Sex during pregnancy

[thewanderer]

Of course life is not fair, your talking to a man who greatly understands that. I think there are consequences if a man or women wanted to have a child after being “fixed”. However, if both are content with the children they already have, then unknowing it’s a sin get sterilized, then come to conscience and ask for forgiveness, the sin is forgven, and they can go on having pleasurable sex with no expections of creating life if there tubes are tied and burned.

If it’s about a mindset of being open to life which I do understand, every time this sterilized couple has sex they would be hopeful of a miracle that does not happen in our current age. So they are saying, if it happens (pregnancy) it happens, but we all know realisticly it won’t happen. Where is the challenge for the forgiven couple who are content with the amount of children they already have?

I’m curious, why does there have to be a challenge? Also, wouldn’t the same be true of naturally infertile couples? Is it unfair that some naturally infertile couples can have sex knowing it is extremely unlikely that they will conceive? This really does just sound like a complaint about the ‘fairness’ of the situation. Whether or not they have to deal with thiss issue in the same way, rest assured they will have other issues and difficulties to work through. I’m just curious, but why exactly does this even matter?

 

[Corki]

Of course life is not fair, your talking to a man who greatly understands that. I think there are consequences if a man or women wanted to have a child after being “fixed”. However, if both are content with the children they already have, then unknowing it’s a sin get sterilized, then come to conscience and ask for forgiveness, the sin is forgven, and they can go on having pleasurable sex with no expections of creating life if there tubes are tied and burned.

If they didn’t know it was a sin to get sterilized, it’s not a mortal sin. So, I am not sure what you point is. Do you want couples who unknowingly sinned by being sterilized to do some kind of perpetual penance? That’s not at all in line with Church teaching about sin, repentance and ammending one’s live. Why would the sin of sterilization be subject to much harsher consequences than any other mortal sin?

If it’s about a mindset of being open to life which I do understand, every time this sterilized couple has sex they would be hopeful of a miracle that does not happen in our current age.

If what is about being open to life? Marriage? Sex? Being open to life is just one piece of the whole teaching. And why would they have to hope for a miracle? Being open to life is not the same thing as hoping for pregnancy.

So they are saying, if it happens (pregnancy) it happens, but we all know realisticly it won’t happen.

And when I pass menopause, and know realistically, I can no longer get pregnant, am I not to enjoy sex anymore?

Where is the challenge for the forgiven couple who are content with the amount of children they already have?

Why do they need an additional challenge?

 

[johnnyjones]

I’m curious, why does there have to be a challenge? Also, wouldn’t the same be true of naturally infertile couples? Is it unfair that some naturally infertile couples can have sex knowing it is extremely unlikely that they will conceive? This really does just sound like a complaint about the ‘fairness’ of the situation. Whether or not they have to deal with thiss issue in the same way, rest assured they will have other issues and difficulties to work through. I’m just curious, but why exactly does this even matter?

The previous poster stated it was a challenge to both the sterile and fertile. I elaborated on what type of "challenge’ it might be to those who wanted a child but unfortunately got there tubes tied. “Extemely unlikely” is much more hopeful than impossible, so, the miraculous comparison is not strong between the naturally infertile and the willingly sterlilized. The reason I’m addressing it is because there are thousands and more that have been sterilized, received forgivness but can now engage in intercourse free of a catholic restriction. It’s sort of like ;you sin, than although forgiven, you are able to "indulge’ the results of that sin. Thats my point.

 

[johnnyjones]

If they didn’t know it was a sin to get sterilized, it’s not a mortal sin. So, I am not sure what you point is. Do you want couples who unknowingly sinned by being sterilized to do some kind of perpetual penance? That’s not at all in line with Church teaching about sin, repentance and ammending one’s live. Why would the sin of sterilization be subject to much harsher consequences than any other mortal sin?

If what is about being open to life? Marriage? Sex? Being open to life is just one piece of the whole teaching. And why would they have to hope for a miracle? Being open to life is not the same thing as hoping for pregnancy.

