Why is sex "allowed" during a woman's infertile days?

[wanner47]

In my RCIA class we had a session on family planning the Catholic way. i was told by the instructor that the reason why contraception was bad was b/c of what other people on here said, that it separated the two purposes of sex. He also said that a marriage separating these two things would suffer all these negative things b/c it wasn’t what God intended. I then asked him your same question. What about infertile people? And when I said unfertile, I meant young unfertile people not just menopause. They aren’t worried about procreation and so therefore only using the unitive factor…would their marriage then suffer? He was unable to answer my question.

Yeah…I don’t understand it either

That’s already been answered in this thread. Those who are infertile must still have *procreative *sex even if it isn’t reproductive; i.e., their intercourse must still be open to life even if one or both of them is infertile for some reason.

Why would couples who are infertile want to use ABC anyway?

I recommend reading the article I posted above – Contraception: Why Not? It goes into a LOT of detail about Church teaching regarding these matters.

Bendalina, have you ever read “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West? Or any of JPII’s “Theology of the Body”?

 

[LilyM]

In my RCIA class we had a session on family planning the Catholic way. i was told by the instructor that the reason why contraception was bad was b/c of what other people on here said, that it separated the two purposes of sex. He also said that a marriage separating these two things would suffer all these negative things b/c it wasn’t what God intended. I then asked him your same question. What about infertile people? And when I said unfertile, I meant young unfertile people not just menopause. They aren’t worried about procreation and so therefore only using the unitive factor…would their marriage then suffer? He was unable to answer my question.

Yeah…I don’t understand it either

Clearly God doesn’t restrict sex either for the post-menopausal or the naturally infertile - and in fact performs miracles for, as a couple of examples, Sarah, Rachel, the mothers of Samuel and Samson, and Elizabeth, all of whom were thought to be barren or went through periods of barrenness. So yes, sex for the naturally infertile and post-menopausal is very definitely part of His plan.

Again, as has been explained earlier, sex must be ‘ordered toward life’, in other words in keeping with God’s plan for it, which 'doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘positively, certainly, 110% able to produce life’

 

[Bruised_Reed]

You misread the opening question. It was an illustration of my question about the inconsistency of the CC teaching. I wanted to know how the CC teaches sex MUST be open to procreation at all times as well as being a unitive act, and that with only the unitive intention it’s not ok, except after menopause.

Because they are not intending to experience only the unitive aspect; that’s just how women’s bodies are after a certain age. We can’t help that. *ETA in responce to Carolinagirl: Or if a young couple is infertile because of injury or illness. They can’t help that. It’s not their intent to avoid pregnancy. *Sex is kind of important in a marriage.

Also, being ordered toward life doesn’t mean fertile. I think that’s been said several different ways now.

 

[Bendalina]

That’s already been answered in this thread. Those who are infertile must still have *procreative *sex even if it isn’t reproductive; i.e., their intercourse must still be open to life even if one or both of them is infertile for some reason.

Why would couples who are infertile want to use ABC anyway?

I recommend reading the article I posted above – Contraception: Why Not? It goes into a LOT of detail about Church teaching regarding these matters.

Bendalina, have you ever read “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West? Or any of JPII’s “Theology of the Body”?

I’m sorry… how is infertile sex “open to procreation?” How is sex on infertile days more “open to procreation” than ABC sex? THAT’S THE RUB! There is no difference, except that sex on NFP infertile days is far less likely to end in pregnancy than ABC sex on any day of the month!

Who said anything about infertile couples using ABC?

Yes, I’ve read the theology of the body. Beautiful. But in places is consistent and disingenuous.

 

[Bendalina]

Because they are not intending to experience only the unitive aspect; that’s just how women’s bodies are after a certain age. We can’t help that. Sex is kind of important in a marriage.

Also, being ordered toward life doesn’t mean fertile. I think that’s been said several different ways now.

Interesting. When I speak of “intention” on this site I am told that doesn’t matter so much. But when it works for your argument, it’s ok.

A far as telling me that being “ordered toward life doesn’t mean infertile”: say it all you like, it is meaningless to me. Repeating it doesn’t help.

The NFP couple choosing not to have the 9th child is no different than the ABC child choosing not to have the 10th child.

