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.
StratusRose said:
Pleasure is the motivation for sex. What’s wrong with sharing pleasure with my spouse whilst pregnant? Having sex for pleasure is wrong when you’re

a. contracepting (not open to life)
b. not married
c. not interested in the dignity of your spouse, only fulfilling your selfish desires.

Just because married couples have sex for pleasure does not mean they are being selfish or unholy. Come on, God made it pleasurable. Why not enjoy it?

Natural infertility (i.e. pregnancy, menopause, breastfeeding) was designed by God. I don’t think He expects us to stop having sex because there’s no possibility for new life.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing wrong with sex when you are not furtile… I wish some people didn’t think so negatively about intercourse. TOB is a wonderful explaination of the biblical history of sex and it’s value in the marital relationship. But “The Good News about Sex and Marriage” is not either understood or some just don’t want to believe it.

We’ve lived with all the issues the current culture of sex creates so some believe the opposite must be true… that sex is bad or only to be used to reproduce… there is much history here, as well. I feel so sorry for those folks.

I posted a few entries from the CCC several posts back. It clearly states the marital embrace is also for enjoyment by the couple and not mearly for biological reasons.
 
Also didn’t Pope John Paul II warn against the marital embrace only being used for procreation. That only using the marriage act for procreation only could degrade the dignity of the spouse just as using it for pleasure only could, and that this is also a form of using the spouse for personal gratification, since then it takes the unitive out of the act. If I remember correctly, I read something along these lines in Love and Responsibility
 
agmoose02 said:
Also didn’t Pope John Paul II warn against the marital embrace only being used for procreation. That only using the marriage act for procreation only could degrade the dignity of the spouse just as using it for pleasure only could, and that this is also a form of using the spouse for personal gratification, since then it takes the unitive out of the act. If I remember correctly, I read something along these lines in Love and Responsibility
Click to expand...
I don’t remember him saying that, but it makes absolute sense. Even the book “Taking Charge of Your Fertility” by Toni Weschler, she warns against this because it makes the spouses feel used.
 
AeroChunky said:
I dunno…I think the main intent of sex is always pleasure. Pleasuring your spouse and yourself. Remain open to life all you want, unless you are specifically trying to make a baby that time, the main intent is to make your spouse and yourself feel good. But it’s very nature, the please you experience during sex bringd about the unitive aspect of spousal intimacy.
Click to expand...
Pleasure is not the main intent of sex and if it is then you are not bonding with your spouse the way that God intended you to. As we have learned through the teachings of the Catholic Church, there are two things that must always be present in the marital embrace, it must be procreative (open to life) and unitive (uniting the husband and wife in a renewal of their wedding vows). Pleasure is a by-product of this (if you will) marital act. If you main focus in sex is the pleasure that you will gain from it, then it becomes a selfish and self-serving act that is contrary to what it was intended to be. Sex between a husband an wife as about giving to each other freely, totally, fruitfully and faithfully. It is not about the momentary pleasure of an orgasm.

If sex was not pleasurable we would not do it. God knows what He is doing, He created sex this way for a reason. So while there is pleasure in sex, it cannot be the main focus of sex.
AeroChunky said:
And especially during pregnancy, most of the good Catholic folks out there are blissfully unaware that they can conceive, so they are doing it primarily for pleasure, in the unitive aspect.
Click to expand...
True that during a pregnancy the main intent is to unite with your husband and wife in the marital embrace. But again, that is the main intent, the pleasure is just a welcomed inclusion.
 
agmoose02 said:
Also didn’t Pope John Paul II warn against the marital embrace only being used for procreation. That only using the marriage act for procreation only could degrade the dignity of the spouse just as using it for pleasure only could, and that this is also a form of using the spouse for personal gratification, since then it takes the unitive out of the act. If I remember correctly, I read something along these lines in Love and Responsibility
Click to expand...
What must a couple do, then, who wishes to have more children, but one of whom is horribly unattracted to the other and only participates in the marital act as a duty?
 
Scottgun said:
Yep. Love is an act of the will. Not a mechanic of physical attraction.
Click to expand...
But keep in mind the context:

Originally Posted by agmoose02 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Also didn’t Pope John Paul II warn against the marital embrace only being used for procreation. That only using the marriage act for procreation only could degrade the dignity of the spouse just as using it for pleasure only could, and that this is also a form of using the spouse for personal gratification, since then it takes the unitive out of the act. If I remember correctly, I read something along these lines in Love and Responsibility

So wouldn’t any marital act be immoral if one spouse were simply doing it as a duty to the other, or if the couple agreed they wished to conceive, but the one still felt repulsed and did it only as a means to have a child?

Either of these would be an act of the will, but each would be missing a unitive component. Right?

Should I open a new thread?
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
So wouldn’t any marital act be immoral if one spouse were simply doing it as a duty to the other, or if the couple agreed they wished to conceive, but the one still felt repulsed and did it only as a means to have a child?
Click to expand...
no, since willing submission to one’s spousal duties is praised by St. Paul. There have been times where my willingness to have sex with my wife was one of submission to duty, and others where the reverse was true, and times where it was mutually desired.

If they wish a child, together, then the unitive aspect is still present, since the act requires cooperation. To quote Rev. Fr. Don Bramble, OP, “The largest sex organ is the skin, and the most important is the brain.” (A reminder at my last confession…)

And he’s dead on right, in his academic way… If arousal can be obtained by the couple, there is sufficient attraction for the needs of both the unitive and procreative goals of marital copulation.

