Hell and Non-procreative Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter VeronicaM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You thought that you could make your case by comparing that which can not be undone to that which can be undone.

The person in this **can **have the vasectomy reversed.
One is merely paying lip sevice to being open to life when they are unwilling to be so.
You can not possibly judge this…only God can.

There are plenty of instances where people have gotten pregnant even with a vasacetomy…as long as you are following the other things in the bedroom that leave it open to life…it can happen…

And again…that is not something you can (or should) judge…only God can judge that.

It’s interesting that you are so willing to judge someone’s soul and what they need to do…even against what the church requires…even if it goes against what the sacrament of reconciliation is…and that makes me sad…
 
=VeronicaM;7750688]Would I go to hell if I engaged in non-procreative sex with my spouse?
In other words, is marital, non-procreative sex a venial or mortal sin?
It is an “intrinsic evil” always and everytime a Mortal sin.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

The difference in this and what you ptopose is getting assistance from your spouce…

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

The Reason for this is that the ability to have children is a Gift of and from God. Notice for example in Genesis after the “fall” Eve gave bith to a son and CREDITED God for this event.

Abram in the Old Testament and John the Baptist [to show then and now] both became fathers because of God’s direct intervention when they and there spouces were beyond child-bearing age.

Evey sexual encounter of man and women in unprotected sexual union does not result in a pregnancy precisely because God has a PLAN; a ROLE in every pregnancy.

All life and death issues MUST remain controller by God our Creator; the Giver of Life and the taker of life.

THANKS for asking; you may wish to discuss this with your priest-confessor?

God Bless you BOTH!

Pat

Our Catechism:
 
You can not possibly judge this…only God can.

There are plenty of instances where people have gotten pregnant even with a vasacetomy…as long as you are following the other things in the bedroom that leave it open to life…it can happen…

And again…that is not something you can (or should) judge…only God can judge that.

It’s interesting that you are so willing to judge someone’s soul and what they need to do…even against what the church requires…even if it goes against what the sacrament of reconciliation is…and that makes me sad…
Why **should ** he have the operation reversed.
i say to you i will give you 100 dollars but i give you 96 dollars because i am unwilling to give you the other four. did i give you a gift of a 100 dollars?
 
Why **should ** he have the operation reversed.
i say to you i will give you 100 dollars but i give you 96 dollars because i am unwilling to give you the other four. did i give you a gift of a 100 dollars?
Maybe a better question is…why shouldn’t he…because it’s expensive…potentially not safe…and won’t guarantee they are fertile again…

But you’ve heard that all before in this thread…

If you want to believe it fine…whatever…but just don’t go around acting like it’s church teaching because it’s not. And a person who has confessed it is NOT sinning every time they have sex. Unless you know more then the Pope…:rolleyes:
 
"today on Immaculate Heart Radio Father Corapi was talking about just this and it was SOOOO profound for me. I missed the end part though… Can anyone help me out with the end?

Father spoke of confession - check, check
He spoke of vasectomy reversal not being necessary - check
He spoke **about the continued suffering from the wound of sin even though there is forgiveness **- check
Father spoke about trusting in God, the past is the past, sin is WIPED-OUT, forgiven and forgotten, future sex is not a lie because of the sin being wiped out - check

was there anything else he said that I missed??

thanks in advance 03/31/11
"

This was from another thread…sounds like Fr. Corapi is saying exactly the same thing…reversal is not necessary…the same thing that a few others here have said…
 
I don’t mean to be vulgar. But what I mean by non-procreative sex is any sex that cannot induce pregnancy:
  1. Oral sex to completion (not used as foreplay)
  2. Anal sex
  3. Breast sex
  4. A handjob
Are you saying that married couples can go to hell for doing these acts?
Veronica,

No matter how many posters dance around this question, the answer is YES - all of these acts are grave sins and are mortal sins, notwithstanding the regular conditions that make a sin mortal. This shouldn’t be any more surprising than the reality that masturbation is a mortal sin in most cases. So if you willfully engage in these acts without the intent of completing in the marital embrace AND you do not seek absolution AND you die, you may very well end up in hell. If you didn’t know the rules before, you do now.
 
