Prostate cancer and prostatectomy issues

[typewriterman]

Last year a friend was diagnosed with prostate cancer in its early stage. He and his urologist chose a nerve sparing radical prostatectomy which removes the prostate gland and parts of the Vas Deferens and part or all of the Seminal Vesicles. If you don’t know what all those things are, you can google them.

Anyway, this surgery sterilizes a man to the extent that there is no ejaculate during ejaculation. The sensation is there, but nothing else happens. When he reaches sexual orgasm or climax, it’s completely dry because the internal structures that make semen are gone. He asked me a couple questions about this.

• Since there is no possible way for sexual relations with his wife to be procreative, would it be a sin to have this quasi sexual intercourse with her.
• Would mutual masturbation be sinful because even though he has the ejaculatory reflex, no semen can ever be produced.

Both of the above would be “unitive” but could never be “procreative”. However, he believes that the unitive action of either the quasi sexual intercourse or mutual masturbation will enrich and deepen their married relationship.

Any suggestions on how to answer him?

 

[MisterSomebody]

Hello,

From what i have seen in the AAA forums, the apologists say that it is alright for people who are sterile to no fault of their own to continue with their marital relations as per normal. Regarding mutual masturbation,you should ask this in the AAA forums and just incase ask the first question to an apologist also.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Last year a friend was diagnosed with prostate cancer in its early stage. He and his urologist chose a nerve sparing radical prostatectomy which removes the prostate gland and parts of the Vas Deferens and part or all of the Seminal Vesicles. If you don’t know what all those things are, you can google them.

Anyway, this surgery sterilizes a man to the extent that there is no ejaculate during ejaculation. The sensation is there, but nothing else happens. When he reaches sexual orgasm or climax, it’s completely dry because the internal structures that make semen are gone. He asked me a couple questions about this.

• Since there is no possible way for sexual relations with his wife to be procreative, would it be a sin to have this quasi sexual intercourse with her.
• Would mutual masturbation be sinful because even though he has the ejaculatory reflex, no semen can ever be produced.

Both of the above would be “unitive” but could never be “procreative”. However, he believes that the unitive action of either the quasi sexual intercourse or mutual masturbation will enrich and deepen their married relationship.

Any suggestions on how to answer him?

What would be the difference in this and a woman who has had a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or is post-menopausal? Both are now sterile, yet no one has ever said a woman cannot have sex after a hysterectomy or menopause. And it’s not quasi-sex, it’s real sexual relations between a man and a woman. The inability to conceive does not prohibit sexual relations between a husband and wife, the Church does not teach that. It recognizes the unitive aspects of sex in marriage as well as the procreative aspect.

 

[DaveBj]

What would be the difference in this and a woman who has had a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or is post-menopausal? Both are now sterile, yet no one has ever said a woman cannot have sex after a hysterectomy or menopause. And it’s not quasi-sex, it’s real sexual relations between a man and a woman. The inability to conceive does not prohibit sexual relations between a husband and wife, the Church does not teach that. It recognizes the unitive aspects of sex in marriage as well as the procreative aspect.

Well said. Also, bear in mind that God has been known to have a sense of humor when it comes to couples thought to be barren. :bigyikes:

DaveBj

 

[Seatuck]

Last year a friend was diagnosed with prostate cancer in its early stage. He and his urologist chose a nerve sparing radical prostatectomy which removes the prostate gland and parts of the Vas Deferens and part or all of the Seminal Vesicles. If you don’t know what all those things are, you can google them.

Anyway, this surgery sterilizes a man to the extent that there is no ejaculate during ejaculation. The sensation is there, but nothing else happens. When he reaches sexual orgasm or climax, it’s completely dry because the internal structures that make semen are gone. He asked me a couple questions about this.

• Since there is no possible way for sexual relations with his wife to be procreative, would it be a sin to have this quasi sexual intercourse with her.
• Would mutual masturbation be sinful because even though he has the ejaculatory reflex, no semen can ever be produced.

Both of the above would be “unitive” but could never be “procreative”. However, he believes that the unitive action of either the quasi sexual intercourse or mutual masturbation will enrich and deepen their married relationship.

Any suggestions on how to answer him?

The above highlighted is not permitted. Spouses may touch each other to prepare for intercourse and the woman may achieve climax through touches. Husband needs to attempt to finish ( as best he can) inside his wife. The intention for the act of intercourse is necessary for the meaning of the marital act to be realized. Semen is not necessary for the meaning of the marital act to be realized. This type of act is neither unitive (the one flesh union is not performed ) or procreative in form ( intercourse is the form)
There is morally nothing wrong with intercourse that is rendered infertile on the man’s part due to treatment of a medical condition. It is only intentional sterility procedures that cause a moral issue .

