empty-nesters.
3.) They both had sterilization surgeries for contraceptive purposes.
4.) They are both currently in good stead with the Church.
5.) They want to get married.
6.) They have indicated that they are not having sex outside of marriage, despite cohabiting.
7.) Both want sex after marriage.
8.) I don’t think there could possibly be a pregnancy, but, I’m not in a position to make that judgment.

jd

 

[newbetx]

Yes. I know two people, not presently married, who want to get married. Both are Catholic and both have been to confession to receive absolution for the tubals. I do not want to give them bad advice. I have suggested that they see their priest, but, they know that I participate in the forum and one wanted me to ask the question here.

1.) They are both currently not married.
2.) They both have older children; they are empty-nesters.
3.) They both had sterilization surgeries for contraceptive purposes.
4.) They are both currently in good stead with the Church.
5.) They want to get married.
6.) They have indicated that they are not having sex outside of marriage, despite cohabiting.
7.) Both want sex after marriage.
8.) I don’t think there could possibly be a pregnancy, but, I’m not in a position to make that judgment.

jd

#4 is in confilct with number 6. The cohabitation part. This might get excused. Depending on the priest, he may not allow confession until one moves out. I’ve heard of this before. Yes, they definately need to see the priest and prepare for the sacrament. The key is when they marry, the make a promise that they will accept children if they are blest with them. If the tubal confession was not sincere, then saying yes would be a lie. But we must give benefit of doubt here and assume the best. There is always a possiblity no matter how small. Not sure the reason to get married if they don’t want more kids but there is nothing against it post menopause. In their case, I hope they plan on doing some service for children and consider adoption. That “Yes” is a serious statement and needs to be fully considered by the couple prior to marriage.

It would be difficult for anyone to assume that two sterilized people (and apparently many people must know this since you do) living together are not having sex already. The preist may find it difficult, too.

The forum is NOT official Church advice. Most of us here are not priests and we do not know ALL that lay behind this. If your friends sent you here instead of going themselves to authority, then they must be afaid of something or being told something. If it is as you said, “they might be told not to have sex until menopause.”… no, that should not happen. However, due to other circumstances, their current situation may be put to the test.

I do find it odd that they claim to be chaste while living together but worry they won’t be able to have sex once they are married. But false understanding of the Catholic faith abound beyond what I could have imagined. So tell them that they need to see the priest and make the sacrafices necessary to marry in the Church. It will be well worth it.

Additionally, I would recommend the couple get (or you could get it for them) a copy of Christopher West’s The Good News About Sex and Marriage. (Or Popcak’s “Holy Sex!”) It will do much to explain the “rules” that apparently they don’t quite understand and set them off in the right direction for their upcomming marriage. TGNAS&M addresses each of the issues you bring up in a Church approved way.

Bless you for helping them and bless them for heading in the right direction.