Question about intercourse during pregnancy

[agapewolf]

The purpose of sex is both unitive and life giving. One without the other is a sin against chastity. If one or more partner is incapable of orgasm, that’s another story, but to willfully stop in the middle of intercourse without intention of finishing is sinful.

You can have the last word if you want but I am respectfully bowing out because I feel that we could go on this way for a while without progress.

This has nothing to do with the last word. It has to do with you making up rules that simply don’t exist. I know what the purpose of sex is. I agree full out with the Catholic church’s teachings.

What you are stating is NOT Catholic church teaching.

To the OP…there is NOTHING sinful about stopping sex. It was not a sin. (Assuming there was no completion in any way).

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Well just imagine how stupid and ridiculous this would be in practice… you’re the husband and you’re having sex with your wife when all of the sudden she starts vomiting all over you. But you don’t stop, because stopping would be sinful… LOL really? SMH.

 

[1love]

This has nothing to do with the last word. It has to do with you making up rules that simply don’t exist. I know what the purpose of sex is. I agree full out with the Catholic church’s teachings.

What you are stating is NOT Catholic church teaching.

To the OP…there is NOTHING sinful about stopping sex. It was not a sin. (Assuming there was no completion in any way).

Ok, I must know. Please show me in the CCC or other church document where it says you’re allowed to interrupt intercoarse without a good reason. It looks like you are saying that anyone can stop mid-intercoarse if they don’t want to get pregnant.

If that is NOT what you are saying, you must have misunderstood what I said to the OP, on which case please quote exactly what I said that was against church teaching and show me where I was wrong.

Veritas, of course not, I told her she didn’t commit a sin. I feel that my post was greatly misunderstood. I have said nothing against church teaching and if I have please quote & cite.

 

[underacloud]

Well just imagine how stupid and ridiculous this would be in practice… you’re the husband and you’re having sex with your wife when all of the sudden she starts vomiting all over you. But you don’t stop, because stopping would be sinful… LOL really? SMH.

Hmmm…exactly how much vomit are we talking about?

Just kidding. I’m pretty sure agapewolf and 1love have just misunderstood what each other meant with regard to being interrupted and being unable to complete the act. Though perhaps not with regard to having sex but deliberately stopping before completion? (I’m not sure why anyone would want to do that anyway)

 

[Weissystems]

This is not a sin!
www.cathyolicprayergroup.net

 

[agapewolf]

Ok, I must know. Please show me in the CCC or other church document where it says you’re allowed to interrupt intercoarse without a good reason. It looks like you are saying that anyone can stop mid-intercoarse if they don’t want to get pregnant.

If that is NOT what you are saying, you must have misunderstood what I said to the OP, on which case please quote exactly what I said that was against church teaching and show me where I was wrong.

.

Your link even defined coitus interruptus as “withdrawal method”. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS SIMPLY STOPPING.

intent has nothing to do with it.

You can’t cite a “negative”. The church is clear about the sexual act, if done to climax, must be together. The sexual act, to completion, must be done together. THAT is the church teaching.

There is nothing about a married couple simply stopping. To come out with extra rules, defining them as sinful is wrong.

 

[JackieMom]

Yeah, there is no rule that says sex has to end with orgasm. And for many women, it doesn’t. No one has to engage in sex acts against their will, even with their spouse. Stop still means stop, immediately.

Withdrawal method assumes man pulls out and quickly ejaculates elsewhere, which is, of course, wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, I must know.** Please show me in the CCC or other church document where it says you’re allowed to interrupt intercoarse without a good reason**. It looks like you are saying that anyone can stop mid-intercoarse if they don’t want to get pregnant.

If that is NOT what you are saying, you must have misunderstood what I said to the OP, on which case please quote exactly what I said that was against church teaching and show me where I was wrong.

Veritas, of course not, I told her she didn’t commit a sin. I feel that my post was greatly misunderstood. I have said nothing against church teaching and if I have please quote & cite.

This is not how it works. An action is presumed permissible unless there is a Church teaching against it, not the other way around. If you want to claim that something is prohibited you are the one who must show the teaching which says so.

 

[underacloud]

But why would anyone deliberately have sexual intercourse but finish before male ejaculation?

If it is to deliberately prevent pregnancy, I contend that it is just as ilicit as coitus interuptus.

From Humanae Vitae:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Withdrawal (whether the man subsequently ejaculates or not) with the intention of having intercourse but preventing procreation, is not allowable IMO.

Withdrawal because something has come up (emotional wife, crying children, doorbell ringing, etc) is different because there was never any intention not to complete the act. but from my reading of the above, you shouldn’t commence intercourse if you don’t intend to complete it in a way consistent with the requirement of being “ordered to procreation”.

 

[1love]

But why would anyone deliberately have sexual intercourse but finish before male ejaculation?

This is what I want to know. CCC states that sex must be BOTH unitive and procreative. Please explain how it is procreative for the couple to intentionally and willfully stop before the husband climaxes.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Veritas, of course not, I told her she didn’t commit a sin. I feel that my post was greatly misunderstood. I have said nothing against church teaching and if I have please quote & cite.

I wasn’t suggesting that you did, sorry if you thought I was referring to you.

I honestly don’t know what the argument between you and agape is all about, it sounds like you basically agree.

 

[1love]

I wasn’t suggesting that you did, sorry if you thought I was referring to you.

I honestly don’t know what the argument between you and agape is all about, it sounds like you basically agree.

Sorry for my misunderstanding

Unless I’m missing something:
Me - sex must end in make climax unless something prohibits that from happening
Agape - you can stop in the middle of sex even if nothing happens to interrupt you

If I’m wrong about that I guess this debate is over

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Sorry for my misunderstanding

Unless I’m missing something:
Me - sex must end in make climax unless something prohibits that from happening
Agape - you can stop in the middle of sex even if nothing happens to interrupt you

If I’m wrong about that I guess this debate is over

You’re right. Sex must end in climax unless something prohibits that from happening. Being “liberal,” I would not stress at all about whether I sinned or not if something interrupted sex; I wouldn’t worry whether it was a “good enough” reason or not. But that’s fine.

Nevertheless, you are right and it IS clear enough… if you begin having sex with the INTENT to avoid conception then that is sinful. You are purposefully frustrating both purposes of sex so, definitely a sin.