Marital sex question

[fpt]

I’m not sure but isn’t it a sin to have relations if a husband can’t complete inside his wife (retrograde ejaculation, anejaculation, etc.) because it doesn’t meet one of the requirements? That seems similar to using contraception. And wouldn’t it be wrong to call it the marital act because it is not procreative? Then the husband wouldn’t be really denying what Catholics truly define it as.

A husband, with retrograde ejaculation (dry ejaculation), is not impotent in the catholic dedintion . Morally speaking, he can make love.

A husband, with anejaculation with (orgasmic) or without (anorgasmic) orgasm, is not impotent in the catholic definition. Morally speaking , he can make love.

I am sure of my statements

 

[Rkdajr]

A husband, with retrograde ejaculation (dry ejaculation), is not impotent in the catholic dedintion . Morally speaking, he can make love.

A husband, with anejaculation with (orgasmic) or without (anorgasmic) orgasm, is not impotent in the catholic definition. Morally speaking , he can make love.

I am sure of my statements

Thanks for clearing that up, fpt.

 

[PaulGH]

Some couples are called to abstain and some not, so why wouldn’t the husband in this situation be called to abstain because he has a legitimate reason?

As I see it, it is because if the husband abstains, that means that the wife abstains too. But she presumably doesn’t consent to abstaining, in which case he is not fulfilling the so-called “marital debt.” I guess you are saying that he has a serious reason to decline, though I would disagree.

I think we differ on who has culpability for using contraception. If one spouse uses contraception before or during relations, and the other spouse does not use it and in fact objects to it, then is only the contracepting spouse culpable or are both spouses culpable? I would say that the contracepting spouse is culpable and that the other spouse is not. If I understand you, you would say that they are both culpable.

Let me pose a similar scenario: Suppose that one spouse was surgically sterilized (for contraceptive reasons, not as a side effect of some other medical treatment), against the wishes of the other spouse. Would the non-sterilized spouse sin by having marital relations with the sterilized spouse? If not, why is this scenario different?

 

[Rkdajr]

I guess you are saying that he has a serious reason to decline, though I would disagree.​

If I understand you, you would say that they are both culpable.

Yes that is what we disagree about.

Let me pose a similar scenario: Suppose that one spouse was surgically sterilized (for contraceptive reasons, not as a side effect of some other medical treatment), against the wishes of the other spouse. Would the non-sterilized spouse sin by having marital relations with the sterilized spouse? If not, why is this scenario different?

Good example - Although I would say it wouldn’t be a sin because the couple could still be open to life, but it would be if the wife in the other situation were to use contraception (even if not 100% effective) because she would not be open to life and neither her husband if he were to consent.

 

[fpt]

Thanks for clearing that up, fpt.

The important element of junction of bodies is vaginal penetration with the penis of husband, even the “copula dimidiata”, with the ejaculation whatever the quality and the quantity of its liquids is okay.

Information:

Women without uterus after a surgery (true medical issues or for contraception and after a confession) can get married and make love.

Women without ovaries after a surgery (true medical issues or for contraception and after a confession) can get married and make love.
Women without Fallopian tubes after a surgery (true medical issues or for contraception and after confession) can get married and make love.

Wife with impotent husband, sometimes, can make love, she can ask for marital act.

Men without prostate after a surgery (true medical issues or for contraception and after a confession) can get married and making love, if bridegroom are not impotent (an erection, vaginal penetration, even if that is a " copula dimidiata" , and vaginal ejaculation without prostatic liquids or dry ejaculation)

Men with a vasectomy after a surgery (true medical issues or for contraception and after a confession) can get married and making love, even if no sperm during the ejaculation.

Husband touched by impotent or having erection troubles, sometimes, can make love, he can ask for marital act.

 

[Rkdajr]

I would also like to add, PaulGH, that in the first scenario the sin is completed but in the second it is ongoing.

Wife with impotent husband, sometimes, can make love, she can ask for marital act.

Husband touched by impotent or having erection troubles, sometimes, can make love, he can ask for marital act.

Hi fpt, what do you mean “ask for the marital act”? If the husband is impotent, then the marital act can’t be completed.

If a woman doesn’t have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc., then how is the act procreative? I can understand sterility and other things, but you can’t tell me a couple is open to life when the wife has almost no reproductive system.

 

[PaulGH]

Good example - Although I would say it wouldn’t be a sin because the couple could still be open to life, but it would be if the wife in the other situation were to use contraception (even if not 100% effective) because she would not be open to life and neither her husband if he were to consent.

