Why Can Pregnant Couples Make Love?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prodigal_Son

Guest
My wife and I are newly married. Like most good Catholic couples, we quickly found out the usefulness of Natural Family Planning. Eight months later, we have already had one miscarriage (I love you, little one!), and my wife is pregnant again (praise God).

Now I know, from research, that married Catholic couples are permitted to have intercourse, and we have no problem complying with that permission – 😉 – but the theology of it all puzzles me. The Church wants all sexual activity to be open to life, but it seems to me that our intercourse is not exactly so. I mean, what’s she gonna do, crowd another critter in there? 🙂

In cases of infertility, a miracle is possible (as in the Old Testament). In cases of age, the same caveat applies. But in our case, there is no such possible miracle – or at least, no precedents.

So why the permission? :confused:

My own – somewhat facetious – theory is this: that the Church, here, is covertly rewarding couples that get pregnant by saying: Go for it! You can’t get better natural birth control than this!

No one has ever answered this question to my liking. Can you?
 
There is a dual purpose for sex–procreative and unitive.If you are not actively contradicting a purpose with your will–like wearing a condom, or objectifying your partner–you are respecting God’s creation. Every sexual act doesn’t have to be aimed toward pregnancy…it just can’t purposfully deny pregnancy by an act of disordered will.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
…it just can’t purposfully deny pregnancy by an act of disordered will.
Click to expand...
On topics of sexual morality, we Catholics are nimble and nuanced in our use of language.

I love it when Catholics dance. 🙂
 
40.png
Prodigal_Son:
On topics of sexual morality, we Catholics are nimble and nuanced in our use of language.

I love it when Catholics dance. 🙂
Click to expand...
What’s that mean? I thought it was pretty straight forward…:confused:
 
Why is it ok? Because it is good. The marital embrace is a good thing, and you are using within marriage without mutilating it. With contraception you are purposely mutilating the act. Either the man is not giving of himself completely, the woman is not wanting to accept the man completely, or they have taken measure to try to “trick the system” to be able to enjoy the pleasures while cutting off the procreative aspect of the act.

During pregnancy you are not taking any measures to trick the system. You are not making use of artificial means to avoid the procreative aspect of the marital embrace.

Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.
Lets say you have a brother(unitive) and a sister(procreative) that you invite over to your house every year for a New Year’s party (marital embrace). They both show up some years, other years only your brother shows up. They are both always invited to your party, but that does not mean both of them will always show up (if they did you’d prolly have a zillion kids).
Now, if you turn your sister away when she arrives at the door (contraception) that is very different from her not being present because she was in Germany for the winter that year (you are pregnant). It doesn’t matter that you knew she was going to be in Germany (you know you are pregnant).
Ok, my analogy isnt that great, ok, its awful, but do you get what I am saying?
 
40.png
lifeisbeautiful:
Why is it ok? Because it is good. The marital embrace is a good thing, and you are using within marriage without mutilating it. With contraception you are purposely mutilating the act. Either the man is not giving of himself completely, the woman is not wanting to accept the man completely, or they have taken measure to try to “trick the system” to be able to enjoy the pleasures while cutting off the procreative aspect of the act.

During pregnancy you are not taking any measures to trick the system. You are not making use of artificial means to avoid the procreative aspect of the marital embrace.

Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.
Lets say you have a brother(unitive) and a sister(procreative) that you invite over to your house every year for a New Year’s party (marital embrace). They both show up some years, other years only your brother shows up. They are both always invited to your party, but that does not mean both of them will always show up (if they did you’d prolly have a zillion kids).
Now, if you turn your sister away when she arrives at the door (contraception) that is very different from her not being present because she was in Germany for the winter that year (you are pregnant). It doesn’t matter that you knew she was going to be in Germany (you know you are pregnant).
Ok, my analogy isnt that great, ok, its awful, but do you get what I am saying?
Click to expand...
Your analogy is endlessly amusing. Thanks. 🙂

Oh, and for Felicity: I was just mentioning that the very good information you have was VERY precisely worded. It’s was a language dance, and you danced it beautifully.
 
