Author Topic: Marital Act During Pregnancy (Read 9508 times)

Peter15and1 · « **on:** July 13, 2016, 01:20:28 PM »

I read the following argument today. I had never heard of this before. Is it accurate Church teaching?

Quote

It would seem to me that a husband and wife performing the marital act during pregnancy is sinful. As is well known, the marital act is primarily for procreation, and only secondarily as a remedy for concupiscence. The secondary end can never be displace the first. Contraception is sinful because it eliminates the primary end of the marital act.

During pregnancy, further procreation from the marital act is impossible. Therefore, the primary end of the marital act is necessarily eliminated during pregnancy. As the primary end of the marital act is eliminated, engaging the marital act during pregnancy is sinful.

Some may reply that the Church has taught that it is not sinful to engage in the marital act during the so-called "infertile" time of a woman's monthly cycle, but this argument fails. While it is less likely, it is not impossible for the woman to become pregnant during the so-called "infertile" time, while it is indeed impossible for a woman to became pregnant if she is already pregnant.

Some may reply that the Church has taught that it is not sinful to engage in the marital act after the woman's change of life, but this argument fails. Again, it is not impossible for a woman to become pregnant after the change of life, and there are explicit examples of such in the Bible (e.g. Sarah and Elizabeth). There has never been an example, even a miraculous one, of a woman becoming pregnant while already pregnant.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:30:39 PM »

No, that is not Church teaching. Whoever teaches that is, objectively speaking, tainted with the heresy of Puritanism. Whether he is a formal heretic I have no idea. But that is not Church teaching.

Church teaching is that you cannot deliberately frustrate the procreative act, so that it will not result in a pregnancy. You cannot willfully separate the act from its natural consequences.

This includes all methods of birth control -- which includes actions the man/woman might take, as well as any substances or devices the man or woman might use, to prevent a conception from taking place.

Beyond that, all normal sex within the bonds of marriage is licit.

Even if a woman happens to be sterile, or can't become "more pregnant", it doesn't thereby mean you are splitting the act down the middle (I want the pleasure, I don't want the consequences) so it is still licit. The act has to be a package deal: the act/pleasure, and any consequences that will result.

There are three ends of marriage: begetting of children, mutual love of the spouses, and the allaying of concupiscence -- in that order. They are all legitimate ends. You just can't FRUSTRATE the primary end and jump to the secondary or tertiary ends. If the primary end is "N/A", it doesn't mean you can't have the secondary and/or tertiary ends of marriage as a legitimate intention.

The evil of birth control consists of "splitting" what is a cohesive act into 2 distinct elements, and welcoming one while rejecting the other. Similar to the evil of bulimia.

The act of nourishment isn't sinful. But even if you have severe diarrhea and there's no chance you're going to absorb some of that delicious food doesn't mean you're intentionally gagging yourself so that you can enjoy the taste without absorbing any of the nutrients (and calories).

Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer was trained by the best, he was and is a very holy and learned priest, and he was the priest who handled our marriage preparation. He never once said anything about "As soon as she's pregnant, it's hands off, man!" Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer is no liberal.

This is the same priest who mentioned in the wedding sermon that marriage is for life, and that if you ever find yourself divorced, you need to get back with your true wife (right in front of my wife's divorced father, who divorced his wife and married another!) And I guarantee you he didn't make any friends in that quarter. So Fr. Tim Pfeiffer is also no slave to human respect. He takes his responsibility before God very seriously. If something needed to be said, he said it. To the point of being outspoken and socially awkward.

(N.B., for those who don't know, I am referring to Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer, the older brother of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer. Fr. Joe Pfeiffer gets all the press around here. Fr. Tim Pfeiffer is currently living an austere missionary life in Asia. I recently heard that Father has lost weight and he looks quite gaunt. What an edifying priest!)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:43:04 PM »

Yep. Incorrect interpretation of Church teaching. Casti Conubii teaches that the secondary and primary ends of the marital act cannot be inverted and the secondary sought to the EXCLUSION of the primary. But the secondary ends can be sought even when the possibility of the primary isn't there. Marital Act can be engaged in during periods of infertility or even if the couple are infertile completely or past the age of fertility ... or in any other such circuмstances where the couple do not deliberately try to exclude the possibility of procreation. In fact, a totally infertile older couple (provided there's no impotence) can get married and legitimately exercise their marital rights.

In addition to influences from a Puritanical mentality where pleasure is evil in and of itself, there were indeed some Church Fathers who considered it wrong to have marital relations when there was no possibility of conception, but most of these considered that a venial sin. But that's not what ultimately became Church teaching, and Church teaching is ultimately all that matters.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:53:17 PM »

Quote

During pregnancy, further procreation from the marital act is impossible. Therefore, the primary end of the marital act is necessarily eliminated during pregnancy. As the primary end of the marital act is eliminated, engaging the marital act during pregnancy is sinful.

