Is it a sin to have sex when your wife is pregnant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrick7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
how is this possible, anatomically speaking? as i understand it, to become pregnant, a woman has to have an egg residing in her womb, waiting to be fertilized.
Click to expand...
wrong biology.

the egg is released from the ovaries and is fertilized in the ampulla of the falopian tubes then the zygote (fertalized egg) moves down the tubes to implant in the womb.

still, will the female body ovulate when an blastocyst (bigger zygote-- 500 cells strong!!) has implanted? *** probably*** not.

as to sex in the presence of unaware children-- family beds, multi-generational and communal living, etc. have always necessitated sex in the presence of unaware children.
 
zootjeff said:
Situation: Sex is recommended by the doctor in the 9th month to stimulate contractions. Wife is also prone to infection. Therefor sex with a condom is suggested. Because of religious misconceptions, neither is engaged in, thus baby is born late after placenta started to breakdown, or is required to be born by cesarean.
Click to expand...
Sex with a condom is recommended, obviously not a Catholic doctor. There are other ways to induce labor, maybe those should be explored as well.
zootjeff said:
Whats the problem with the condoms?
Click to expand...
They go against the Catholic Church’s teachings.
zootjeff said:
For reference, my wife is 9 months pregnant NOW and they suggest we have sex to move the process along.
Click to expand...
Okay, but again there are other ways to move this along. Try a long walk.
zootjeff said:
They don’t suggest we us condoms, but if they did, I wouldn’t have any problem with it.
Click to expand...
Why would/should they suggest a condom? Again, is this a Catholic doctor? Mind you, you have not problem with it, you are going against the Church’s teachings.
zootjeff said:
No doctor is going to recommend sex with condoms when trying to conceive…
Click to expand...
Obviously…
 
ALL, Please educate yourselves on TOB.

I’ve added a wider reference here of the CCC…

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145
…
Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Two parts of the marital embrace are stated here. While “fecundity” is expected in marriage, the context of the relationship does not say that you may only have sex in order to produce offspring. The whole context here is that sex is good for the couple even if they are not furtile IF it is properly ordered. Over the long haul it is not good to avoid the procreative aspect of sex in light of only the pleasurable aspect. A couple is expected to have children if God permits.

First I want to say if we were meant to have sex only to produce offspring, God would have made our bodies similar to animals that only have sex when in heat. He did not. Hence the statement from the CCC:“is not something simply biological”. So what else are we to imply from this? TOB says that human sexuality is akin to the relationship between Jesus and His Bride, the Church. It’s the showing of the love relationship and euphoria one receives from true love.

Second, to say you can only have sex to potentially produce children is to imply that using NFP to delay pregnancy is against the Church’s teaching rather than endorced by it. So the Church would be at odds with itself. Sorry, that also can’t happen.
 
Looking at the title of this thread, “Is it a sin to have sex when your wife is pregnant?” the first thought that popped into my tiny brain was, “Do you mean sex with your wife?”

Sorry, I just have a funny-bone today.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
Check out Humanae Vitae, by Pope Paul XI. You’ll find that there are circumstances (physiological, social, economic, and psychological) under which it is permitted that couples use NFP – meaning sex only during infertile periods – to avoid or postpone a pregnancy. This is straight from the Holy See. Can’t get much more supportive than that. 😉
Click to expand...
I think it is like the teaching on limbo and salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the past some priests and maybe even higher ups have taught such things. No NFP allowed without permission from your confessor. No intercourse once pregnancy became known. Any intercourse had to be at least a little sinful. Ya, I don’t think such bans were totally unknown. It would be my observation that in some quarters of the Church the whole concept on sex and sexuality has undergone a positive evolution.
 
rwoehmke said:
I think it is like the teaching on limbo and salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the past some priests and maybe even higher ups have taught such things. No NFP allowed without permission from your confessor. No intercourse once pregnancy became known. Any intercourse had to be at least a little sinful. Ya, I don’t think such bans were totally unknown. It would be my observation that in some quarters of the Church the whole concept on sex and sexuality has undergone a positive evolution.
Click to expand...
Referring to the text in bold, interesting assertions about Church history. Can you cite any sources for this?

And your final sentence is accurate. It is called Theology of the Body.
 
tomarin said:
how is this possible, anatomically speaking? as i understand it, to become pregnant, a woman has to have an egg residing in her womb, waiting to be fertilized. this obviously isn’t possible for a pregnant woman because 1. she already has a fetus in her womb and 2. knowing this, her body stops ovulating, i.e. sending unfertilized eggs to her womb, once she conceives.

am i wrong here? please tell me if so because my wife is 3 months pregnant.
Click to expand...
Not every woman stops ovulating due to pregnancy. Her menstruation must stop, but it is possible, and in cases of hormone assistance in fertility, not rare, for a woman to ovulate while pregnant.

I’ve known several cases where one child was developmentally more than a month behind their “twin” in utero.
 
Aramis said:
Not every woman stops ovulating due to pregnancy. Her menstruation must stop, but it is possible, and in cases of hormone assistance in fertility, not rare, for a woman to ovulate while pregnant.

