Nor can a woman a certain number of days from ovulation. Nor one in menopause. I am missing your point.
That’s permitted. It’s medication, not contraception, when used for medical reasons.
I wonder why you think it might not be ok?
So, it goes back to the intent of the act.
I totally think it’s o.k. Don’t get me wrong. From my perspective, it’s 100% o.k. to have sex with a wife who can’t conceive.
That’s my presumption, based on what I’ve read on CAF over the years.
They can’t be certain of the other cases you posted, but for sure about having a hysterectomy.
This is what makes Humanae Vitae a fallible document. according to some theologians.
Sexual relations between a wife and husband are for procreation and the unitive expression of love.
When the first can not be obtain, it doesn’t remove the other two as being important.
A couple who are unable to conceive, can still have sexual relations
A couple where the wife is in the situation of the OP, can not.
Makes no sense
As my priest friend told my wife and myself, follow your conscience.
What does “fillable document” mean?
All moral questions must consider thr three fonts
Some objects are so bad 2 and 3 don’t change the evil of the act.
Fallible opposite of infallible
I agree with your agreement with your priest.
- Abstinence is the only free choice possible in this situation for the woman unless its her husband’s choice to use the condom …other conditions apply as well.
- We are in a school of perfection not a place of perfection. Failures in this ideal may well have mitigating circumstances here that render any sin light rather than grave. Still confessional stuff though being “grave matter” even if not “grave sin”.
Close, but incorrect.
Each marital act must be ordered toward procreation.
It is my understanding that artificial birth control is always a sin.
The couple would have to decide how much they would want to risk the woman’s life if she became pregnant if they used NFP very, very carefully.
If they decide that no risk is worth her dying, then they would have to abstain until she reached natural menopause, when the risk to her life and of committing sin is no longer an issue.
Yes. Sexual relations is ordered to both procreation and to the unity of the couple but you can’t separate one from the other in any individual act of intercourse.
The couple would be called to a higher degree of love for each other for as long as they had to abstain and that could lead to greater moral perfection. This would be another way to build on the unity of the marriage if intercourse would not be available. God will give the grace if the couple would devote themselves to prayer and growing in holiness in this trial that has come upon them.
The degree of certainty that there will be no pregnancy plays no bearing whatsoever in the “right” of sexual relations.
Only because you are thinking that the “possibility of pregnancy” is the essential authorising element. What would “make sense” to you? That sex should be forbidden when science holds that pregnancy is impossible from the act? Or something else?
Often a good policy. Usually it serves to prevent us doing wrong. Holding up conscience as a green light despite the red light of unambiguous Church teaching…not necessarily such a good idea.
If only the teaching was easy to understand.
Regular discussions show that even the most faithful of Catholics, and even the theologically well educated, disagree on multiple aspects.
So “unambiguous” … hmmm … did somebody whisper “Congo Nuns” … “or cooperation in evil (sincerely disagreeing non Catholic husband)”.
Exactly, anything other than abstinence is simply playing Russian roulette with the woman’s life. That is hardly a loving act.
They understand sufficiently to know they disagree. Thus, there is not ambiguity, just disagreement.
Well, if a single act of sex had a reasonable chance of killing the wife then I think God would understand should the wife allow her condomised young? husband into the bedroom should she find him climbing up the house walls in sexual frustration after 5 months. Not everybody can do monk cold turkey.
If St Paul said its better to marry than burn … how much more burning when one is cohabiting under the same prohibitions! That would be torture an enemy doesn’t deserve.
Sure its not the noblest thing to do - but neither is it likely to be a mortal sin under such extreme conditions where freedom is significantly lacking and the consequences of a single moral imperfection so great. It may not even be venial.
Needs to be monitored regularly at Confession of course.
Conscience and confession is indeed the key to remaining holy regardless of what happens.
Congo nuns, Congo nuns…not clear is it…
There are hard to agreeably explain exceptions.