Surgical Necessity

[TruthSkr]

If a man is going to have surgery to correct a sexual deformity that prevents intercourse and the surgeon requires a photo of the deformity (seen only during sexual arousal) in order to plan the surgery, is it a sin for the man’s wife to arouse him sexually for the purpose of taking the photo, knowing that the act will not end in intercourse?

 

[1ke]

This is a subject for the person and his priest.

 

[LilyM]

If a man is going to have surgery to correct a sexual deformity that prevents intercourse and the surgeon requires a photo of the deformity (seen only during sexual arousal) in order to plan the surgery, is it a sin for the man’s wife to arouse him sexually for the purpose of taking the photo, knowing that the act will not end in intercourse?

Umm, I don’t presume to be an expert in male anatomy but don’t men occasionally achieve spontaneous erection without any intentional stimulation? For example waking up with an erection first thing in the morning? Simply take the photo when this occurs. No stimulation necessary.

Otherwise I’d say talk to a priest. But it’s probably OK on the principle of double effect - since the photo is a must for diagnosis and treatment of the condition, the intent is not to dishonour the marital embrace.

 

[BobP123]

Maybe a more important question is whether this surgery is necessary at all. Maybe God didn’t will for this person to have children. Now, in matters of life and death, there may be mitigating circumstances and justifiable reasons for doing what otherwise might seem immoral, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

But, as I don’t claim to be a moral theologian, I could be wrong.

 

[paradoxy]

Um… why not take the photo during foreplay, and end it all in marital intercourse?

 

[Catholic90]

Um… why not take the photo during foreplay, and end it all in marital intercourse?

Well, cuz he said in the original post the deformity PREVENTS intercourse.

 

[teachccd]

Maybe a more important question is whether this surgery is necessary at all. Maybe God didn’t will for this person to have children. Now, in matters of life and death, there may be mitigating circumstances and justifiable reasons for doing what otherwise might seem immoral, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

But, as I don’t claim to be a moral theologian, I could be wrong.

Aren’t we being just a tad scrupulous here?? So, if I lose my teeth maybe God doesn’t intend for me to eat? As was noted in another post, men have erections in the morning and at other times where a picture can be taken. And how could a mortal sin present itself here even if a brief arousal is necessary for the sole purpose of correcting a problem that will further allow him to express marital relations? I’m perplexed and sometimes feel that we take things just a bit too far and I consider myself very conservative and scrupulous at times…

 

[JimG]

This is a medical question. If I am not mistaken, it is possible for a physician to induce an erection by an injection for diagnostic purposes. No need to drag out the camera.

 

[yugnok]

Umm, I don’t presume to be an expert in male anatomy but don’t men occasionally achieve spontaneous erection without any intentional stimulation? For example waking up with an erection first thing in the morning? Simply take the photo when this occurs. No stimulation necessary.

Yes that is exactly right. No stimulation necessary.

 

[StCsDavid]

If the doctor is seriously asking one to take a photo of the general standing at attention, I would seek another doctor. There are drugs available that the doctor could use in the office that would achieve the desired result. Though don’t consider this medical advice. I’m just a dude on the computer.

 

[pyropam]

Maybe a more important question is whether this surgery is necessary at all. Maybe God didn’t will for this person to have children. Now, in matters of life and death, there may be mitigating circumstances and justifiable reasons for doing what otherwise might seem immoral, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

But, as I don’t claim to be a moral theologian, I could be wrong.

I think Bob here is a little off. If surgery is required for you and your spouse to have normal marital relations… Then by all means do what ever necessary to get the picture. Then the surgeon can see what he has to work with and what he needs to correct.

GOD MADE SURGEONS TOO!! And we thank God for them!! God bless you and I’ll pray for a complete healing with this surgery!!

 

[Dispector]

Aren’t we being just a tad scrupulous here?? So, if I lose my teeth maybe God doesn’t intend for me to eat? As was noted in another post, men have erections in the morning and at other times where a picture can be taken. And how could a mortal sin present itself here even if a brief arousal is necessary for the sole purpose of correcting a problem that will further allow him to express marital relations? I’m perplexed and sometimes feel that we take things just a bit too far and I consider myself very conservative and scrupulous at times…

I agree 100%.

 

[Island_Oak]

If a man is going to have surgery to correct a sexual deformity that prevents intercourse…

How could this man be validly married in the Catholic Church if he cannot consummate the marriage?

 

[Yerusalyim]

If the circumstance which you mention are completely accurate, no, there would be no harm or sin involved in your wife arousing you for the purpose of the photo.

 

[BobP123]

Aren’t we being just a tad scrupulous here?? So, if I lose my teeth maybe God doesn’t intend for me to eat?

Point well-taken. However, aside from whether arousing some kind of sexual pleasure is immoral or not, doesn’t it seem kind of strange that the doctor would ask for some one else’s picture so that he can proceed with some elective surgery? You would think he would take his own shots at the angles he needs to make the operation a successful one. I’m not sure about this doctor.

I think Bob here is a little off.

I agree 100%.

Thanks for ganging up on me. I did admit I wasn’t a moral theologian, didn’t I?

 

[rwoehmke]

How could this man be validly married in the Catholic Church if he cannot consummate the marriage?

There are deformities caused by disease that could well have occurred after marriage.

There are times on these forums when I think we are “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.”

 

[paradoxy]

Well, cuz he said in the original post the deformity PREVENTS intercourse.

I keep surprising myself with the level of stupidity I’m capable of…

Original question: if it’s permissible for a married couple to kiss passionately (which does cause a level of arousal) when they’re not near a bed, why would this be wrong? They will finish the act, together… after the surgery

 

[pyropam]

**Thanks for ganging up on me. I did admit I wasn’t a moral theologian, didn’t I?/**QUOTE]

Sorry Bob, didn’t mean to gang up on ya… However as a nurse I would like to inform you that there are some circumstances where a doctor will ask you to bring in the evidence (pictures, urine, stool sample…etc…) Pictures on an errection are usually taken at home and brought to the doctors office.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

Point well-taken. However, aside from whether arousing some kind of sexual pleasure is immoral or not, doesn’t it seem kind of strange that the doctor would ask for some one else’s picture so that he can proceed with some elective surgery? You would think he would take his own shots at the angles he needs to make the operation a successful one. I’m not sure about this doctor.QUOTE]

I could be wrong here, but my guess would be that: (a) Since a picture “at arousal” seems to be needed, the patient has a much better chance of achieving that state at home with his wife than in the doctor’s office, even with his wife; and (b) maintaining that state with another male taking pictures could be equally problemmatic. Thus, “home-made” pictures would seem to avoid both these problems. I think the doctor is using a lot of common sense (and likely, experience since he is presumably a urological surgeon).

 

[BobP123]

I could be wrong here, but my guess would be that: (a) Since a picture “at arousal” seems to be needed, the patient has a much better chance of achieving that state at home with his wife than in the doctor’s office, even with his wife; and (b) maintaining that state with another male taking pictures could be equally problemmatic. Thus, “home-made” pictures would seem to avoid both these problems. I think the doctor is using a lot of common sense (and likely, experience since he is presumably a urological surgeon).

I guess to some extent I think that’s reasonable. All’s I can say, though, is that he’s one heck of a doctor if he can work from some home pictures probably made with inadequate lighting, proper timing, left-hand, etc.

And he’ll probably want a followup in a couple of months too.