Sex during monthly period?

[Rob_s_Wife]

All I can say is:

1. It is not a sin.

**2. My humble opinion: ewww… **

---

3. TMI!! There has got to be a less public way to get this question answered! Isn’t anything personal private anymore?

 

[martino]

All I can say is:

1. It is not a sin.

**2. My humble opinion: ewww… **

3. TMI!! There has got to be a less public way to get this question answered! Isn’t anything personal private anymore?

I think that since none of us (assuming) know who Neithan really is, this is a good way to ask questions anonymously, which is in a way maintaining privacy.

 

[surfinpure]

Neithan:

While reading an apologetics article about the three categories of laws in the Old Testament (moral, judicial and ceremonial) I noticed that the forbidding of sexual intercourse during a woman’s period is mentioned in the context of obvious moral laws against homosexuality, incest and bestiality (Lev. 18:19 & 20:18). That seems pretty clearly to label it (sex during menstruation) as a mortal sin.

It occurs to me that sex during menstruation could be mentioned in context with these sins because they all have one major thing in common: HYGIENE. We know that this was a very big factor in Mosaic Law, and we also know that women were considered “unclean” during their periods.

“When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days. Anyone who touches her shall be unclean until evening. Anything on which she lies or sits during her impurity shall be unclean … etc., etc. … If a man dares to lie with her, he contracts her impurity and shall be unclean for seven days; every bed on which he then lies also becomes unclean.” Leviticus 15:19-24 NAB

Such is not the case today. We have soap and hot running water, and we are no longer held to the same standards of hygiene because of our understanding and handling of bacteria. Now we are permitted to touch the dead, to eat pork, and (for us women) to stay within the city limits during our time of the month!

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Fox:

That is a really nasty indeed. Who in their right mind would want to have sexual relations at this time? It is a very unclean and unhygenic to say the least.

And gross too…

 

[contemplative]

Wildgraywolf:

And gross too…

Please spare everyone from your nasty adjectives. This thread isn’t about that.

Pregnancies can and do occur sometimes during this cycle. If this is when a couple feels moved to do it, then so be it. End of discussion.

 

[axolotl]

chevalier:

Probably nothing related to family planning and fertility but rather something with health and maybe diseases.

I read something many years ago, that for a younger women, these Laws maximized fertility, but for an older woman, times when sex was allowed in realtion to fertile times reduced the likelihood of conceiving.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Neithan:

While reading an apologetics article about the three categories of laws in the Old Testament (moral, judicial and ceremonial) I noticed that the forbidding of sexual intercourse during a woman’s period is mentioned in the context of obvious moral laws against homosexuality, incest and bestiality (Lev. 18:19 & 20:18). That seems pretty clearly to label it (sex during menstruation) as a mortal sin.

As far as I know (which may not be very far) the Catholic Church does not forbid sex for married couples during a wife’s period, and Natural Family Planning, which requires sex only during infertile periods to avoid pregnancy, almost seems to *encourage *this as it is a naturally infertile time. What is the Catholic Church’s rationale for her rules regarding sex during the monthly period, and how would the condemnation of this in Leviticus 18 and 20 not be placed on the list of universal moral laws–which carry over from Judaism into Christianity–if it is listed amongst other sins which clearly are mortal? Why isn’t sex during the monthly period a grievous sin?

Another important note, and one which supporters of homosexual tolerance in the Church often raise, is that if sex during menstruation is listed with incest and yet is not a mortal sin where the latter most clearly is, then the same argument can be used for homosexuality since it is mentioned in the same place.

Any answers appreciated!

The moral law we are still bound by is the 10 Commandments and not all the various Mosaic laws. Intercourse between married individuals, even during menstruation, does not break one of these commandments.

Peace
Mark

 

[Jennie]

I could be wrong, but my take on your question is this…

Sex during the women’s menses is not directly a sin.

However, it is a risk.

During menstruation the woman’s cervix is slightly open, thus more vulnerable to infection causing bacteria. This “may” put the woman at an increased risk for PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease).

With this knowledge, it is best to avoid sex during this time. Otherwise, practice extremely clean hygiene.

Jen

 

[surfinpure]

Jennie:

I could be wrong, but my take on your question is this…

Sex during the women’s menses is not directly a sin.

However, it is a risk.