Maybe a better question is…why shouldn’t he…because it’s expensive…potentially not safe…and won’t guarantee they are fertile again…

But you’ve heard that all before in this thread…

If you want to believe it fine…whatever…but just don’t go around acting like it’s church teaching because it’s not. And a person who has confessed it is NOT sinning every time they have sex. Unless you know more then the Pope…:rolleyes:
Answer why should he that is the Church teaching. so tell me why should he do so.Why doe sthe Church say he should if there is nothing wrong in continuing an offense to the dignity of marriage.
 
Answer why should he that is the Church teaching. so tell me why should he do so.Why doe sthe Church say he should if there is nothing wrong in continuing an offense to the dignity of marriage.
Huh? You don’t make any sense…

Church teaching DOES NOT REQUIRE A REVERSAL…Bottom line. What is so hard to get about that? You may not like it but you don’t get to put more requirements on then the Church does.

He confessed it…it’s been forgiven…absolved…the priest told him he doesn’t have to have it reversed. Yes…does he have to live with the effects of that sin…yes…maybe God was going to bless him with a child but now he won’t know. Or maybe not…maybe he was sterile…we don’t know. But that is just like all of us that still have to live with the effects of sin…even though we are forgiven.
 
Answer why should he that is the Church teaching. so tell me why should he do so.Why doe sthe Church say he should if there is nothing wrong in continuing an offense to the dignity of marriage.
From Fr. Vincent Serpa:
By the way, you are not required to have a reversal operation in order to have relations with your wife.
Do you have any church teaching that says otherwise, fb?
 
And what about women that have had a tubal ligation? To reverse that costs upwards of $20,000, involves major abdominal surgery (they usually make an incision similar to a C-section) and requires general anesthesia…all of which is a medical risk (as all surgery is) and a tubal reanastomosis is NOT covered by any insurance.

I guess if a surgeon, an anesthesiologist, and a hospital were willing to put up their services for free (including the 2-3 day stay), many women might consider attempting the reanastomosis, which only has about a 50% success rate.

Otherwise, I think one is doubting and questioning the ability of the Sacrament of Confession and Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross when they start suggesting that women should have it reversed…most women that have not reached menopause that I know (whether or not they’ve been sterilized) DO NOT have $20,000 to have this surgery done…they are simply trying to keep a roof over their family’s head, food on the table, and bill paid; whether they do that with their own income or are being good stewards of managing the household bills with money earned from their husband’s job.

Maybe all these people that keep suggesting it be reversed should donate the money to have it done…a lot of people get sterilized because they can barely afford the children they do have. For most Catholics that get sterilized, it’s not about a Disney vacation every year or a 3500 sq foot house, it’s about providing food and shelter for the family they already have. If they’ve went to confession and are repentant, then please just leave them alone. Unless of course, you are willing to pay their bills.
 
For those that accuse me of doubting the sacrement of reconcilation consider this.
A sterlized person engaging in martial relations is sinning.
A remarried person engaging in marital realtions is sinning.
Both recieve the sacrement of reconcillation.Both sins are absolved
The sterlized person is free to engage in marital relations the other is not.Your claim is that the sacrement removes the condition that makes steilized relations sinful but not in the case of the remarried person.
 
Can the husband’s sterlization be reversed? If so he must do so. Otherwise it is not complete repentance
.if it can not be reversed then i agree with what else you have written here.
i recant the word must and replace it with should.
 
For those that accuse me of doubting the sacrement of reconcilation consider this.
A sterlized person is sinning, whether or not s/he engages in marital relations.
A remarried person engaging in marital realtions is sinning.
Correction:

An UNREPENTANT sterilized person is sinning whether or not he engages in marital relations.
An UNREPENTANT remarried person engaging in marital relations is sinning.
Both recieve the sacrement of reconcillation.Both sins are absolved
Yay!
The sterlized person is free to engage in marital relations the other is not.
True.
Your claim is that the sacrement removes the condition that makes steilized relations sinful but not in the case of the remarried person.
That’s right, because the Sacrament of Reconciliation can’t dissolve a valid marriage or make a declaration of nullity, in the case of the remarried person. That person is absolved from their sin but must still seek to regularize their situation according to the norms of the Church or else abstain from fornication.