I’ve known several cases where one child was developmentally more than a month behind their “twin” in utero.
Click to expand...
Wow! I had no idea that was possible.

James
 
Aramis said:
Not every woman stops ovulating due to pregnancy. Her menstruation must stop, but it is possible, and in cases of hormone assistance in fertility, not rare, for a woman to ovulate while pregnant.

I’ve known several cases where one child was developmentally more than a month behind their “twin” in utero.
Click to expand...
In order for me to believe this, I will require citations and documentation. There are many chemical and hormonal changes that take place beginning at the moment of conception.
 
zootjeff said:
Situation: Sex is recommended by the doctor in the 9th month to stimulate contractions. Wife is also prone to infection. Therefor sex with a condom is suggested. Because of religious misconceptions, neither is engaged in, thus baby is born late after placenta started to breakdown, or is required to be born by cesarean.
Click to expand...
Whats the problem with the condoms? For reference, my wife is 9 months pregnant NOW and they suggest we have sex to move the process along. They don’t suggest we us condoms, but if they did, I wouldn’t have any problem with it.

No doctor is going to recommend sex with condoms when trying to conceive…
Wouldn’t this use of condoms–to prevent infection rather than for contraception (although having a contraceptive side effect, if that is even possible in a 9 month pregnant lady)—be analogous to the (as I understand it) permitted use of OCP for medical rather than contraceptive effect?
 
CuriousInIL said:
Wouldn’t this use of condoms–to prevent infection rather than for contraception (although having a contraceptive side effect, if that is even possible in a 9 month pregnant lady)—be analogous to the (as I understand it) permitted use of OCP for medical rather than contraceptive effect?
Click to expand...
That is what I would think.

Frankly, I refuse to believe that a woman who is already pregnant can conceive a child while another is gestating. Therefore, contraception is a non-issue.

That, combined with the point above, the desire to avoid infection of either the mother or the baby, is certainly a valid point.

Look, I am totally opposed to artificial contraception. And personally, I think people often abuse NFP, despite the fact that NFP is all about self-control. But I think condom use in this **very narrow application **may be morally permissible.

Yet I am humble enough to accept correction on this from an authoritative source. I will always conform my conscience, and do my best to conform my behavior, to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
 
rwoehmke said:
I think it is like the teaching on limbo and salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the past some priests and maybe even higher ups have taught such things. No NFP allowed without permission from your confessor. No intercourse once pregnancy became known. Any intercourse had to be at least a little sinful. Ya, I don’t think such bans were totally unknown. It would be my observation that in some quarters of the Church the whole concept on sex and sexuality has undergone a positive evolution.
Click to expand...
In some of the eastern churches, Catholic and Orthodox, married priests are to abstain from sex before the Divine Liturgy. Lots of Christmas babies, too, because the great fast instruction also often includes abstaining from sex. (The next workday after Easter is so full of smiling Russian Orthodox men…)
 
graceandglory said:
Hi rpp,
It’s possible.
multiples.about.com/od/glossary/g/superfetation.htm

~ Mother of twins
:bounce: :bounce:
Click to expand...
Thank you.

It appears this is possible in two circumstances, until menstruation ceases (within a month) or if the woman has a double uterus. Only 70 cases of double-womb birth are known. Approximately 1 in 1,000 women have uterus didelphys in the UK. (See this article.)

If someone is talking about the 8th or 9th month, and the woman has normal physiology, then it is simply not biologically possible in humans for the woman to become pregnant again. Given these limitations, I stand by what I said.
 
graceandglory said:
It’s true. I used to talk to my daughter when she was in utero ~~ and she doesn’t remember our conversations, I asked her!
😉
Click to expand...
Hey, I can’t remember what I had for breakfast. Do not even think that I am going to remember something from when I was en utero. 🙂
 
The reasons condoms are ALWAYS forbidden, no matter what (remember there was some controversy a couple of years ago about some Bishops in Africa allowing married couples to use condoms during infertile periods when one was HIV positive, and the Vatican cracked down on that?) is not about contraception, but that condoms themselves place a literal barrier between husband and wife, thereby destroying the unitive
aspect of intercourse, which is required along w/ the procreative. I think this has been discussed in the Ask An Apologist forum, but I can’t remember.

In Christ,

Ellen
 
Mirror_Mirror said:
Why would/should they suggest a condom? Again, is this a Catholic doctor? Mind you, you have not problem with it, you are going against the Church’s teachings.
Click to expand...
Really? Are there texts in this context that support your claim? This makes almost as much sense as saying: “Well the Catholic church doesn’t like condoms under any circumstances. Rubber Gloves are like condoms, Cut off a glove finger and it looks like a condom. Therefore the church is against rubber gloves.” So better just handle that Sodium Hydroxide with your bare hands. Or better yet. Guns have the intention of killing people, not people, so outlaw the guns.

Condoms are a tool. You can use them to go against the Church or you can use them as a method to prevent infection in times of infertility. If you’re going to argue against this, I’m going to tell people to cut the fingers off of rubber gloves and use that instead because they’re not condoms and won’t go against these odd teachings of the Church…

-Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top