NFP is approved by the Church as the only way to try to space children. However, the sexual act must still end with the husband climaxing inside his wife and it is then in God’s hands if he decides the couple during that period will conceive or not.
Then intent has nothing to do with it?
Im not setting that teacher straight, 1st he gets all info from the lead health teacher 2nd he’s SHAQ size, I cant look most people in the eye out of fear let alone someone his height
Sexual intercourse during NFP often means the couple intend there is no pregnancy at that time. However, God’s will trumps our will no matter what we want or intend. That is why the marital act must always be procreative and open to fertility. It does not mean they will or will not have children. That is up to God.
Correct, as is your explanation of Church teaching. The husband must climax inside his wife. I find the question of why the Church doesn’t explicitly state this in a document somewhere to be silly. Church documents are not the Kama Sutra, and they don’t need to go into such explicit detail.
From the Catechism:
Can’t get much clearer than 2370 in explaining the differences between NFP, properly understood, and contraception (including withdrawal).
It would seem to be such an easy thing to settle. Medical scientist, a microscope and a sample.
I must be missing something here.Would “after play” be morally wrong ie male already climaxed continues to stimulate wife manually as she had not climaxed yet, would that be wrong? Especially for those men who suffer from premature ejaculation.
Wouldn’t think so. The couple has been open to life at that point, but the husband is attempting to help his wife enjoy the licit sexual pleasure that’s part of intercourse. If the Church allows foreplay that leads to valid intercourse, I don’t see why “after play” would be dis-allowed.
Glad you agree, I did feel awful typing that question
I think what’s missing is why it’s wrong to attempt withdrawal. Whether a pregnancy could theoretically happen or not is not what makes it sinful, but rather the motive behind withdrawal, which is to try to artificially prevent pregnancy. If a man believed that pregnancy was possible even if he withdrew…then why wouldn’t he simply climax inside? Obviously there is some uncertainty and so the person is simply trying to get the pleasure of sex and avoid the potential consequences.It would seem to be such an easy thing to settle. Medical scientist, a microscope and a sample.
I’d be quite interested to hear if someone disagrees. I’ve never read or heard anything explicit on that question, and I used to wonder the same thing.
I’ll see if I could get a Preist or Apologetics answer its something men and women should know given most men cannot last long enough for their wife to finish
How do you know that?
Read my original post before you make comments, I never “withdrew” I NEVER CLIMAXED!
If you deliberately did not climax inside your wife then that is a sin of grave matter whether you withdrew or not.
No, you did not, so you did not sin. I understand how you feel. I was stupid enough to ask a question that did make me look like the biggest sinner north of the south-pole. I think you did get your answer much earlier so let it be with that. I did write that if someone did sin it was your wife, and I am sorry, I really am. If I remember right, you and your wife did confess so both of you are good. I am “the new kid” (at age 53) on this forum but I have learn a very important lesson, when you think it was a sin, confess, if it feel bad, it was a sin and if you did not get a penance it was not. God bless you my friend, God bless you.
God bless you too!
Thistle Im a nerd I watch Dr Oz plus read numerous medical publications,
That is just an opinion, you have no concrete proof to back up your claim. You’re like a little kid that doesn’t want to admit he’s wrong.