During menstruation the woman’s cervix is slightly open, thus more vulnerable to infection causing bacteria. This “may” put the woman at an increased risk for PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease).

With this knowledge, it is best to avoid sex during this time. Otherwise, practice extremely clean hygiene.

Jen

I wouldn’t think women would be any more at risk for PID than they are for TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome) when they use tampons, which many women do without giving it a second thought. There are all kinds of little risks in life, but unless there is a substantial one here, I wouldn’t be worried about it.

 

[misericordie]

MarkInOregon:

The moral law we are still bound by is the 10 Commandments and not all the various Mosaic laws. Intercourse between married individuals, even during menstruation, does not break one of these commandments.

Peace
Mark

YUP.

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for all your replies. This actually doesn’t relate to any personal situation or relationship, since I’m just a celibate young bachelor; but I’m only wondering on a purely theological level how the Church views the moral precepts of the Old Law in relation to the New, and sex during menstruation just happens to be an example which I casually came across that confuses me a bit.

contemplative:

Intercourse of marrieds during menstruation isn’t ‘dirty’ or sinful but the act of homosexual intercourse is.

I agree with that but I’m looking for the Church’s official doctrine on the matter, and the underlying rationale. I can’t seem to find anything except attacks on Church intolerance (using Leviticus 18 and 20) against homosexuals when I google this subject.

martino:

I think that since none of us (assuming) know who Neithan really is, this is a good way to ask questions anonymously, which is in a way maintaining privacy.

lol true but I wouldn’t actually have any qualms bringing this up at, say, a Catholic study group or something. I think it might embarass other people more than myself, though. For some reason.
surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

It occurs to me that sex during menstruation could be mentioned in context with these sins because they all have one major thing in common: HYGIENE. We know that this was a very big factor in Mosaic Law, and we also know that women were considered “unclean” during their periods.

Just cleanliness laws? They (Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus) seem pretty clearly to be moral precepts though… especially when pagan child sacrifice is mentioned (Lev. 18:21 & 20:2-5) right alongside. Plus the penalty for sex during menstruation was exile! (Lev. 20:18).

MarkInOregon:

The moral law we are still bound by is the 10 Commandments and not all the various Mosaic laws. Intercourse between married individuals, even during menstruation, does not break one of these commandments.

But the 10 commandments leave many, many moral laws out, such as incest, homosexuality and bestiality for example… so if only the Decalogue is eternal and included in the New Law, how do we also know that these others are grievous sins? (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to play Devil’s Advocate and say that these others aren’t mortal sins, which they obviously are, I’m just confused as to the criteria for judging Divine Law with respect to and in the context of Mosaic Law). I don’t recall that Jesus ever mentioned them. I think the Apostles in several of the Epistles do, though. But how did they (the Apostles) know which particular laws outside the Decalogue were still meant to be kept?

I guess I’m basically asking how sacred Tradition led to the comprehensive moral law that the Church propounds today, which is obviously much more than the 10 commandments and even the Gospels directly mention. It just seems to me that it would be natural to take these two Chapters of Leviticus (18 and 20) and say that they describe eternal moral laws, rather than throwing only one of these laws out (sex during menstruation) as ceremonial and keeping all the others as moral. Besides, wasn’t it formerly Catholic doctrine that this was a mortal sin? Are there any Church Fathers perhaps who shed light on this topic?

 

[miguel]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

…Now we are permitted to touch the dead, to eat pork, and (for us women) to stay within the city limits during our time of the month!

 

[surfinpure]

Neithan:

I guess I’m basically asking how sacred Tradition led to the comprehensive moral law that the Church propounds today, which is obviously much more than the 10 commandments and even the Gospels directly mention. It just seems to me that it would be natural to take these two Chapters of Leviticus (18 and 20) and say that they describe eternal moral laws, rather than throwing only one of these laws out (sex during menstruation) as ceremonial and keeping all the others as moral. Besides, wasn’t it formerly Catholic doctrine that this was a mortal sin? Are there any Church Fathers perhaps who shed light on this topic?

Perhaps “Theology of the Body?” Other posters can help me out here. But I would urge you not to assume the Church teaches something without more substantial proof. I’ve made this mistake before, and it caused me some embarrassment.

The Ten Commandments actually are the basis for the moral theology of the Church. If you work your way through the Catechism you will see it laid out just so. There are extrapolations and elaborations, but it all goes back to the Decalogue.

