Marital Sex Dilemma

[TruthSkr]

Several months ago my wife and I stopped having intercourse because it became too painful for her to endure. It is still possible for us to have sex to climax, but the Catholic Church forbids it because we can’t finish in the approved manner. Recently, I took this issue to the pastor of my church who referred me to the writings of Germain Grisez who wrote a series of articles for Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, MD which contain the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat indicating that these writings conform to Catholic teaching. The articles, which come under the title “The Way of the Lord Jesus – a Moral Theology for Today’s Catholics” can be found online at twotlj.org/. The specific reference to this issue is located at Volume 3, Question 29, “What Sexual Activity is Permitted for Elderly Married Couples?” According to this article “If a couple make genital contact in which ejaculation occurs with the tip of the penis just within the entrance of the vagina, they meet the minimal behavioral conditions for a reproductive type act, and so for marital intercourse.” When I told my wife about this article she became very angry. She said that to do what is suggested is a farce. It would be nothing more than a fake attempt to have sex that is procreative when procreative sex is impossible – impossible because my wife had a hysterectomy many years ago. What this article is saying is that mutual masturbation is sinful, unless the man can achieve even just partial penetration. At that point an otherwise sinful act suddenly becomes legitimized by a mere second-long partial penetration. My wife said that to perform such an act would be hypocritical, pretending to have natural sex when natural sex is impossible. And what if we attempted such an act and it failed? What if I attempted partial penetration and failed at the moment of climax because of weak erection? Do we say it was OK because it was an accident? And what do we do next time? Try again and hope it works? This whole situation seems like a massive micromanagement of our sex lives and feels just plain absurd. I always thought the purpose of religion was to make life better, but this instead is placing a heavy burden on our marriage. What good can come of this? How is anyone being hurt by having sex without penetration? My wife said that elderly people who are unable to kneel during the consecration of the Host during Mass are not held accountable for their disability so why should this situation be any different? Up to this point the only issue I had to deal with was self denial. Now I am denying my wife and she is very upset.

 

[Cimachol]

I’m not personally prepared to weigh in on the specific act in question, but assuming this particular approach is acceptable, whether or not you succeeded in what you had set out to do would be irrelevant. If I tried to drive my car to the last Mass of the day on Sunday and it broke down, preventing me from getting there, I wouldn’t have sinned by skipping Mass, correct? So as long as you were sincerely trying …

Why does the Church care what married people do in bed? Not because the Church wishes to place burdens on anyone, but because the Church cares about our souls. The act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife has been described as a natural sacrament, an expression of the mutually self-giving covenant of love between a husband and wife, through which they participate in God’s process for the creation of new human life. This is a sacred act not to be altered in a way that makes it something less than it was intended to be.

As far as whether or not the man and woman are capable of producing children, that’s not an issue as long as they are not deliberately disrupting the procreative process or performing sexual acts that are non-procreative in nature. Even if one’s body isn’t, for whatever reason, capable of doing what needs to be done for procreation to occur (and even if that condition is temporary, as during much of a woman’s monthly fertility cycle), the couple is participating in the procreative process if they are using their bodies according to the procreative design.

I hope that makes sense – I am not a theologian or a priest, just trying to explain what I’ve come to understand in studying Church teaching as a married man.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Just because a book has a Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat doesnt mean it doesnt have errors.

**“If a couple make genital contact in which ejaculation occurs with the tip of the penis just within the entrance of the vagina, they meet the minimal behavioral conditions for a reproductive type act, and so for marital intercourse.”
**
From the above quote from what I understand this is true. It would not be a farce because you would be open to pro creation which is necessary for a marital act.

"What this article is saying is that mutual masturbation is sinful, unless the man can achieve even just partial penetration."

According to Theologian Ronald Conte all acts are separate in the marriage bed. He states mutual masturbation as a unnatural sex act and sinful even if marital intercourse isfinished properly. I side with Conte on this issue. No where in any Magesterial Document, Scripture, or Tradition does it say we can participate in unnatural sex acts.

**And what if we attempted such an act and it failed? What if I attempted partial penetration and failed at the moment of climax because of weak erection? Do we say it was OK because it was an accident? **

I don’t think God would punish you for trying, but that is something you have to talk over with a solid priest, your wife, and the Lord.

I wish you the best. Married couples have all sorts of trials like this even in the marriage bed, but that is what it is, a trial from God. He will give you the grace you need. The Lord has helped me with my own trial. In my own marriage bed we have had marital intercourse less than 15 times in 12 years! God Bless!

 

[1ke]

According to Theologian Ronald Conte

This person you reference is NOT a theologian of the Church. He has no credentials to teach in the name of the Church nor do his writings have approval from a bishop to publish.

Please do not quote him as any sort of authority, because he is not one and his writings are flawed and his view of sex very skewed.

 

[1ke]

It is still possible for us to have sex to climax, but the Catholic Church forbids it because we can’t finish in the approved manner.

This isn’t exactly true. You stimulating yourself or the other to climax, not having sex to climax.