So in the case of one spouse being sterilized against the wishes of the other spouse, you would say that the non-sterilized spouse does not sin by having marital relations with the sterilized spouse. Is that correct?

Does it matter if the intent of the sterilized spouse changes later? You mentioned that they could still be open to life, but I don’t quite understand that comment, unless you mean that the sterilized spouse has a change of heart and repents of the sterilization. In that case they could be open to life in intent, even if in practice it is very unlikely that they will conceive.

So let me pose the situation another way, to be more clear: Suppose that one spouse gets sterilized, against the wishes of the other spouse. Further suppose that the sterilized spouse does not repent, and still thinks that sterilization was a great idea, and is glad that he or she is no longer fertile because he or she does not want more children. In that scenario, does the non-sterilized spouse (who wants to be open to life) commit a sin by having relations with his/her spouse? Why or why not?

(I would answer no, for the same reasons that I do not think the OP would be sinning by having relations with his wife who is contracepting. But I am interested in your answer.)

 

[Rkdajr]

So in the case of one spouse being sterilized against the wishes of the other spouse, you would say that the non-sterilized spouse does not sin by having marital relations with the sterilized spouse. Is that correct?

Correct.

So let me pose the situation another way, to be more clear: Suppose that one spouse gets sterilized, against the wishes of the other spouse. Further suppose that the sterilized spouse does not repent, and still thinks that sterilization was a great idea, and is glad that he or she is no longer fertile because he or she does not want more children. In that scenario, does the non-sterilized spouse (who wants to be open to life) commit a sin by having relations with his/her spouse? Why or why not?

(I would answer no, for the same reasons that I do not think the OP would be sinning by having relations with his wife who is contracepting. But I am interested in your answer.)

In that particular situation I would say the wife commits a sin but the husband does not because the wife is being deliberately anti-procreative while the husband is open to life which the act still is (although I would say he’d be guilty of leading his spouse to sin if he knows this.) It’s a similar scenario but it’s not the same. Sex after sterilization isn’t a sin (if there is repentance) but contracepted sex is.

I understand more what manualmen was saying about intention, but it doesn’t mean anything if you say one thing and do another.

 

[PaulGH]

Rkdajr,

Thanks very much for your reply.

In that particular situation I would say the wife commits a sin but the husband does not because the wife is being deliberately anti-procreative while the husband is open to life which the act still is (although I would say he’d be guilty of leading his spouse to sin if he knows this.)

How is that act (with one spouse sterilized, and unrepentant of the sterilization) any more open to life than an act where one spouse uses contraception? I’m getting confused about your reasoning on this point.

I actually do agree with your take on this sterilization scenario, but again, I would apply the same thing to the situation of one spouse using contraception. I could in fact use the exact same words to argue that the non-contracepting spouse does not sin: “I would say the wife commits a sin but the husband does not because the wife is being deliberately anti-procreative while the husband is open to life.”

It’s a similar scenario but it’s not the same. Sex after sterilization isn’t a sin (if there is repentance) but contracepted sex is.

You say “if there is repentance,” but I am posing a scenario in which there is not repentance for the sterilization. In that case, I still do not understand your rationale for saying that one situation is sinful (for the non-contracepting spouse) but the other is not sinful (for the non-sterilized spouse). Could you please clarify?

 

[EasterJoy]

Rkdajr,

Thanks very much for your reply.

How is that act (with one spouse sterilized, and unrepentant of the sterilization) any more open to life than an act where one spouse uses contraception? I’m getting confused about your reasoning on this point.

I actually do agree with your take on this sterilization scenario, but again, I would apply the same thing to the situation of one spouse using contraception. I could in fact use the exact same words to argue that the non-contracepting spouse does not sin: “I would say the wife commits a sin but the husband does not because the wife is being deliberately anti-procreative while the husband is open to life.”

You say “if there is repentance,” but I am posing a scenario in which there is not repentance for the sterilization. In that case, I still do not understand your rationale for saying that one situation is sinful (for the non-contracepting spouse) but the other is not sinful (for the non-sterilized spouse). Could you please clarify?

The non-contracepting spouse has a duty to encourage their contracepting spouse to repent, but that doesn’t require using sex as some sort of leverage to force the issue. Even if the non-contracepting spouse is suffering, too, that’s not a good idea, and could leave both spouses unnecessarily vulnerable to the compounding sin of infidelity, as well. The non-contracepting spouse would be bound to avoid acting so as to present that near occasion of sin to their spouse.

