20-something trying to figure out morality

[plinko]

I guess in order to understand where I’m coming from, I should provide some background. I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school for 12 years. I’m in medical school right now, and while I still consider myself somewhat Catholic, my science-oriented mind objects to some of the more controversial moral beliefs held by strict believers.

I read some of the transgender thread, which is chock full of medically inaccurate statements, but I don’t want to start that debate here. What I am actually having trouble with is my own personal situation.

I recently got into the debate with a friend over the concept of gay marriage (also not what I’m here to ask about). While debating back and forth, I posited this: The catechism states that “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses ***AND ***the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” By definition, I would not be allowed to marry because I can’t conceive; I learned that I went through menopause at 14 (yeah, I’m a fascinating case…)

“That’s wrong” he said. “You’re still able to marry because you can engage in the act of marriage” (I’m assuming he meant I am physically able to have sex)

I argued that no, I can’t, because my marriage has to be for the “good of the spouses AND procreation”. He said the AND just means “either or”. But if that’s the case, we’re just arguing semantics and if I can change the meaning of the word “and”, maybe I can change the meaning of the words “man” or “woman”.

My question is thus: The wording as it stands says that I can’t marry because I’m totally and completely infertile. I will never ever have kids, and my boyfriend, should he marry me, would be denied children of his own as well (based on my dried-up ovaries). How does the Catholic church allow such marriages to take place when it clearly goes against the Catechism?

Thanks for any and all answers

 

[plinko]

Hmm, I see there is already a thread on the topic. I will look there for insight

 

[Langdell]

This sounds like one for a priest or a real apologist!

I actually don’t know if the Church allows marriages of people who are infertile as a result of sickness or an accident. She certainly allows marriages of women past the age of menopause, so I guess your situation is the same.

Anyway, I *think *the idea is that a “naturally” infertile woman having unprotected marital intercourse is open to the possibility of life. By contrast, a woman who has her tubes tied (or a man who has a vasectomy) is consciously closed to the possibility of life.

But I might be all wet!

.

 

[Bishop93]

Just be like me and have your own opinions.

The Church has a lot of rules that don’t make sense by definition,for instance…

They are against abortion(I am to) AND contraceptives…That’s a lose lose that will only result in more abortions because people aren’t gonna stop having sex(abstinence is goal but it’s not gonna happen).

I all for gay marriage because I think everybody should be happy regardless and to be honest it’s none of my business who people sleep with or marry.

I think there is a medical explanation for homosexuality and I think more Docs should be researching it.If evidence does show that it is a unpreventable condition that is not chosen or can be changed…There are a lot of people that need to hand out apologies.

^^^^I think that will happen in the near future.

 

[plinko]

Just be like me and have your own opinions.

The Church has a lot of rules that don’t make sense by definition,for instance…

They are against abortion(I am to) AND contraceptives…That’s a lose lose that will only result in more abortions because people aren’t gonna stop having sex(abstinence is goal but it’s not gonna happen).

I all for gay marriage because I think everybody should be happy regardless and to be honest it’s none of my business who people sleep with or marry.

I think there is a medical explanation for homosexuality and I think more Docs should be researching it.If evidence does show that it is a unpreventable condition that is not chosen or can be changed…There are a lot of people that need to hand out apologies.

^^^^I think that will happen in the near future.

I’m mainly concerned with the “infertility debate” so I don’t really want to get into the morality of gay marriage, but I agree with you at this point in my life. Numerous studies have shown a biological cause for homosexuality; it’s not really disputed in the medical community that it’s caused by biology and not by choice.

At any rate, I’d like to know more about the sterility side of being married and how that is ok with the Church.

 

[Rolltide]

Your friend is actually correct. You are perfectly capable of getting married in the eyes of the church, because you are still capable of completing the marriage act. In theory (although incredibly unlikely), a miracle could take place like that of Sarah in the Bible and you would still be capable of carrying children. The only time the church denies couples from getting married is when there is NO conceivable chance of completing the marriage act. For example, if a man was in an accident and he completely lost his genitalia, there would be NO possibility of reproduction. Cases in which marriage are denied for this reason are VERY rare, because there is usually some medical way to help people now for most sexual problems. Further, there is nothing wrong with a marriage that starts out open to life and for one reason or another, one person becomes incapable of completing the marriage act later on. The marriage was still contracted on a valid basis.

Your situation is no different than a 60 year old woman deciding to get married, or remarried after the death of a first husband. It would be unbelievably unlikely for her to get pregnant except by a miracle, but the marriage is still open to life.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Now I am no expert, but I believe that what the church say is that

"CCC Para. 1654: Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. "

The Churches stance is that we are not allowed to conceive artificially, but a person is allowed to accept an organ, who is to say that in the future medical procedures will not allow your “Shriveled” Ovaries to be restored or even replaced?

The fact that you can Consummate your marriage is I believe all that is required for the sacrament of marriage, as well as you being open to life.

After being married you can always adopt.

Check with a Priest, but I believe you can be married. Greater miracles have occurred then a sterile women suddenly conceiving.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A woman or man who is infertile, e.g. due to disease, or injury, or old age, may still marry.

The marital act has a threefold moral object, which is marital, unitive, and procreative. The marital act is moral because it is inherently ordered toward that threefold end. An infertile couple can still morally engage in marital relations because the act itself is inherently directed toward procreation, even though it does not attain procreation.

A good moral object makes an act inherently good, because the act is ordered toward that end, regardless of whether or not it attains that end. An evil moral object makes an act intrinsically evil, because the act is ordered toward that end, regardless of whether or not it attains that end.