Here's the logical problem, where this position "fails", to use the person's own term. It involve the equivocal use of the term "eliminated". During pregnancy the possibility of conception is eliminated materially (physically not possible) by the pregnancy but is not eliminated formally (due to intent), and the formal intent is what defines the morality of the action. This is where a little knowledge and no understanding of theological principles and scholastic logic can be a dangerous thing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:57:33 PM »

So let's hear it from the Church:

Quote from: Casti Conubii

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2016, 02:07:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote
During pregnancy, further procreation from the marital act is impossible. Therefore, the primary end of the marital act is necessarily eliminated during pregnancy. As the primary end of the marital act is eliminated, engaging the marital act during pregnancy is sinful.

Here's the logical problem, where this position "fails", to use the person's own term. It involve the equivocal use of the term "eliminated". During pregnancy the possibility of conception is eliminated materially (physically not possible) by the pregnancy but is not eliminated formally (due to intent), and the formal intent is what defines the morality of the action. This is where a little knowledge and no understanding of theological principles and scholastic logic can be a dangerous thing.

I heartily second this!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Going with what "seems" to be true, or what you "feel" to be correct doesn't count for much.

And with respect to the rational sedevacantists on here, who arrived at their position after much thought and prayer, I have certainly met and heard many Trads whose embracing of sedevacantism amounted to:

"He don' look lahk no pope to me! He ain't the pope."

I mean, such rash conclusions are usually uttered by someone who has been a Trad for all of about 20 minutes.

Even if such a person turned out to be materially correct, he would only be correct thanks to blind luck. Because he didn't use reason at all -- just emotion and gut feeling. So I would still criticize him :)

If I bet my entire net worth on 13, black on the roulette table based on a "hunch", and won a million dollars, would my actions be laudable? Of course not. Reason would dictate that usually a person would ruin his family financially by being so reckless. The fact that he happened to strike it rich in a given case would be irrelevant.

Geremia · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2016, 11:31:18 AM »

St. Alphonsus di Liguori discusses this in his Theologia Moralis lib. 6 n. 924 "An liceat coire Conjugibus tempore prægnationis?" ("Whether it is licit to come together (copulate) during the time of pregnancy?"). The common opinion, he says, is that it is not a mortal sin, provided there is no risk of causing an abortion. There appear to be various opinions regarding whether it is a venial sin. St. Alphonsus seems to think it isn't a venial sin if it is done for an honest reason, such as if there's danger of incontinency, à la

Quote from: 1 Cor. 7:5

Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, vthat you may give yourself 'to prayer': and return again together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Zeitun · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2016, 11:54:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yep. Incorrect interpretation of Church teaching. Casti Conubii teaches that the secondary and primary ends of the marital act cannot be inverted and the secondary sought to the EXCLUSION of the primary. But the secondary ends can be sought even when the possibility of the primary isn't there. Marital Act can be engaged in during periods of infertility or even if the couple are infertile completely or past the age of fertility ... or in any other such circuмstances where the couple do not deliberately try to exclude the possibility of procreation. In fact, a totally infertile older couple (provided there's no impotence) can get married and legitimately exercise their marital rights.

In addition to influences from a Puritanical mentality where pleasure is evil in and of itself, there were indeed some Church Fathers who considered it wrong to have marital relations when there was no possibility of conception, but most of these considered that a venial sin. But that's not what ultimately became Church teaching, and Church teaching is ultimately all that matters.

Then it must follow that a couple who assumes to be infertile could still sin by refusing the marriage debt without good cause. For instance, if one assumes the other to be infertile because of poor health or age and refuses or regulates the marriage debt because the other is attempting a pregnancy that is considered nearly impossible and requires too much frequency to achieve?

Of if one is participating solely for the purpose of conception and the other dislikes like the approach the debt cannot be refused or regulated can it because of the manner of how the act is performed?

One cannot refuse the other on the grounds of "lack of inspiration" or dullness? To quote Dr. Laura "not enough jam"...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:07:23 PM »

I think it all depends on what constitutes "good cause". But, indeed, absent a good cause, the marriage debt must still be rendered even if the possibility of procreation is absent (negatively, that is, rather than positively excluded). After that, however, one can quibble I suppose about what constitutes good cause. I think I read somewhere that the husband couldn't legitimately require the marriage debt of a pregnant wife or a wife who was nursing, whereas a woman can't require the debt of her husband when she's menstruating.

Geremia · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:37:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I think I read somewhere that the husband couldn't legitimately require the marriage debt of a pregnant wife

See my post on St. Alphonsus above.

Quote from: Ladislaus

or a wife who was nursing,

Why would that be?

Quote from: Ladislaus

whereas a woman can't require the debt of her husband when she's menstruating.