And when I pass menopause, and know realistically, I can no longer get pregnant, am I not to enjoy sex anymore?

Why do they need an additional challenge?

See post #43

 

[thewanderer]

The previous poster stated it was a challenge to both the sterile and fertile. I elaborated on what type of "challenge’ it might be to those who wanted a child but unfortunately got there tubes tied. “Extemely unlikely” is much more hopeful than impossible, so, the miraculous comparison is not strong between the naturally infertile and the willingly sterlilized. The reason I’m addressing it is because there are thousands and more that have been sterilized, received forgivness but can now engage in intercourse free of a catholic restriction. It’s sort of like ;you sin, than although forgiven, you are able to "indulge’ the results of that sin. Thats my point.

Again, so what? So long as they aproach their sexuality with a Catholic mindset what difference does it make? How is this any different than couples who are naturally infertile? They get to ‘engage in intercourse free of catholic restriction’ as you put it. Some people are fertile others are not. Thats the way it is, big deal.

 

[johnnyjones]

Again, so what? So long as they aproach their sexuality with a Catholic mindset what difference does it make? How is this any different than couples who are naturally infertile? They get to ‘engage in intercourse free of catholic restriction’ as you put it. Some people are fertile others are not. Thats the way it is, big deal.

Those who are naturally infertile have a small hope of openness to life. Those with there tubes tied and burned know they have done an irreversable act. Are you telling me those particular couples are realisticaly coming to the sex act with an openness to a miracle? I suppose some could, but now it gets silly. It’s a “big deal” to some people.

 

[thewanderer]

Those who are naturally infertile have a small hope of openness to life. Those with there tubes tied and burned know they have done an irreversable act. Are you telling me those particular couples are realisticaly coming to the sex act with an openness to a miracle? I suppose some could, but now it gets silly. It’s a “big deal” to some people.

Why in the world would you assume that they are not coming to it with an openness to life? Also add in to those who are naturally infertile those who are natrually sterile. Which I guess is more what I was refering to anyways. Being open to life is not about hoping you get pregnant. It is not necessary to always hope you will get pregnant. And having sex when you know you can’t get pregnant (such as during a womans infertile period, when pregnant etc) is not necessarily selfish. You should not assume selfish motives on the part of people in such situations unless you actually have irrefutable evidence that a particular couple is being selfish, and even then you should not be judgemental towards them about it. Could you please explain how this is such a big deal to some people? The only reason it would be is if they were complaining about their own situation as being ‘unfair’. As was said earlier, life isn’t fair. And just because a ccouple doesn’t ever have to worry about abstinance during fertile times doesn’t mean they don’t have their own fair share of difficulties.

 

[johnnyjones]

Why in the world would you assume that they are not coming to it with an openness to life? Also add in to those who are naturally infertile those who are natrually sterile. Which I guess is more what I was refering to anyways. Being open to life is not about hoping you get pregnant. It is not necessary to always hope you will get pregnant. And having sex when you know you can’t get pregnant (such as during a womans infertile period, when pregnant etc) is not necessarily selfish. You should not assume selfish motives on the part of people in such situations unless you actually have irrefutable evidence that a particular couple is being selfish, and even then you should not be judgemental towards them about it. Could you please explain how this is such a big deal to some people? The only reason it would be is if they were complaining about their own situation as being ‘unfair’. As was said earlier, life isn’t fair. And just because a ccouple doesn’t ever have to worry about abstinance during fertile times doesn’t mean they don’t have their own fair share of difficulties.

My friend, don’t use the word assume on me if you don’t know for sure what I’ve seen in life. You keep comparing the naturally infertile to those who brought sterilization upon themselves. If your tubes are tied and burned, your not getting pregnant, period. Just saying your open to life is the magic bullet even though it would be the equivelant of a biblical miracle? In addition to issues in my own family, ex girlfriends & exposure to other couples, I worked in a hospital. My “irrefutable evidence” is talking to people. “Life isn’t fair”- yada yada. Do you think your writting to some kid?

