Pregnant Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angrycatholic41
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Angrycatholic41

Guest
My wife is Protestant and like the title says a pregnant. There is a medical complication with the pregnancy that permits us from having intercourse. As a Catholic the best option is obviously chastity. However she is posing some moral questions that I thought I’d share with you expert theologians.

Question 1) She can’t get pregnant again, so what does it matter if we practice sodomy?

Question 2) According to a Catholic marriage prep book we read which was based on Saint JP2 theology of the body. Oral sodomy can be permissible so ping as it leads to intercouse.
Why is it that some sodomy can be ok, if God forbids it?

Question 3) Is there a moral difference between sodomy performed by a man and wife vs a homosexual couple?
The
Note: I’m not considering her point. I’m just looking for something intelligent to say to her that perhaps a Protestant could understand.
 
Angrycatholic41 said:
Question 2) According to a Catholic marriage prep book we read which was based on Saint JP2 theology of the body. Oral sodomy can be permissible so ping as it leads to intercouse.
Why is it that some sodomy can be ok, if God forbids it?
Click to expand...
Just to address the easy one: a woman performing oral sex as foreplay is permissible, because it doesn’t replace the natural sexual act (vaginal intercourse). The man can still conclude the act in the natural fashion. A man performing oral sex on his wife doesn’t impede the sexual act either, since a woman can still have intercourse after having reached orgasm.

Also, can we please say “oral sex” instead of “oral sodomy”? I know oral sodomy is technically a correct term, but it’s a very outdated one and it makes me think of much more…unorthodox acts than run-of-the-mill oral sex.
 
This is off topic, but when I first joined CAF, I S-E-R-I-O-U-S-L-Y underestimated how often I would read the word “sodomy” on here.
 
If I understand correctly, foreplay, which can include both oral and anal sexual intercourse, between a married man and woman, are permissible as long as the man finishes in the correct spot where there is possibility of life resulting.

Foreplay between a straight couple and a homosexual couple is different because foreplay between a straight couple doesn’t hinder the natural act of reproduction only as long as the man finishes in the correct spot afterwards. For a homosexual couple, technically it’s all foreplay when they engage in sexual acts since persons of the same sex cannot participate in the natural act and so their sexual practices are inherently sinful because there is no goal of the natural act. If a straight couple does not complete the natural act a similar kind of logic can applied.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
Also, can we please say “oral sex” instead of “oral sodomy”? I know oral sodomy is technically a correct term, but it’s a very outdated one and it makes me think of much more…unorthodox acts than run-of-the-mill oral sex.
Click to expand...
Your clarification was necessary because i did not realize oral sodomy meant oral sex. I thought something else entirely:confused:
not familiar with the outdated term.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
If I understand correctly, foreplay, which can include both oral and anal sexual intercourse, between a married man and woman, are permissible as long as the man finishes in the correct spot where there is possibility of life resulting.

Foreplay between a straight couple and a homosexual couple is different because foreplay between a straight couple doesn’t hinder the natural act of reproduction only as long as the man finishes in the correct spot afterwards. For a homosexual couple, technically it’s all foreplay when they engage in sexual acts since persons of the same sex cannot participate in the natural act and so their sexual practices are inherently sinful because there is no goal of the natural act. If a straight couple does not complete the natural act a similar kind of logic can applied.
Click to expand...
As an aside. What if the wife is post-menopausal? Then what does it matter?
 
Angrycatholic41 said:
My wife is Protestant and like the title says a pregnant. There is a medical complication with the pregnancy that permits us from having intercourse. As a Catholic the best option is obviously chastity. However she is posing some moral questions that I thought I’d share with you expert theologians.

Question 1) She can’t get pregnant again, so what does it matter if we practice sodomy?

Question 2) According to a Catholic marriage prep book we read which was based on Saint JP2 theology of the body. Oral sodomy can be permissible so ping as it leads to intercouse.
Why is it that some sodomy can be ok, if God forbids it?

Question 3) Is there a moral difference between sodomy performed by a man and wife vs a homosexual couple?
The
Note: I’m not considering her point. I’m just looking for something intelligent to say to her that perhaps a Protestant could understand.
Click to expand...
Your post saddens and shocks me. I am sad that our Church has done such a poor job communicating the purpose if marital sex. I’m also shocked that at a time when the health of the mother and baby is at stake this is the issue.
  1. Acts must be ordered to procreation. Used the way God designed them. I’m shocked at this question.
  2. Be careful what you read. Though oral stimulation as foreplay is permissible, and sometimes quite helpful. But it has to end correctly.
  3. Why is that even an issue?
The job of a spouse is to help the other get to heaven. What you describe is not Holy.

