Scenario: 75-year-old man is recently widowed, and takes a young 30-year-old never-married woman as his second wife. So far all of this is kosher (no pun intended) with all major denominations of Christianity, right? Let’s say this man is still able to have sex and his sperm are still viable.
Would the anti-birth-control denominations of Christianity be okay with he and his wife using birth control, as they are concerned that any baby won’t have a dad past his/her 10th birthday? Or are they still against it, with the idea that all acts of sex must have the opportunity to lead to conception, and so this couple should just practice monogamy if they don’t want to get pregnant? Or maybe they feel that God would only give this couple a baby if He felt they were prepared to take care of one.
FYI, I am asking because I encountered a couple in a similar scenario today, although they had already had the baby and were not concerned about the dad being too old. So it’s not implausible.
I don’t know about that, Boyo Jim. I think they’re generally okay with sex even if pregnancy can’t occur for natural reasons (menopause, already pregnant, infertility).
There are many reasons individual Christians are against birth control and this is not consistent across the groups.
Some base it on god killing Onan after he spilled his seed rather than get his brothers wife pregnant. Some think it breaks the go forth and multiply sections.
To suffer meaningfully, for Catholics, gets them closer to the vision of eternal life. They (the church not it’s members) really don’t have a theological reason to avoid it based on potential suffering by the child.
Most of the other churches who tend to be against birth control seem to be fundamentalist and as stated above they would tend to believe “god will provide”
On a board devoted to fighting ignorance, why would you say this?
In the Catholic tradition, sex has both a unitive and a procreative purpose. Sex between a husband and wife when the wife is past menopause, to take one example, is perfectly fine.
A better way to put this is that Catholics are OK with sex that is not primarily motivated by procreation as long as the possibility of procreation is not nullified. That would include the use of “artificial” birth control, masturbation and even coitus interuptus.
Bricker: How about sex where you stop short of ejaculation? Is that OK?
There is a huge qualifier though, physical PIV intercourse has to take place each and every time a couple has sexual contact. If a man in impotent due to injury or illness (like diabetes) and is not capable of penetrating his wife the couple can not have any other form of sexual activity.
The ones I know, yes. They would also be against the same forms of BC they’re against in general cases, for the case posted in the OP; that is, those who think counting days is ok would still be ok with counting days.
And I have no idea where did you get the notion that according to the RCC “PIV must happen every time”, Icerigger, but that’s not what I was taught. Moves over to sit besides Bricker, hi there.
