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

[Em_in_FL]

This is the confusion. Foreplay isn’t unitive. Unitive refers to intercourse, The one flesh union. As Catholics that union needs to be open to life. We aren’t permitted to do things to replace this union such as oral sex to completion or mutual masturbation. We are permitted to kiss and touch each other as a show of love. If a couple does this, they are not required to have intercourse. They can leave it at that.

In my eyes foreplay = making out without going all the way. That is how I understand Popcak meaning.

Sorry… I meant foreplay in light of being “before intercourse”… having the INTENTION of completion through intercourse.
I know there are cases when some non-intercourse takes place in order for the wife to be able to achieve orgasm - this is permitted - as long as it is with full intention of completion through intercourse at some point during the union.

Hope that clarifies what I was saying.

 

[budgie2]

Hi, I think you’re over the top with saying that foreplay during pregnancy is a mortal sin. My understanding of mortal sin is to break the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” primarily or serious sexual abuse, child abuse, rape, or serious physical violence. I would not consider it a sin at all as God is a loving God and it is between husband and wife. The sexual act cannot always be procreative as during the infertile times of a woman cycle then the sexual act is not procreative or after the menopause it is not procreative. What the Church’s teaching means that we should not artificially use a device inside the vagina or take a drug to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is natural infertility and therefore you’re not committing any sin by having sex although there may be a risk of miscarriage in the first three months and a month after a bleed.
You can contact me if you like.
The first commandment we have to live by is “Love God, love your neighbour as yourself.”

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Hi, I think you’re over the top with saying that foreplay during pregnancy is a mortal sin. My understanding of mortal sin is to break the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” primarily or serious sexual abuse, child abuse, rape, or serious physical violence. I would not consider it a sin at all as God is a loving God and it is between husband and wife. The sexual act cannot always be procreative as during the infertile times of a woman cycle then the sexual act is not procreative or after the menopause it is not procreative. What the Church’s teaching means that we should not artificially use a device inside the vagina or take a drug to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is natural infertility and therefore you’re not committing any sin by having sex although there may be a risk of miscarriage in the first three months and a month after a bleed.
You can contact me if you like.
The first commandment we have to live by is “Love God, love your neighbour as yourself.”

I think you may have a watered down definition of what mortal sin is. Certainly, what you list can be textbook mortal sin (when done with full knowledge and consent). However, most of us can cetainly commit mortal sin on a day to day basis.

I believe Mary told the Fatima children that sexual sins weren’t the most serious sins, but sent the most people to Hell.

Secondly, I think it’s against CAF policy to dispense medical advice. Serap should be talking with a healthcare professional about any risks regarding intercourse during pregnancy.

 

[Serap]

I think you may have a watered down definition of what mortal sin is. Certainly, what you list can be textbook mortal sin (when done with full knowledge and consent). However, most of us can cetainly commit mortal sin on a day to day basis.

I believe Mary told the Fatima children that sexual sins weren’t the most serious sins, but sent the most people to Hell.

Secondly, I think it’s against CAF policy to dispense medical advice. Serap should be talking with a healthcare professional about any risks regarding intercourse during pregnancy.

I didn’t get the impression that Budgie was giving me medical advice and I tend to relate better to Budgie’s point of view. I am hardly committing sins of the flesh by loving my husband and him loving me. I am not lusting after my husband; I am looking to connect and show him that I love him and plan to spend the rest of my life with him.

Having a toddler around, it is difficult to connect with my husband, so if we get the chance to connect and display love (even if it’s in the form of foreplay) then I know that God is present and happy that we are taking our vows seriously to love eachother through good and bad; sickness and in health.

My husband and I have a very good relationship and we love eachother very much. I do not see how mortal sin comes into the picture. I am not doomed for Hell and neither is my husband.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

No you can’t…

However even those you list have changed drastically throughout the years except for murder which in a sense makes them little d dogmas.

Abortion is murder since we have learned through science and faith that life begins at conception.

Gay marriage is difficult because the Church teaches that the State can “marry” anyway. So why not reduce to the state to civil unions for everyone. If the state wants to allow to people to share property it’s none of our business. However if they want to get married it becomes an issue for their religion to deal with. Problem solved and we know there will be none in the Catholic Church.

