Foreplay when pregnant a sin if it doesn't go any further?

[baylee]

Look at LifeisBeautiful’s previous post from the CCC about a married couple who have a marital embrace that doesn’t end in intercourse. It calls it “disordered”, not a grave matter.

Honestly, I don’t even see where it says that in the CCC.

 

[baylee]

As a sidebar, I made this point a few pages back about how this is really all about the man. I honestly don’t see how a wife having an orgasm outside of genital intercourse is considered “loving”, but if a wife stimulates her husband to orgasm outside her, that’s perverted into “masturbation”, CONSIDERING we’ve been talking over the last 12 pages in here, about specific reasons a couple may not be able to have actual intercourse.

This student goes on to introduce Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia… with all due respect…A professor at a university… and what I found interesting is that the student quotes Genovesi, "… Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means (my bold emphasis)

Interestingly enough the student never sites Genovesi’s “Church’s teaching” reference, nor a CCC reference as it relates to that, just the opinions of the Theologians.

Where he does site the CCC is here (and the writer speaks more of “oral sex” specifially):
*…The Catechism states that lust “is [a] disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[CCC 564] Secondly, the Catechism states: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘…Masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’”[CCC 560] *

But okay, according to the moral theologians in the student’s paper, **assuming the above CCC reference also applies **to married couples, the wife is allowed to orgasm outside of the act of intercouse (so long as intercourse has actually taken place), but the man isn’t. But doing that is not masturbation, even though her sole purpose for doing so would be purely for her OWN pleasure?!.

According to Genovesi, as the student sites, the wife could use “other means” in order to reach orgasm - so, what? She could do it to herself? She could use a device? or could she could have her husband do it?

Seems according to the above CCC references, the WIFE would be engaging in an intrinsically and gravely disorderd action! This gets curiouser and curiouser…

Great points. It appears that “masturbation” is allowed under certain circumstances according to this…or is it no longer considered masturbation? It is interesting to note that the CCC makes a point of clarifying what masturbation is…an action taken outside of marriage. One has to wonder whether it is truly masturbation if it is not solely about giving oneself pleasure (ie. selfish). The above gives the impression that there is a difference for sure.

 

[tampagrl]

All the teaching of the Church, hundreds of popes and bishops, thousands of priests and teachers, 2000 + years of study, not to mention the works of the doctors of the Church - sure, that can all fit nicely in a paperback book that travels in your purse.

The current Catechism, as all Catechisms before, was put together as a reference book, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, for knowing the basics of the faith. Can you show where we are told in an OFFICIAL teaching document that the Catechism is the be all and end all of Church teaching?

You can choose to reject 2000 years of teaching, that is your free will at work.

Find me one official document of the Church from that 2000 years that says it is a permissable thing for married people to do the type of sex acts you are advocating. Unless you do that, I will stick with JPII and the other Popes, Bishops, Priests and lay teachers.

If I may be so bold as to speak for Baylee, I don’t think anyone’s “advocating” anything; we’re simply trying to be clear in what has become a very belittled attempt at answering Serap’s original post.

 

[tampagrl]

Great points. It appears that “masturbation” is allowed under certain circumstances according to this…or is it no longer considered masturbation? It is interesting to note that the CCC makes a point of clarifying what masturbation is…an action taken outside of marriage. One has to wonder whether it is truly masturbation if it is not solely about giving oneself pleasure (ie. selfish). The above gives the impression that there is a difference for sure.

Thank you for having the courtesy to address what I wrote.
The link to which I was referring was provided as “Here’s what the Moral Theologians say!”, so out of respect to the poster who took the time to find the link, I took the time to read the paper, half excited that maybe finally someone had a clear answer… but clearly that’s not the case. There are very grey areas addressed in the paper, to the point of flat-out contradiction and double standards.