Beyond what I already know, and my explanation given previously (by which I continue to stand), I can only say that there seems to be no logical reason to forbid relations during menses. The only health hazard heretofore mentioned seems extremely unlikely, and since we know that sin is forbidden because it is harmful, I have to assume that if there is no harm, it is not a sin. Of course, as discussed before, the wife has the prerogative to deny her husband during this time because of pain or discomfort. But if they are both willing, I say it is morally licit.

 

[surfinpure]

Neithan:

Just cleanliness laws? They (Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus) seem pretty clearly to be moral precepts though… especially when pagan child sacrifice is mentioned (Lev. 18:21 & 20:2-5) right alongside. Plus the penalty for sex during menstruation was exile! (Lev. 20:18).

Chapter 18 is not “right alongside” chapter 15, where the bulk of the text on this subject is located. Chapter 15, in fact, deals with personal uncleanliness.

And as for 20:18, read the entire verse:

“If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people, because they have laid bare the flowing fountain of her blood.”

Also, check out 18:19.

“You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.”

Still sounds like a hygiene issue to me.

 

[contemplative]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

V. THE GOODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONJUGAL LOVE "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands *indissolubility *and *faithfulness *in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152

You might read the entire ARTICLE 7: THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY for a fuller understanding. Keep in mind then that conception can occur during menstruation.

 

[miguel]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Perhaps “Theology of the Body?” Other posters can help me out here. But I would urge you not to assume the Church teaches something without more substantial proof. I’ve made this mistake before, and it caused me some embarrassment.

The Ten Commandments actually are the basis for the moral theology of the Church. If you work your way through the Catechism you will see it laid out just so. There are extrapolations and elaborations, but it all goes back to the Decalogue.

Beyond what I already know, and my explanation given previously (by which I continue to stand), I can only say that there seems to be no logical reason to forbid relations during menses. The only health hazard heretofore mentioned seems extremely unlikely, and since we know that sin is forbidden because it is harmful, I have to assume that if there is no harm, it is not a sin. Of course, as discussed before, the wife has the prerogative to deny her husband during this time because of pain or discomfort. But if they are both willing, I say it is morally licit.

Doing something harmful to one’s health is against the 5th Commandment. So hygiene has a moral component. But I don’t know if relations during menses is harmful to health.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is an anti-Church website that addresses this issue. The theology looks all wrong to me, but it does contain a fair number of historical references, for example:

The tradition of the Church

Some Fathers of the Church, such as Jerome and Clement of Alexandria, condemned sexual intercourse with a menstrual women as a major sin. Others, such as Augustine as a venial violation. St John Chrysostom repeatedly condemned it without explanation or commentary. None explicitly allowed it. The early medieval penitentials generally treated it as a venial sin.

Medieval scholars, such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus, universally disapproved of menstrual intercourse, though their condemnations varied in gravity. The more common opinion was that sex during menstruation was a mortal sin. …

Reversal of this teaching

The history of the reversal of the traditional teaching is as follows:

• 1774 De Lignoir refuted the idea that sexual intercourse during menstruation risked misconception.
• 1853 and 1867 The Holy Office indicated that those exploiting “safe periods” should not be disturbed, pending further study.
• 1873 August Joseph Lacomte (citing De Lignoir) propounded the use of “the safe period” to avoid conception.
• 1880 Rome allowed that such a method could be used as an alternative to “onanism” but it was not recommended.
• …

 

[surfinpure]

miguel:

Doing something harmful to one’s health is against the 5th Commandment. So hygiene has a moral component. But I don’t know if relations during menses is harmful to health.

Jennie mentioned earlier that she thought it “may” put women at a slightly increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), but no documentation has been provided thus far.

And if there truly is a health risk here, why haven’t our gynecologists mentioned it?

 

[Windmill]

What, by nature, makes conjugal acts during menses wrong? One may say, “It is not open to conception.” How is this any different from engaging in the same activities during a woman’s “infertile period” of her cycle per her NFP charting?

If NFP stands the test, then so must relations during menses.

 

[betra2000]

Fox:

That is a really nasty indeed. Who in their right mind would want to have sexual relations at this time? It is a very unclean and unhygenic to say the least.

Finally, a comment that I completely agree with. :bigyikes: