No sex allowed during pregnancy

[BlackFriar]

Its not the same intent which is the point.
An act intended so as to respect its inherent, usual teleology (procreation) is clearly different from intending one where procreation is inherently not within the inherent teleology of the act.

Similar outcomes do not necessitate similar causal motives.

If you truly believe that minimally penetrative sex is no different from oral sex then either confession or abstinence seems to be the only honourable way forward that respects your conscience.

However if others do not see the suggested advice as “a joke” then I believe they can do so in good conscience and its in accord with Church teaching.

 

[MichaelP3]

I found your contribution confusing.

Let me attempt to explain. Although I would rather call it an observation.

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.

So first of all yes, I verily disagree with the Catholic position on this( My actual thoughts I would rather not say). My question did not come from a misunderstanding, it came from a disagreement. I know about the ordered and disordered “concept” I just do not buy it. Therefore my question still remains and I can only see the argument hold in it’s totality. To divide it into two does not work. Again my opinion.

So my understanding that a pregnant woman can get pregnant while being pregnant is very simple. It is not possible. To even try and attempt to say it needs to be ordered to procreation while she is pregnant is really beating around the bush. Again and it seems I should say it again, I understand the idea, it just does not hold.

To say it was mildly “facetious”. Well sir, I can say I agree it is very serious as the poster explained it and I really feel for the OP. Take a look at my reply here…

I do not have a Catholic solution. I honestly do not agree with it in any way. I do know the teaching hence my reluctance to give a clear answer.

I am starting to hope you get that I do understand the Catholic idea and didn’t just say what I think? My answer here could have been very different…

I simply observe that your observations are indeed absurd,

Well that word comes up many times in my mind. I just refrain from using it?

not because Church teaching is flawed but because you clearly misunderstand it.

Well this could take many more threads. Let me explain an analogy.

I do not like American Football. One can even say I almost hate it. I think the rules could be so much better and it would be a wonderful game. Does this automatically mean I do not understand it?

So please, do not fall into the category of Catholics on here who thinks “If you understood Catholicism, you would be Catholic”. I started a thread on it a while back and I would not say I was wrong… The fall-back reply is always “You do not understand”??? (And here I sit studying the Catechism more than my Calculus a few years back. And I actually did really well there)

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.

No the Catholic Church does not say this, I KNOW. Yet the arguments seem to be very contradicting. As stated before.

To end, I am very well aware what the Catholic Church say on this. Quiz me on Huminae Vitae and the Catechism if need be.

 

[MichaelP3]

I am really still interested in this?

Is this only “Okay” for the case of the OP or for anyone?
So if no bleeding is observed or any other problem, is this still okay?
And still, what constitutes “very little penetration”? How little before it is wrong?

I am not joking and I would really like to know the answer to these?

 

[BlackFriar]

To even try and attempt to say it needs to be ordered to procreation while she is pregnant is really beating around the bush.

Hence my observation you do not understand the philosophic argument, though you think you do. Crediting ones protaginist with the intellect/arguments of a 12 year old rather than accept the more realistic hypothesis that the argument is deep or foreign to your own way of thinking seems more likely the issue.

I had better counter arguments in my 7th form RE class 43 years ago without resorting to such a mistaken understanding of the actual teaching I must observe. I disagree myself on some points by the way. I consider myself Catholic. But I respect the intelligence of the Church somewhat more than you it seems.

 

[MichaelP3]

I see you conveniently ignored my entire post where I tried to explain this to you? Also the topic kind of shifted now. Anyway I thought my analogy would explain it better.

Hence my observation you do not understand the philosophic argument, though you think you do. Crediting ones protaginist with the intellect/arguments of a 12 year old rather than accept the more realistic hypothesis that the argument is deep or foreign to your own way of thinking seems more likely the issue.

Just WOW. You don’t hold back do you?

I do agree the argument is very deep (But I am afraid not very realistic), maybe too deep which ends with many things not adding up which leads to added “explanations” to justify the previous deep argument and on it goes.

Being deep is not a justification, not at all. It rather becomes deep when too many things are invented and all these need to be explained/justified…

I had better counter arguments in my 7th form RE class 43 years ago without resorting to such a mistaken understanding of the actual teaching I must observe.

See above

I asked you not to fall into the category on CAF that believes people just do not understand. I even asked you to quiz me.

I disagree myself on some points by the way. I consider myself Catholic. But I respect the intelligence of the Church somewhat more than you it seems.

I do not think I disrespect the CC. I just think this is by far not their area of any expertise at all.

But seeing as you are thinking “very little” penetration is okay I asked the following which you probably missed? I may go as far as saying “you don’t understand the teaching” if you say this. But then again, I try not to make assumptions.

I am really still interested in this?

Is this only “Okay” for the case of the OP or for anyone?

So if no bleeding is observed or any other problem, is this still okay?

And still, what constitutes “very little penetration”? How little before it is wrong?

I am not joking and I would really like to know the answer to these?

Side note: please scale down on the insults, it is not very nice.

 

[BlackFriar]

But seeing as you are thinking “very little” penetration is okay I asked the following which you probably missed?

No sex allowed during pregnancy Moral Theology

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 …

 

[MichaelP3]

I am really still interested in this?

Is this only “Okay” for the case of the OP or for anyone?

So if no bleeding is observed or any other problem, is this still okay?

And still, what constitutes “very little penetration”? How little before it is wrong?

I am not joking and I would really like to know the answer to these?

Not really sure that answers the above. As you can see it begs many more questions the deeper it goes…

So it is deep. I agree. Personally I feel it being “deep” makes it a way lot more difficult for Catholics to justify.

 

[MichaelP3]

Also you failed to reply to any of my replies (yet again).

I really replied as I could in answer to whatever you replied to. So the original reply from you stating , I do not understand, well I am not sure that held up in any reasonable sense!