 

[fpt]

I would also like to add, PaulGH, that in the first scenario the sin is completed but in the second it is ongoing.

Hi fpt, what do you mean “ask for the marital act”? If the husband is impotent, then the marital act can’t be completed.

If a woman doesn’t have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc., then how is the act procreative? I can understand sterility and other things, but you can’t tell me a couple is open to life when the wife has almost no reproductive system.

Wife with impotent husband, sometimes, can make love, she can ask for marital act???

Actually, I want to say if a husband has erection troubles, but can penetrate his wife sometimes, he is not perpetually impotent. Thus, he can make love and she can ask for the marital act. The adjective “perpetual” made the difference between what is okay or is not okay. For example, if husband can get vaginal penetration on 50% or less it is okay, because husband is not perpetually impotent.

 

[fpt]

If a woman doesn’t have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc., then how is the act procreative? I can understand sterility and other things, but you can’t tell me a couple is open to life when the wife has almost no reproductive system.

According to the teaching of catholic church:

Wives without uterus after a surgery (true medical issues, for instance a cancer) can get married and make love.

Wives without ovaries after a surgery (true medical issues, for instance a cancer) can get married and make love.

Wives without Fallopian tubes after a surgery (true medical issues for instance) can get married and make love.

These situations mean also sterility. These couples can practice the marital act., she can make love to her husband and he can ask her the marital act.

Without total reproductive system or with a part of reproductive system after a surgery, she stays a woman, a female: making one flesh is yet possible, because her husband can be in erection, he can get penetration with his penis, he can ejaculate, she can get pleasure by her vagina.

Unity is here, potential procreativity is not here, but she is wife because can be penetrated by her husband.

Natural law and divine law is linked with the sexual power of each sexed person.

For men, penis in erection for penetration with a ejaculation, even very small: active movement.

For females, vagina for being penetrated: passive movement.
THe vagina stays, it is useful and powerfull.

 

[fpt]

I would also like to add, PaulGH, that in the first scenario the sin is completed but in the second it is ongoing.

Hi fpt, what do you mean “ask for the marital act”? If the husband is impotent, then the marital act can’t be completed.

If a woman doesn’t have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc., then how is the act procreative? I can understand sterility and other things, but you can’t tell me a couple is open to life when the wife has almost no reproductive system.

Catholics are often touched by:

The misinformation about the conjugal moral
or
The misunderstandings about the marital act.
or
the lack of deep knowledges about the marital act.
or
The heresies ( the conjugal jansenism, the marital puritanism, marital victorianism, conjugal rigorism, marital moralism…etc).
or
And by the ideologies (marital sexism, marital masculinism, marital feminism, gender theory…etc).

Junctions of bodies in the marriage is wanted by God. Marital act is a language, a prayer, a communion of love, a liturgy, a " tool " (sorry for this word) from love for the love, a “tool” (sorry for this word) for the unity (love, pleasure and orgasms, holy erotism, Conjugal Eros from the true love for increasing the true love ), a mean for making babies (pontential procreation).

 

[Tampa_Dave]

My wife and I have been married for 27 years. We practiced NFP religiously and, trust me when I say this, we were anxious more than a few times over the years! Fortunately, we have two beautiful daughters for whom we are extremely grateful to our Lord. Despite my temptations to use contraception, my wife held firm and we obeyed the Church’s teachings. Sometimes its not easy being Catholic, but our consciences are clear!

May our Lord guide you in resolving this issue.

 

[Rkdajr]

Thank you for your reply as well, PaulGH.

Rkdajr,

Thanks very much for your reply.

How is that act (with one spouse sterilized, and unrepentant of the sterilization) any more open to life than an act where one spouse uses contraception? I’m getting confused about your reasoning on this point.

I actually do agree with your take on this sterilization scenario, but again, I would apply the same thing to the situation of one spouse using contraception. I could in fact use the exact same words to argue that the non-contracepting spouse does not sin: “I would say the wife commits a sin but the husband does not because the wife is being deliberately anti-procreative while the husband is open to life.”

Yes but the husband can’t be open to life in the second scenario because the act doesn’t call for it; in the first one, he can.

You say “if there is repentance,” but I am posing a scenario in which there is not repentance for the sterilization. In that case, I still do not understand your rationale for saying that one situation is sinful (for the non-contracepting spouse) but the other is not sinful (for the non-sterilized spouse). Could you please clarify?

