Marital relations, and sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sephero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sephero

Guest
Hi there,

I will try make this a brief as possible.

My wife is not a practicing Catholic, and right now neither of us is using contraception, however my wife does not wish that I finish the martial act within.

So instead we enter into the martial embrace, enjoy our union, and we simply stop after a while, I do not finish within, or without.

Essentially I am open to life, and enter into the martial act with that intention. However if I know before entering into it that I cannot finish the act, because my wife doesn’t want it that way for the time being, and I therefore simply withdraw, and do not finish within or without, do I sin?

Many thanks,
God bless,
S
 
Last edited:
Sephero said:
So instead we enter into the martial embrace, enjoy our union, and we simply stop after a while, I do not finish within, or without.
Click to expand...
It seems very selfish of her to demand this since it presents you with a temptation to finish the act yourself. You remain unfulfilled. If you are like most men then your desire is to finish the act, it would be extremely frustrating in the long run for you and I don’t see how it wouldn’t lead to resentment on your part.
Sephero said:
However if I know before entering into it that I cannot finish the act, because my wife doesn’t want it that way for the time being, and I therefore simply withdraw, and do not finish within or without, do I sin?
Click to expand...
As I said above, this will be frustrating long term, aside from any moral considerations.

I would think that if this is your intention then it is not open to life and it would be considered a diliberate frustration of the marital act. It’s not like you have to stop because there is someone at the door.
I assume this is done in order to avoid conception, if this is the case then it represents a contraceptive mentality that would possibly border on sinful.

Why can’t you just abstain?

If it is the case that your wife is going to orgasm but you are not then that prettymuch amounts to your wife using you for her gratification, which is not particularly desirable in marriage either.
 
Hi Sephero,

Ok, I see what you are speaking.

This action is called in french “étreinte réservée”. I am not sure of the English translation, perhaps, reserved embrace?🤔

This action is known for a long time in theology books and confessors manuals, and sometimes had been tolerated by some morals theologians, in the XVII or XVIIIth century.

You are right, you do not, as a man or a couple made a wrong action in beginning the intercourse. It follow a natural order. But the end is not oriented toward procreation, does not finish in a natural way. It is a frustration of the ends of the marital relationship.

On your intention, you can feel yourself open to life, which is good, but your action said deliberately the contrary.

The current moral Catholic doctrine does not endorse anymore this étreinte réservée. (I have not see some official writing at least. But perhaps there are some new writings on this special case, a moral theologian should be more aware.

I will illustrated why:
  • One exemple: A French catholic layman, Paul Chanson, in the middle of XXth century was a heavy promotor of this action. He had even written a book in 1951, on this subject. When pope Pius XII had been asked what his thinking on the “étreinte reservée” is, he answered, approximatly, that he had put the book of Paul Chanson at the right place: the trash can.
    So it was the end of official “carrier” of this man and étreinte rservée in the Church. He was no longer supported and later speak only on a secular level.
**-**Now, the official stand of the Church, is that all marital embrace should be open to life but also oriented toward procreation, so, to be clear, the man should ejaculated in his wife. Pius XII, Humanae Vitae, John-Paul l II, Pope Francis, all the Pope had reaffirmed the doctrine).**
  • For the couple who wish to space births without being close to offsring, the couple can use the natural infertile (or less fertile) period of the natural cycles of the woman. And be continent (no sex!) during the fertiles times. It is what is called Natural Family Planning.
    It can be effective with a good training, with motivation of the couple and the faithfullness of the woman to daily observation and charting.
It is the modern version of what was approved a long time ago by Pius XI, and Pius XII: the rythm method. But it is based on clinical signs of fertility, not on statistics. So it is better adapted to all women.

On the level of guilt or sin, it is not us, online to established. See with a confessor. Of course, the fact that your wife want this is a complex thing.
 
On my opinion, this action is less serious than contraception, but it is still not appropriate.

Do you know why your wife want you to do that?
Have you ever done otherwise?
Do you know why your wife prefered this solution vs contraception? And what is your believe?
Did you both ever heard of NFP (natural family planning) in a positive and objective way?

Perhaps, there is an other thing inside your wife requierement: a perception of the semen, and inside her. Like it is too much for her? In her mind equal to real possibility of pregnancy? Is she is not ready for a pregnancy yet?

I encourage you to read some theology of the Body, by John Paul II. It had ever enlight so much people. Why not you? 😀
 
How terrible! Why don’t you guys try NFP??? what ever that natural way is? at least you could tell when NOT to have sex if she doesn’t want children… there are PLENTY of days when YOU can have sex that is fulfilling for both of you???
 
Sephero said:
Essentially I am open to life
Click to expand...
That phrase entering into modern Catholic zeitgeist has caused so much confusion.

The Church, in her official teaching, uses more precise language.

Each marital act must be ordered toward procreation.

The “withdrawal” method is not only disordered, it is not effective (the pre-ejaculate fluids contain sperm) and it got Onan struck dead!
 
