Menses & Marital Act

[Cagrl]

A good friend of mine who is a Jehovah witness asserts that having intercourse when the woman is on her menstal cycle is a sin. She gave me the verse of Leviticus 18:19.

Any good answers out there to help me with my friend?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Polaris]

This is a hard one for most of catholic history would support that idea. There are multiple commands against it in the bible even linking it with immorality. Even the one your friend cited is in the one that most churches use against homosexuality. All the church fathers were against it and we have penitentiaries that describes the penances for it. The arguments mostly n the church was whether it was a mortal or a venial sin. It was not till mid 18th century that anyone questioned it even being a sin. Your only hope would appeal to our understanding in developmental biology, but Jehovah witness do not believe in science so you are going to have a serious problem. If anyone here wants all the verses her friends can use so you can refute them here and not wait for her return. I can give a good few of them since this interested me at one time.

 

[Cagrl]

So is it a sin? If so, is it mortal or venial?

 

[Polaris]

So is it a sin? If so, is it mortal or venial?

From what I understand the church no longer considers it a sin. If it was mortal or venial that was argued over in church history, however a majority thought it was a Mortal sin. The reason I was given of the change was that it was a misunderstanding of biology that led to this belief, injury to the child.

However why some think it was mortal besides it being an abomination was another instance in the bible:Ezekiel 18:5-7

If a man is righteous and does what is just and right— 6 if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, 7

It is put in the same category of Idolatry, and adultery.

I have never seen a good defense based on scripture, yet that where the teaching authority comes in your church, it can reinterpret scripture given evidence.

 

[DavidPalm]

All the church fathers were against it and we have penitentiaries that describes the penances for it. The arguments mostly n the church was whether it was a mortal or a venial sin.

Do you have any documentation for this? Thanks.

 

[06convert]

There is no sin here. Intercourse during menustration carries the same rules as intercourse during any other time, for example the act has to be with your spouse, your marriage has to be legitimate, etc.

The New Testament supercedes the Old. Let me explain.
Leviticus being in the Old Testament is part of the rules or codes of the Jewish people. In fact this in one of the books in The Torah. This section 17-26 is referred to as the Holiness code.

This doesn’t apply today because as Catholic Christians, we believe the purpose of the Old Testament has been fulfilled. The laws were designed to protect and provide for the purity of the Jews until the Messiah came. Jewish people still adhere to these rules, because they are still waiting for the Messiah. As Catholic Christians we know the Messiah is Jesus Christ , who has torn down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. The Old Testament law was a huge part of that barrier. Jesus is here, Old Testament prophacy fullfilled.

Like many things the teachings of the Old Testament were clairfied by Jesus himself in the New Testament. For instance Leviticus mentions not eating pork, because it’s unclean, however Jesus clarifies that in the New Testament. Mark 7; 14-15 NIV: 14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ "

The Old Testament laws that were carried over were the moral laws. The 10 commandments, which are rooted in the very character of God.

Does this make sense? Is there anything I can try to clarify better?

 

[06convert]

I forgot to mention also that there were other reasons that it may have been wrong in the Old Testament. Of course this is only speculation at this point:

First, it was probably hard to control the bleeding. So I’m sure the women limited their movement as much as possible. Having intercourse during this time would make a huge mess.

Second, even during this time couples realized that not having sex during this time, or having it be off limits would create a desire or a longing for the other person. This made their reunion after the 7 or so days very enjoyable for both.

Seems to make sense.

 

[Fidelia]

For a very long time, women were thought to be impure during their periods. So, it was thought impure to be with a menstruating woman. The verse that someone quoted in an above post, mentions it being a sin to be with a woman who is during her period of impurity. In the Catholic Church, there is no such period of ritual impurity connected with a woman’s menstrual cycle, hence, it is not a sin for a couple to have sex if the wife is on her period.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So long as the individual you are with is your spouse, it is not a sin.

 

[06convert]

So long as the individual you are with is your spouse, it is not a sin.

According to the Church, as long as you were married in the sacrament and are both willing to give yourselves to each other without reservation. Then there is no sin, you can have intercourse any day you want.

 

[porthos11]

The Old Testament citation cites ritual impurity, not sin.

It’s not a sin to have intercourse during a woman’s period. But nevertheless, there is the ick factor.

 

[Light_Seeker]

A good friend of mine who is a Jehovah witness asserts that having intercourse when the woman is on her menstal cycle is a sin. She gave me the verse of Leviticus 18:19…

Leviticus and Deuteronomy have many strange laws by today’s standards, this is one of them. One I love is unfaithful spouses should be put to death (Lev 20:10)! Now I’m sure JW’s do not practice Moses’s law here … why would they then practice Lev 18:19, or any of the other OT laws that have been superseded ?