I think what I meant was that each situation is different based on the procreative aspect and intention. To make it easier:

1. Procreative act: sterilized wife (unrepentant) + husband (open to life) = wife sins/husband does not (in my mind)
2. Procreative act: sterilized wife (repentant/open to life) + husband (open to life) = no sin
3. Procreative act: sterilized wife (unrepentant/not open to life) + husband (not open to life) = both sin
4. Non-procreative act: contracepting wife (anti-procreative) + husband (open to life) = both sin (in my mind)
5. Non-procreative act: contracepting wife (anti-procreative) + husband (not open to life) = both sin

In the first three, intention (and repentance on the part of the wife) determines who sins. In the last two intention doesn’t matter for the husband even if that’s his overall view because the act is already non- (or anti-)procreative.

The non-contracepting spouse has a duty to encourage their contracepting spouse to repent, but that doesn’t require using sex as some sort of leverage to force the issue. Even if the non-contracepting spouse is suffering, too, that’s not a good idea, and could leave both spouses unnecessarily vulnerable to the compounding sin of infidelity, as well. The non-contracepting spouse would be bound to avoid acting so as to present that near occasion of sin to their spouse.

Blackmail, temptation to infidelity or divorce are wrong but they shouldn’t be used to justify another sin in the hopes of avoiding them. Why is it better for one person to commit an act in order that their spouse not be tempted, than not committing the act in order that their spouse not sin?

As I see it, it is because if the husband abstains, that means that the wife abstains too. **** I guess you are saying that he has a serious reason to decline, though I would disagree.

I think we can agree that it is a good reason for the husband to abstain if the wife wants to use an abortifacient, even if she doesn’t consent to abstaining. So why is not a good reason for him to abstain if she uses just contraception? Aren’t they both equally immoral?

Unity is here, potential procreativity is not here, but she is wife because can be penetrated by her husband.

Okay wait, what you are telling me is the procreative aspect is not required.

Can someone please confirm and explain why:

1. Relations with a woman with no reproductive system (besides her vagina) is procreative.
2. Relations with a man who can penetrate but not ejaculate is procreative.

 

[Roy5]

Hm! After reading some of these reactions, I find myself confused and even a bit disgusted by the efforts of the Church to control such intimate matters. Once a couple is joined in marriage, it seems wise to me to let them make decisions as to pregnancy and ways of encouraging or avoiding it. There are so many factors that can enter into that, from financial matters to educational concerns, from physical to psychological issues that may be present, etc.
There is something troublesome (in my mind) about an all-male, celibate hierarchy establishing rules that apply to intimate married life. I trust decent, loving, responsible husbands and wives to work that out. Now, when it comes to abortion, we're on a different subject entirely.

 

[fpt]

Can someone please confirm and explain why:

1. Relations with a woman with no reproductive system (besides her vagina) is procreative.
2. Relations with a man who can penetrate but not ejaculate is procreative.

From the natural law and from divine law, and under the constant interpretation of catholic church, the sexual power of each sexed person in function of its sex (gender, I mean male or female) is the key for understand the position of the catholic church about the impotency within couple.

For men, penis in erection for penetration with a ejaculation, even very small: active movement of husband. The quantity and the quality of ejaculation are not the relevant elements.

For females, vagina for being penetrated: passive movement of wife, the vagina stays, it is useful and powerfull. Wife must have a vagina, she has to be open (her vagina has to be penetrable, no vaginismus).

I have a true story:

a wife with two children of her husband got the annulment of catholic marriage because he was impotent because he could not penetrate vaginally his wife, but he had put down his sperm just outside of vagina (at the gate), and her wife was pregnant, twice.

There was declaration of nullity because wife could not be penetrated by her husband, even if it was procreative because two kids.

Thus, wife has right to the penetration for complete pleasure, even if in the rule of the catholic court, it is not so clear. It is a logical interpretation.

By that, I want to say that the sexual pleasure is one part of of marital act. State of marriage means foreplay, then union of bodies with the potential vaginal and cervix orgasm. An obligation of means with the human manners in link with natural law.

 

[fpt]

Can someone please confirm and explain why:

1. Relations with a man who can penetrate but not ejaculate is procreative.

About the virility of husband there are different steps and elements:

Being a man, I mean has testicules (whatever their quality concerning the numbers of sperm, their mobilities…etc).