Perhaps you're thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica article "Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt?" He argues that it is not moral because "of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse." It was thought that defective children were conceived during the menses because the menstrual blood was too old. I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence for this today. The woman's cycle wasn't really understood until Dr. Billings, circa mid-20th century.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:57:54 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

St. Alphonsus di Liguori discusses this in his Theologia Moralis lib. 6 n. 924 "An liceat coire Conjugibus tempore prægnationis?" ("Whether it is licit to come together (copulate) during the time of pregnancy?"). The common opinion, he says, is that it is not a mortal sin, provided there is no risk of causing an abortion. There appear to be various opinions regarding whether it is a venial sin. St. Alphonsus seems to think it isn't a venial sin if it is done for an honest reason, such as if there's danger of incontinency, à la
Quote from: 1 Cor. 7:5
Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, vthat you may give yourself 'to prayer': and return again together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Yeah, some Church Fathers considered it a venial sin, but that was before there had been a clear theological elaboration regarding the different ends of marriage. I agree with St. Alphonsus that it's inherently not even a venial sin so long as it's done with a view towards the secondary ends of marriage (vs. sheer lust). I think that most people conveniently think of the allaying of concupiscence as a euphemism for lust, but it's not that at all. It's an intention in the faculty of reason to keep your soul from harm. So, for instance, a husband and wife could say that they don't feel as close to one another if they're not having relations during pregnancy. Or a husband and/or wife might say that they're struggling more with temptations against purity due to the lack of relations. Obviously, excessive lust can become a venial sin, especially when those other ends aren't even entertained in the higher faculties, or else it can just be an imperfection. But that can be true even in cases where the primary end isn't missing. By way of analogy with the sin of gluttony, it's not a sin to enjoy the taste of a good meal and really enjoy a dessert. At some point it can be an "imperfection" (short of venial sin), and then at another point it can cross over into venial sin (let's say I stuff gorge myself on an entire cake composed of 10 servings). But the line can be a little bit fuzzy.

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2016, 01:01:22 PM »

I remember once reading from a private revelation and one of the things revealed was that one of the main reasons a man was saved was because he listened to his priest's advice and did not have marital relations with his wife when she was pregnant. It didn't say it was a sin to have relations while pregnant but that it pleases God when you don't kind of like fasting. I wish I could remember the source I read this from so I could provide a link.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2016, 01:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Ladislaus
I think I read somewhere that the husband couldn't legitimately require the marriage debt of a pregnant wife
See my post on St. Alphonsus above.

There's a difference between it being permitted and whether or not either party can call in the debt (i.e. whether it could be obligatory).

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Ladislaus
or a wife who was nursing,
Why would that be?

Not sure. There was some thread on this a while back. Based on what some theologians said.

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Ladislaus
whereas a woman can't require the debt of her husband when she's menstruating.
Perhaps you're thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica article "Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt?" He argues that it is not moral because "of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse." It was thought that defective children were conceived during the menses because the menstrual blood was too old. I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence for this today. The woman's cycle wasn't really understood until Dr. Billings, circa mid-20th century.

Again, there's a difference between whether it's permitted and whether one or the other party can "call in the debt" as it were and make it obligatory for the other party.

Geremia · « **Reply #13 on:** July 19, 2016, 01:20:45 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's a difference between it being permitted and whether or not either party can call in the debt (i.e. whether it could be obligatory).

The husband and wife "are equal in paying and demanding the debt," as St. Thomas Aquinas says.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2016, 01:25:51 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I remember once reading from a private revelation and one of the things revealed was that one of the main reasons a man was saved was because he listened to his priest's advice and did not have marital relations with his wife when she was pregnant. It didn't say it was a sin to have relations while pregnant but that it pleases God when you don't kind of like fasting. I wish I could remember the source I read this from so I could provide a link.

Sure, abstinence can certainly please God and be meritorious ... unless it doesn't please God. So much of this depends on the circuмstances. So, for instance, you often find the "pious" type who becomes reluctant to render the debt in the interests of a higher purity and spiritual pursuits. But this leaves the other party feeling put out, based on one or another of the secondary ends that they feel the need to have satisfied. In that case, it would be blameworthy rather than meritorious. Out of charity, the more pleasing thing to God would be to NOT abstain in that case. So many people have been tainted with this idea that there's something inherently incompatible with sanctity in pleasure. God would not have associated pleasure with physical relations if that were the case.

Reminds me of a story about St. Francis of Assisi. He had been abstaining from meat for several years. At one point he was invited to eat at someone's home as a guest, where the person served meat. St. Francis ate the meat without a second thought. One of his fellow monks asked him whether or not it made him feel bad to have eaten meat after so long. He said that he hadn't even given it a second thought because not eating would have been rude to his host. That's true humility and true charity ... not the person who wants to abstain from physical relations with a spouse even against that other person's wishes.

Sin ultimately resides in the will and not in the flesh. People need to remember that.

It's also why a lot of people get so worked up about sins of the flesh vs. other types of sins ... because they're ashamed of the physical acts. But those same acts are NOT sinful within the context of marriage. It's not the act itself that's sinful or shameful but the fact that one decided in his WILL to do something against the law of God. That is the essence of sin. In fact, sometimes sins of the flesh come from mere weakness, and there are many other forms of sin against the laws of God that entail greater malice or lack of charity but for which people have little shame.

So let's say that someone in a moment of weakness slips up and briefly consents to an impure thought. Now, another person decides he doesn't feel like going to Mass on Sunday for no other reason than he doesn't feel like it or would prefer to watch football. Which is the greater sin? Obviously the latter. Yet people are more ashamed of the prior than of the latter ... whereas it should be the other way around.