So, what if there is no "seed"?

[PrincessRenae]

Hey guys, New member (and new Catholic as well) here.

I hope I’m posting this in the right place, but since there are many rules regarding a man’s…ahem…seed…I need an answer.

Basically, I’ve been with my fiance for almost four years, and I just got baptized and confirmed in April. Before then, we were regularly having sex, and he does not do that thing that would be required for reproduction, shall we say. Sensation is there, just nothing actually happening. It’s happened before, but most of the time it did not. My question is, will we have any restrictions regarding intimacy that most Catholics normally have? He is not Catholic by the way.

Sorry guys, I have no other way to word this question, and I’m a little embarrassed to ask my priest.

 

[SMGS127]

Hey guys, New member (and new Catholic as well) here.

I hope I’m posting this in the right place, but since there are many rules regarding a man’s…ahem…seed…I need an answer.

Basically, I’ve been with my fiance for almost four years, and I just got baptized and confirmed in April. Before then, we were regularly having sex, and he does not do that thing that would be required for reproduction, shall we say. Sensation is there, just nothing actually happening. It’s happened before, but most of the time it did not. My question is, will we have any restrictions regarding intimacy that most Catholics normally have? He is not Catholic by the way.

Sorry guys, I have no other way to word this question, and I’m a little embarrassed to ask my priest.

The ability to ejaculate is required for marriage for a man, but if he’s been able to before, I wouldn’t worry about it being an impediment, even if it’s rare. It’s only if he is absolutely incapable of ejaculating that it would be a problem.

 

[PrincessRenae]

So, what happens then? How would that impediment be fixed? Is fertility a requirement for a Catholic marriage?

 

[SMGS127]

So, what happens then? How would that impediment be fixed? Is fertility a requirement for a Catholic marriage?

Fertility is not a requirement. A man must be able to be erect, penetrate, and ejaculate to meet potency requirements, but he does not need to be fertile. If he’s completely unable to do that, he should seek medical attention, and I can’t give medical advice on the forums. If he’s been able to before, even rarely, he’s fine though.

 

[PrincessRenae]

Alright, well I guess I have nothing to worry about then. I’m just nervous that the church would not let us marry because of this. I’m fairly certain that fertility on his end isn’t there (he has also wondered this as well and neither of us are concerned about it). What’s odd to me is that technically, a man wouldn’t know all these things until he was actually married, so it being an impediment still sort of confuses me.

 

[SMGS127]

Alright, well I guess I have nothing to worry about then. I’m just nervous that the church would not let us marry because of this. I’m fairly certain that fertility on his end isn’t there (he has also wondered this as well and neither of us are concerned about it). What’s odd to me is that technically, a man wouldn’t know all these things until he was actually married, so it being an impediment still sort of confuses me.

It’s more relevant as far as anullments go. You are correct that Catholic men don’t/shouldn’t find out before marriage, usually.

 

[PrincessRenae]

Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense.

 

[twf]

The ability to ejaculate is required for marriage for a man, but if he’s been able to before, I wouldn’t worry about it being an impediment, even if it’s rare. It’s only if he is absolutely incapable of ejaculating that it would be a problem.

Could you please provide a citation for this? Yes, canonically a man must be able to engage in physical intercourse, but what Church document states he must also produce sperm? Sterility is not an impediment. If a man is able to be one with his wife, but, through no fault of his own, nothing is ejaculated, is this actually grounds for an annulment?

 

[SMGS127]

Could you please provide a citation for this? Yes, canonically a man must be able to engage in physical intercourse, but what Church document states he must also produce sperm? Sterility is not an impediment. If a man is able to be one with his wife, but, through no fault of his own, nothing is ejaculated, is this actually grounds for an annulment?

I was told this by my old Monsignor, who works on marriage cases. I asked him questions about potency requirements for marriage, he did some research, and he told me that men must have all 3 (erection/penetration/ejaculation), and women need to be capable of receiving. As far as finding an online citation, you’d be able to search just as well as I would. I’m just relying on the information given to me by a Monsignor.

 

[PrincessRenae]

Also, what about all those rules about no ejaculate outside of the body? Would that still apply here? Or does it not matter if there is none?

 

[Cackles]

Also, what about all those rules about no ejaculate outside of the body? Would that still apply here? Or does it not matter if there is none?

If wasting seed is the same as murder, then how can abortion be more tolerated?

Just use your head (pun not intended). Of course there’s no problem with wasting seed for laypeople in almost all circumstances.

God created Man with hungers and appetites that we could satisfy and and said that it was good.

As far as being sterile, God commands us to go forth and multiply. If man can not have children, he should join the church if he can handle that calling. If the woman can not bare children, then another woman can carry the child (or you can adopt as an accommodation I’d guess).

As far as Catholic sources… lol… as English speakers in the modern, feminist, extreme left, Secular Humanist, apostasy-ridden age in which we live - GOOD LUCK find sources.

