Hysterectomies/sterilization And Sex

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1600593' date='Jul 15 2008, 07:02 PM']Ok, got a question and wondered if anyone can answer this for me. If a woman during child birth is forced to have a hysterectomy or some other form of sterilization to save mom's life, thus causing her to be sterile and not be able to have kids anymore what is the point of the man ending the correct way? I understand if there is a possibility of having kids, but is why does it matter if there is no chance of having a kid? Or for instance with a couple well into their later years in life. Does it seem like, to anyone else, this is just a broad answer that is thrown on all married couples and does not take into account all instances of a married sex life? To me it makes no sense in instances like this for it to matter how a man ends if there is no chance for the couple to get pregnant. Any help on this one guys and gals?[/quote]

For one, the couple is maintaining their marital union the way God created it to be. There is only one way in which a husband most completely gives himself to his wife in every way (physically, emotionally, spiritually) and this is the way in which the Church teaches married couples to at least intend to be united. Even if conception is impossible, having sex as if "trying" to conceive is the most intimate and life-giving experience a married couple can share because they are giving to and respecting each other as fully as possible.

Plus, this goes hand-in-hand with the dual purpose of sex: unity and procreation. The most fulfilling experience for a couple is found in embracing both inasmuch as God has given them the capability.

Hope that helps a little bit.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1600631' date='Jul 15 2008, 06:40 PM']Women who have had their tubes tied have gotten pregnant, as have men who have had vasectomies. I[/quote]

[CatherineM]

Yeah, the body has a great way of repairing itself sometimes. I knew of a case where a couple sued the doctor who tied her tubes because she got pregnant later. They were suing for the cost of raising this unwanted child. The doctor said they should just have aborted it if they didn't want it that bad. The doctor paid up eventually, as malpractice only, not for the entire cost of raising the child.

My youngest foster son was the result of a healed vasectomy. He was pretty angry at first, not at the doctor, but at his wife. He thought she'd been unfaithful. The marriage broke up pretty quickly after that.

[CatherineM]

By the way, there are doctors that specialize in reversing these surgeries for those who no longer want to be in violation of church teachings.

[StColette]

Simply put, open to life doesn't just mean open to getting pregnant! Open to Life encompasses the total self gift from one spouse to another. If the man pulls out or is wearing a condom a barrier is created between the couple and there is no total self gift from one to another. Sex in marriage is two fold, both procreative and unitive.

I really recommend reading the Good News About Sex and Marriage. I've noticed that you've been asking a lot of questions that involve sexuality and marriage. I really think that book would be helpful to you It's easy to understand, gives great clarification on what the Church teaches, and has some pretty funny parts to it as well.

[havok579257]

[quote name='StColette' post='1601305' date='Jul 16 2008, 05:09 PM']Simply put, open to life doesn't just mean open to getting pregnant! Open to Life encompasses the total self gift from one spouse to another. If the man pulls out or is wearing a condom a barrier is created between the couple and there is no total self gift from one to another. Sex in marriage is two fold, both procreative and unitive.

I really recommend reading the Good News About Sex and Marriage. I've noticed that you've been asking a lot of questions that involve sexuality and marriage. I really think that book would be helpful to you It's easy to understand, gives great clarification on what the Church teaches, and has some pretty funny parts to it as well.[/quote]


It seems like everyone here is saying that if a man does not end right then the couple is not giving themselfs 100% to each other? I just don't understand that. To me, it seems like everyone is saying the end result is more important than everything that comes before it? That as long as the man ends right, everything is fine. I just don't agree with this. I don't think just because the way a man ends determines how much a couple gives to the other one. To me, its the entire act of giving one to their spouse, not just the end result.

Also does anyone have an answer why it matters to someone who is already pregnant? Why does it matter how a man ends as long as the couple is giving themselfs 100% to the other person.

Also then does that mean a man who is incapable of having sex due to medical issues is wrong in pleasuring his wife or vis versa? The way it seems everyone is saying is that if a couple does not end correctly then its a sin. Also if both the couples are not engaging in the sexual act together as opposed to one pleasuring the other its a sin. How can this be? Before modern medicane, if one of the spouses was unable to perform sexual acts due to mecial reasons would the couple be expected to just never have sex the rest of their lives. Another example would be someone who was paralyized such as Christopher Reeves, is the couple just expected to never haev sexual relations for the rest of their lives?

[StColette]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1600799' date='Jul 15 2008, 10:58 PM']I didn't completely and truly understand about the church's sexual morality teachings, until I was married. The activities that you are asking about, are pale shadows in comparison to what a loving couple share, whether they can conceive or not. The church doesn't teach this stuff to be mean, or stifling. It teaches out of love, and wisdom and experiences handed down and tested for centuries. There is an inherent selfishness in anything short of a completion in a marriage. When selfishness creeps in, the marriage isn't as strong.[/quote]

I completely agree Catherine. I had the Theological understanding of the marriage act and why things are done the way they are, but it does take being married to get a really grasp on what is involved. Using the theological understanding in junction with what I know now as a married person makes the marriage act seem so sacred, which it is. It might be weird to think about, but it is wonderful to understand that in marriage there are three people involved, husband, wife, and God in every aspect of the Sacrament, even in the marriage act itself.

