Question

[Katie1723]

If, according to church teaching, the purpose of having sexual relations is for procreation, does the church consider it to be a sin if a man has relations with his pregnant wife ? Once again, this was another question brought up at a round table discussion at work.
** Thanks,**
** ~ Kathy ~**

 

[Fergal]

The sexual act must be unitive and procreative.

Having relations with ones pregnant wife fulfills both counts. Although the female body is no longer able to concieve the act is still procreative and unitive.

 

[jmv]

Sexual relations are for procreation, but not exclusively so. If it was, then it would not be permissable to have sex during the wife’s infertile times. We cannot change the fertility God gave us. We must be open to accepting the fertility(or lack thereof) that he gave us, even during times we know we can’t concieve.

 

[savone]

If, according to church teaching, the purpose of having sexual relations is for procreation, does the church consider it to be a sin if a man has relations with his pregnant wife ? Once again, this was another question brought up at a round table discussion at work.
** Thanks,**
** ~ Kathy ~**

Forget the answer. I want to know where in the world do you work that you’re having “round table discussions” such as this???

 

[martino]

That would be the same as the couple having sex during the womans period of infertility…in either case there is no separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the act and so there is nothing immoral about such an act.

 

[misericordie]

If, according to church teaching, the purpose of having sexual relations is for procreation, does the church consider it to be a sin if a man has relations with his pregnant wife ? Once again, this was another question brought up at a round table discussion at work.
Thanks,
~ Kathy ~

SEx with a pregnant wife is perfectly accepted by the Catholic Church, though nothing artificial is to used an the climaxing must be done in a normal intercourse way. Sounds kind of fun actually. No SIN=I asked a priest who is VERY orthodox!!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How can it be procreative? It is not open to new life.

One of the biggest arguments I hear in favor of NFP is that it is still open to new life, if it be God’s will, even during so-called “infertile” times.

Alan

 

[1ke]

AlanFromWichita:

How can it be procreative? It is not open to new life.

One of the biggest arguments I hear in favor of NFP is that it is still open to new life, if it be God’s will, even during so-called “infertile” times.

Alan

Alan,

I know you struggle with this particular topic. That said, what you are not seeing is that it is objectively procreative. Yes, subjectively that particular act did not create new life. But, objectively you have done nothing to alter the act and therefore it is objectively ordered towards procreation. If the act has not been altered or distorted, it is a procreative act objectively speaking.

There is always an objective and a subjective view of an act. Does this make sense?

 

[SueG]

It’s the ***MARRIED COUPLE * ** that must be open to new life. What if a woman’s uterus was cancerous and had to be removed? Is that married couple now to remain abstinate? It’s the **HEART ** that God looks at, not necessary the reproductive organs. After all, even if a woman was already pregnant, or infertile, God can place new (or even additional) life where He wills, correct? All things are possible with God, even when science says “impossible”.

As for NFP, if God wants you to conceive, He’ll make it so, no matter how well the couple follows the plan.

 

[martino]

As long as neither of them do anything before, during, or after the marital act to render it closed to life then it is considered a beautiful act between spouses.

The Catholic Church does not teach that every act must result in new life…it is quite rediculous to even twist the teachings to make this argument.

Alan, if you believe that because sex during pregnancy is considered wrong by the Catholic Church teachings then do you are saying that according to the Catholic Church every time a married couple has sex the must get pregnant otherwise the act is to be considered sinful!!! So one couple has sex and gets pregnant while another couple under the exact same circumstances doesnt get pregnant so one couple sinned and the other didnt!!!

Do you realize that is precisely what you just said?

AlanFromWichita:

How can it be procreative? It is not open to new life.

One of the biggest arguments I hear in favor of NFP is that it is still open to new life, if it be God’s will, even during so-called “infertile” times.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1ke:

Alan,

I know you struggle with this particular topic. That said, what you are not seeing is that it is objectively procreative. Yes, subjectively that particular act did not create new life. But, objectively you have done nothing to alter the act and therefore it is objectively ordered towards procreation. If the act has not been altered or distorted, it is a procreative act objectively speaking.

There is always an objective and a subjective view of an act. Does this make sense?

OK, I’ll try to bear with you, but I think I can see this objective/subjective term (like any Word I suppose) can cut both ways.

If I get you right, you are saying that subjectively, it may seem that the test for procreative might appear to fail, since there is no possibility (unless your name is Sarah ) that a new living human being will directly sprout from this. Objectively, the test for procreative nature is that nothing specifically was done to alter the natural fertility that may or may not allow for a new creation when performing the act – or maybe leading up to it, or whatever language works best here.

Here’s what I mean by cutting both ways. I could say that objectively we know that a new child will not result. Subjectively, we allow that to be considered “procreative” in the spiritual sense because there is no attempt to prevent God from acting in this union.