 

[SMGS127]

If wasting seed is the same as murder, then how can abortion be more tolerated?

Just use your head (pun not intended). Of course there’s no problem with wasting seed for laypeople in almost all circumstances.

God created Man with hungers and appetites that we could satisfy and and said that it was good.

As far as being sterile, God commands us to go forth and multiply. If man can not have children, he should join the church if he can handle that calling. If the woman can not bare children, then another woman can carry the child (or you can adopt as an accommodation I’d guess).

As far as Catholic sources… lol… as English speakers in the modern, feminist, extreme left, Secular Humanist, apostasy-ridden age in which we live - GOOD LUCK find sources.

The above are NOT Roman Catholic teachings, PrincessRenae. Surrogate mothers are most certainly barred in the Church. It IS a sin to ejaculate outside of vaginal intercourse.

Note his religious affiliation – he is not Roman Catholic.

 

[chefmomster2]

Also, what about all those rules about no ejaculate outside of the body? Would that still apply here? Or does it not matter if there is none?

First, ejaculation can occur and yet no sperm be contained in the semen.

Second, your fiancé may be clinically sterile, but that does not necessarily mean he is without sperm. They might be far too few, be too “weak” to reach the egg, or damaged in some way. But, he may have some that are fully viable. It only takes one!

Third, you would still have to obey the rule forbidding withdrawl. It is part of the natural sequence of things that ejaculation happens within the female body. Plus, “sterile” men have fathered babies! The chances for your man might be 1 in 10,000, but there is still that one chance. To retain the fullness of the procreative act, you must not interrupt the normsl course of events.

 

[powerofk]

The above are NOT Roman Catholic teachings, PrincessRenae. Surrogate mothers are most certainly barred in the Church. It IS a sin to ejaculate outside of vaginal intercourse.

Note his religious affiliation – he is not Roman Catholic.

Umm… it’s a sin to ejaculate outside of vaginal intercourse if such ejaculation is done by one’s own actions (masturbation, anal/oral sex, coitus interruptus, etc.); however, if ejaculation occurs outside of one’s control (such as a nighttime emission), there is no sin.

 

[SMGS127]

Umm… it’s a sin to ejaculate outside of vaginal intercourse if such ejaculation is done by one’s own actions (masturbation, anal/oral sex, coitus interruptus, etc.); however, if ejaculation occurs outside of one’s control (such as a nighttime emission), there is no sin.

Yes, I apologize for not making this clear. As someone who studies theology, I tend to omit discussion of lack of intent (or lack of knowledge) when discussing sin, as both of these principles apply to every action. However, you are right that I should include them on a public forum to be safe and avoid scrupulosity/misunderstanding in readers.

 

[fpt]

Hey guys, New member (and new Catholic as well) here.

I hope I’m posting this in the right place, but since there are many rules regarding a man’s…ahem…seed…I need an answer.

Basically, I’ve been with my fiance for almost four years, and I just got baptized and confirmed in April. Before then, we were regularly having sex, and he does not do that thing that would be required for reproduction, shall we say. Sensation is there, just nothing actually happening. It’s happened before, but most of the time it did not. My question is, will we have any restrictions regarding intimacy that most Catholics normally have? He is not Catholic by the way.

Sorry guys, I have no other way to word this question, and I’m a little embarrassed to ask my priest.

From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1084
§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

The conclusions of my humble understanding:

A man / husband with some dry natural ejaculations (a natural anejaculation) is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband with some natural retrograde ejaculations is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband with a male orgasm without ejaculation is not a perpetual impotent, per se;
A man / husband with a vasectomy is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband without prostate, after a medical surgery, for medical reasons, is not a perpetual impotent, per se.
A man / husband touched by a low libido is not perpetual impotent, per se;
A man / husband without sexual pleasures with a male orgasm and normal ejaculation is is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband with a normal ejaculation without male orgasm is not a perpetual impotent, per se.
A man / husband with a normal ejaculation with male orgasm is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband touched by the sterility or by the infertility, in reason of lack of spermatozoons in his sperm is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband touched by the sterility or by the infertility, in reason of low level of spermatozoons in his sperm is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband being able to realize the “copula dimidiata” (a partial penetration of the vagina with insemination , intercourse in which there is partial [e.g., one third or one half] penetration of the vagina, with semination taking place in the vagina) is not a perpetual impotent;

 

[fpt]

From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1084
§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

The conclusions of my humble understanding:

