"completing the Act"

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St.Eric

Guest
I was advised this question would be better suited over here. Here goes: Some men have the ability to have an orgasm during intercourse and not ejaculate- willfully. Question is: would it be a sin to do this and if so, what level,i.e., venial or mortal? If one has the natural ability to do this, why not. The practioner of this would still be open to life since live sperm cells are found in the male lubricant and that cannot be stopped, unless one was to use a barrier contraceptive. Any help on this would be appreciated. 🙂
 
40.png
St.Eric:
I was advised this question would be better suited over here. Here goes: Some men have the ability to have an orgasm during intercourse and not ejaculate- willfully. Question is: would it be a sin to do this and if so, what level,i.e., venial or mortal? If one has the natural ability to do this, why not. The practioner of this would still be open to life since live sperm cells are found in the male lubricant and that cannot be stopped, unless one was to use a barrier contraceptive. Any help on this would be appreciated. 🙂
Click to expand...
What would be the purpose of withholding ejaculation?
 
40.png
St.Eric:
The same as utilizing NFP. To space out the children.
Click to expand...
Each act of intercourse must be completely unitive and completely procreative-- unaltered.

Do do what you describe is contraceptive in purpose and a disordered use of the sex act-- and therefore would be a grave sin.
 
40.png
1ke:
Each act of intercourse must be completely unitive and completely procreative-- unaltered.

Do do what you describe is contraceptive in purpose and a disordered use of the sex act-- and therefore would be a grave sin.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think it would be mortally sinful to do this. Deliberately attempting to withhold ejaculation would be equivalent to “pulling out” at the time of ejaculation. In both cases, the lubricant has sperm cells, but in both cases one is deliberately frustrating the purpose of the sexual act.
 
Is it possible to… not ejaculate everytime? Why would you want to other than to avoid pregnancy? Personally, if I had this ability, I wouldn’t **want ** to be thinking “stop” at the moment of orgasm… It would seem to take away from the event, and the unitive nature of sex. It’s like… “I want to give you everything! well…I take that back. Let me hold on to this for awhile.”
 
Firstly, I would say that since, as you described, there are sperm cells present in the pre-ejaculate, and that cannot be stopped even if full ejaculation is stopped, then it is not a contraceptive method and there is nothing wrong with it.

Secondly, I would say the reason people would like to have this skill would be to prolong the procreative process and therefore make it all more enjoyable, especially if the woman takes longer to achieve similar enjoyment. Imagine being able to continue for a lot longer in one session before a final climax. I can see the point in that and it certainly does not inhibit conception.
 
As Philip said already, I would like to clearly state again:

If one were unable to “hold out” during the all of 3 or 4 days of the month that a woman is fertile, and decided to use this “method” with the intention of not conceiving, then the couple involved had better be ready for a surprise. Many teens are surprised to find themselves pregnant when the male never orgasmed. The withdrawal method (which is what this is–and which is not acceptable by the church) has absolutely abysmal success rates.
Code: 
  If the couple were trying to somehow prolong the marital act by prolonging ejaculation, it would be appropriate. If done for the benefit of the wife, who often takes longer to climax than the husband, it would even be beneficial. JPII noted that when possible it is best for husband and wife to climax together! But it would not be appropriate if followed by a withdrawal, as that is not in keeping with the church's understanding of total giving.
 
to space out children?? From a woman’s perspective, sorry, but no go…

a) you already stated semen can already be present in the fluid itself so how does this help to space children? The risk is higher than early withdrawal and that method is expressly forbidden in Scripture.

b) So you manage to achieve this what? 3 times this week, go for a 4th and, “oops! Sorry, Honey”. So much for spacing, responsibility, consideration for your wife, for your other children. No thanks.

c) the mentality behind this is all wrong. It’s more of the “I can have my cake and eat it too”. It’s giving in to your sexual impulses when a decision has been made between the two people that spacing is what God is calling for.

Either God is calling you to space or He isn’t, that’s why the NFP couple prays together before the act itself. If the desire is **that **strong and the signs are pointing to this being a fertile time, then maybe God really is calling the couple to conceive - it is through prayer that the couple discerns this and then decides together whether or not to proceed.

It’s the taking of that initial step of including God in the decision as to whether or not to engage in the marital act which helps a couple keep the desires of the flesh in check. Desires are good, don’t get me wrong, but when a couple prays and discusses at length their plans for a family and discern spacing is needed then they should lovingly be willing to refrain from sex during fertile periods.
 
40.png
Philip76:
Firstly, I would say that since, as you described, there are sperm cells present in the pre-ejaculate, and that cannot be stopped even if full ejaculation is stopped, then it is not a contraceptive method and there is nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...
You are flat wrong-- this is the same sin as withdrawing… the sin of Onan. Yes, it is contraceptive in its intent and in its action.
 
40.png
1ke:
You are flat wrong-- this is the same sin as withdrawing… the sin of Onan. Yes, it is contraceptive in its intent and in its action.
Click to expand...
Is it then also sinful if, once begun, intercourse ceases without male climax?
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Is it then also sinful if, once begun, intercourse ceases without male climax?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, it depends on the reason. For example, a couple might stop due to fatigue. The inability to complete the act is not a sin, since it is not willed. But engaging in intercourse and then deciding stop so as to remove the possibility of pregnancy, when it is possible to continue to climax would likely be sinful.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
Not necessarily, it depends on the reason. For example, a couple might stop due to fatigue. The inability to complete the act is not a sin, since it is not willed. But engaging in intercourse and then deciding stop so as to remove the possibility of pregnancy, when it is possible to continue to climax would likely be sinful.
Click to expand...
Stopping to remove the possibility of pregnancy would be a sin. It does not follow the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrance.

