**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?
**
It is not a double standard. The woman’s orgasms are irrelevant to intercourse. The man’s are very relevant, as the man transmits life to the woman.
No, intentional mutual masturbation to orgasm is never permissible. Personally, I find the thought that God cares about anyone’s sexual satisfaction to be profoundly weird. Sexual frustration is nothing compared to the pains which many martyrs have suffered for His sake; I have a hard time believing He would suspend natural law just so one can avoid moderate discomfort. God wants your perfection, including the perfection of your body, and that means using your faculties in the way they were intended – and thus your sexual faculty in a manner conducive to the end of procreation.
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?
No sex is permissible unless it is ordered toward procreation, i.e., toward intravaginal ejaculation. Hence, this is what the Church means when it speaks of sexual intercourse. Consummation of a marriage is the first act of intravaginal ejaculation, which seals the marital bond and renders it permanently indissoluble by anything but the death of one spouse.
Inability to ejaculate is an impediment to marriage, so such a person would not be able to get married. Once a marriage has been consummated, however, it is indissoluble, so a condition arising later causing impotence would not dissolve the marriage.
I don’t know, though, if impotence acquired later in marriage thereafter requires the couple to live chastely. There is a good case to be made that it does, since the marriage act can no longer be completed in a manner consistent with its end.