A man / husband with some dry natural ejaculations (a natural anejaculation) is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband with some natural retrograde ejaculations is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband with a male orgasm without ejaculation is not a perpetual impotent, per se;
A man / husband with a vasectomy is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband without prostate, after a medical surgery, for medical reasons, is not a perpetual impotent, per se.
A man / husband touched by a low libido is not perpetual impotent, per se;
A man / husband without sexual pleasures with a male orgasm and normal ejaculation is is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband with a normal ejaculation without male orgasm is not a perpetual impotent, per se.
A man / husband with a normal ejaculation with male orgasm is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband touched by the sterility or by the infertility, in reason of lack of spermatozoons in his sperm is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband touched by the sterility or by the infertility, in reason of low level of spermatozoons in his sperm is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband being able to realize the “copula dimidiata” (a partial penetration of the vagina with insemination , intercourse in which there is partial [e.g., one third or one half] penetration of the vagina, with semination taking place in the vagina) is not a perpetual impotent;

A man / husband touched by the premature ejaculation is not a perpetual impotent, if the “copula dimidiata” is possible;
A man / husband touched by dysfunctional ejaculations is not a perpetual impotent, per se, if the “copula dimidiata” is possible;
A man / husband touched by difficulties of erection is not a perpetual impotent, per se, if the “copula dimidiata” is possible;
A man / husband having 50% impotence is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband having - 50% impotence is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband having + 50% impotence is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband having + 90% impotence is not a perpetual impotent;
A man / husband having some issues of erection, that can cure by medical pills and Co, is not a perpetual impotent;

For understanding,** we need to read Canon law, the cases of law (jurisprudence and the judicial precedents) of the Holy Rota and of the Congregation of the doctrine of the Faith.**

For a couple, the fact of practicing the marital act with a spouse who can be touched by the impotence, sometimes, often but not always, seldom, is not a moral issue, per se. Only, the** perpetuity **is a moral issue.

 

[Cackles]

Umm… it’s a sin to ejaculate outside of vaginal intercourse if such ejaculation is done by one’s own actions (masturbation, anal/oral sex, coitus interruptus, etc.); however, if ejaculation occurs outside of one’s control (such as a nighttime emission), there is no sin.

The story of pulling out comes from the bible and has nothing to do with the context of how we do these things. The story has to do with a widows husband and aristicratic bloodlines and a direct order from God for him to do this. Has nothing to do with laypeople.

It’s like saying because of Eve, we litterally cant pick fruit from a tree. Those are teo seperate concepts.

Again, if pulling out is killing babies (ultimate denominating favtor), then how can abortion be more acceptable and tolerated? It’s simply illogical.

Many of the Early Church writers had sex issues. They held a fascination with sex and wrote about how bad it was which led to all sorts of heresies. Till this day its prevelent

 

[SMGS127]

The story of pulling out comes from the bible and has nothing to do with the context of how we do these things. The story has to do with a widows husband and aristicratic bloodlines and a direct order from God for him to do this. Has nothing to do with laypeople.

It’s like saying because of Eve, we litterally cant pick fruit from a tree. Those are teo seperate concepts.

Again, if pulling out is killing babies (ultimate denominating favtor), then how can abortion be more acceptable and tolerated? It’s simply illogical.

Many of the Early Church writers had sex issues. They held a fascination with sex and wrote about how bad it was which led to all sorts of heresies. Till this day its prevelent

Withdrawal is not the same as abortion/killing babies. It is immoral because it separates the procreative process from the unitive process. It is immoral for the same reason that condoms and IUDs are immoral.

And, for the record, abortion is absolutely immoral as well, so I don’t even get your comparison.

 

[Cackles]

Withdrawal is not the same as abortion/killing babies. It is immoral because it separates the procreative process from the unitive process. It is immoral for the same reason that condoms and IUDs are immoral.

And, for the record, abortion is absolutely immoral as well, so I don’t even get your comparison.

Can you show me where in the Bible it says this? And especially that it’s a sin.

I can show you where it says you must get circumsized or you’re not counted as one of Gods people and the that commandment is eternal. (Also a direct commandment from God Himself).

I can show you where it clearly says don’t eat pork. This being direct from God.

I can show you where it says that women must cover their heads while praying.

But all the above commandments we ignore because mans logic and mans excuses know better than the above direct commandments from even God himself. Even an eternal commandment which he says so.

Yet, your telling me that pulling out is a sinful and going into specifics of stopping acts of conceptions and spem and starility and I’m sorry it just sounds like man-made rules that do nothing but get people to obye man rather than infallible doctrine. All that happens is God will curse people who follow false doctrine.

People talk about St. Augustine, but how many know that he was in a gnostic cult and had sexual issues. And then people wonder why he says that all sex carries the stain of sin which is a man made, false doctrine and amongst the earliest heresies. Or how about how martin luther had dreams about the devil in his rectum and all sorts of strange things.

But the legends live on and it’s alive and well today unfortunately.

People should be MUCH more concerned about not eating pork and shellfish. Go study the overriding principles on that issue and then you can laugh at the excuses man comes up with to disabeye God for their own pleasures in life.

Yet, when God gives you a pleasure to use and says that it’s good, and you dont want to use it, now mans wisdom becomes greater than God. Just like the pork.