Contraception has been consistent however it’s difficult to support for a theological standpoint IMHO and my guess is that it will change as have other moral sexual teachings as new information was learned. Study Augustine and Aquinas, the Church use to teach their teachings on sexuality which we now know are completely off base and incorrect. IMHO Augustine’s were based more off his own guilt than anything else.

The problem with this though is that the definitions aren’t clear and this whole thread has, for the most part, been about arguing over semantics. That is why it’s so difficult to determine if it’s a mortal sin or not, there are extraneous variables. It’s not murder, it’s not abortion…

I’m not saying who is right or who is wrong or even what I exactly believe… rather I’m trying to point out it’s not as black and white as some of you try to make it seem.

Yes, semantics are the issue here. However, I will state, again, what the church teaches:

All acts of this nature have to be unitive and open to the possibility of life.

I guess I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this. Let’s take a logical approach to this statement:

Obviously it rules out masturbation, to completetion by yourself. Obviously one person can’t unite with another in this case, and bioloigcally speaking, you need a male and a female to create new life.

So, we’re at the point where we need two people, one man and one woman.

In order to be open to the possibility of life, the issue is two fold, the man has to complete in the right spot and you cannot frustrate the act in any way (i.e. contraception).

I think there are two issues:

I think the issue #1 is with the OP and other posters is what’s considered foreplay. Let’s throw out kissing straight away as this can be non-sexual, and say it’s “intentional stimuation of certain areas of the body.” What this means, is up to the imagination of the reader, as I don’t want to get too graphic.

Issue #2 is a mis-understanding of the phrase “open to life.” The act has to complete in such a way, that given the right conditions, a pregnancy will result. (keywords here are “right conditions”). It does not matter if one or both of the partners are infertile, as is the case with the OP. It still has to complete the right way.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I didn’t get the impression that Budgie was giving me medical advice and I tend to relate better to Budgie’s point of view. I am hardly committing sins of the flesh by loving my husband and him loving me. I am not lusting after my husband; I am looking to connect and show him that I love him and plan to spend the rest of my life with him.

Having a toddler around, it is difficult to connect with my husband, so if we get the chance to connect and display love (even if it’s in the form of foreplay) then I know that God is present and happy that we are taking our vows seriously to love eachother through good and bad; sickness and in health.

My husband and I have a very good relationship and we love eachother very much. I do not see how mortal sin comes into the picture. I am not doomed for Hell and neither is my husband.

It is grave matter because you aren’t completing the acts in such a way God created and intended them for.

If you are starting things with the intention of completing the right way and say your toddler interrupts, no sin is committed.

However, if you are just doing it to “get off” then yes, there may be a sin involved.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The sexual act cannot always be procreative as during the infertile times of a woman cycle then the sexual act is not procreative or after the menopause it is not procreative. What the Church’s teaching means that we should not artificially use a device inside the vagina or take a drug to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is natural infertility and therefore you’re not committing any sin by having sex although there may be a risk of miscarriage in the first three months and a month after a bleed.

I think this is a misunderstanding on the meaning of “procreative” or “open to life”…

ComputerGeek explained it properly here:

Issue #2 is a mis-understanding of the phrase “open to life.” The act has to complete in such a way, that given the right conditions, a pregnancy will result. (keywords here are “right conditions”). It does not matter if one or both of the partners are infertile, as is the case with the OP. It still has to complete the right way.

 

[Tosk]

Serap,

nobody is sure by what you mean by foreplay but I think you have gotten some good answers concerning what is allowed and what is not by the Church.

The only thing I have to add is that you shouldn’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answer to. Never ask a question like, “does this make my butt look big?” or “do I look fat in this?” if you can’t handle the answer. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, semantics are the issue here. However, I will state, again, what the church teaches:

All acts of this nature have to be unitive and open to the possibility of life.

I guess I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this. Let’s take a logical approach to this statement:

Obviously it rules out masturbation, to completetion by yourself. Obviously one person can’t unite with another in this case, and bioloigcally speaking, you need a male and a female to create new life.

So, we’re at the point where we need two people, one man and one woman.

In order to be open to the possibility of life, the issue is two fold, the man has to complete in the right spot and you cannot frustrate the act in any way (i.e. contraception).

