No sex allowed during pregnancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnnySav
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This may seem nit picky, but there is a very large, large difference between doing an act FOR pleasure, and enjoying an act.
 
Sometimes we find it difficult to accept various moral teachings. I believe St Paul speaks to how he wouldn’t have realized that something was immoral had it not been so commanded in the Law.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Oral sex performed on a man is sodomy.
Click to expand...
Where do get this understanding?

I’m of the sodomy = from Sodom where dudes wanted to rape angels understanding. I’ve heard this point of view before so I’m hoping you can provide some direction.
 
Is this an actual English definition, or at least a Catechism definition?
 
JohnnySav said:
I haven’t thought about that, finishing with very little penetration. That makes this easier actually very much. Thank you
Click to expand...
We tried that. In the end it’s really a joke. The same intent is involved; the same result is achieved. We ended up seeing it for what it was: a phony attempt to salve our consciences.
 
Last edited:
JohnnySav said:
Hard to understand it all to be honest. I honestly just want to be my best for Christ, I don’t know it all but I don’t see why being intimate with my wife (both cradle catholic, married in the church and loyal to each other) in ways other than penetrative sex (which medically can’t happen at this point in time) could be considered wrong.
Click to expand...
You can be intimate without intercourse. You can cuddle, snuggle, kiss, engage in intimate acts that do not lead to climax.

But the purpose of our genitals is twofold, and we already know masturbation is disordered— a violation of of the sixth commandment. So stimulating each other to climax is simply just masturbation. You cannot replace intercourse with other activities and seek orgasm outside intercourse. That’s a misuse of your body. And God is the author of our bodies and how they are to be used.

Simply saying, “she’s already pregnant” or “we are past menopause” so now we can masturbate doesn’t change the morality of masturbating— it’s intrinscially wrong. It’s always wrong to seek organs outside of intercourse.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don’t see how climax, engaged with a spouse but not including penetration, is harmful to marital bonds.

I am a woman so, perhaps it’s different for men. 🤷‍♀️
 
It’s not a matter of pregnancy being likely or being fertile, but about whether the act is ordered according to its ends (whether or not the ends will be achieved). It’s why the Church can marry infertile couples but cannot marry completely impotent couples.
 
Because we’re not behaving how human beings should behave and acting contrary (as opposed to neutral or in accordance with) to human nature. Of course, what is human nature as a whole and on this topic is a valid discussion point, and that is a subject of many Catholic theologians and scholars have written on, but it is immoral because it’s a conscious and intentional perversion of human nature.

Christians are called to continence in all areas of our life. There is some level of asceticism.
 
JohnnySav said:
The Doctors have advised not to have sex, as my wife has some minor complications concerning bleeding. Is it wrong for my wife and I, who are committed to each other by marriage and love to practice oral stimulation or manual stimulation on each other while advised by medical staff to not have sex?
Click to expand...
I think you need to be very sure you understand exactly what your wife’s doctor means by no sex.
 
I am afraid you do not know Catholic teaching if this is your view.
 
Obviously if fertilisation is possible by the little, which it is, then the act cannot be rationally chosen with non marital intent. Therefore it is a marital act.
 
Its not a good marital act if the genitals are intentionally used in a manner where fertilisation is always impossible by the inherent nature of that action.

Oral sex is inherently non fertile.
Spilling seed is inherently infertile.
Non penetrative vaginal sex can still be fertile as I understand it.

Being sterile or pregnant at the time is a separate issue so far as the marital act itself is concerned. It is completely mistaken to believe Catholics should not have sex when already pregnant or past menopause.
 
This is the part I have never understood about all of this. Lots of things in life are multi-purposed. It isn’t sinful to use them exclusively for one purpose over another. To give a basic example, our noses are for smelling as well as for providing an egress for bodily fluids. Why does the church feel so strongly that when a couple has sexual activity must be ordered to both purposes? I have read all of the church documents regarding this and all I can come up with is “because we said so”. I honestly want to understand, but the directive is hollow to me. To me, I see the beauty of our sexual organs is that the are multi-purposed and maybe God intended for us to use them to the end that is needed in the moment. Bonding with a significant other, release of anxiety and stress so a good night’s sleep can be had, and/or (yes) procreation, to name a few.
 
Last edited:
I am afraid I do. I merely disagree and stated my humble opinion that I (me here) do not think the argument holds.

I did say this that you could have missed…
MichaelP3 said:
I do know the Official Catholic position on this.
Click to expand...
And btw Huminae Vitae has been a previous extensive study of mine.

So a can assure you I understand it. I merely point out an issue I do not think is answered or justified and obviously just the fact that I disagree with it. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand. I just don’t buy it.

Regards
 
Last edited:
If you say so.

I didn’t make a joke when I asked how little penetration before it becomes a mortal sin?

Is that okay for everyone or just in the OPs case?
So if there is no pain, is it justified to do this?

And I am sure the list goes on and on.

Regards
 
I found your contribution confusing.
You did more than merely disagree with Church teaching. You also asked if your understanding was mistaken, in a mildly facetious way, and asked for help.
I mean, help me if I am wrong but I have never heard of a woman getting pregnant when she was already a few weeks pregnant? The procreative argument just falls flat here and I can’t see any reasonable argument for any sex at all until that is possible again.
Click to expand...
I simply observe that your observations are indeed absurd, not because Church teaching is flawed but because you clearly misunderstand it. The Church clearly does not teach that there should be no sex during pregnancy. If we believe its principles must lead to that conclusion then clearly we do not grasp the principles.
 
Yes organs are multi functional. But those functions dont usually work at the same time. Smelling is impossible if you are blowing your nose or have a cold and its running.

Trying to apply the dual ends of a human generative act of the will to the biological functions of a physical organ is a rather serious case of mixed categories!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top