If “intention” matters…they are the same.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

I was just saying the way my instructor put it was that if a person is not open to both then their marriage is basically destroyed…and I told him that was ridiculous based on people who are infertile…

And when I say infertile, I’m talking about women who at a young age were required to have a hysterectomy due to medical issues so there is no way they could ever have children ever again…Unless God chose to rebuild a womb from scratch.

I just don’t see the difference between a couple who can’t have children at all, ever, and someone who has birth control…Both couples are unable to combine both factors of sex and therefore

according to my instructor would more than likely end in divorce and he based this argument on the cathecism. maybe he should have just described it differently but I was very frustrated by his lack of ability to explain

Besides on a personal note. Before I became Catholic my doctors put me on birth control for a medical reason…now that i am catholic I’m trying to find an alternative method. The doctors feel something is wrong with my hormone levels and I would prob be infertile anyway. Waiting on the tests to get back.

 

[LilyM]

I’m sorry… how is infertile sex “open to procreation?” How is sex on infertile days more “open to procreation” than ABC sex? THAT’S THE RUB! There is no difference, except that sex on NFP infertile days is far less likely to end in pregnancy than ABC sex on any day of the month!

Who said anything about infertile couples using ABC?

Yes, I’ve read the theology of the body. Beautiful. But in places is consistent and disingenuous.

It’s open to procreation because it’s open to God’s will for the couple whatever that may be - which in cases as I gave in my post above and in many others as well, is actually that the couple conceive, in spite of previous barrenness or menopause!

I think the main concept is that ACTIVELY and ARTIFICIALLY frustrating God’s will in regard to children is the essential wrong behind ABC. This is part of the objection to technologies such as IVF as well - since in part this is also frustrating God’s will for the couple to be infertile.

 

[Bendalina]

It’s open to procreation because it’s open to God’s will for the couple whatever that may be - which in cases as I gave in my post above and in many others as well, is actually that the couple conceive, in spite of previous barrenness or menopause!

I think the main concept is that ACTIVELY and ARTIFICIALLY frustrating God’s will in regard to children is the essential wrong behind ABC. This is part of the objection to technologies such as IVF as well - since in part this is also frustrating God’s will for the couple to be infertile.

If God can overcome menopause He can overcome ABC! The NFP couple is ACTIVELY DOING SOMETHING to avoid pregnancy. The intention is the same. It is merely the method which is different.

 

[Bendalina]

As far as being put on birth control for medical reasons… my doctors recommended the same for me 20 years ago, but I have refused. Therefore, my cycles have been HORRENDOUS and have made NFP nearly a “no sex ever” mandate for my marriage. How is THAT respectful of my husband?

 

[LilyM]

If God can overcome menopause He can overcome ABC! The NFP couple is ACTIVELY DOING SOMETHING to avoid pregnancy. The intention is the same. It is merely the method which is different.

You’ve got it in one. The method, being artificial as well as active, is wrong. Can’t use sinful methods to achieve even a morally permissible end. So there’s nothing ‘mere’ about methods. Methods matter an awful lot to a moral person.

If I choose to rob banks or con people to cover my bills instead of working honestly, it’s the method that is wrong in the first two cases, not the intent to support myself.

If I seek to remarry while my first husband still living, without first seeking an annulment from the Church, then it’s the method that’s wrong, not the intent to marry a second time.

So avoiding pregnancy or spacing out children isn’t wrong in and of itself (although sometimes it can be done for wrong - selfish - reasons).

 

[Daniel_Kane]

At the end of the day, a married couple may engage in the martial act at any time, for any reason provided that that act is integral and complete; meaning that it is an appropriate act for the conception of children.

From the beginning of time, couples knew that the martial act is not 100% fertile (separating us largely from other animals whose sexual encounters are nearly 100% fertile). Using the intellect and free will which makes us in part the image and likeness of the God, couples can discern to act or not act for a variety of reasons.The discernment to have a sexual encounter or not is properly left to the couple.

It matters not if it is Phase I, II, III or menopause. All martial acts need for illicitness is the absence of artificial, couple induced barriers to a one flesh union. Repentant couples who have sought sacramental forgiveness for surgically sterility would be included as well.