I think there are two issues:

I think the issue #1 is with the OP and other posters is what’s considered foreplay. Let’s throw out kissing straight away as this can be non-sexual, and say it’s “intentional stimuation of certain areas of the body.” What this means, is up to the imagination of the reader, as I don’t want to get too graphic.

Issue #2 is a mis-understanding of the phrase “open to life.” The act has to complete in such a way, that given the right conditions, a pregnancy will result. (keywords here are “right conditions”). It does not matter if one or both of the partners are infertile, as is the case with the OP. It still has to complete the right way.

But if it isn’t completed the normal way, and isn’t completed *any other *way, and is kissing and petting and that’s it…it isn’t a sin at all. It’s a display of love.

It’s sinful to complete in any other way in order to avoid intercourse…that would be separating unitive from procreative

 

[ComputerGeek25]

But if it isn’t completed the normal way, and isn’t completed *any other *way, and is kissing and petting and that’s it…it isn’t a sin at all. It’s a display of love.

It’s sinful to complete in any other way in order to avoid intercourse…that would be separating unitive from procreative

It depends on the nature of said petting and kissing.

If it’s just simple kissing/touching parts of the body that don’t have to do with the act, and if this can be done without lusting, then yes, there is no sin, or if there is sin, it is venial.

If the petting/kissing invovles touching/arousal of certain body parts and lust, without the intention of completing the act, in the proper place, then it is sinful. This is were the hang up is.

 

[Serap]

Serap,

nobody is sure by what you mean by foreplay but I think you have gotten some good answers concerning what is allowed and what is not by the Church.

The only thing I have to add is that you shouldn’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answer to. Never ask a question like, “does this make my butt look big?” or “do I look fat in this?” if you can’t handle the answer. Ignorance is bliss.

It’s not that I can’t handle the answer…all due respect. It’s that I do not understand the answer and all of my logic doesn’t understand it either.

I haven’t told anyone on this thread what I did or didn’t do in context of foreplay. In only stated that I engaged in foreplay. People are assuming what I meant by it and I am questioning the logic of it all.

An no I don’t think my butt looks big nor do I think I look fat in my clothing, although I am nine weeks pregnant

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It depends on the nature of said petting and kissing.

If it’s just simple kissing/touching parts of the body that don’t have to do with the act, and if this can be done without lusting, then yes, there is no sin, or if there is sin, it is venial.

If the petting/kissing invovles touching/arousal of certain body parts and lust, without the intention of completing the act, in the proper place, then it is sinful. This is were the hang up is.

So husband and wife kiss, touch, possibly in places that can cause arousal and stop before anybody climaxes, that equals mortal sin.

I’m sorry, I am pretty orthodox and I don’t see this as sinful at all. I don’t think I am alone, that is why I bring up Greg Popcak. I also will bring up my parish priest.

Question: Can a couple kiss and touch without climaxing? Is it a sin?

Parish Priest: No, no sin involved.

Parish priest is orthodox, gives prolife homilies quite often and is a genuinely holy man.

I am in total agreement about separating procreative and unitive. That is not permitted. But the scenario I am describing is NOT separating unitive and procreative. There is no unitive (no intercourse, no any other activity that replaces intercourse) not procreative.

This is my last post here.

 

[Serap]

So husband and wife kiss, touch, possibly in places that can cause arousal and stop before anybody climaxes, that equals mortal sin.

I’m sorry, I am pretty orthodox and I don’t see this as sinful at all. I don’t think I am alone, that is why I bring up Greg Popcak. I also will bring up my parish priest.

Parish priest is orthodox, gives prolife homilies quite often and is a genuinely holy man.

I am in total agreement about separating procreative and unitive. That is not permitted. But the scenario I am describing is NOT separating unitive and procreative. There is no unitive (no intercourse, no any other activity that replaces intercourse) not procreative.

This is my last post here.

Gail, I agree with you 10000000%! I had a priest tell me that as long as a married couple is not using eachother, they are not sinning. This priest is also very orthodox and very strong in his faith.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

So husband and wife kiss, touch, possibly in places that can cause arousal and stop before anybody climaxes, that equals mortal sin.