The Holy See has decided this question. As another poster mentioned, Paul Chanson and others too wrote books promoting “amplexus reservatus” (reserved embrace), which is just as the OP described, sex deliberately without climax (within or without). The Holy See condemned this act (Denzinger 3907)

"With serious concern the Apostolic See notes that in recent times, a considerable number of authors, in treating the conjugal life, everywhere openly and in detail, go immodestly into every single aspect; and some, moreover, describe, approve, and recommend a certain act called amplexus reservatus.

"So as not to fail in duty in a matter as important as the sanctity of marriage and the salvation of souls,… the Congregation of the Holy Office, by the express order,… of Pius XII, seriously warns all of the above-mentioned authors to desist from such a mode of conduct…

“Priests, moreover, in the care of souls and in the directing of consciences, may never, whether on their own initiative or when they are questioned, presume to speak as if there is no objection to ‘amplexus reservatus’ on the part of the Christian law.”

So, no, you cannot deliberately have marital sex without male climax, which is what makes the sexual act procreative. The intention does not matter here, since the act is intrinsically evil. It doesn’t matter if the reason is to avoid conception or some other motivation.
 
Last edited:
AdamP88 said:
It seems very selfish of her to demand this since it presents you with a temptation to finish the act yourself.
Click to expand...
If she is non-Catholic, I am pretty sure she doesn’t see it this way. I am wondering why she doesn’t use birth control if she doesn’t want children?
 
AdamP88 said:
If it is the case that your wife is going to orgasm but you are not then that prettymuch amounts to your wife using you for her gratification, which is not particularly desirable in marriage either.
Click to expand...
If his wife is non-Catholic, this isn’t accurate. Quite possible that she is seeking the unitive aspect of intercourse. This isn’t seen as a bad thing to someone who isn’t Catholic. I don’t think anyone here should be trying to convince OP that his wife is selfish and self-serving. It is possible that isn’t the case at all.

The wife may be wondering why the heck he just doesn’t finish on the outside. Sounds like communication may be a problem with this.

With all that said, not a situation I would find acceptable.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
If his wife is non-Catholic, this isn’t accurate. Quite possible that she is seeking the unitive aspect of intercourse. This isn’t seen as a bad thing to someone who isn’t Catholic. I don’t think anyone here should be trying to convince OP that his wife is selfish and self-serving.
Click to expand...
It’s accurate whether she’s catholic or not.
If she can finish but he can’t then she is being selfish.
 
But it is his choice to finish or not. I am sure that is how she sees it, too.

Something about this whole scenario is off. My first inclination is to say they sound like they have communication problems. However, it may be more than that.

After more thought, I am really not comfortable with anyone commenting on this. He didn’t give nearly enough information and I don’t think I want to know any more. This is definitely one for him to take to his priest.
 
Last edited:
Thing is, in any marriage but especially in a mixed marriage, this is something that should have been discussed and decided before marriage.
 
@TheLittleLady,

Sorry, you made a mistake. The OP is not talking about the withdrawal method. But of “la reservata” or reserved embrace. That mean intercourse who not finish at all: no ejaculation within ou without.

Thanks you Ron Conte for the English and latin term. And the precise answers of the Holy See, which follow what I said about Pius XII comment.
 
Last edited:
If she’s using this as a method to avoid pregnancy I’ll be the first to tell her this is not the way to do it.

This is actually more likely to result in pregnancy (and no, I don’t know actual percentages) than NFP - it used to be called the withdrawal method. And it simply doesn’t work, because (and I’ll spare the details) you don’t know when the little swimmers actually begin their departure.

It’s no longer given as a method because it doesn’t work.

And with withdrawal it doesn’t matter if the man ejaculates or not - just that the ejaculation does not occur within the woman. Hence the name.
 
It’s the exact same thing. See my other post. Withdrawal is withdrawal - but sperm can “depart” before full ejaculation occurs. You can very easily get pregnant this way.
 
Last edited:
Wrapping it up in a cool Latin name does not make it any less sinful nor more effective. @Pup7 is telling it the way it is!
 
Hopefully not too much so. 😄 I tend not to mince words as a nurse, and I don’t want to be terribly graphic because I don’t want to upset the sensibilities of others - but biology and anatomy are biology and anatomy. I’ve never cared much for euphemisms.

Euphemisms are how we get teenagers who are completely unaware that sex is how you get pregnant. And yes, in 2018, that still happens.

Thanks for the comment.
 
Swimmers only depart only under strict orders from the sympathetic nervous system. You can not easily get pregnant this way. What the OP is talking about is not withdrawal but something else entirely.
 
Yes, you can. Because there is fluid released from the penis prior to full ejaculation - we’ve all heard the colloquial term for it - and you CAN get pregnant as it only takes one.

This is basic anatomy and physiology. Feel free to look it up. There is a reason we in the medical community don’t teach it as a method of birth control - because it just isn’t.

It’s not biologically simple to get pregnant regardless. The cards are completely stacked against it biologically speaking.
 
Last edited:
Pup7,
The Magisterium condemns the withdrawal method as a type of contraception. So the theoretical possibility of conception of which you speak is not sufficient to make the act procreative. And non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top