Openness to life, not certainty of conception is what is necessary. The “season” that a couple is in has nothing to do with it.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Interesting. When I speak of “intention” on this site I am told that doesn’t matter so much. But when it works for your argument, it’s ok.

A far as telling me that being “ordered toward life doesn’t mean infertile”: say it all you like, it is meaningless to me. Repeating it doesn’t help.

The NFP couple choosing not to have the 9th child is no different than the ABC child choosing not to have the 10th child.

If “intention” matters…they are the same.

My bad for deleting the part about thwarting God’s design for marriage and sex. I had thought you knew. That’s what ABC does and that’s why it’s different.

It occurred to me that what you are suggesting is exactly what anti-Catholics say about the Church’s teacing on contraception; it’s always wrong because it’s a characiture or exaggeration of what the real teaching is. The way you are approaching this seems to be an axaggeration of sorts.

Also, ABC=Artificial Birth Control, yes? It’s not wrong because it’s “artificial”. The church’s teaching is against contraception, an act (barrier, chemical) that is designed to interfer with what is happining during the marital act. Again, I would think you know this so forgive me if I’m telling you what you alreadyknow. It just seems that you don’t right now.

And since no one else has offered this and I think it was asked up thread: abstaining by a couple isn’t wrong because that’s how we spend most of our lives. Most people are abstaining right this minute. If someone is reading this and not abstaining I don’t want to know about it

 

[Bendalina]

Bruised Reed. You’re kidding me, right? NFP is birth control.

I think I’m done. I am making a practical argument which no one wants to address. Perhaps that’s because you aren’t in the trenches with new converts trying to explain the teaching to them as I am. I AGREE WITH THE IDEAL. But you turn my argument/q’s into something you can defend, but you don’t actually answer my Q’s. And so I will continue to stare at a room full of converts and feed them an rather unconvincing party line.

 

[Socio_Momma]

i am confused as to what the OP is trying to ask here

i thought it was about the procreative aspect needing to be present & that was answered in several posts. that the procreative aspect doesn’t equal a woman needing to be ovulating at the time of intercourse.

wasn’t that what was being asked–how can NFP be open to the procreative aspects when a woman is not ovaluating or capable of ovulating (i.e. menopausal).

Being that I am now infertile, though not yet at menopause, I struggle with what seems a contradiction in the teaching.
QUOTE]

additionally, i am wondering how can a woman infertile & not have entered menopause (women may ovulate at any time during perimenopause? unless a medically necessary hysterectomy was performed, not for contraceptive reasons obviously.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I was just saying the way my instructor put it was that if a person is not open to both then their marriage is basically destroyed…and I told him that was ridiculous based on people who are infertile…

And when I say infertile, I’m talking about women who at a young age were required to have a hysterectomy due to medical issues so there is no way they could ever have children ever again…Unless God chose to rebuild a womb from scratch.

I just don’t see the difference between a couple who can’t have children at all, ever, and someone who has birth control…Both couples are unable to combine both factors of sex

the infertile couple isn’t using something to interrupt or undermine the marital act; the contracepting couple is.

and therefore

according to my instructor would more than likely end in divorce and he based this argument on the cathecism. maybe he should have just described it differently but I was very frustrated by his lack of ability to explain

maybe he should have approached it differently. RCIA leaders are not experts in every area of church teaching. Candidates and chatechumens are wise to seek additional information if not satified with what they get in class, especially with teaching that are sticking points. Good for you that are you continue to seek.

Besides on a personal note. Before I became Catholic my doctors put me on birth control for a medical reason…now that i am catholic I’m trying to find an alternative method. The doctors feel something is wrong with my hormone levels and I would prob be infertile anyway. Waiting on the tests to get back.

Look into the Creighton method of NFP and popepaulvi.com/about.htm . This looks for solutions not using horomones (BCPs) to mask problems.

 

[Socio_Momma]

Bruised Reed. You’re kidding me, right? NFP is birth control.

I think I’m done. I am making a practical argument which no one wants to address. Perhaps that’s because you aren’t in the trenches with new converts trying to explain the teaching to them as I am. I AGREE WITH THE IDEAL. But you turn my argument/q’s into something you can defend, but you don’t actually answer my Q’s. And so I will continue to stare at a room full of converts and feed them an rather unconvincing party line.