I’m sorry, I am pretty orthodox and I don’t see this as sinful at all. I don’t think I am alone, that is why I bring up Greg Popcak. I also will bring up my parish priest.

Parish priest is orthodox, gives prolife homilies quite often and is a genuinely holy man.

I am in total agreement about separating procreative and unitive. That is not permitted. But the scenario I am describing is NOT separating unitive and procreative. There is no unitive (no intercourse, no any other activity that replaces intercourse) not procreative.

This is my last post here.

Yes, I think it could, in the right context. Why else whould you touch “down there” other than to arouse someone unless they had some sort of problem?

I guess this puts new meaning to cruel and unusal punishment.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

So husband and wife kiss, touch, possibly in places that can cause arousal and stop before anybody climaxes, that equals mortal sin.

I’m sorry, I am pretty orthodox and I don’t see this as sinful at all. I don’t think I am alone, that is why I bring up Greg Popcak. I also will bring up my parish priest.

Parish priest is orthodox, gives prolife homilies quite often and is a genuinely holy man.

I am in total agreement about separating procreative and unitive. That is not permitted. But the scenario I am describing is NOT separating unitive and procreative. There is no unitive (no intercourse, no any other activity that replaces intercourse) not procreative.

This is my last post here.

None of these examples (Popcak, priest) prove that any foreplay as long as people don’t climax nor feel tempted to is ok. I don’t think that anyone is saying a couple can’t kiss and nor touch in any way at all, be completely hands off each other (and this is where a couple has to inform their conscience, learn about true love and lust, chastity in marriage etc to be able to make decisions in this area).
The problem isn’t separating the unitive and procreative from each other (for example, oral sex, by the definition of unitive you present, doesn’t separate them either, neither of them are present), the problem would be separating sexual pleasure from both/either the unitive and the procreative: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **And sexual pleasure is good, God put it there for married couples to enojoy it as part of the marital embrace, the problem would be seeking it isolated from intercourse (which is where both unitive and procreative are present). Sexual pleasure can be experienced in a loving manner in intercourse, just because something is loving does not mean sexual pleasure is not present.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

None of these examples (Popcak, priest) prove that any foreplay as long as people don’t climax nor feel tempted to is ok. I don’t think that anyone is saying a couple can’t kiss and nor touch in any way at all, be completely hands off each other (and this is where a couple has to inform their conscience, learn about true love and lust, chastity in marriage etc to be able to make decisions in this area).
The problem isn’t separating the unitive and procreative from each other (for example, oral sex, by the definition of unitive you present, doesn’t separate them either, neither of them are present), the problem would be separating sexual pleasure from both/either the unitive and the procreative: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **And sexual pleasure is good, God put it there for married couples to enojoy it as part of the marital embrace, the problem would be seeking it isolated from intercourse (which is where both unitive and procreative are present). Sexual pleasure can be experienced in a loving manner in intercourse, just because something is loving does not mean sexual pleasure is not present.

Thanks for the CCC quote.

Just because technically no one climaxed or was tempted in any way doesn’t make it right in the first place. From personal experience this seems like a “near occasion of sin”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So husband and wife kiss, touch, possibly in places that can cause arousal and stop before anybody climaxes, that equals mortal sin.

I’m sorry, I am pretty orthodox and I don’t see this as sinful at all. I don’t think I am alone, that is why I bring up Greg Popcak. I also will bring up my parish priest.

Parish priest is orthodox, gives prolife homilies quite often and is a genuinely holy man.

I am in total agreement about separating procreative and unitive. That is not permitted. But the scenario I am describing is NOT separating unitive and procreative. There is no unitive (no intercourse, no any other activity that replaces intercourse) not procreative.

This is my last post here.

None of these examples (Popcak, priest) prove that any foreplay as long as people don’t climax nor feel tempted to is ok. I don’t think that anyone is saying a couple can’t kiss and nor touch in any way at all, be completely hands off each other (and this is where a couple has to inform their conscience, learn about true love and lust, chastity in marriage etc to be able to make decisions in this area).
The problem isn’t separating the unitive and procreative from each other (for example, oral sex, by the definition of unitive you present, doesn’t separate them either, neither of them are present), the problem would be separating sexual pleasure from both/either the unitive and the procreative: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **And sexual pleasure is good, God put it there for married couples to enojoy it as part of the marital embrace, the problem would be seeking it isolated from intercourse (which is where both unitive and procreative are present). Sexual pleasure can be experienced in a loving manner in intercourse, just because something is loving does not mean sexual pleasure is not present.