A woman CAN possibly get pregnant during her “infertile period”. You said you don’t see challenges in an earlier post, now your bringing up each others “fair share of difficulties”. Which is it? If your sterile, it’s a hard thing to conjur up thoughts of openness to life when you know it’s impossible to create life. Thats a big deal to some who go through this trauma, don’t minimize it.

 

[thewanderer]

My friend, don’t use the word assume on me if you don’t know for sure what I’ve seen in life. You keep comparing the naturally infertile to those who brought sterilization upon themselves. If your tubes are tied and burned, your not getting pregnant, period. Just saying your open to life is the magic bullet even though it would be the equivelant of a biblical miracle? In addition to issues in my own family, ex girlfriends & exposure to other couples, I worked in a hospital. My “irrefutable evidence” is talking to people. “Life isn’t fair”- yada yada. Do you think your writting to some kid?

A woman CAN possibly get pregnant during her “infertile period”. You said you don’t see challenges in an earlier post, now your bringing up each others “fair share of difficulties”. Which is it? If your sterile, it’s a hard thing to conjur up thoughts of openness to life when you know it’s impossible to create life. Thats a big deal to some who go through this trauma, don’t minimize it.

If you dislike the example of ‘during the infertile period’ there are still the examples of post-menopausal, during pregnancy, naturally sterile. Are you really saying its impossible for all of these people to be open to life simply because they know they are not going to get pregnant? Yes, we are talking about people who brought sterilization upon themselves, but of all those who brought sterilization upon themselvves we are specifically talking about those who have honestly repented of their act of sterilization, if they’ve honestly and truly repented why in the world would you assume it is any less likely that they would be open to life than someone who is naturally sterile whether temporarily or permanantly?

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here, I feel like that has certainly happened in the past between us, the only thing I am trying to point out right now that it is wrong to assume that those who have been sterilized but have since repented are not open to life. Knowing some, or even many, people who have been sterilized who are not open to life does not change this fact.

 

[Corki]

My friend, don’t use the word assume on me if you don’t know for sure what I’ve seen in life. You keep comparing the naturally infertile to those who brought sterilization upon themselves. If your tubes are tied and burned, your not getting pregnant, period. Just saying your open to life is the magic bullet even though it would be the equivelant of a biblical miracle? In addition to issues in my own family, ex girlfriends & exposure to other couples, I worked in a hospital. My “irrefutable evidence” is talking to people. “Life isn’t fair”- yada yada. Do you think your writting to some kid?

A woman CAN possibly get pregnant during her “infertile period”. You said you don’t see challenges in an earlier post, now your bringing up each others “fair share of difficulties”. Which is it? If your sterile, it’s a hard thing to conjur up thoughts of openness to life when you know it’s impossible to create life. Thats a big deal to some who go through this trauma, don’t minimize it.

First of all, I too thought you were very young. Your style of writing and your understanding of marriage seemed to indicate someone who was in his late teens at most. I apologize for making that assumption.

Second, the Church’s teaching on sex within marriage has to apply to all couples, not just those who are in one or two categories physically. Your “either/or” arguments totally ignore those who are infertile due to such things as disease, treatment or surgery. If you insist on infertility being either “naturally infertile” or “sterilized” you leave out those who, for example have lost ovaries due to disease or had a medically necessary hysterectomy. Nor does your theory account for those who have lived as a fertile couple but are of an advance age and no longer able to conceive. Your theory doesn’t even include those in the OP who are already pregnant and thus not able to conceive from the current sex act. NONE of these couples - your two categories or the others I mention - are necessarily closed to life.

Third, you are very hung up on this one aspect of marriage. Marriage, and the marital act, are much more complex than that. It’s about unity and fidelity. You keep mentioning pleasurable sex as if a couple can only experience pleasure if they are not able to conceive. Pleasure isn’t even one of the required elements - it’s nice but not required.

Yes, having a sterilization procedure is wrong. It is a sin against the marriage. But so is adultery. If the sin is in the past, and forgiven, it does not equate to a restriction on the couple’s current activiites. Married couples are entitled to each others bodies and to have sex with each other. Past actions don’t change that.