Now, you are being told that the CCC can’t possibly have covered this topic thoroughly enough, even though, as you pointed out, the CCC does in fact make a point of clarifying (or so you thought…muuuhahahaa) what “marital masturbation” (my term) is and is not. Considering it could be “grave matter” or even “disorderd”, I surely would hope and trust that my CCC would be clear on that…ya know, for my “reference” considering it’s a “reference book”.

I also think what is happening throughout this thread is that people **aren’t **reading from page 1. This topic has taken many, many turns. I admit that I’ve probably gotten derailed once or twice myself! But to belittle this convo into simplistic and/or sarcastic one liners or to go so far as to say, “it’s sinful, it’s that simple”, is inappropriate.

I’m getting the feeling by reading what others have said that they’re trying to twist or pervert this topic into something vile, and I really resent that.

We’re talking about mutual, consensual, marital love and alternatives in expressing that God given love, when the couple can’t engage in genital intercourse. We’re NOT talking about the husband by himself, the wife by herself, a room full of people, or whatever some people might be tempted to throw in here.

I’m certainly no Theologian, but from what I understand, The Church has things called “Doctrine” - i.e The Profession of Faith. We can’t twist that, distort it, change it, have “opinions” on it for the purposes of debate. It’s just there for for ALL Catholics to read, learn, and practice. It is what it is and it is black and white.

This issue, like Baylee pointed out about 3,000pgs ago, is not black n’ white.

All the CCC references that have been inserted into the thread, while appreciated, aren’t addressing this issue. The H.V. reference isn’t addressing it either.

That says to me, that the Church recognizes that a husband and wife have certain freedoms in their expression of their mutual, marital love WHEN the act of genital intercourse can’t be completed.

 

[baylee]

If I may be so bold as to speak for Baylee, I don’t think anyone’s “advocating” anything; we’re simply trying to be clear in what has become a very belittled attempt at answering Serap’s original post.

If I’m advocating anything it is the fact that Church teaching is NOT clear on married sex. The only thing it is very clear about is that the use of artificial contraception in regulating births when having sexual intercourse is intrinsically evil. Whenever the Catechism refers to “every act” it is always referring to Humanae Vitae which is only discussing ABC (which of course is talking about sexual intercourse).

Those of us who are questioning are being asked to provide official teaching that permits certain sexual acts between a husband and a wife yet no one has provided clear official, infallible teaching that certain sexual acts are not permitted…ever. When I ask why something so critical to Church teaching is not included in the Catechism , I am repeatedly told that it’s because the Catechism isn’t complete. Really? The Church would allow a book to summarize major church teachings and leave out things that so many here say amount to mortal sin? The Church would require all Catholics to research those on their own by reading the official documents?

I keep going back to what you, tampagrl, noticed about allowing a husband to masturbate his wife if she didn’t climax when he did (something that the same people are saying is okay per Church teaching). So, is that masturbation? If so, why is it now not intrinsically evil and not even a sin? Or is it that it’s not considered masturbation…because the wife is not pleasuring herself? And if it’s not masturbation because of that reason, then why are people teaching that pleasuring each other is “mutual masturbation”?

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

As a sidebar, I made this point a few pages back about how this is really all about the man. I honestly don’t see how a wife having an orgasm outside of genital intercourse is considered “loving”, but if a wife stimulates her husband to orgasm outside her, that’s perverted into “masturbation”, CONSIDERING we’ve been talking over the last 12 pages in here, about specific reasons a couple may not be able to have actual intercourse.

Seriously - How is that not masturbation?

EVERY sexual act must be open to life. Being pregnant only is open to life for half the party - the other half (the man) must also be open to life.

I’ll say it again - go find yourself a traditional priest, and ask him.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

rude, sarcastic comments aren’t helping, but thanks for playing.

And statements leading others to sin (saying a wife sexually pleasing her husband to climax outside the vagina is somehow moral, when it’s simply masturbation) is sinful itself.

