Sex question...

[LaSainte]

I read on here often that every act of sex must be “ordered to” procreation, so it would be sinful even for a pregnant woman to bring her husband to climax in a way that doesn’t end with the semen entering the vagina.

My question is this: since conception is impossible in an infertile couple, is this still a MORTAL sin?

If so, can someone point me to where I can find in the CCC specifically that says this?

Thanks!

 

[maryjk]

Which are you asking? If a couple is infertile and they have relations, is it a sin? OR If a couple is infertile and they don’t have relations, is it a sin?

 

[Ron_Conte]

USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

Pope Paul VI: “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life… the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which ‘is on the side of life’ teaches that ‘each and every marriage act must remain open “per se” to the transmission of life.’ ‘This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.’ " (CCC 2366; inner quotes from: Familiaris Consortio, n. 30; Humanae Vitae, n. 11; Humanae Vitae, n. 12, cf. Casti Connubii.)

What this all means is that each and every sexual act must be ordered, by its very nature, toward procreation. This is true even if the couple cannot conceive a child because the woman is pregnant, or because either spouse is infertile. In Catholic moral theology, any sexual act is intrinsically evil if it is non-marital, or non-unitive, or non-procreative. The non-procreative nature of the act that you describe makes it an intrinsically evil act; it is not the type of act ordered toward procreation. It is the ordering of any act toward its moral object, and not its attainment, that makes the act good or evil. So the fact that the couple is unable to conceive at the time does not justify this inherently-disordered, non-procreative, type of act.

 

[1ke]

I read on here often that every act of sex must be “ordered to” procreation, so it would be sinful even for a pregnant woman to bring her husband to climax in a way that doesn’t end with the semen entering the vagina.

My question is this: since conception is impossible in an infertile couple, is this still a MORTAL sin?

If so, can someone point me to where I can find in the CCC specifically that says this?

Thanks!

Yes. It is grave matter (mortal sin).

CCC - Sixth Commandment

 

[1ke]

Which are you asking? If a couple is infertile and they have relations, is it a sin? OR If a couple is infertile and they don’t have relations, is it a sin?

She’s asking if a couple is naturally infertile-- in this case already pregnant-- can they engage in acts that bring the couple to climax in place of intercourse (for example, oral or manual stimulation-- i.e. masterbation).

The answer is: No

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

I read on here often that every act of sex must be “ordered to” procreation, so it would be sinful even for a pregnant woman to bring her husband to climax in a way that doesn’t end with the semen entering the vagina.

My question is this: since conception is impossible in an infertile couple, is this still a MORTAL sin?

No on both the question and the claim of the OP.

From Humanae Vitae:

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

…

“The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, ‘noble and worthy.’ It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11.)

And it IS licit for a husband and his pregnant wife to have relations:

1. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife’s pregnancy, or during her period?

Yes, natural intercourse is permitted between a husband and wife during those times.

Although the natural marital act does not result in a new conception during pregnancy, the act itself is still inherently directed toward procreation. Natural intercourse is the type of sexual act that is inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive meanings. And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to pregnancy.

As for the Catechism You should give it a read sometime, it’s free online. Although, since I hate reading from a computer screen for extended periods, I opted for the paperback.

 

[maryjk]

She’s asking if a couple is naturally infertile-- in this case already pregnant-- can they engage in acts that bring the couple to climax in place of intercourse (for example, oral or manual stimulation-- i.e. masterbation).

The answer is: No

Somehow I feel a set up. After all of the sex questions the OP has asked, this one isn’t one of them?

 

[Bookcat]

She’s asking if a couple is naturally infertile-- in this case already pregnant-- can they engage in acts that bring the couple to climax in place of intercourse (for example, oral or manual stimulation-- i.e. masterbation).

The answer is: No

Right.

 

[Bookcat]

I
If so, can someone point me to where I can find in the CCC specifically that says this?

Thanks!

The CCC is not intended to be a detailed work of moral theology that applies all the principles to every possibility (and even they do not do that).

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

 

[LaSainte]

Thanks for the responses. I guess I’m just not seeing where the Church says this is grave matter.