Recently, I took this issue to the pastor of my church who referred me

Listen to your pastor. And perhaps you and your wife need to sit down and talk to him to follow up. He has given good advice.

When I told my wife about this article she became very angry. She said that to do what is suggested is a farce. It would be nothing more than a fake attempt to have sex that is procreative when procreative sex is impossible – impossible because my wife had a hysterectomy many years ago.

I don’t think your wife actually understands church teaching given her reference to it being impossible to have “prodreative sex” given her hysterectomy. That isn’t what the Church teaches. The act must be ordered to procreation and unity of the spouses. That mean using our sex organs properly includes vaginal intercourse. It does not depend on fecundy, either due to age or defect or illness a person may be sterile and still order their marital embrace properly to procreative ends.

My wife said that to perform such an act would be hypocritical, pretending to have natural sex when natural sex is impossible. And what if we attempted such an act and it failed?

Penetration IS natural sex. She is cofusing the proper ordering of sex act with the subjective result of the sex act.

What if I attempted partial penetration and failed at the moment of climax because of weak erection? Do we say it was OK because it was an accident? And what do we do next time? Try again and hope it works?

There is nothing sinful in this situation, and certainly you can try again. Many people experience premature ejaculation or accidentally stimulating to climax and there is no sin in that.

whole situation seems like a massive micromanagement of our sex lives and feels just plain absurd.

It’s not micromanagement at all. Finish inside your wife leave wide latitude.

How is anyone being hurt by having sex without penetration?

You aren’t having sex unless there is penetration, without it you are masturbating.

wife said that elderly people who are unable to kneel during the consecration of the Host during Mass are not held accountable for their disability so why should this situation be any different?

Kneeling at mass is not the moral law given to us by God. It’s not even ecclesial law, or any law at all.

to this point the only issue I had to deal with was self denial. Now I am denying my wife and she is very upset.

I’d encourage you two to talk to both your pastor and her doctor.

 

[Rau]

Several months ago my wife and I stopped having intercourse because it became too painful for her to endure.

Has a medical cause for this situation been determined and treatment options considered?

It is still possible for us to have sex to climax,

I think what you mean is that you are both capable of climax, but not via sexual intercourse, for the reason’s you’ve given.

When I told my wife about this article she became very angry. She said that to do what is suggested is a farce. It would be nothing more than a fake attempt to have sex that is procreative when procreative sex is impossible – impossible because my wife had a hysterectomy many years ago

As explained by 1ke, the requirement is not oriented to maximising the probability of conception.

This whole situation seems like a massive micromanagement of our sex lives and feels just plain absurd.

In some ways, it seems to be minimally intrusive. As I understand it, you are arguing that any mutual stimulatory means of achieving orgasms should be OK?

 

[Rau]

Just because a book has a Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat doesnt mean it doesnt have errors.

Arguably, that’s right - but how useful is that observation? Should you, or Mr Conte (a lay person) or one of us presume to know better than the Bishop who gave his approval?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

A few things:

Ignore the reference to Ronald Conte in another post, there was another thread yesterday about how misleading his website is. His opinions on sexual ethics are not in line with Catholic teaching.

Second, I have a similar problem to your wife. I went straight to the Gyn. Obviously there are many causes of pain during sex but if she hasn’t been to a doctor who takes her seriously I would strongly advise it. I didn’t fix my problem entirely but I did get the reassurance that I was ‘normal’ and that there was a solution.

 

[Vico]

Several months ago my wife and I stopped having intercourse because it became too painful for her to endure. It is still possible for us to have sex to climax, but the Catholic Church forbids it because we can’t finish in the approved manner. Recently, I took this issue to the pastor of my church who referred me to the writings of Germain Grisez who wrote a series of articles for Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, MD which contain the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat indicating that these writings conform to Catholic teaching. The articles, which come under the title “The Way of the Lord Jesus – a Moral Theology for Today’s Catholics” can be found online at twotlj.org/. The specific reference to this issue is located at Volume 3, Question 29, “What Sexual Activity is Permitted for Elderly Married Couples?” According to this article “If a couple make genital contact in which ejaculation occurs with the tip of the penis just within the entrance of the vagina, they meet the minimal behavioral conditions for a reproductive type act, and so for marital intercourse.” When I told my wife about this article she became very angry. She said that to do what is suggested is a farce. It would be nothing more than a fake attempt to have sex that is procreative when procreative sex is impossible – impossible because my wife had a hysterectomy many years ago. What this article is saying is that mutual masturbation is sinful, unless the man can achieve even just partial penetration. At that point an otherwise sinful act suddenly becomes legitimized by a mere second-long partial penetration. My wife said that to perform such an act would be hypocritical, pretending to have natural sex when natural sex is impossible. And what if we attempted such an act and it failed? What if I attempted partial penetration and failed at the moment of climax because of weak erection? Do we say it was OK because it was an accident? And what do we do next time? Try again and hope it works? This whole situation seems like a massive micromanagement of our sex lives and feels just plain absurd. I always thought the purpose of religion was to make life better, but this instead is placing a heavy burden on our marriage. What good can come of this? How is anyone being hurt by having sex without penetration? My wife said that elderly people who are unable to kneel during the consecration of the Host during Mass are not held accountable for their disability so why should this situation be any different? Up to this point the only issue I had to deal with was self denial. Now I am denying my wife and she is very upset.

