Author Topic: Marital Act During Pregnancy (Read 19468 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.