Maritial relations and mortal sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter fermat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fermat

Guest
My wife and I practice NFP and are on the ‘trying to avoid’ side. (We have five.) We have been doing NFP long enough to know when she is fertile. The other night was one of those nights and we were lying in bed after the kids were down and started to cuddle. The cuddling got pretty active and one thing led to another and I ‘went off’ (as we like to put it).

I wasn’t trying to make it happen, but I didn’t really try and stop it either. I am familiar with Onanism and I am not sure if this situation qualifies. I know Onanism is wrong, so if what happened was that, then I would be in a state of mortal sin. But I don’t know if it is Onanism if it happens in the context of a husband and wife showing affection. In the end the goal was not for me to do that outside of my wife so we could avoid a pregnancy, but I am not sure if that is just semantics. From a practical standpoint, that is what happened. I am going to try to make it confession this weekend in any case, but I wanted some feed back in any case.

Peace!

Fermat
 
*Mary, I knew the ‘basics’ of what’s in that link, but the details? Wow, I appreciate you posting that, very helpful information to know. *
 
fermat said:
My wife and I practice NFP and are on the ‘trying to avoid’ side. (We have five.) We have been doing NFP long enough to know when she is fertile. The other night was one of those nights and we were lying in bed after the kids were down and started to cuddle. The cuddling got pretty active and one thing led to another and I ‘went off’ (as we like to put it).

I wasn’t trying to make it happen, but I didn’t really try and stop it either. I am familiar with Onanism and I am not sure if this situation qualifies. I know Onanism is wrong, so if what happened was that, then I would be in a state of mortal sin. But I don’t know if it is Onanism if it happens in the context of a husband and wife showing affection. In the end the goal was not for me to do that outside of my wife so we could avoid a pregnancy, but I am not sure if that is just semantics. From a practical standpoint, that is what happened. I am going to try to make it confession this weekend in any case, but I wanted some feed back in any case.

Peace!

Yep,
Been there. Go to confession. My wife and I are just beginning NFP and there have been some miscues.:o God is understanding. Remember, that reconciliation is there for us when we stumble.
Keep the Faith,
G1j
Click to expand...
 
I wasn’t trying to make it happen, but I didn’t really try and stop it either
Click to expand...
.

You just answered your own question, very honestly.🙂 (but you knew that, right?:))
*
“for what I have done and for what I have failed to do”*

You’re no 20 yr old, you have been there done that, you know your limits and pushed them, or better yet, let them push you.

I firmly
resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near
occasions of sin.

Get to confession my friend,God is so understanding! and treat your wife, your marriage and yourself better form now on.:signofcross:🙂
 
Thanks for all the words folks. I was pretty sure what the answer was, but it is always nice to have your brothers and sister give you a little kick when you need it.

God bless you all!
Fermat
 
fermat said:
My wife and I practice NFP and are on the ‘trying to avoid’ side. (We have five.) We have been doing NFP long enough to know when she is fertile. The other night was one of those nights and we were lying in bed after the kids were down and started to cuddle. The cuddling got pretty active and one thing led to another and I ‘went off’ (as we like to put it).

I wasn’t trying to make it happen, but I didn’t really try and stop it either. I am familiar with Onanism and I am not sure if this situation qualifies. I know Onanism is wrong, so if what happened was that, then I would be in a state of mortal sin. But I don’t know if it is Onanism if it happens in the context of a husband and wife showing affection. In the end the goal was not for me to do that outside of my wife so we could avoid a pregnancy, but I am not sure if that is just semantics. From a practical standpoint, that is what happened. I am going to try to make it confession this weekend in any case, but I wanted some feed back in any case.

Peace!

Fermat
Click to expand...
Onan’s crime was not simply “sperm wasting”. He was a scoundrel taking the sex under deceptive circumstances with no intention of carrying on his brother’s name with his widowed sister in law.

I truly don’t see any difference between NFP and condoms. The goal of both is to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.
 
TLM08 said:
Onan’s crime was not simply “sperm wasting”. He was a scoundrel taking the sex under deceptive circumstances with no intention of carrying on his brother’s name with his widowed sister in law.