 

[johnnyjones]

First of all, I too thought you were very young. Your style of writing and your understanding of marriage seemed to indicate someone who was in his late teens at most. I apologize for making that assumption.

Second, the Church’s teaching on sex within marriage has to apply to all couples, not just those who are in one or two categories physically. Your “either/or” arguments totally ignore those who are infertile due to such things as disease, treatment or surgery. If you insist on infertility being either “naturally infertile” or “sterilized” you leave out those who, for example have lost ovaries due to disease or had a medically necessary hysterectomy. Nor does your theory account for those who have lived as a fertile couple but are of an advance age and no longer able to conceive. Your theory doesn’t even include those in the OP who are already pregnant and thus not able to conceive from the current sex act. NONE of these couples - your two categories or the others I mention - are necessarily closed to life.

Third, you are very hung up on this one aspect of marriage. Marriage, and the marital act, are much more complex than that. It’s about unity and fidelity. You keep mentioning pleasurable sex as if a couple can only experience pleasure if they are not able to conceive. Pleasure isn’t even one of the required elements - it’s nice but not required.

Yes, having a sterilization procedure is wrong. It is a sin against the marriage. But so is adultery. If the sin is in the past, and forgiven, it does not equate to a restriction on the couple’s current activiites. Married couples are entitled to each others bodies and to have sex with each other. Past actions don’t change that.

I see insults are part of your debating style. One of poor character would purposely insult someone then mix an apology in to somehow justify it. Lets clear this up. If a couple can not get pregnant by all rational standards, it is a mental difficulty for some to work up an openness to life because it feels impossible. Thats the point. I suggest both of you posters go out into the real world an interact with actual people. I make no assumptions as you are quick to imply. Yes miracles can happen, but they are not commonplace, and every human is not able to force a miracle into there brain at the moment of potential intercourse.

Although it may be clear to you how things are supposed to go, not everything is cut and dry to the satisfaction of couples going through such dilemas.

 

[Corki]

I see insults are part of your debating style. One of poor character would purposely insult someone then mix an apology in to somehow justify it. Lets clear this up. If a couple can not get pregnant by all rational standards, it is a mental difficulty for some to work up an openness to life because it feels impossible. Thats the point. I suggest both of you posters go out into the real world an interact with actual people. I make no assumptions as you are quick to imply. Yes miracles can happen, but they are not commonplace, and every human is not able to force a miracle into there brain at the moment of potential intercourse.

Although it may be clear to you how things are supposed to go, not everything is cut and dry to the satisfaction of couples going through such dilemas.

I did not post any insults but it seems that you are implying that others are of poor character and/or unfamiliar with the real world.

Here’s the bottom line. You have a definition of “open to life” that is not consistent with the **Catholic Church’s **position. Your definition is not a wrong definition; it just doesn’t fit into a discussion of **Catholic **teaching on marriage. In order to discuss the **Church’s **teaching, you need to use her definitions.

**The Church **does not teach that a married couple must intend pregnancy in order to engage in relations. Neither does she teach that fertility or, more specifically fecundity, is a key component of marriage or marital relations. Fertilty is a gift from God to married couples as a fruit of marriage. It is not a prerequisite.

 

[johnnyjones]

I did not post any insults but it seems that you are implying that others are of poor character and/or unfamiliar with the real world.

Here’s the bottom line. You have a definition of “open to life” that is not consistent with the **Catholic Church’s **position. Your definition is not a wrong definition; it just doesn’t fit into a discussion of **Catholic **teaching on marriage. In order to discuss the **Church’s **teaching, you need to use her definitions.

**The Church **does not teach that a married couple must intend pregnancy in order to engage in relations. Neither does she teach that fertility or, more specifically fecundity, is a key component of marriage or marital relations. Fertilty is a gift from God to married couples as a fruit of marriage. It is not a prerequisite.

My style of writing should have been irrelevant and from the receiving end of this man I don’t need assumptions (which are being continially used in various ways thoughout our exchange) that I’m a teenager. Tell me what other word(s) fit into our discussion other than “open to life”.