[CatherineM]

We've given you every answer there is to give. Some people just do not want to be confused by the truth. If my husband were to step in front of a bus tomorrow and become paralyzed, that wouldn't end our marriage. You seem to think that sexual pleasure is the only real pleasure in life. There is a lot more out there, and there is a lot more in a marriage as well. Christopher Reeve said that he grateful to have the money to have nurses take care of him because he didn't want his wife to become just his nurse. The one exception was that she washed his hair. That was an intimacy that they enjoyed together. There are multitudes of intimacy in a marriage that have nothing to do with sex. I was 43 years old before I had sex for the first time. With your thinking, my life was empty before then, wasted even. I assure you it wasn't. All I know is that the feeling I receive from my husband giving me everything he has is the most pleasurable part of our martial intimacy.

[StColette]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1601318' date='Jul 16 2008, 05:23 PM']It seems like everyone here is saying that if a man does not end right then the couple is not giving themselfs 100% to each other? I just don't understand that. To me, it seems like everyone is saying the end result is more important than everything that comes before it? That as long as the man ends right, everything is fine. I just don't agree with this. I don't think just because the way a man ends determines how much a couple gives to the other one. To me, its the entire act of giving one to their spouse, not just the end result.

Also does anyone have an answer why it matters to someone who is already pregnant? Why does it matter how a man ends as long as the couple is giving themselfs 100% to the other person.

Also then does that mean a man who is incapable of having sex due to medical issues is wrong in pleasuring his wife or vis versa? The way it seems everyone is saying is that if a couple does not end correctly then its a sin. Also if both the couples are not engaging in the sexual act together as opposed to one pleasuring the other its a sin. How can this be? Before modern medicane, if one of the spouses was unable to perform sexual acts due to mecial reasons would the couple be expected to just never have sex the rest of their lives. Another example would be someone who was paralyized such as Christopher Reeves, is the couple just expected to never haev sexual relations for the rest of their lives?[/quote]

Too many questions in one post, I really wish our new parish priest was on Phatmass. He has a PhD in BioEthics and is a Moral Theologian.


The Bible says marital acts must not end with the spilling of seed, the Church isn't just making something up.

For a man to end in his wife is part of the gift from one spouse to another. Part of the sexual act between man and woman is orgasm. The man's orgasm of course cause sperm to be brought forth. If this is the end result of the sexual act then how could one be completely 100% giving without having this take place. Now let me clarify, some people have medical issues that can keep orgasm from happening for some time, and some women have difficultly orgasming, but there are ways her husband can help her after he has orgasmed.

Anyway why would a man want to keep even a small amount of himself from his wife? If he loves her completely and wants to give himself to her completely then why would he not want to finish inside of her? I mean, seriously, his sperm is part of him, it's the part when it joins with her ovum creates new life! Why would a man keep this from someone he loves so completely? Why would a man keep part of himself from his wife, when he is supposed to give her everything he is capable of giving her. I could not imagine my husband keeping anything from me. I could not imagine him not wanting to give himself as much as humanly possibly to me. Did you know that when a couple become pregnant and the baby is born that part of the baby's DNA is left in the mother? And because of that the husband's dna is also left within her? I mean how amazing is that! Why would we want to rob anyone of being so closely tied to another another that you literally have the DNA of one another in your body!


Again I would suggest reading up on the clarifications from the Church on the issue before addressing them. Many of the Church Theologians and Moral writers can explain things better than the majority of us on here.

[havok579257]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1601326' date='Jul 16 2008, 05:33 PM']We've given you every answer there is to give. Some people just do not want to be confused by the truth. If my husband were to step in front of a bus tomorrow and become paralyzed, that wouldn't end our marriage. You seem to think that sexual pleasure is the only real pleasure in life. There is a lot more out there, and there is a lot more in a marriage as well. Christopher Reeve said that he grateful to have the money to have nurses take care of him because he didn't want his wife to become just his nurse. The one exception was that she washed his hair. That was an intimacy that they enjoyed together. There are multitudes of intimacy in a marriage that have nothing to do with sex. I was 43 years old before I had sex for the first time. With your thinking, my life was empty before then, wasted even. I assure you it wasn't. All I know is that the feeling I receive from my husband giving me everything he has is the most pleasurable part of our martial intimacy.[/quote]


There has not been given every answer to give. Some have just said thats how it is and accept it. Hows that an answer?

Christopher Reeves said him and his wife also had sexual realtions. His wife said they had a great sex life even though he was paralized from the head down.




Obviously people on this board just read into everything and can't take a question at faced value. I never said if a couple were incapable of sex they would get divorced. I never said a person's life was empty without sex. I never even implied that. You know, just forget my questions, cause I am done asking them on these boards. Everytime I ask a question trying to LEARN more about my faith I get posts like these were people take what I ask and distort it into something else. So just forget answering my questions, this is obviously to much of a hassle for someone who is coming back to Catholisim to just ask questions and such. I though the only way someone could become more knowledgable was to ask questions. Although by the feeling I get, asking questions here is not something people should do and instead just find their own research. Which I am going to have to do at double time since I am already trying to research a bunch of stuff.

