Relationships during Pregnancy

[Fergal]

Folks,
A quick question. I am gonna try to keep from using actual descriptions as I am aware of young eyes!!! Excuse me for using the broad terms and descriptions that follow .

I understand in usual circumstances that the marital act must finish with intercourse so as to be both pro-creative and unitive. Not that every act of intercourse will result in a pregnancy but that we be open to the possibility of pregnancy after intercourse if it be God’s will.

Now if a woman is pregnant, is it still necessary to complete the marriage act through intercourse? I mean there is no chance of conception since it conception is impossible. Not completing the act internally can hardly be seen as not taking part in the pro creative function since the pro creative function has occured? If both partners are involved, and the act is purposfully completed externally through cooperation of ones spouse it is still unitive right?

I understand and completely accept the Churchs teaching on the wrongs of avoiding conception out of pure vanity or doing something to contracept when the possibility of a conception is real simply because “it would ruin one’s social life”.

Contraception is totally impossible during the 9 months of pregnancy. During this time does it really matter whether the marital act finishes internally or not?

I need to know as I am quite confused in this area (as my post shows ). I would very much appreciate Church documents and teachings to be cited or referred to if at all possible.

I don’t really need personal opinions as I have too many of my own and they are confusing matters!!! I need to know solid Church teaching in this area. I can’t find anything.

 

[Allen537]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in order for a marriage to be valid, it must be consummated. Refer to the “Marriage Bond” section of the Catechism, more importantly, Paragraph 1640.
If you would like to, you may private message me for more clarity on this subject.

 

[Catholic2003]

From Humanae Vitae:

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

“Each and every” seems pretty clear to me. If Pope Paul VI had meant “except when the wife is already pregnant”, I’m sure he would have said so.

 

[jmv]

If we were to assume it is acceptable, a question then pops up as to whether doing these things in a time when conception is impossible shows good judgement on the couple’s part. By this, I mean that once the pregnancy is over and the woman’s fertility returns, will the prior participation in these acts that you accept as wrong (those that aren’t leading to full consumation) while a woman is fertile be a cause of temptation for this couple?

We should not lead each other into temptation. It may be there that the problem arises. (If not explicitly from doing these acts in a clearly infertile time)

 

[Fergal]

God Bless you Allen537 for your advice and Catholic 2003 for the documentation!

I should have know that Humanae Vitae would have what I was looking for!! It crossed my mind but I just didn’t go there! I was busy trolling through documents by Pius XII and his predecessor and never gave Paul VI a thought.

The document from Pius XII to Italian midwives ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM confused me a little. Maybe I read it wrong. Seemed to me that pleasure was something we had a duty to ensure for our spouse.

Silly me.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here’s an analogy I read a while back. Natural law says that God designed the human body so that food goes in the mouth and down the throat. It is obvious that smashing food into one’s ear is against natural law. It just doesn’t make any sense to do that; that’s not what our ears are for.

Now it may be that a person has a bad stomach flu, and it is certain that the person will not be able to keep any food down. Does this suddenly mean that it is now okay for this person to start stuffing food in his/her ear? No, regardless of the fact that digestion will not occur if food is taken normally, it’s still not what God designed ears for.