 

[Catholic80]

I don’t disagree with what you said but I must be missing something. How can sex during pregnancy be both procreative and unifying?

If a woman has sex right after she has her period, she cannot get pregnant. Sex is unifying, but the couple is still open to procreation, even if that day, she would be unable to conceive. The same is said for a couple who is sterile. They are still open to life because none of their actions are directly trying to prevent the conception of a child.

There’s a difference between being unable to conceive, and trying to prevent conception.

 

[Corki]

Tell me what other word(s) fit into our discussion other than “open to life”.

The Church’s teaching is that each marital act be “ordered to procreation”. That means that a man and woman unite in a way that **generally **is conducive to procreation. It does not mean that the specific act or even the many acts by a specific couple will result in procreation.

 

[johnnyjones]

If a woman has sex right after she has her period, she cannot get pregnant. Sex is unifying, but the couple is still open to procreation, even if that day, she would be unable to conceive. The same is said for a couple who is sterile. They are still open to life because none of their actions are directly trying to prevent the conception of a child.

There’s a difference between being unable to conceive, and trying to prevent conception.

If your "unable to conceive’ can you always muster up being open to new life?

 

[johnnyjones]

The Church’s teaching is that each marital act be “ordered to procreation”. That means that a man and woman unite in a way that **generally **is conducive to procreation. It does not mean that the specific act or even the many acts by a specific couple will result in procreation.

So, the act (sex), even though new life is not possible is acceptable because this is what a couple would do if they were to desire openness to new life. Paradoxical.

 

[Corki]

So, the act (sex), even though new life is not possible is acceptable because this is what a couple would do if they were to desire openness to new life.

Not only that but it is the ONLY way to procreate naturally.

Paradoxical

Not really. It all goes back to the teaching about what marriage entails. If you haven’t already read them, Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii and The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality are “must read” Church documents in this regard.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

My friend, don’t use the word assume on me if you don’t know for sure what I’ve seen in life. You keep comparing the naturally infertile to those who brought sterilization upon themselves. If your tubes are tied and burned, your not getting pregnant, period. Just saying your open to life is the magic bullet even though it would be the equivelant of a biblical miracle? In addition to issues in my own family, ex girlfriends & exposure to other couples, I worked in a hospital. My “irrefutable evidence” is talking to people. “Life isn’t fair”- yada yada. Do you think your writting to some kid?

A woman CAN possibly get pregnant during her “infertile period”. You said you don’t see challenges in an earlier post, now your bringing up each others “fair share of difficulties”. Which is it? If your sterile, it’s a hard thing to conjur up thoughts of openness to life when you know it’s impossible to create life. Thats a big deal to some who go through this trauma, don’t minimize it.

After nearly 20 years in healthcare, most in Maternal/Newborn care, I will say that your comment of “If your tubes are tied and burned, you’re not getting pregnant, period” is inaccurate. I’ve cared for women who thought their tubal ligation was permanent, but there they were, in the maternity unit, having an unplanned child and as I recall, each of those women were quite happy about it. The only way to be 100% sure that pregnancy is impossible is to: (1) abstain from any sexual contact, or (2), have a complete hysterectomy, including a bilateral oopherectomy (removal of both ovaries), or a plain bilateral oopherectomy. Otherwise, there is always a chance of pregnancy. In fact, when I worked in OB at one hospital (not a Catholic one), the form that the patient had to sign when requesting a tubal ligation specifically stated that it was not 100% and there was a small chance that conception/pregnancy could occur. Since it’s not 100%, Catholic women who have had a tubal ligation and have been through the Sacrament of Reconciliation are still biologically open to life when they honor their marital vows of intimacy. Same with a Catholic man who had a vasectomy, but then realized his sin and received the Sacrament of Reconciliation, since vasectomies are not 100% either.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Not only that but it is the ONLY way to procreate naturally.

Not really. It all goes back to the teaching about what marriage entails. If you haven’t already read them, Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii and The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality are “must read” Church documents in this regard.