In the case of a person who is sterilized, the Church does not require that they undergo an expensive medical procedure with potential complications, that may not be effective anyway, in order to remove the consequences of their sin. It is certainly encouraged if it is feasible, but forgiveness is not contingent upon it. As they are in a valid marriage, they may still engage in the marital act with their spouse even though the consequences of the sin remain.
 
Correction:

An UNREPENTANT sterilized person is sinning whether or not he engages in marital relations.
An UNREPENTANT remarried person engaging in marital relations is sinning.

That’s right, because the Sacrament of Reconciliation can’t dissolve a valid marriage or make a declaration of nullity, in the case of the remarried person. That person is absolved from their sin but must still seek to regularize their situation according to the norms of the Church or else abstain from fornication.

In the case of a person who is sterilized, the Church does not require that they undergo an expensive medical procedure with potential complications, that may not be effective anyway, in order to remove the consequences of their sin. It is certainly encouraged if it is feasible, but forgiveness is not contingent upon it. As they are in a valid marriage, they may still engage in the marital act with their spouse even though the consequences of the sin remain.
And even if a person is sterilized…they still have to leave the maritial embrace open to life…which means still non of those things that the OP listed. The maritial embrace is not SOLELY about procreation…it is also about unity and not treating your spouse as a thing solely for pleasure.
 
And even if a person is sterilized…they still have to leave the maritial embrace open to life…which means still non of those things that the OP listed. The maritial embrace is not SOLELY about procreation…it is also about unity and not treating your spouse as a thing solely for pleasure.
Besides that, no form of sterilization is 100% effective, unless a woman had both of her ovaries removed in the sterilization process, and unless she did not, there is always a chance that she could become pregnant.

Yes, it would appear that it’s unfair that those who have been sterilized and repented can go about “business as usual”, kind of like it wasn’t “fair” to a certain son that his prodigal brother got all the fun. But that’s what Holy Mother Church teaches.

A lot of those who had vasectomies or tubal ligations and have repented also choose to abstain for times during the month as though they’d be practicing NFP- but again, this is not required, but some choose to do this.
 
For those that accuse me of doubting the sacrement of reconcilation consider this.
A sterlized person engaging in martial relations is sinning.
A remarried person engaging in marital realtions is sinning.
Both recieve the sacrement of reconcillation.Both sins are absolved
The sterlized person is free to engage in marital relations the other is not.Your claim is that the sacrement removes the condition that makes steilized relations sinful but not in the case of the remarried person.
There is a very big difference here.

The sterilized person and the remarried person are in different circumstances. Let’s break this down.

STERILIZATION: The act of sterilization is a moral evil. Once the act is committed, it is over. When the person receives absolution, he or she is being forgiven for something that is over. The person is not being sterilized on an on-going basis. The act was done and it is now finished. Therefore, the Church, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation has the authority and the power to forigve it and forget about it.

REMARRIED PERSON: The act of adultery is ongoing until the parties separate. If one of the two persons is validly married, divorced and remarried, the couple is living in adultery. The act of adultery is not over. It is ongoing. Therefore, the Church does not have the power or the authority to forgive such a person until that couple stops living as husband and wife. Only when they stop living as husband and wife will the adulterous act be over. Then the Church can forgive and forget.
Answer why should he that is the Church teaching. so tell me why should he do so.Why doe sthe Church say he should if there is nothing wrong in continuing an offense to the dignity of marriage.
The Church DOES NOT SAY THAT A PERSON SHOULD REVERSE A STERILIZATION. There is no moral obligation to do so. The person must repent for having done it, confess it and receive absolution. From the moment that the person receives absolution, the Chuirch and Christ forget that the action ever happened. Even though the couple cannot have children in the future, they still have a moral obligation to share the marriage bed. The Church does not have the authority to command a married couple to stop having sex. Sex is part of being married. The husband and wife have a right to share marriage bed and to have sexual intercourse, even when they cannot procreate. That right is given to them by God and the Church cannot take it away, because they committed a sin that is over and done with.