 

[1ke]

Last year a friend was diagnosed with prostate cancer in its early stage. He and his urologist chose a nerve sparing radical prostatectomy which removes the prostate gland and parts of the Vas Deferens and part or all of the Seminal Vesicles. If you don’t know what all those things are, you can google them.

Anyway, this surgery sterilizes a man to the extent that there is no ejaculate during ejaculation. The sensation is there, but nothing else happens. When he reaches sexual orgasm or climax, it’s completely dry because the internal structures that make semen are gone. He asked me a couple questions about this.

• Since there is no possible way for sexual relations with his wife to be procreative, would it be a sin to have this quasi sexual intercourse with her.
• Would mutual masturbation be sinful because even though he has the ejaculatory reflex, no semen can ever be produced.

Both of the above would be “unitive” but could never be “procreative”. However, he believes that the unitive action of either the quasi sexual intercourse or mutual masturbation will enrich and deepen their married relationship.

Any suggestions on how to answer him?

Sexual intercourse with his spouse is not sinful in the situation you describe. The sex act is still **objectively **ordered to procreation and unity even though **subjectively **infertile due to his cancer treatment. No different than a woman after a hysterectomy.

Masterbatory acts are always sinful. So, no, this is not something a couple can do as a replacement of intercourse.

 

[typewriterman]

the woman may achieve climax through touches. Husband needs to attempt to finish ( as best he can) inside his wife.

**That seems like a double standard doesn’t it? The woman may achieve climax through touches but the husband may not achieve climax through touches?

I know that in some cases because of injury or illness, the man cannot achieve an erection but can however reach climax. Because of the impossibility of intercourse in this case, don’t you think God in His loving mercy would be pleased that a husband and wife could still experience the unitive part of the gift of sex?
**

 

[Seatuck]

**That seems like a double standard doesn’t it? The woman may achieve climax through touches but the husband may not achieve climax through touches?

I know that in some cases because of injury or illness, the man cannot achieve an erection but can however reach climax. Because of the impossibility of intercourse in this case, don’t you think God in His loving mercy would be pleased that a husband and wife could still experience the unitive part of the gift of sex?
**

The husband is acting as Christ with the gift of his body into his wife . This is symbolic of the act of Christ giving us his body ( The Eucharist) for us to take in. The wife’s body doesn’t reflect Christ in that particular instance. This isn’t about equality. It is about meaning. Then there is the practical issue of the fact that the majority of women don’t reach a climax from straight intercourse. That is why the touching is permitted if necessary. Studies also show that the womans climax assists with conception. Not sure if that played into God’s design or not. BTW the scenario in the OP is a man that can have intercourse. That isn’t the problem at all. The person wanted to perform non procreative/non marital acts with the excuse that he isn’t fertile.
Unitive is not marital if the one flesh union is not attempted.

 

[porthos11]

**That seems like a double standard doesn’t it? The woman may achieve climax through touches but the husband may not achieve climax through touches?

I know that in some cases because of injury or illness, the man cannot achieve an erection but can however reach climax. Because of the impossibility of intercourse in this case, don’t you think God in His loving mercy would be pleased that a husband and wife could still experience the unitive part of the gift of sex?
**

He would not be pleased because there is no unitive part. The unitive part is only accomplished through full intercourse.

But in the case of the OP, sexual intercourse is not rendered impossible here so there is no problem.

The reason it’s not licit for a man to climax outside of intercourse is because this essentially “ends” the “session”, so to speak. It’s different for a woman because of her biological makeup, and her climaxes are a part of a buildup to the full marital act.

 

[porthos11]

• Since there is no possible way for sexual relations with his wife to be procreative, would it be a sin to have this quasi sexual intercourse with her.

It would not be sinful because it’s not quasi. It’s fully intercourse and entirely licit, with its unitive and procreative aspects intact. It’s only that the procreative part was frustrated due to no fault of the man but he is holding nothing of himself back.

• Would mutual masturbation be sinful because even though he has the ejaculatory reflex, no semen can ever be produced.

Yes it will be sinful and in call cases because whether or not there is semen is irrelevant. It’s the act of masturbation that is sinful.

Both of the above would be “unitive” but could never be “procreative”. However, he believes that the unitive action of either the quasi sexual intercourse or mutual masturbation will enrich and deepen their married relationship.

Any suggestions on how to answer him?

The intercourse is unitive, the masturbation is not. Therefore the intercourse is completely licit and moral, while the masturbation is completely illicit and immoral.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Semen is not necessary for the meaning of the marital act to be realized.

Can you cite any authoritative support for this point? I have seen a number of posts that claim directly the opposite.

 

[Big_Dummy]

And, what about the man due to this surgery who can’t get it up, then what is expected?

 

[porthos11]

And, what about the man due to this surgery who can’t get it up, then what is expected?

If he is single and the impotence is permanent with no hope of rectifying the situation, then he cannot get validly married.