Rarely am I shocked by posts. . But this one did it.
 
joeybaggz said:
As an aside. What if the wife is post-menopausal? Then what does it matter?
Click to expand...
Everything still applies. The couple has to be open to life, that’s why even sterile people can be married in the Church.
 
joeybaggz said:
As an aside. What if the wife is post-menopausal? Then what does it matter?
Click to expand...
Abraham’s wife Sarah was post-menopausal. God can give children to whomever He chooses, at any time, for whatever purpose He intends.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Your post saddens and shocks me. I am sad that our Church has done such a poor job communicating the purpose if marital sex. I’m also shocked that at a time when the health of the mother and baby is at stake this is the issue.
  1. Acts must be ordered to procreation. Used the way God designed them. I’m shocked at this question.
  2. Be careful what you read. Though oral stimulation as foreplay is permissible, and sometimes quite helpful. But it has to end correctly.
  3. Why is that even an issue?
The job of a spouse is to help the other get to heaven. What you describe is not Holy.

Rarely am I shocked by posts. . But this one did it.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you’re shocked, but if you read my first paragraph I’m not the antagonist. Chastity is clearly the best and only option.
 
Angrycatholic41 said:
I’m sorry you’re shocked, but if you read my first paragraph I’m not the antagonist. Chastity is clearly the best and only option.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying you are. But the misunderstanding of sex, marriage and our place with God is concerning. So it’s your wife that doesn’t understand and you need help explaining why sodomy as a pregnancy marital aid is wrong from a Christian perspective?

What is going on here!?
 
thephilosopher6 said:
If I understand correctly, foreplay, which can include both oral and anal sexual intercourse, between a married man and woman, are permissible as long as the man finishes in the correct spot where there is possibility of life resulting.

Foreplay between a straight couple and a homosexual couple is different because foreplay between a straight couple doesn’t hinder the natural act of reproduction only as long as the man finishes in the correct spot afterwards. For a homosexual couple, technically it’s all foreplay when they engage in sexual acts since persons of the same sex cannot participate in the natural act and so their sexual practices are inherently sinful because there is no goal of the natural act. If a straight couple does not complete the natural act a similar kind of logic can applied.
Click to expand...
So just to play devils advocate. I can finish in the right spot or finish outside of her and it won’t make her anymore pregnant. God has gifted people people with children who were barren, but to my knowledge hasn’t made any women more pregnant. Like adding a twin or something.
 
Angrycatholic41 said:
So just to play devils advocate. I can finish in the right spot or finish outside of her and it won’t make her anymore pregnant. God has gifted people people with children who were barren, but to my knowledge hasn’t made any women more pregnant. Like adding a twin or something.
Click to expand...
Oh geesh!:rolleyes:
Look, that actually has happened, but that’s beside the point.
What you are missing, perhaps deliberately, is that while we must be open to life, the marital act must be ORDERED to procreation. Not only open to it. Meaning the act must be done as god ORDERED. It.
Have you read TOB? Or the catechism?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I’m not saying you are. But the misunderstanding of sex, marriage and our place with God is concerning. So it’s your wife that doesn’t understand and you need help explaining why sodomy as a pregnancy marital aid is wrong from a Christian perspective?

What is going on here!?
Click to expand...
I’m kind of surprised that this, of all things, really shocks you. I mean, I agree with you as far as what is licit or illicit, but you have to recognize that what we hold is very much a minority position. I’d bet my left arm that the vast majorities of Christians, even excluding nominal ones, find nothing objectionable in non-vaginal sex (as in, only that, not merely as a prelude to vaginal sex) between spouses. And I can see how a Catholic might reason that while sex needs to be open to life, that rule might be suspended when the woman is already pregnant. I’m not saying I agree with that, but I can see how someone might arrive at that conclusion. I’m not sure why it strikes you as so out of left field.
 
I’m surprised that no one has considered that this is likely a contrived scenario to make a point.
The way the OP talks about his wife is so clinical. this is more like a debate piece on what Catholics believe and why some people think it’s looney.

Reading, but rolling my eyes as well. :rolleyes:
 
pianistclare said:
I’m surprised that no one has considered that this is likely a contrived scenario to make a point.
The way the OP talks about his wife is so clinical. this is more like a debate piece on what Catholics believe and why some people think it’s looney.

Reading, but rolling my eyes as well. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I’m beginning to believe there needs to be a dedicated “Catholic Sexuality” sub-forum just so we have a place to quarantine all of the smut questions.
 
Brassring said:
Abraham’s wife Sarah was post-menopausal. God can give children to whomever He chooses, at any time, for whatever purpose He intends.
Click to expand...
You know, I’d really like to see some 85 year old post menopausal woman conceive a child just so our Catholic position wouldn’t sound so hypothetical and downright silly when you think about it. I’m sure the 50,000 or so baptized Catholics who leave every month for a Pentecostal or Evangelical protestant church think it is.
.
 
pianistclare said:
I’m surprised that no one has considered that this is likely a contrived scenario to make a point.
The way the OP talks about his wife is so clinical. this is more like a debate piece on what Catholics believe and why some people think it’s looney.

Reading, but rolling my eyes as well. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Point well taken!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top