Sexual question

  • Thread starter Thread starter brendenseth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brendenseth

Guest
Me and my wife were at dinner and we had some wine, after we put the baby to bed we had some time to relax. One thing led to another and I stimulated her both manually and orally, I know we’re required to have sex after that. She’s on her 3rd day post peak (we’re doing the creighton model, nfp) so I stopped. My question is should I go to confession about this? We had full intercourse so I know the foreplay was ok, I just never finished due to the fact I was worried about her getting pregnant.
 
Did you intentionally stop before finishing, or did anxiety prevent such?

-ACEGC
 
brendenseth said:
My wife actually stopped me.
Click to expand...
I would discuss this with your confessor, and perhaps your wife ought to with hers. There are several factors at work here, chief among them is one of intentionality. If you knew going in that it was a day you should be abstaining and started engaging in such activity without intending to finish, that’s one thing; if you just got caught up in the moment and then caught yourselves, realizing that that was a day for abstaining, that’s another. It’s all about intentions and what was communicated. Talk it out with one another and your confessor.

-ACEGC
 
brendenseth said:
Me and my wife were at dinner and we had some wine, after we put the baby to bed we had some time to relax. One thing led to another and I stimulated her both manually and orally, I know we’re required to have sex after that. She’s on her 3rd day post peak (we’re doing the creighton model, nfp) so I stopped. My question is should I go to confession about this? We had full intercourse so I know the foreplay was ok, I just never finished due to the fact I was worried about her getting pregnant.
Click to expand...
I would mention this to your confessor, but I think that you are fine so long as it wasn’t your intention to not finish.

Sin is based largely on intention. so if you intended to complete the marital act but couldn’t, well, I cannot see the mortal sin or even the sin.
 
Your wife did tell you to stop? In that case you did not sin, she, alas, did. But as all the others have answer you, talk with a priest.
 
Surely his wife, who was after all the person who would conceive, has a right to say “stop”?Engendering a baby without discussion or regard to its future well-being is something too important to be embarked on carelessly after a glass or two of vino on a Saturday night.
 
Of course she have the right to say no. That is crystal clear, but if both parts want to have sex, and then some of them say “no” (with is a right both of the parts have) then it is the one who say “no” who interrupt the act, and in my way of thinking, the one who sin. Giving the circumstances though I think it is a venial sin, but I am not a priest. (A thing The RCC most likely never forget to be grateful for.)
 
Lasting_faith said:
Of course she have the right to say no. That is crystal clear, but if both parts want to have sex, and then some of them say “no” (with is a right both of the parts have) then it is the one who say “no” who interrupt the act, and in my way of thinking, the one who sin. Giving the circumstances though I think it is a venial sin, but I am not a priest. (A thing The RCC most likely never forget to be grateful for.)
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight; there is a time when one is required to have sex in order to avoid sin?
 
Talk to your priest . But at first glance it doesn’t look like sin to me. It isn’t necessarily problematic to stop the act.
The issues here are 1) whether you stopped or finished in an illicit way. ( No need to discuss that here that is what the priest is for)
2) Was either of you sure from the get go that you weren’t going to finish.
Your wife does need to try to discern whether she knew all along she was going to stop you and waited until her need was satisfied and then drew the line. That would be self serving and sinful.
If you were just being loving and got swept up and then realization about where in her cycle came to mind and you stopped then I don’t think it is a mortal sin. Maybe venial if you are routinely careless in this way. Of course there was a little alcohol involved so that also lessens culpability.
 
Timothysis said:
So let me get this straight; there is a time when one is required to have sex in order to avoid sin?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, yes. It is after all the fullness of marriage. So unless you have the Church’s permission to be in a Josephite marriage, you should morally have sex with your spouse.

Not only that but it would be morally questionable to tease and deny. That is not loving.
 
Timothysis said:
So let me get this straight; there is a time when one is required to have sex in order to avoid sin?
Click to expand...
Sexual acts/activity are only allowed within marriage. When a husband and wife start a sexual act, whatever it is, it must end up with the husband climaxing inside his wife otherwise it is a sin, with a few exceptions.
If the husband intends to finish the act inside his wife but is prevented from doing so by his wife the sin is not the husband’s, but the wife’s.
If the husband intends to finish inside his wife but prematurely ejaculates before that can happen then that would not be a sin.
Of course it would not be sinful if they stopped due to some emergency suddenly happening.
 
thistle said:
Sexual acts/activity are only allowed within marriage. When a husband and wife start a sexual act, whatever it is, it must end up with the husband climaxing inside his wife otherwise it is a sin.
Click to expand...
Is there a definitive Church/magisterial teaching of this? And I’m not talking about various theological points of view, I mean Church teaching from the bishops.
 
Timothysis said:
Is there a definitive Church/magisterial teaching of this? And I’m not talking about various theological points of view, I mean Church teaching from the bishops.
Click to expand...
CCC 1643 "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."

It cannot be a totality and open to fertility if sex acts are not completed by the husband climaxing inside his wife!
 
But if the wife has an overwhelming fear of an unwanted pregnancy, surely this is, in itself, a bar to “total unity”…
 
If this happened every time the sin would not be that of the husband, but of the wife.
 
You are, I can only assume, male if a wife’s well-founded fear is now to be labelled a sin…

I think this thread has contained far too much information better kept behind the closed bedroom door - and any poor priest troubled by such scruples will feel he is being stoned to death with peanuts.
 
My gender is irrelevant to the Church teaching as it applies to both husband and wife.
You have no religion stated in your profile. If you are Catholic then you would know that husband and wife must be open to life and any sexual activity between the couple **MUST **end with the husband climaxing inside his wife.
If a husband deliberately withdrew before climaxing that would be a sin of grave matter for the husband but not the wife.
If a wife takes her husband out or does not let him enter before he climaxes then that is a sin of grave matter for the wife but not the husband.
If they both agree that there would be no climaxing inside the wife then that would be a sin of grave matter for them both.
 
thistle said:
CCC 1643 "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."

It cannot be a totality and open to fertility if sex acts are not completed by the husband climaxing inside his wife!
Click to expand...
A couple is open to fertility when they do not place artificial barriers as a means to prevent conception. That is a far cry from saying that a man must climax inside of his wife to avoid sin. The phrase “beyond union in one flesh” suggests something on a higher plane than simply a biological process of reproduction.
 
Timothysis said:
So let me get this straight; there is a time when one is required to have sex in order to avoid sin?
Click to expand...
I suppose there are. What I do mean is that if both parts start, and then go “all the way” it is OK, and I did not write this “rule”, but if one suddenly say “no way, stop” it is of course what the other one shall do, stop. But as I understand it, that is the same thing as mutual masturbation is, or close to it. And required? Hmm…maybe not word I had in mind, but guess so, reckon though this is not official doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top