If he is married and the condition is permanent and incurable, then he must live a chaste life as would his wife.

It is a difficult answer no doubt, but it is the truth.

 

[Seatuck]

Can you cite any authoritative support for this point? I have seen a number of posts that claim directly the opposite.

I have never seen the ability to ejaculate be a requirement for a valid marital contract. Can you post that? The ability to have intercourse clearly is , however according to canon law.Impotence is a non negotiable, infertility does not cause a moral problem.

 

[Seatuck]

And, what about the man due to this surgery who can’t get it up, then what is expected?

If this happens prior to marriage he may not be able to get married if there is no hope of his being able to engage in intercourse. If it happens after the marriage has already been contracted then he and his wife will want to do other non sexual things to feel close. Catholics are certainly permitted to pursue medical treatments to assist with intercourse.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I have never seen the ability to ejaculate be a requirement for a valid marital contract. Can you post that? The ability to have intercourse clearly is , however according to canon law.Impotence is a non negotiable, infertility does not cause a moral problem.

That was not what I was getting to. I agree with what you just said.

Rather, the point of interest to me was your statement that semen was not necessary for the meaning of the marital act. I have seen nothing authoritative on this or it’s opposite, but a number of posts in other threads have contended that non-ejaculatory intercourse is a sin because it is not the marital act without male completion.

 

[Samson01]

Sexual intercourse with his spouse is not sinful in the situation you describe. The sex act is still **objectively **ordered to procreation and unity even though **subjectively **infertile due to his cancer treatment. No different than a woman after a hysterectomy.

Masterbatory acts are always sinful. So, no, this is not something a couple can do as a replacement of intercourse.

I agree. I have never seen a thread dealing with retrograde ejaculation before, but this is my understanding of it. I’m a testicular cancer survivor that had this possiblity and would find interest in it if there was such a thread. I thought “nerve- sparing” tech. prevented retro.

 

[typewriterman]

I have never seen the ability to ejaculate be a requirement for a valid marital contract. Can you post that? The ability to have intercourse clearly is , however according to canon law.Impotence is a non negotiable, infertility does not cause a moral problem.

I’m having a hard time finding a Catholic definition of “sexual intercourse”. Most any secular definitions seem to include ejaculation in the vagina. Canon law states that “consummation” is necessary for valid marriage but again, I can’t find a clear definition of what consummation means other than sexual intercourse. I searched the usccb website to no avail. I agree that sterility would not cause a moral problem, but I don’t think I’m “splitting hairs” here. Can consummation mean - excuse the expression - “a quick in and out” with no ejaculation? I know this isn’t the OP, but what I’m getting at here is if a man is able to have an erection but not ejaculation - how could that be consummation? Or is the ‘intent’ all that really matters?

 

[CuriousInIL]

I’m having a hard time finding a Catholic definition of “sexual intercourse”. Most any secular definitions seem to include ejaculation in the vagina. Canon law states that “consummation” is necessary for valid marriage but again, I can’t find a clear definition of what consummation means other than sexual intercourse. I searched the usccb website to no avail. I agree that sterility would not cause a moral problem, but I don’t think I’m “splitting hairs” here. Can consummation mean - excuse the expression - “a quick in and out” with no ejaculation? I know this isn’t the OP, but what I’m getting at here is if a man is able to have an erection but not ejaculation - how could that be consummation? Or is the ‘intent’ all that really matters?

Great questions. I also would like to see authoritative answers to these.

 

[jegow]

Last year a friend was diagnosed with prostate cancer in its early stage. He and his urologist chose a nerve sparing radical prostatectomy which removes the prostate gland and parts of the Vas Deferens and part or all of the Seminal Vesicles. If you don’t know what all those things are, you can google them.

Anyway, this surgery sterilizes a man to the extent that there is no ejaculate during ejaculation. The sensation is there, but nothing else happens. When he reaches sexual orgasm or climax, it’s completely dry because the internal structures that make semen are gone. He asked me a couple questions about this.

• Since there is no possible way for sexual relations with his wife to be procreative, would it be a sin to have this quasi sexual intercourse with her.
• Would mutual masturbation be sinful because even though he has the ejaculatory reflex, no semen can ever be produced.

Both of the above would be “unitive” but could never be “procreative”. However, he believes that the unitive action of either the quasi sexual intercourse or mutual masturbation will enrich and deepen their married relationship.

Any suggestions on how to answer him?

The marital relations can happen even if now he is unable to be procreative. What happened to him happened because he is trying to slow or get rid of cancer; he didn’t do this to purposefully become sterile. Mutual masturbation, like solitary masturbation, is always wrong. Masturbation has nothing to do with semen production (because masturbation is wrong for women too and … they don’t produce semen), masturbation is wrong because of the intentional stimulation done to genitals outside of the conjugal act for sexual pleasure.