NFP as birth control if one is only meaning family planning; however, NFP is not the same as contraception. contraception requires a couple to actually have sex but actively work against the unitive & procreative aspects, working against God, His natural order, & in essence treating each other’s fertility like a hostile intruder. NFP doesn’t do any of these things, NFP is just information that a couple uses as part of their cooperative planning with God & as a married couple.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

Bruised Reed. You’re kidding me, right? NFP is birth control.

I think I’m done. I am making a practical argument which no one wants to address. Perhaps that’s because you aren’t in the trenches with new converts trying to explain the teaching to them as I am. I AGREE WITH THE IDEAL. But you turn my argument/q’s into something you can defend, but you don’t actually answer my Q’s. And so I will continue to stare at a room full of converts and feed them an rather unconvincing party line.

I understand what you are going through…It is one thing to agree with something but to be able to explain that and make sense to someone who wasn’t raised that way. I have issues with the whole children thing myself which is something I’m working on seeing as I’m going to be married in the next year…gotta figure out what to do with my medically sanctioned birth control

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Bruised Reed. You’re kidding me, right? NFP is birth control.

Yes I know. Where did I write that it wasn’t? …Oh, I just skipped over explaining that I don’t use the term (ABC) so let’s use “contraception” instead. They are not the same thing. Hey, I’m trying to give you some credit, okay?

I think I’m done. I am making a practical argument which no one wants to address. Perhaps that’s because you aren’t in the trenches with new converts trying to explain the teaching to them as I am. I AGREE WITH THE IDEAL. But you turn my argument/q’s into something you can defend, but you don’t actually answer my Q’s. And so I will continue to stare at a room full of converts and feed them an rather unconvincing party line.

I’ve read the responses and I think your questions have been answered. I guess I don’t know what you are trying to do either.

I don’t think you should feed them anything. I would be honest and bow out of that part of the class. I’ve dropped out of things because I could not, in good conscience, continue. Step back form this, leave it alone and just pray asking God to help you understand and even if you don’t the grace to embrace it until you do.

Please don’t read this as “short” because I too would be stressed out about teaching something I don’t wholeheartedly believe. There is nothing wrong with taking some time off to regroup. Praying has been the short track to my understanding things sometimes especially when I’ve overthought it and raced right past understanding.

 

[urban-hermit]

If God can overcome menopause He can overcome ABC! The NFP couple is ACTIVELY DOING SOMETHING to avoid pregnancy. The intention is the same. It is merely the method which is different.

Hi Bendalina - wanted to wish you God’s blessings for following the Church’s teaching even before understanding it. I think God does eventually reward such obedience, and you will have my expectant prayers for that.

Regarding the bolded part of your post above - would the difference perhaps be that the NFP couple is not altering the sex act itself ?

As you say, it’s true that the intention is the same. That goes without saying, or else NFP wouldn’t have a “P” in it.

But the Church does not say each sexual encounter must INTEND pregnancy, only that we “accept children lovingly as a gift from God.” I do not INTEND to acquire a new purple sweater, but I will accept lovingly the one my aunt is currently knitting me for my birthday.

Also, maybe it would be helpful for you to explain NFP as “not placing an obstacle into the sacred act of sex” rather than saying “be open to life”. A slight difference in meaning, but maybe that could put it into better perspective - especially for infertile couples.

 

[wanner47]

I’m sorry… how is infertile sex “open to procreation?” How is sex on infertile days more “open to procreation” than ABC sex? THAT’S THE RUB! There is no difference, except that sex on NFP infertile days is far less likely to end in pregnancy than ABC sex on any day of the month!

Infertile sex is open to procreation because the couple is not **doing **anything to frustrate their fertility.

Anyone who uses ABC actively ***DOES *SOMETHING to frustrate their fertility, whether it is swallowing a pill, putting on a condom, inserting a diaphragm, etc.

With NFP, the couple ISN’T doing anything. Rather, they are ABSTAINING from doing something, and working WITH God’s plan for our fertility and our bodies instead of CONTRARY to it (hence why the Pill and etc. are called CONTRAception).

Who said anything about infertile couples using ABC?

The poster seemed to be asking if infertile couples could use ABC since their sex would be infertile regardless.

Yes, I’ve read the theology of the body. Beautiful. But in places is consistent and disingenuous.

How so?