God Bless everyone and good-bye.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1600593' date='Jul 15 2008, 07:02 PM']Ok, got a question and wondered if anyone can answer this for me. If a woman during child birth is forced to have a hysterectomy or some other form of sterilization to save mom's life, thus causing her to be sterile and not be able to have kids anymore what is the point of the man ending the correct way? I understand if there is a possibility of having kids, but is why does it matter if there is no chance of having a kid? Or for instance with a couple well into their later years in life. Does it seem like, to anyone else, this is just a broad answer that is thrown on all married couples and does not take into account all instances of a married sex life? To me it makes no sense in instances like this for it to matter how a man ends if there is no chance for the couple to get pregnant. Any help on this one guys and gals?[/quote]
Intercourse is a unitive action: unitive, not your turn, then my turn. Its not about pregnancy its about a total giving relationship. If it doesn't end right its not unitive.

[HisChildForever]

What's so wrong with finishing like a "typical" Catholic couple? (And by "typical" I simply mean a couple who can have children, because both man and woman are healthy in that respect.)

I'm just real curious why you would want to finish anywhere else?

Edited July 17, 2008 by HisChildForever

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1601500' date='Jul 16 2008, 11:09 PM']What's so wrong with finishing like a "typical" Catholic couple? (And by "typical" I simply mean a couple who can have children, because both man and woman are healthy in that respect.)

I'm just real curious why you would want to finish anywhere else?[/quote]
EXACTLY!

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1601437' date='Jul 17 2008, 01:49 AM']Intercourse is a unitive action: unitive, not your turn, then my turn. Its not about pregnancy its about a total giving relationship. If it doesn't end right its not unitive.[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1601500' date='Jul 17 2008, 03:09 AM']What's so wrong with finishing like a "typical" Catholic couple? (And by "typical" I simply mean a couple who can have children, because both man and woman are healthy in that respect.)

I'm just real curious why you would want to finish anywhere else?[/quote]
As CMom said, Exactly!

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1601318' date='Jul 16 2008, 06:23 PM']It seems like everyone here is saying that if a man does not end right then the couple is not giving themselfs 100% to each other? I just don't understand that. To me, it seems like everyone is saying the end result is more important than everything that comes before it? That as long as the man ends right, everything is fine. I just don't agree with this. I don't think just because the way a man ends determines how much a couple gives to the other one. To me, its the entire act of giving one to their spouse, not just the end result.[/quote]

That is definitely not right... gosh, in rape the man usually "ends right" but we all know it's wrong. Good sex is more like a good story or novel. For one, just as stories are written in the context of a certain time period and culture, a couple shares sex in the context of their married relationship. A story begins with character development and the plot builds from there, which requires some investment of time and thought by the reader or audience. We know it's all leading to the eventual climax, and that is typically the most memorable part of a story (and also the one part that will most easily ruin an otherwise great story), but the climax doesn't stand on its own. It occurs in the context of the larger story that's been developing for pages and pages, and finally everything is tied up with a proper conclusion, which should leave the reader wanting more.

Plus, a great story or novel gives life by inspiring readers, whether it's simply appreciating life more or bringing the world another great story.

So, the end result is the most important part, but to be good it needs everything else.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1601318' date='Jul 16 2008, 06:23 PM']Also does anyone have an answer why it matters to someone who is already pregnant? Why does it matter how a man ends as long as the couple is giving themselfs 100% to the other person.[/quote]

I'm not sure what to add besides what I said in my previous post on the first page, but to emphasize, we believe the best way for spouses to give to each other completely is by the husband giving the seed of life to his wife. This is how Christ nurtures and loves the Church. God created the sexual experience to be most fulfilling in this way. Of course, we're just talking about one part of a longer story which can obviously be more complex (on many levels, not just the physical). So, yes, a couple can give to each other completely without "ending right," but over time if the climax of their sex life always stops short of this, their relationship will suffer because they aren't sharing that most intimate and humbling experience. Eventually they will not be giving to each other completely, but little by little holding back in the smallest ways, which breeds greater selfishness and usually gives birth to separation and divorce.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1601318' date='Jul 16 2008, 06:23 PM']Also then does that mean a man who is incapable of having sex due to medical issues is wrong in pleasuring his wife or vis versa? The way it seems everyone is saying is that if a couple does not end correctly then its a sin. Also if both the couples are not engaging in the sexual act together as opposed to one pleasuring the other its a sin. How can this be? Before modern medicane, if one of the spouses was unable to perform sexual acts due to mecial reasons would the couple be expected to just never have sex the rest of their lives. Another example would be someone who was paralyized such as Christopher Reeves, is the couple just expected to never haev sexual relations for the rest of their lives?[/quote]

Everyone aims to do the best they can. There's no need to be legalistic about these things.