I truly don’t see any difference between NFP and condoms. The goal of both is to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter what the goal is. The act is what matter. One act is open to the procreative and unitive aspects and the other is not. Condomistic sex is neither procreative nor unitive. There is no one flesh union. There is nothing inherently immoral about spacing or preventing conception. It is intrinsically evil to prevent the conception by blocking one of the aspects of the union of man and wife in the marital act. You need to study Theology of the Body.
 
TLM08 said:
Onan’s crime was not simply “sperm wasting”. He was a scoundrel taking the sex under deceptive circumstances with no intention of carrying on his brother’s name with his widowed sister in law.

I truly don’t see any difference between NFP and condoms. The goal of both is to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Big difference, and this is not theological at all but my personal woman’s perspective.

If my husband wants to shield himself from me, not interested.

If my husband and I have decided as a couple we need to postpone pregnancy and he’s not willing to work with me and chart with me and wait until we can have unaltered relations, not interested.

See, one approach is interactive and interested in a bigger picture whole the other is a quick fix. One is about what I want now and one is about what we see in our future and discerning what God has in mind for us. One keep in mind our family and one is just about us, now. One is about keeping parts of ourselves from each other, the other is about being together even more intimately. One is about there here and now, the other is about the ever after. One is about putting God first and your spouse first and one is about indulgence. One is consistent with God’s plan for us as a couple and one isn’t.

And as a woman, one is a complete turn off and one is an endearing respect building experience. It’s a no brainer really.
 
OP:

Sounds like it was an accident, so I don’t think you have anything to confess.

Seatuck:

Since this thread is already getting derailed…
Seatuck said:
Condomistic sex is neither procreative nor unitive. There is no one flesh union.
Click to expand...
If the act of “condomistic” sex is objectively wrong, how are perforated condoms deemed a licit way of collecting sperm samples for fertility testing?
 
TLM08 said:
Onan’s crime was not simply “sperm wasting”. He was a scoundrel taking the sex under deceptive circumstances with no intention of carrying on his brother’s name with his widowed sister in law.

I truly don’t see any difference between NFP and condoms. The goal of both is to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
God made the female cycle to be fertile only 1/3 of the time…at best. Using the non-fertile times to make love is not sinful, both unitive and procreative aspects are still intact and respected.
 
Rico_S said:
OP:

Sounds like it was an accident, so I don’t think you have anything to confess.

Seatuck:

Since this thread is already getting derailed…

If the act of “condomistic” sex is objectively wrong, how are perforated condoms deemed a licit way of collecting sperm samples for fertility testing?
Click to expand...
I’ve never read an explanation for it myself.Maybe someone can provide one. I guess it’s under the “medical provision”(my words not the churches) like for when hormonal preparations such as birth control pills are used to treat an illness. Probably falls under principal of double effect in a some way.The intent is for medical diagnosis and is not going to be used outside the confines of this medical treatment.The intent is not contraceptive. Remember the perforations allow for the transmission of the husbands body in the form of his fluids to meet with his wife’s body and be absorbed by her - a component of the one flesh union. Just as we absorb communion into our bodies and become one with Christ.Marriage is a reflection of Christs relationship with the church - that whole bride/bridegroom thing we see in scripture. The marital act is also a reflection and is especially seen in relation to the Eucharist as well as the relationship within the Trinity itself which is all giving and perpetually fruitful in intent. Theology of the Body.
 
Rico_S said:
If the act of “condomistic” sex is objectively wrong, how are perforated condoms deemed a licit way of collecting sperm samples for fertility testing?
Click to expand...
I’m not Seatuck, but I think I have an explanation. Condomistic sex (buying a pack of Trojans or what-have-you) is different from perforated condom sex in its intent and its goal. The 1st (Trojans) is simply sex for pleasure with the intention of avoiding pregnancy. The 2nd (perforated) is sex for procreation w/ a little extra help at getting pregnant (either this time or in the future). The 2nd example has absolutely nothing to do with shielding a portion of one spouse from the other. Instead it is an assistance for the God-given purpose of sex - procreation.

The perforated condom use for fertility reasons is a bit problematic b/c of this type of comparison. However, when one actually looks at the intention and goal of the act - one can see that in essence it is good. If a pregnancy results, there is no way of telling whether it resulted from the perforated act or the semi-artificial act (not truly invitro, but assisted reproduction).
 