 

[Miserissima]

This is beginning to remind me of another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=181786

 

[tampagrl]

Seriously - How is that not masturbation?

EVERY sexual act must be open to life. Being pregnant only is open to life for half the party - the other half (the man) must also be open to life.

I’ll say it again - go find yourself a traditional priest, and ask him.

c’mon, now you’re just embarrasing yourself.

 

[tampagrl]

This is beginning to remind me of another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=181786

It does have similarities, that’s for sure…Thank you, honestly, for that.

My particular interest:

pg 9:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2689244&postcount=114

pg. 5
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2696628&postcount=171

pg. 4 ()
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2699303&postcount=182

And finally…ahhhhh…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2707528&postcount=218

Since I didn’t start this thread, I don’t think I should ask that it be close, but I think we’re all done here. I know I am.

Blanket request for forgiveness to anyone I may have offended.

 

[distracted]

The action they are taking in that moment must be in keeping with the proper usage of the sexual organs, it makes no difference that the action they took in the past to get her pregnant was correct, just because they did it right in the past does not justify them abusing the sexual organs now. It is each and every marriage act that must be open to life, the act itself not merely them been interiorly open to life.(“Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful…each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” [CCC 2366; cf. 2363, 2398].)

.

it is my understanding that every act need NOT be open to life if the possibility of pregnancy is not an issue (such as in older people)… I know that even those past child-bearing age should stay open to possibility of life… but what i am saying is that there is not only the pro-creative aspect of sex but the unitive…

intercourse is unitive… i would not think that stimulation w/ o intercourse would be…

so it seems that your answer is correct but incomplete…

 

[distracted]

Seriously - How is that not masturbation?

EVERY sexual act must be open to life. Being pregnant only is open to life for half the party - the other half (the man) must also be open to life.

I’ll say it again - go find yourself a traditional priest, and ask him.

if a woman is 6 months pregnant, how can the coupl be “open to life”???

if there is 0 chance of creating new life, are you saying they should not be intimate?

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

c’mon, now you’re just embarrasing yourself.

Yet you refuse you answer my questions.

How is it anything but masturbation?

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

if a woman is 6 months pregnant, how can the coupl be “open to life”???

if there is 0 chance of creating new life, are you saying they should not be intimate?

I’m not sure. I’m no canon lawyer, nor a priest.

I just know that every sexual act has to be “open to life”.

Sexual pleasing the man, with the climax outside the vagina, is not permissible. It’s not open to life. I suppose that there is the chance (??) that the woman could possibly be pregnant again? I dunno. I don’t know female biology.

It’s my understanding that all sexual pleasure must be open to life, and “finishing” the man outside the vagina is not open to life, any way you spin it.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

it is my understanding that every act need NOT be open to life if the possibility of pregnancy is not an issue (such as in older people)… I know that even those past child-bearing age should stay open to possibility of life… but what i am saying is that there is not only the pro-creative aspect of sex but the unitive…

intercourse is unitive… i would not think that stimulation w/ o intercourse would be…

so it seems that your answer is correct but incomplete…

How does every act not need to be unitive? Can we start citing some passages?

 

[Leonius]

it is my understanding that every act need NOT be open to life if the possibility of pregnancy is not an issue (such as in older people)… I know that even those past child-bearing age should stay open to possibility of life… but what i am saying is that there is not only the pro-creative aspect of sex but the unitive…

intercourse is unitive… i would not think that stimulation w/ o intercourse would be…

so it seems that your answer is correct but incomplete…

To the best of my knowledge your understanding is incorrect, the act itself must be open to life, that is it must be an act that all other things been in place could bring about the creation of new life, the fertility of the couple is of no consequence in relation to whether the act is considered open to life or not.