The relevant element is to have an erection, even a small that permits a “copula dimidiata” (1/3 of penetration of penis in the vagina, in minimum ). The mechanism is erection, penetration, movement of ejaculation (dry, without sperm…etc), orgasm not obligatory even if it is better for the unity (orgasm and ejaculation are not exactly the same thing, even if normally it is in the same time)

Male penetration is the key. The result of ejaculation is irrelevant.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m finishing up here at CA in the next day or so, so I’m not sure I’ll be back if there are follow-up comments on this, so let me apologize for that in advance.

Blackmail, temptation to infidelity or divorce are wrong but they shouldn’t be used to justify another sin in the hopes of avoiding them. Why is it better for one person to commit an act in order that their spouse not be tempted, than not committing the act in order that their spouse not sin?

I think we can agree that it is a good reason for the husband to abstain if the wife wants to use an abortifacient, even if she doesn’t consent to abstaining. So why is not a good reason for him to abstain if she uses just contraception? Aren’t they both equally immoral?

If a person is refusing to fulfill their marital obligations towards their spouse fully, they are already sinning, whether their spouse is engaging in the same refusal or not. If your wife is on the pill or your husband won’t have sex with you without using a condom, you don’t change the relationship between their will and God’s will by refusing to have sex with them. Rather, you simply fail in your own obligation. Besides, you aren’t allow to sin pre-emptively. You might use abstinence cooperatively, as with NFP, but short of self-defense (your spouse is abusive or infected with something deadly) you don’t get to withhold on your own say-so. “The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.” 1 Cor. 7:3-5

And do not forget: birth control and abortafacients were hardly unknown in the Greek and Roman societies of St. Paul’s time, yet he makes no exception for a spouse who knows their spouse is using contraception.

Okay wait, what you are telling me is the procreative aspect is not required.

Can someone please confirm and explain why:

1. Relations with a woman with no reproductive system (besides her vagina) is procreative.
2. Relations with a man who can penetrate but not ejaculate is procreative.

The procreative aspect isn’t a mere matter of efficiently going out and making babies! Confusing the procreative aspect with the goal of procreation is like confusing the masculine and the male. They aren’t the same thing. The essence of the procreative aspect is not fertility. The essence of the procreative aspect is obedience. You can even look at the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect in the context of the two great commandments: to love God with your whole heart, whole soul, and whole mind–to love God’s law and not withhold yourself at all from God’s plan for you–and to love your neighbor as yourself–to love your spouse and not withhold yourself from your spouse. In this context, there is God, there is the husband, there is the wife, but there is one life.

When we engage in sex with respect towards the procreative aspect, then, that doesn’t mean we are always trying to get pregnant. It means we are keeping our sex acts within the greater context of why we have sexual faculities and doing this in an attitude of the heart that is proper in the context of our vocation. It has to do with not insisting on controlling everything to suit our own ends. This is why a spouse who believes himself or herself or their spouse to be infertile is not free to withhold sexual relations from a spouse that asks for them while the essence of those relations is still possible. Each spouse has his and her own moral life, but abstinence, like the marital act itself, is a joint project of mutual obedience to God and to each other. Like many virtuous acts, God has built legitimate pleasure into the nature of the act itself. Our whole lives are like that, from our first breath until our last, and let us thank God for the sweetness He infused into our lives, even in this vale of tears!

Do the couple’s sexual relations include at least that which constitutes the minimal essence of the marital act, enacted while withholding nothing of themselves with regards to procreation, unity, or anything else that belongs to the act in its essence? That is, does the ritual between them (so to speak) include the archtypical sexual act and the fullness of the attitude which is meant to animate not only that act but all of their married life, even though it is obvious that couples are never blessed or challenged in every way in which a couple that is open might be blessed or challenged? That is the question, not whether or not this act seems remotely likely to produce a baby.

 

[fpt]

1. Non-procreative act: contracepting wife (anti-procreative) + husband (open to life) = both sin (in my mind)

I am not sure. The diffrence is in the type of contraception.

If it is a pill without abortive effects, husband is not sinning, he is not a sinner and he can ask for sex.

If a wife, after the marital act, uses the local contraceptive for destroying sperm without the consent of husband, he is not a sinner and can ask for sex. He is not in the moral obligation, all the time, at each coitus, to say to her, I am not okay with your behavior after the coitus by using the gel for killing my sperms.

If a wife, per se, is under the contraception in the indirect and involuntary manner without abortive effect, they are not sinners. In the facts, this situation is very rare, may be impossible in the state of science (see a doctor).