There is a misunderstanding of the meaning of procreative. An act apt for creation of a child is procreative even with sterility. Canon law shows that marriage is not invalidated by sterility.

CIC

Can. 1084 §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19770513_impotentia_en.html

 

[twf]

Arguably, that’s right - but how useful is that observation? Should you, or Mr Conte (a lay person) or one of us presume to know better than the Bishop who gave his approval?

The authority some lay non-sanctioned armchair “theologians” claim on this forum is deeply, deeply disturbing and smacks of hubris beyond words. A very Protestant mindset.

 

[Rau]

The authority some lay non-sanctioned armchair “theologians” claim on this forum is deeply, deeply disturbing and smacks of hubris beyond words. A very Protestant mindset.

Perhaps so. But that has nothing to do with my post.

 

[twf]

Perhaps so. But that has nothing to do with my post.

No? You asked how a lay person could presume to know better than a bishop…I was agreeing with you and responding to that…

 

[Rau]

No? You asked how a lay person could presume to know better than a bishop…I was agreeing with you and responding to that…

I see. That you agreed with me was unclear (because you forgot to say that ). No worries.

 

[AdamP88]

This person you reference is NOT a theologian of the Church. He has no credentials to teach in the name of the Church nor do his writings have approval from a bishop to publish.

Please do not quote him as any sort of authority, because he is not one and his writings are flawed and his view of sex very skewed.

Yes. Agree with this. I think most Catholic theologians would tend to view the sex act as one act that may involve several different acts within it. Mutual masturbation would be ok as a form or foreplay as far as I understand.

 

[TechieGuy]

I feel for you and your wife, TruthSkr, since my wife and I are in a similar situation.

I described my circumstances to the Priest who was my regular Confessor and his guidance was even more liberal than what you were pointed to. He was of the opinion that the whole ‘must finish by ejaculating in the vagina’ was a guideline for younger people to stay open to the procreative aspect, but for post-menopausal folks and others for whom Penis in Vagina sex is painful, the focus should be on what promotes mutual love and the unitive aspect.

Now plenty of folks here are likely to claim that this fellow was just plain wrong and gave advice that will lead to the damnation of souls - and you know what, they may be right.

But at the end of the day, you and your wife are going to have to choose amongst the following options:

We believe this teaching of The Church is God’s Law and we will obey.
We believe this teaching of The Church is God’s Law but we will not obey.
We believe this teaching of The Church is not God’s Law but we will obey.
We believe this teaching of The Church is not God’s Law and we will not obey.

I’m with you on the whole ‘seems like absurd micromanagement’, I really am.

However, the questions you need to come to grips with are not about whether or not this is absurd micromanagement, but rather:

Is this teaching really God’s Law?
Will we obey God’s Law even if we think it is absurd micromanagement?

Once you get hold of those answers, the rest will fall into place.

 

[Rau]

…I described my circumstances to the Priest who was my regular Confessor and his guidance was even more liberal than what you were pointed to. He was of the opinion that the whole ‘must finish by ejaculating in the vagina’ was a guideline for younger people to stay open to the procreative aspect, but for post-menopausal folks and others for whom Penis in Vagina sex is painful, the focus should be on what promotes mutual love and the unitive aspect.

I haven’t come across that view before.

Now plenty of folks here are likely to claim that this fellow was just plain wrong and gave advice that will lead to the damnation of souls - and you know what, they may be right.

No, that I think would certainly be wrong. One does not incur damnation through ignorance.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Man, conte is a crackpot.

 

[TruthSkr]

I understand that it does not matter to the Church that conception may not be possible, rather it matters only that marital sex be “ordered to procreation”. But what is the point of having sex that is ordered to procreation if procreation is not possible? Isn’t this just pretending to have procreative sex? I really have trouble believing that God would expect a couple who have been married for 42 years to suddenly begin living like brother and sister, not because they don’t want to have intercourse, but because they can’t. If a couple would spend 30 minutes making love, followed by a one second penetration which is acceptable to the Church, why would God not pleased with the first 30 minutes if penetration is not possible? This very strict approach to marital sex seems to have been born of an ultra conservative viewpoint from centuries ago, when it may have been necessary for survival of the species to have many children. What I have the most trouble with is believing that God would actually punish a married couple with eternal damnation for having sex that does not include intercourse. And this is what my wife most objects to - the use of fear to control the most intimate part of our lives.

 

[TechieGuy]

What I have the most trouble with is believing that God would actually punish a married couple with eternal damnation for having sex that does not include intercourse.

Gotta admit, it does sound sort of unlikely…

 

[Rau]

TruthSkr - Has a medical cause for this situation been determined and treatment options considered?