40.png
Prodigal_Son:
Your analogy is endlessly amusing. Thanks. 🙂

Oh, and for Felicity: I was just mentioning that the very good information you have was VERY precisely worded. It’s was a language dance, and you danced it beautifully.
Click to expand...
Oh…ok…it seemed a tad sarcastic…but then…I’ve been known to be a little sensitive. I’m sorry for misjudging your tone.:o
 
40.png
st_felicity:
There is a dual purpose for sex–procreative and unitive…
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church defines a 3 fold purpose for sex, in order:
  1. Procreative
  2. Unitive
  3. Remedy for concupiscence.
 
What you’re doing is no different than a married couple having sex during the time of the month when they can be very certain the woman is not ovulating and that’s called natural family planning. If intentionally avoiding sex to avoid conception is permissable, having sex when you know there is no possibility of conception must also be permissable.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Oh…ok…it seemed a tad sarcastic…but then…I’ve been known to be a little sensitive. I’m sorry for misjudging your tone.:o
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are overly sensitive, I read the reply the same way you did.
 
With your current question, I would offer you a different opinion and appraoch. As always, we as Catholics should always adhere to teachings of the Church primarily, namely the Catechism, which actually does touch base on many of these topics. I don’t pretend to be an expert in matters of fatih or the Catechism, but in reference to your question, “Why can pregnant couples make love?”, I would first look through the Catechism primarily, which is the ultimate opinion of the ENTIRE Church. I know that you said you did research, and I don’t know what research you did, or whether there is some place in the Catechism that approves/consents to the issue, which in that case, I would completely withdraw my objection . I ask this because sometimes, there are those that occasionally misinterpret Church teachings, even our own priests. If I had a nickel for every time one of the Priests at my parish advised me a certain way on a certain topic, and then I looked it up in the Catechism, and found a rather large difference, I would only have a few nickels…but nevertheless, it can happen. That is why it is so…SO…important for every Catholic to know the faith. I’m not saying to mistrust the Priests, I am simply saying that we can all be mistaken and misunderstand some things. So if your ever feeeling unsure about the Church stance on any issue, that is where the Catechism it truly a great thing to have, because it gives the Church’s position to a tee. Also, I think you may find that in doing research on the subject, you may find conflicts of interests (Pre/after Vatican II is usually a big one). In cases like this, in my opinion (and only my opinion), it is always best to refer back to the Catechism, as I believe Pope John Paul himself once said the Catechism “should take presiding precedence over all quesitons of faith” (something close to this although may not be exact). Therefore, I would advise you, if you have not already done so, to look into the Catechism and other teachings of the Magisterium when considering your question.

I will include two posts that I have made in the last week relating to the topic of Natural Family Planning, which, even though it isn’t really the same thing, it is still a familiar topic and may shead some light on your question, or possibly, make you reevaluate the question completely.

Grace of Christ in your discernment,
R.A.H.
 
NFP? A question about marriage and contraception

In my opinion, this has become a very heated issue in not only this forum, but the entire Church today. For marraige is among one of the most sacred institutions of the faith.

Perhaps what may be the case here is that we are misunderstanding the definition of Natural Family. Now I don’t claim to have done an extensive amount of research on the subject, but taking into consideration sevreal different catholic sources, I would define the concept as the following: use of the naturally infertile period of the wife’s cycle for having conjugal relations when a married couple has sufficiently serious reasons for wanting to avoid conception". Am I wrong in this definition?

According to the CCC, there are two mutually inseparable properties to be fulfilled when considering the fecundity of marriage (the capacity for procreation): “the unitive and procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act”. (2366)
Now I have heard the proposition argued in defense of NFP that it fulfills the unitive aspect of the marriage act, therefore it is valid. Now the question we must consider here is whether we believe that these two properties can be fulfilled separately. Remeber that the Catechism says that that the bond between these two is, “the inseparable connection, established by God, which man of his own initiative may not break” Does this clearly not mean that the two properties must be fulfilled within the same marriage act, not separate acts?