Of course, this is another one of my “issues” is that terms like objective/subjective, or absolute/relative, cannot be evaluated as to which is “good” or “bad” unless the context and measurement criteria are defined.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

SueG:

It’s the ***MARRIED COUPLE *** that must be open to new life. What if a woman’s uterus was cancerous and had to be removed? Is that married couple now to remain abstinate? It’s the HEART that God looks at, not necessary the reproductive organs.

I’m completely with you. Recently my wife told me a priest actually answered this question the other way. A friend of ours asked about a possible hysterectomy she might be recommended to obtain. She had several children, but the youngest was probably in middle school. The priest said that since there is no chance of life being formed, they would have to abstain.

This was a young priest, fresh out of the seminary, heralded by young and old alike for his tell-it-like-it-is sermons that hold the Catholic line no matter what. Let’s say it caused an uneasy ripple among certain cliques who became privvy to the information.

I certainly hope that priest is wrong, or how could we obey Paul’s admonition not to withhold ourselves from each other? Certainly if we lose certain body parts we don’t cease to be a complete person, do we? We could be missing an arm or a leg and I’m not sure that would qualify as a reason to use NFP, just in itself.

Alan

 

[martino]

AlanFromWichita:

I’m completely with you. Recently my wife told me a priest actually answered this question the other way. A friend of ours asked about a possible hysterectomy she might be recommended to obtain. She had several children, but the youngest was probably in middle school. The priest said that since there is no chance of life being formed, they would have to abstain.

This was a young priest, fresh out of the seminary, heralded by young and old alike for his tell-it-like-it-is sermons that hold the Catholic line no matter what. Let’s say it caused an uneasy ripple among certain cliques who became privvy to the information.

I certainly hope that priest is wrong, or how could we obey Paul’s admonition not to withhold ourselves from each other? Certainly if we lose certain body parts we don’t cease to be a complete person, do we? We could be missing an arm or a leg and I’m not sure that would qualify as a reason to use NFP, just in itself.

Alan

The priest was definitely wrong in this case. The hysterectomy had a double effect, 1) it saved her life and 2) made her infertile. The key is that the procedure was done for the purpose of saving her life and not for making her inferitle, that was an unwanted side effect. Because she had good reason to have the procedure done, and because her infertility was not the inteneded result, and because the benefits of the procedure outway the bad parts she is covered under the principle known as the “double effect”, any good priest should know this. She was left infertile through no fault of her own and can and should maintain relations with her spouse.

Infertility is not the same as contraception because contraception requires that the couple intentionally do something that renders the act infertile.

 

[1ke]

AlanFromWichita:

OK, I’ll try to bear with you, but I think I can see this objective/subjective term (like any Word I suppose) can cut both ways.

If I get you right, you are saying that subjectively, it may seem that the test for procreative might appear to fail, since there is no possibility (unless your name is Sarah ) that a new living human being will directly sprout from this. Objectively, the test for procreative nature is that nothing specifically was done to alter the natural fertility that may or may not allow for a new creation when performing the act – or maybe leading up to it, or whatever language works best here.

Here’s what I mean by cutting both ways. I could say that objectively we know that a new child will not result. Subjectively, we allow that to be considered “procreative” in the spiritual sense because there is no attempt to prevent God from acting in this union.

Of course, this is another one of my “issues” is that terms like objective/subjective, or absolute/relative, cannot be evaluated as to which is “good” or “bad” unless the context and measurement criteria are defined.

Alan

Yes, you are getting it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

She was left infertile through no fault of her own and can and should maintain relations with her spouse.

Thanks. That’s what I was hoping, or we would have to ban marriage when infertility is known.

Alan

 

[Kay_Cee]

God designed us so that when a woman is pregnant, she cannot become pregnant with another child. Having sex during this time in no way goes against God’s design.

Contraception, on the other hand, is an attempt to alter God’s design. It tells God He made a mistake when He designed our reproductive systems, a mistake we will correct for Him.

 

[martino]

Kay Cee:

God designed us so that when a woman is pregnant, she cannot become pregnant with another child. Having sex during this time in no way goes against God’s design.

Contraception, on the other hand, is an attempt to alter God’s design. It tells God He made a mistake when He designed our reproductive systems, a mistake we will correct for Him.

Exactly…for some reason people frequently mistake “infertility” for “contraception”. Its true that the goal of contraception is to make us infertile…but that doesnt mean that all infertility equates to contraception.

Women have periods of infertility every month; that doesnt equate to contraception.

Some women or men are born infertile; that doesnt equate to contraception.

Some people undergo lecit medical procedures that render them infertile; that doesnt equate to contraception.

Some older couples are infertile because of their age; that doesnt equate to contraception.

Every time I talk to someone that tries to legitimize contraception they always point to one of the above scenarios to rationalize their own contracepting behavior; but they have very little in common and can not ever be equated for obvious reasons!