So, even if the physical appeal is lacking, the willingness to copulate for procreation still unites the two in the marital embrace, even if it is out of duty rather than marital lust.
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
Either of these would be an act of the will, but each would be missing a unitive component. Right?

Should I open a new thread?
Click to expand...
no.
 
Mirror_Mirror said:
Pleasure is not the main intent of sex and if it is then you are not bonding with your spouse the way that God intended you to. As we have learned through the teachings of the Catholic Church, there are two things that must always be present in the marital embrace, it must be procreative (open to life) and unitive (uniting the husband and wife in a renewal of their wedding vows). Pleasure is a by-product of this (if you will) marital act. If you main focus in sex is the pleasure that you will gain from it, then it becomes a selfish and self-serving act that is contrary to what it was intended to be. Sex between a husband an wife as about giving to each other freely, totally, fruitfully and faithfully. It is not about the momentary pleasure of an orgasm.

If sex was not pleasurable we would not do it. God knows what He is doing, He created sex this way for a reason. So while there is pleasure in sex, it cannot be the main focus of sex.

True that during a pregnancy the main intent is to unite with your husband and wife in the marital embrace. But again, that is the main intent, the pleasure is just a welcomed inclusion.
Click to expand...
I would maintain that pleasure is most certainly the intent of sex. Not so much a selfish pleasure, but to bond with the spouse and share pleasure, to cause pleasure. The unitive aspect of marital sex is done through sexual pleasure.

As per the CCC:

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.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure.
 
AeroChunky said:
I would maintain that pleasure is most certainly the intent of sex. Not so much a selfish pleasure, but to bond with the spouse and share pleasure, to cause pleasure. The unitive aspect of marital sex is done through sexual pleasure.

As per the CCC:

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.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure.
Click to expand...
But if you only intent to have intercourse with your spouse is the pleasure that you will attain from that orgasm, is that not sinful?
 
Mirror_Mirror said:
But if you only intent to have intercourse with your spouse is the pleasure that you will attain from that orgasm, is that not sinful?
Click to expand...
Yup, that’s why the Church teaches that all acts must be procreative and untive…unitive alone will be sinful, since the only product is pleasure.

That’s why I’m thinking that the OP’s question is very valid…if the spouses firmly think that they cannot get pregnant again due tp pregnancy, would it not be sinful to engage in sex? I think it just might be.
 
AeroChunky said:
Yup, that’s why the Church teaches that all acts must be procreative and untive…unitive alone will be sinful, since the only product is pleasure.

That’s why I’m thinking that the OP’s question is very valid…if the spouses firmly think that they cannot get pregnant again due tp pregnancy, would it not be sinful to engage in sex? I think it just might be.
Click to expand...
“Procreative” does not mean “fertile.” Otherwise NFP would be illicit, since it makes us of naturally infertile periods while a couple wishes to avoid pregnancy (for good reasons). Sex during pregnancy is, as far as I can tell, no different from sex during the luteal phase of the cycle.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
What must a couple do, then, who wishes to have more children, but one of whom is horribly unattracted to the other and only participates in the marital act as a duty?
Click to expand...
If there isn’t enough love to get through the physical unattraction, perhaps it would be wise to consider the validity of the marriage.
 
Originally Posted by Newbie2
  1. There is no way that intercourse during pregnancy will result in a pregnancy. Not a “slim” or “very unlikely occurance”. It cannot happen.
st_lucy said:
This is not true you can read about that here, here and here.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the source (The Daily Mail) is credible, and I don’t, let’s say that at a certain point in pregnancy, it cannot happen. Interesting that both sets of twins were conceived three weeks apart. :hmmm:

I’m also making the assumption that the OP was referring to intercourse at a stage of pregnancy where it is obvious that wife is obviously pregnant, which would not be the case at 3 weeks of gestation for most women. I’m also assuming that most women wouldn’t even suspect being 3 weeks pregnant, as they most likely would not have missed a cycle.

Not being one myself, these are assumptions. 😃
 
Newbie2 said:
Originally Posted by Newbie2
  1. There is no way that intercourse during pregnancy will result in a pregnancy. Not a “slim” or “very unlikely occurance”. It cannot happen.
Assuming that the source (The Daily Mail) is credible, and I don’t, let’s say that at a certain point in pregnancy, it cannot happen. Interesting that both sets of twins were conceived three weeks apart. :hmmm:

I’m also making the assumption that the OP was referring to intercourse at a stage of pregnancy where it is obvious that wife is obviously pregnant, which would not be the case at 3 weeks of gestation for most women. I’m also assuming that most women wouldn’t even suspect being 3 weeks pregnant, as they most likely would not have missed a cycle.

Not being one myself, these are assumptions. 😃
Click to expand...
Well considering on the second link posted from Fox the mother conceived twins miscarried one of the twins at seven weeks and two weeks later found out they had conceived another child. That would have been about eight to nine weeks apart.
Their mother Charlotte Mullineux had been pregnant with twins when she miscarried one of them at seven weeks. But two weeks later she discovered she was carrying another fetus — conceived separately and still growing in her womb.
Click to expand...
 
AeroChunky said:
I would maintain that pleasure is most certainly the intent of sex. Not so much a selfish pleasure, but to bond with the spouse and share pleasure, to cause pleasure. The unitive aspect of marital sex is done through sexual pleasure.

As per the CCC:

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.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure.
Click to expand...
This does not say that the unitive aspect is done through sexual pleasure, only that sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure. It is not a command as in “sexualty must be a source of joy and pleasure.”

I would say that the unity is done throught the total self giving. I really can’t think of anything more loving than to give of yourself when you don’t feel like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top