I don't know the Catholic theology of the 12th century in particular, but assuming he was well versed in the Gospels, he would have said no. This comes from the New Testament. Matthew 22 seems to suggest that Heaven is genderless or, at the very least, that there aren't sexual relations in Heaven:

23 The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection;[a] and they asked him a question, saying, 24 “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.”

29 Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels[b] in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.

There's a parallel text in Luke 20:

27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 28 and asked him a question, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man[a] shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.”

34 Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.”

For reference, one of the differences between the Sadduccees and the Pharisees was that the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection while the Sadduccees did not. Though he criticizes the Pharisees more in the Gospels, Jesus was actually much closer to them on this and most other issues (there's predictably a large debate about where to put Jesus' actual positions in relation to 1st century Jewish groups). But the point is this is a meant to be a "gotcha" question by the Sadduccees--what happens if a woman has multiple marriages, in this case as she is obliged to according to the law (this particular form of marriage is called levirate marriage), and she and her husbands are resurrected? Since this kind of marriage is required by the Law, and if all were alive together at the same time, her being married to both would be illegal, then clearly ressurection is false because following the Torah in this life would oblige them to break it upon ressurection. And Jesus seems to answer the question by saying that this won't be an issue after the ressurection, presumably because there won't be any sex.

I can't say with one hundred percent certainty that that's what a priest would have said, based on actual Medieval theology, but that seems to be the a likely thing he would have mentioned or at leas thought of.

Is there any reason why you chose 1116 in particular?