That is what is at the heart of this question, the original question that is. If you have some ability to have an orgasm without ejaculating and you do so during the marital embrace and then that is the end of the act, then it is not procreative, henceforth, sinful. If you are trying to avoid a pregnancy then abstain during fertile times. Why is that not possible?

Anyhow this is my :twocents: for now.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Is it then also sinful if, once begun, intercourse ceases without male climax?
Click to expand...
If it’s a deliberate willful act, I would say yes. If it’s due to a physiological problem, such as the man losing his erection, no. It’s not just the physical act, but also the intent of the person. The OP stated specifically that the intent was contraceptive. So, yes, that is a gravely disordered use of the act.
 
40.png
1ke:
If it’s a deliberate willful act, I would say yes. If it’s due to a physiological problem, such as the man losing his erection, no. It’s not just the physical act, but also the intent of the person. The OP stated specifically that the intent was contraceptive. So, yes, that is a gravely disordered use of the act.
Click to expand...
I agree! Well said 1ke :clapping:
 
40.png
1ke:
If it’s a deliberate willful act, I would say yes. If it’s due to a physiological problem, such as the man losing his erection, no. It’s not just the physical act, but also the intent of the person. The OP stated specifically that the intent was contraceptive. So, yes, that is a gravely disordered use of the act.
Click to expand...
So conivince me that using NFP with the “intent” of not concieving is not sinful as well. The phrase, “using NFP to space out children”, is the same as “using NFP so we can have sex wihtout concieving.” The intent is to engage in the marital embrace without creating life.
 
40.png
1ke:
If it’s a deliberate willful act, I would say yes. If it’s due to a physiological problem, such as the man losing his erection, no. It’s not just the physical act, but also the intent of the person. The OP stated specifically that the intent was contraceptive. So, yes, that is a gravely disordered use of the act.
Click to expand...
I may be hopelessly hijacking this thread, but what about a situation in which the intention is to have the male climax during intercourse but where the reality is that the couple knows from past attempts that the likelihood of that happening is very very low–say 1 in 100. In such a case, is even trying sinful? They know that it is very likely that there will be no male climax.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
So conivince me that using NFP with the “intent” of not concieving is not sinful as well. The phrase, “using NFP to space out children”, is the same as “using NFP so we can have sex wihtout concieving.” The intent is to engage in the marital embrace without creating life.
Click to expand...
Practicing NFP and having sex during an infertile time is permitted by the Catholic church even though you are infertile, you are still open to the possibility of life.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the Catholic church and NFP. Everyone wants to pigeon-hole the Church and say that we are only to have sex when we want to have kids. Those that view it this way do not have a full understanding of what sex within marriage is. Yes we are open to the possibility of life every time we make love, it may not happen as often as we want, or vice versa more often than we want, but nevertheless, we are open to life. Sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is a renewal of their marriage vows.

NFP with the intent to not conceive is not a sin. Again, remember that NFP means that you are open to life each time that you have sex. The wife may not get pregnant, but you are open to that.

If you look into the TOTB and even Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage” you will find this answer in each of these resources.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
So conivince me that using NFP with the “intent” of not concieving is not sinful as well. The phrase, “using NFP to space out children”, is the same as “using NFP so we can have sex wihtout concieving.” The intent is to engage in the marital embrace without creating life.
Click to expand...
You are confusing ends and means.

The end is the spacing of children, the avoiding of pregnancy. That is not an immoral end. The Church does not teach that it is.

What the Church teaches is that contraception is an immoral means of achieving this end.

Contraception is engaging in the sex act while simultaneously taking an action to render that sex act sterile either before, during, or after the act of intercourse.

That is disorderd because it alters and abuses the gift of sex.

NFP, on the other hand, is not an act of attempting to sterilize the sex act. NFP is abstinence-- you refrain from the sex act completely. You do not engage in the act and distort it. You respect the act and refrain from it.

These two means of avoiding pregnancy/spacing are not moral equivalents. NFP is not an alternative to Contraception, it’s an alternative to total abstinence. Abstinence has never, ever been against Church teaching. Therefore, NFP is not against church teaching as it is simply abstinence.

With NFP any time you engage in the sex act, it is a complete, unaltered sex act. You can choose not to have sex, but if you do, you take absolutely NO action to alter or sterilze the act. This is not true of any/all contracepted sex acts.

NFP is information only. Based on information, you choose to have sex or not have sex. But, any sex act that you decide to engage in is unaltered. NFP is also information to be used to achieve pregnancy-- you can choose to have sex at the time most likely to result in pregnancy and thereby get pregnant more easily.
 
40.png
1ke:
You are confusing ends and means.

The end is the spacing of children, the avoiding of pregnancy. That is not an immoral end. The Church does not teach that it is.

What the Church teaches is that contraception is an immoral means of achieving this end.

Contraception is engaging in the sex act while simultaneously taking an action to render that sex act sterile either before, during, or after the act of intercourse.

. . .

With NFP any time you engage in the sex act, it is a complete, unaltered sex act. You can choose not to have sex, but if you do, you take absolutely NO action to alter or sterilze the act. This is not true of any/all contracepted sex acts.
Click to expand...
1ke, that is the clearest and best explanation I’ve ever seen of the difference between NFP and contraception! If anyone doesn’t “get it” after reading this, I can only believe that they are choosing to be confused. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top