 

[Bookcat]

It is* contraceptive* for starts…

 

[Ron_Conte]

Thanks for the responses. I guess I’m just not seeing where the Church says this is grave matter.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Now according to Christian tradition and the Church’s teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.” CDF, Persona Humana, n. X.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for the responses. I guess I’m just not seeing where the Church says this is grave matter.

Those things enumerated under the section on the Ten Commandments is grave matter. You can read the preceding sections of the Catechism on grave matter. Being a sin against the one of the Ten Commandments means it is grave matter.

Sins against chastity = grave matter
Sins against marriage = grave matter

 

[Bookcat]

I might not see where the Church says stealing cars is grave matter either…for such is a detailed question where the teaching is applied.

What you ask is grave matter for mortal sin (basically that is the case with sins against the 6th commandment…masturbation, fornication, contraception etc…there is no “parvity of matter” (smallness of matter) in these sorts of things)

 

[Bookcat]

Those things enumerated under the section on the Ten Commandments is grave matter. You can read the preceding sections of the Catechism on grave matter. Being a sin against the one of the Ten Commandments means it is grave matter.

Sins against chastity = grave matter
Sins against marriage = grave matter

It is important to note that venial sins too come under the 10 commandments…(I note such for some have been confused in the past on this).

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention.

but having noted that…

Chastity is a very particular commandment…there is no parvity of matter in sins such as masturbation, fornication, contraception… if they end up being venial (subjectively) it would be due to say the full knowledge or complete consent being lacking…

 

[LaSainte]

Thanks for the responses. Following this teaching has caused great conflict in my marriage unfortunately.

 

[bmullins]

I’m not sure why it would cause any sort of conflict in your marriage? You can still have sex. You just can’t masturbate and ejaculate externally. Just because she is pregnant doesn’t mean the two of you can’t join in the union that marriage provides. You just have to do it in the way God designed it.

 

[LaSainte]

I’m not sure why it would cause any sort of conflict in your marriage? You can still have sex. You just can’t masturbate and ejaculate externally. Just because she is pregnant doesn’t mean the two of you can’t join in the union that marriage provides. You just have to do it in the way God designed it.

Because my husband doesn’t buy it. He doesn’t think it’s a sin. We didn’t know about all these things when we got married. We like to be creative and not feel so much pressure to do things a certain way. He also doesn’t think contraception is a sin and doesn’t want any more kids (neither of us do). If I get pregnant again, it’s gonna be a bad scene. I’ll be depressed, he’ll be understandably upset.

To be honest, I also disagree with this teaching, but I obey it to be safe, which makes me a reluctant enforcer. So I feel like a big wet blanket and like I’m gambling with our happiness. And guess who’s fault it will be if it all goes to ****?

To top it all off, my husband is the best, most amazing man I know and all I want to do is make him happy and I don’t feel right about basically forcing him to roll the dice every month when we are both adamant about not wanting any more kids.

 

[Bookcat]

Sometimes due to the influence of the great disorders in the culture that surround us …one can find the disordered way of seeing marriage and sexual matters can seep into ones approach.

As Paul puts it we need to put to death that which is sinful…we need a “renewal of our mind”…“a new way of thinking” where we put off the old man…and put on the new.

Something for us all to read:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (read from the second paragraph to the end…)

The true happiness of ones spouse can not involve mortal sin. That would be contrary to love of ones spouse and contrary to their actual authentic happiness (especially potentially eternally!).

 

[LaSainte]

Sometimes due to the influence of the great disorders in the culture that surround us …one can find the disordered way of seeing marriage and sexual matters can seep into ones approach.

As Paul puts it we need to put to death that which is sinful…we need a “renewal of our mind”…“a new way of thinking” where we put off the old man…and put on the new.

Something for us all to read:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (read from the second paragraph to the end…)

The true happiness of ones spouse can not involve mortal sin. That would be contrary to love of ones spouse and contrary to their actual authentic happiness (especially potentially eternally!).

Haha. I’ll be sure to bring that up the next time we argue about it, and there WILL be a next time.