You cannot fix one moral problem by commiting another immoral action. To command that they not sleep together is immoral. To command that they reverse the sterilization is also immoral. The Church cannot command someone to have elective surgery. That’s why it’s called elective. It’s not medically necessary. It’s not going to heal someone.

The Church, believe it or not, can command someone to have a medically necessary surgery to save a life, because one has the moral obligation to save a life when it is possible to do so without unnecessary hardship

Reversing a sterilization is not going to save a life. Please stop telling people this. For those out there who are unsure, please consult your priest, deacon, religious brother or sister, your diocesan office for family life or your diocesan office for respect life or whatever they call it in your diocese. Every diocese has an office for family and for pro-life ministry.

If this were true, it would be on the Catholic pro-life agenda. It’s not. My religious community does only pro-life ministry. We oppose cotraception and sterlization. We do not promote reversals that are not medically necessary. That is a personal choice, not a requirement for absolution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I don’t mean to be vulgar. But what I mean by non-procreative sex is any sex that cannot induce pregnancy:

Are you saying that married couples can go to hell for doing these acts?
Yes. These are objectively evil things. If they constitute a subjective sin, you can go to Hell for doing them.

In order for an act to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be present:
  1. Grave matter
  2. Knowledge
  3. Free-Will
So as to #1, reproduction is grave matter. St. Thomas discusses this in his answer to why fornication is a sin against the Natural Law:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
We have said that God exercises care over every person on the basis of what is good for him. Now, it is good for each person to attain his end, whereas it is bad for him to swerve away from his proper end. Now, this should be considered applicable to the parts, just as it is to the whole being; for instance, each and every part of man, and every one of his acts, should attain the proper end. Now, though the male semen is superfluous in regard to the preservation of the individual, it is nevertheless necessary in regard to the propagation of the species. Other superfluous things, such as excrement, urine, sweat, and such things, are not at all necessary; hence, their emission contributes to man’s good. Now, this is not what is sought in the case of semen, but, rather, to emit it for the purpose of generation, to which purpose the sexual act is directed. But man’s generative process would be frustrated unless it were followed by proper nutrition, because the offspring would not survive if proper nutrition were withheld. Therefore, the emission of semen ought to be so ordered that it will result in both the production of the proper offspring and in the upbringing of this offspring.

It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.
As to #2, you have to have knowledge that what you are doing is a mortal sin or at least you should have known that it is. If you have committed any of these acts you listed, you should repent of them and not commit them again. Perhaps before you did not know but now you do so there is no question.

As to #3, you must have free-will in the matter, sin requires a free choice to do something contrary to the Law of God. For example, if you are raped, the sin is on the head of the rapist, not the survivor. If your husband threatens to leave you or cheat on you if you do not perform one of these acts, you can engage in it in a limited fashion but you should still not intend pollution (that is, ejaculation outside the vagina).

So please talk to your husband about this and go to Confession! It is never too late to begin living a chaste and holy life!
 
St. Thomas:
As stated above (Question 153, Article 3), the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circumstances are not observed. And since a circumstance, as such, does not specify a moral act, whose species is derived from its object which is also its matter, it follows that the species of lust must be assigned with respect to its matter or object.

Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow

These species are differentiated on the part of the woman rather than of the man, because in the venereal act the woman is passive and is by way of matter, whereas the man is by way of agent; and it has been stated above (Objection 1) that the aforesaid species are assigned with regard to a difference of matter.
ibid:
As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution [that is emission of semen – PtC], without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.” Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.” Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.
ibid said:
In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin [unnatural acts – PtC]
is gravest of all [sins of lust – PtC]
. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article 9), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.
 
Please refrain from being too explicit on a public forum.

Thank You
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top