To speak right to the topic, the Catechism says conerning the concept of NFP: (2368)

*"For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity generosity apropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, critreia drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart".*

If I am not mistaken, does this not say that only through the VIRTUE OF MARRIED CHASTITY can we attain harmony of maried life (like for instance the use of the naturally infertile period of the wife’s cycle for having conjugal relations-AKA-NFP) with the responsibility of the transmission of lfie (like for instance the purpose of conjugal relations FOR the purpose of procreation)???
(Let us not forget that this is the CCC itself…okay)

Now I suppose it is sitll technically possible for there to be procreation during a women’s infertile cycle, (like in the Old Testament), but I would theorize that this is more of an excuse than a defense of the practice…and very weak one at that. And besides, there is no direct intent to be procreative, and any man or women who thinks that there can be procreative intent through NFP, needs to really think it over.

When I first learned of the concept of NFP, I immediately thought to myself that it cannot be backed by the church, for it is the direct act of sexual relations without the fulfillment or even consideration of procreation. Am I wrong ? I understand the ongoing debate, and that there are those who believe there is another side of the argument, which I hope to address in the following communique.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
 
NFP? A question about marriage and contraception

Another great source for this debate is a book I have read much of entitled, “Catholic Replies”, by James J. Drummey, a religious educator, co-author of the popular apologetics text Catholicism and Reason, and editor of the Catholic Replies newspaper column. In his book, which is set up in a basic Q&A style, two questioners ask (pg.315):​

Question 1. I understand that it would be wrong for a young couple to marrry without the intention of ever having children. But what about a couple in their mid-forties (one with a widow with two teenage children) hwo plan to marry and are not favor of more children Would it be wrong for them to practice Natural Family Planning as a means of avoiding pregnancy?
Question 2. Is it a sin for a couple with four children to forego any further children by practicing Natural Family Planning so they can enjoy some luxuries, like a second home or taking vacations around the world?
Answer. ** It is the teaching of the Church that, “the true practice of conjugal love and the whole meaning of family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who through them willl enrich his own family day by day” (Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern world, n.50)
Relating these statements to the practice of Natural Family Planning, Pope John Paul II has warned that NFP can be abused "if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number births in their family below the morally correct level, [which is] established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of the whole mankind.**
"Responsible parenthood [is] in no way exclusively directed to limiting, much less excluding, children; it means also the willingness to accept larger family" * (L’Osservatore Romano, April 11, 1988)*
The bottom line for both questioners revolves aroud trusting the providence of God and responding with generosity in acccepting and raising children. We cannot decide for either couple what generosity means in their particular situations, although we must say that a desire for luxuries is not a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy. We could agree with John Kippley of the Couple to Couple League who says in his book, Sex and the marriage Covenant, that the key is get a couple “to really ask themselves if they truly have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, whether they are answering God’s call to generosity in the service of life.”
Mr. Kippley recommends a "reflective reading of sections 49 and 50 of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World to help answer those questions. And we would
suggest also a reflective reading of his own book, as well as discussing this matter with a priest who is loyal to the teachings of the Church on marriage and family life.

*For all creditation purposes, everything bewteen these two lines was taken directly from Catholic Replies by James J. Drummey Pgs. 315-316​

So there you have it…just about everything I can possibly and humanly muster of the subject. I understand the concept of objectivity very clearly, and it is not my intention to put forward a biast viewpoint. Almost all that I have said has either come from the CCC, or James J. Drummey’s Catholic Replies. Anything else that could be considered my opinion, is really not opinion, but conclusions made from the two inspired texts, although they are my conclusions on the subject. and also…if you are really and seriously interested in the subject of NFP, read this post very carefully. Trust me…it won’t take that long to read if your interested… assuredly a lot less time than it took me to write it!
Grace and divine wisdom in your discernment.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam! (in the greater glory of God!),

R.A.H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top