OK THIS is my last reply

If you look at my quote in red I said anything that replaces intercourse, If a couple is having oral sex in order to not have intercourse that is not correct. I never said that it was correct. Oral sex isn’t foreplay, I haven’t said it was foreplay. If a couple were to masturbate instead of intercourse that is not correct. I never said that was correct. That is separating unitive from procreative. I totally understand that.

By foreplay, making out without going all the way (Popcak) Kissing and touching without climaxing (Parish Priest) That is what I mean. Couples can do that without having to “finish”. Without comitting sin. How much is at the discretion of the couple.

Sorry if this post to graffic.

Now I am done.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

OK THIS is my last reply

If you look at my quote in red I said anything that replaces intercourse, If a couple is having oral sex in order to not have intercourse that is not correct. I never said that it was correct. Oral sex isn’t foreplay, I haven’t said it was foreplay. If a couple were to masturbate instead of intercourse that is not correct. I never said that was correct. That is separating unitive from procreative. I totally understand that.

The problem is not separating the unitive from the procreative, it is separating sexual pleasure from its unitive and procreative purposes: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **The only way for both procreative and unitive to be there is through intercourse. Without intercourse you might have one or the other, or neither. In the quote from the Catechism is says that sexual pleasure when sought isolated from its procreative and unitive (intercourse) is disordered. Saying that neither is there, thus one is not separating them, does not change the fact that they both have to be there for sexual pleasure to be ordered. Sexual pleasure is something that can be present in actions that are loving, it is not cancelled out by the fact that it is done in love, (Love and Responsibility actually touches this subject very nicely).

By foreplay, making out without going all the way (Popcak) Kissing and touching without climaxing (Parish Priest) That is what I mean. Couples can do that without having to “finish”. Without comitting sin. How much is at the discretion of the couple.

Sorry if this post to graffic.

Now I am done.

The couple needs to learn what the Church teaches about what love and lust etc are and then it will be easier for them to figure out what activities are acceptable as a form of affection outside the marital embrace and what should only be included as part of the marital embrace. The definition of foreplay, as I have always seen it and as the two dictionaries I am quoting below state it, is the activity leading to intercourse, not a global term for any form of affection that a couple shares. A couple should figure out what is only appropriate as foreplay, and what is ok both outside of foreplay and in it. The more I read about it the less I agree with the idea that everything that is ok as foreplay is ok without being part of the marital embrace (as long as no one climaxes or feels tempted to). Doing activities in which sexual pleasure is sought isolated from intercourse is disordered, as stated in the quote from the Catechism.

fore·play
Pronunciation: -"plA
Function: noun
: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

foreplay fore·play (fôr’plā’)
n.
The sexual stimulation that precedes intercourse.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin

ETA: I’ve been meaning to say, that the teachings of the Church on the marital embrace are not dependent on how fertile the couple is at the time. They are just guidelines to help a couple love each other and participate in this sacramental act to the fullest. This demonstration of love is not affected by the fact that the couple is pregnant, infertile, post menopausal, in the infertile part of the woman’s cycle, etc. The unitive and procreative aspects can and should be present in each and everyone one of these cases, and the act is not less complete if the couple is unable to get pregnant at the moment (as long as the reason they are not able to get pregnant is not because they have mutilated the act through ABC, etc).

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sorry, this will be my last post. I found further info on EWTN.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=444605&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=foreplay&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

We are so glad that you want to live with God’s plan for sex. The Bible reveals that God intends that sex should be a marriage act which is open to or at least not deliberately closed to the transmission of life. Any activities which lead to orgasm in place of completed coitus are not allowed. An orgasm of the wife either before or after the husband’s ejaculation in the vagina is ok as a part of normal marital relations. Moral theologians excuse accidental orgasm on the part of inexperienced couples who have not learned their limits during the fertile time but they note that couples are called to learn from their experience.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Sorry, this will be my last post. I found further info on EWTN.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=444605&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=foreplay&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Just because no one climaxes, doesn’t mean said activities are licit.