If you were intending for it to happen and did not set out to keep from getting pregnant, it’s not a mortal sin… I doubt if it’s any sin at all. If you think I’m wrong use the “Ask an Apologist” section.

Joe
 
Thanks for the replies BB and Seatuck. Both of you speak to intent being the difference, and I agree that the intent of using condoms as a method of BC is much different than the intent of using a perforated condom so as to collect a semen sample. However, I don’t thinks this meshes very well with the whole condemnation of abc and justification for NFP. The intent in contracepted sex and the intent of NFP are basically the same…it is to enjoy the benefits of the marital embrace (BB you say “pleaure” in your post, but it is more than that…bonding, intimacy, closeness,etc) while avoiding pregnancy. Now the manner going about achieving that end is indeed quite different, but the intent is still the same.

We know that abc is condemned b/c, unlike NFP, abc seeks to artificially change the act, either by barrier or chemically altering the body process to supress fertility. How is wearing a perforated condom not artificially changing the act and suppressing fertility? The same barrier to physical oneness is there with the perforated condom as it is with the standard condom, and while some “seed” is allowed to slip through the perforated condom, is seems obvious that fertility is significantly suppressed when only small fraction of the ejaculate is allowed to enter the woman.

Furthermore, Seatuck referenced a very beautiful comparision of the marital embrace to the trinity and the eucharist. It seems a bit off that the chuch would allow this reflection of the trinity itself to be tarnished by the used of a condom with holes in it for the purpose of collecting a body fluid for medical testing.

Anyway, sorry for the derailing of the thread…Seatuck’s mention of “condomistic sex” reminded me of this topic.

–Rico
 
Rico_S said:
Thanks for the replies BB and Seatuck. Both of you speak to intent being the difference, and I agree that the intent of using condoms as a method of BC is much different than the intent of using a perforated condom so as to collect a semen sample. However, I don’t thinks this meshes very well with the whole condemnation of abc and justification for NFP. The intent in contracepted sex and the intent of NFP are basically the same…it is to enjoy the benefits of the marital embrace (BB you say “pleaure” in your post, but it is more than that…bonding, intimacy, closeness,etc) while avoiding pregnancy. Now the manner going about achieving that end is indeed quite different, but the intent is still the same.

We know that abc is condemned b/c, unlike NFP, abc seeks to artificially change the act, either by barrier or chemically altering the body process to supress fertility. How is wearing a perforated condom not artificially changing the act and suppressing fertility? The same barrier to physical oneness is there with the perforated condom as it is with the standard condom, and while some “seed” is allowed to slip through the perforated condom, is seems obvious that fertility is significantly suppressed when only small fraction of the ejaculate is allowed to enter the woman.

Furthermore, Seatuck referenced a very beautiful comparision of the marital embrace to the trinity and the eucharist. It seems a bit off that the chuch would allow this reflection of the trinity itself to be tarnished by the used of a condom with holes in it for the purpose of collecting a body fluid for medical testing.

Anyway, sorry for the derailing of the thread…Seatuck’s mention of “condomistic sex” reminded me of this topic.

–Rico
Click to expand...
In truth, I somewhat agree w/ your analysis. I have never struggled w/ the type of infertility that required the use of the perforated condoms, so I don’t know what I would advocate. However, my aunt & uncle struggled for 10+ years to have a child & went through all the basic options and finally reached a point where they toed the allowable line of the Church.

In looking into the issue I found a reference from the NCCB on this topic. It doesn’t indicate necessarily the ‘why’s’ of perforated condoms being allowed - it just indicates they are licit. One of the statements that I find best explaining the licitness of using a perforated condom is this… “Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral.”

My assumption is that the barrier is incomplete (the perforations) and therefore, not actually cancelling out the unitive aspects of marital relations. I know that the Pope Paul VI Institute is solidly Catholic & does not advocate the use of anything that can interfere w/ normal marital relations. The institute allows the collection of semen using a perforated condom during normal marital relations (although for analysis they prefer post-coital samples to be taken from the woman’s reproductive tract).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top