 

[baylee]

Originally Posted by tampagrl forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
As a sidebar, I made this point a few pages back about how this is really all about the man. I honestly don’t see how a wife having an orgasm outside of genital intercourse is considered “loving”, but if a wife stimulates her husband to orgasm outside her, that’s perverted into “masturbation”, CONSIDERING we’ve been talking over the last 12 pages in here, about specific reasons a couple may not be able to have actual intercourse.

Seriously - How is that not masturbation?

I think that’s the same question we have. It seems as if Church teaching (as promoted here on CAF) considers one action akin to masturbation (ie. not permitted and intrinsically evil…that would be the wife pleasuring her husband) and at the same time does not consider the other action akin to masturbation (ie. permitted and not even a venial sin…that would be the husband pleasuring his wife).

Is official teaching that masturbation is okay if the husband pleasures his wife, but not if the wife pleasures her husband? Is it even official teaching that either of those actions are technically masturbation? If both are masturbation, why is it suddenly no longer treated as such when it comes to a husband pleasuring his wife? Or is it quite possible that official teaching does not say that masturbation has anything to do with married sex, but sex with oneself where the only motive is pure selfishness?

 

[baylee]

I think that’s the same question we have. It seems as if Church teaching (as promoted here on CAF) considers one action akin to masturbation (ie. not permitted and intrinsically evil…that would be the wife pleasuring her husband) and at the same time does not consider the other action akin to masturbation (ie. permitted and not even a venial sin…that would be the husband pleasuring his wife).

Is official teaching that masturbation is okay if the husband pleasures his wife, but not if the wife pleasures her husband? Is it even official teaching that either of those actions are technically masturbation? If both are masturbation, why is it suddenly no longer treated as such when it comes to a husband pleasuring his wife? Or is it quite possible that official teaching does not say that masturbation has anything to do with married sex, but sex with oneself where the only motive is pure selfishness?

Oh nevermind…I can’t believe I am doing exactly what I criticized others for…dissecting the love between a husband and a wife. I’m with tampagrl, I believe I’ve had enough.

 

[Marycruz]

It’s my understanding that all sexual pleasure must be open to life, and “finishing” the man outside the vagina is not open to life, any way you spin it.

“Finishing” inside a pregnant woman is not open to life either any way you spin it, since you can’t get her more pregnant than she already is

 

[ac_claire]

Ok good. So, back to the topic:

My question is, if you’re already pregnant, is it still a sin if you have foreplay without completely making love? You already have life inside of you, so you’re not opting out of creating life.

Just a thought that I would like answered b/c my husband and I engaged in foreplay and it stopped there. I knew by how tired we were that it would likely just be foreplay also. Did we still sin?

I think only a priest can judge your culpability as regards forethought and full awareness and intention. As to the act itself…From what I have read here, it seems the Church says that foreplay without completion is ok; but if you do “complete” the act it must be done in the context of intercourse.

Mary Gail 36 said earlier: “If climax isn’t the goal, but instead physically showing love, then foreplay is fine. If foreplay is used to have a climax without intercourse, then that isn’t allowed.”

And the fact that the OP is pregnant, ie: infertile, at the moment is neither here nor there when if comes to the morality of the act.

What EWTN says about foreplay:

If both husband and wife are not aroused to the point it is difficult to stop (presuming they are not intending intercourse) then foreplay is a legitimate expression of mutual affection.

The Church has always taught that sin enters into such acts when it ceases to be an expression of affection for each other and becomes uncontrolled lust and exploitation of the other. Even when intercourse is intended–the spouses need to enter into such an act as a mutual gift.

Now, not every couple can “control” themselves sufficiently for such foreplay becuase it leads to uncontrolled lust. Others who may be able to control themselves on one day cannot on another.

Couples need to come to know themselves and then make the proper prudential judgments.

Foreplay in and of itself is not sinful.

Many times, some teachers in the Church wanted to simplify the instructions by forbidding the act itself because it is easier to say that and make things clear rather then to talk about control and intentions. But, officially, the Church always taught what is described above!

So unless someone corrects me on this, case closed!