Infertility does not deprive the sexual act of its inherent ordering toward procreation, even though procreation is unattainable. Therefore, the act remains good since its inherent ordering toward a good end is unchanged.

Humanae Vitae 11. 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.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Hi Plinko,

You may have already read from the other thread on this topic that the answer, straightforwardly, is that to marry the couple must be open to children (however miraculous that might be) and be able to have the physical act of intercourse.

To understand the logic of this, consider the story of Sarah and Abraham. They were, by all standards, too old to have children making it a medical impossibility. Nevertheless, God blessed Sarah with a child. Now, miracles don’t happen very often (that’s why they’re “miracles”), but what matters most is the intent of the parties and not statistical probabilities. “Procreative,” in the theological sense, entails a willingness to cooperate with God through a conversation about His plan for you. So long as the act is possible, it is more of a spiritual state than anything – an act of giving yourself (and your fertility) to your spouse in love.

 

[plinko]

So then the Catechism is inaccurate in stating that a marriage is for unity AND procreation? If we can just change our interpretation of the word “and”, I think gay people should be allowed to change their interpretation of the words “man” and “woman”.

See my moral dilemma? It’s unfair for me to say that I can change one word and still be peachy-keen in God’s eyes, but a gay man who has been faithful to his partner for years is not held in the same esteem.

 

[Bishop93]

I’m mainly concerned with the “infertility debate” so I don’t really want to get into the morality of gay marriage, but I agree with you at this point in my life. Numerous studies have shown a biological cause for homosexuality; it’s not really disputed in the medical community that it’s caused by biology and not by choice.

At any rate, I’d like to know more about the sterility side of being married and how that is ok with the Church.

Sorry lol…I’ve been on this gay marriage trip all day.

By the looks of these comments it looks like you’ve got your answer:thumbsup:

Peace and good luck in med school.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

So then the Catechism is inaccurate in stating that a marriage is for unity AND procreation? If we can just change our interpretation of the word “and”, I think gay people should be allowed to change their interpretation of the words “man” and “woman”.

See my moral dilemma? It’s unfair for me to say that I can change one word and still be peachy-keen in God’s eyes, but a gay man who has been faithful to his partner for years is not held in the same esteem.

Oops was never about you… Gays are not open to life, might as well have sex with a tree… they have no AND… or and or And or aNd or anD…sorry don’t want to argue thought you needed some advice for yourself… Read Humanae Vitea… Maybe others will want to take on the bait…

 

[plinko]

Sorry lol…I’ve been on this gay marriage trip all day.

By the looks of these comments it looks like you’ve got your answer:thumbsup:

Peace and good luck in med school.

It’s cool; I just notice that these threads tend to go off on tangents very quickly, so I wanted to nip it in the bud before it turned into another gay rights thread. I feel like (from the limited things I’ve seen you post) we agree with a lot of things regarding morality.

Anyway, I didn’t really get a sufficient answer. One, I’ve known since 14 that I can’t have kids, therefore I’ve never considered them a possibility and so I’m not open to it. I’ve figured out my life from a career standpoint and the lifestyle I have now/will have in the future would not be fair for a child. By definition then, my future marriage is not open to the possibility of miraculously conceiving a kid. Two, it still makes no sense to me that it says marriage is for X AND Y, but people just kind of push the word and to the side.

 

[PJM]

=plinko;6444795]I guess in order to understand where I’m coming from, I should provide some background. I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school for 12 years. I’m in medical school right now, and while I still consider myself somewhat Catholic, my science-oriented mind objects to some of the more controversial moral beliefs held by strict believers.

I read some of the transgender thread, which is chock full of medically inaccurate statements, but I don’t want to start that debate here. What I am actually having trouble with is my own personal situation.

I recently got into the debate with a friend over the concept of gay marriage (also not what I’m here to ask about). While debating back and forth, I posited this: The catechism states that “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses ***AND ***the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” By definition, I would not be allowed to marry because I can’t conceive; I learned that I went through menopause at 14 (yeah, I’m a fascinating case…)

“That’s wrong” he said. “You’re still able to marry because you can engage in the act of marriage” (I’m assuming he meant I am physically able to have sex)

I argued that no, I can’t, because my marriage has to be for the “good of the spouses AND procreation”. He said the AND just means “either or”. But if that’s the case, we’re just arguing semantics and if I can change the meaning of the word “and”, maybe I can change the meaning of the words “man” or “woman”.

My question is thus: The wording as it stands says that I can’t marry because I’m totally and completely infertile. I will never ever have kids, and my boyfriend, should he marry me, would be denied children of his own as well (based on my dried-up ovaries). How does the Catholic church allow such marriages to take place when it clearly goes against the Catechism?

Thanks for any and all answers

Conditionaly, I would side with your friend.

Marriage would be posible IF your spounce agreed before hand that you can’t have children, as a natural consequence of events NOT of your doing; and not intending to prevent birth. God made you as you are.

If this was agreed to and understood before hand; an exception would be granted.

**Can. 1075 §1 **Only the supreme authority in the Church can authentically declare when the divine law prohibits or invalidates a marriage.

**Can. 1078 §1 **The local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects wherever they are residing, and all who are actually present in his territory, from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except for those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See.

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.

Can. 1084 §3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, ***sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage. ***

I base this opinion on these Church Laws.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[plinko]

Oops was never about you… Gays are not open to life, might as well have sex with a tree… they have no AND… or and or And or aNd or anD…sorry don’t want to argue thought you needed some advice for yourself… Read Humanae Vitea… Maybe others will want to take on the bait…

People argue small words all the time. It’s what the legal world is built on. “Gays are not open to life” you say. By marrying my boyfriend, I am closing him off to life as well. Maybe I should have sex with trees too.

Please don’t insult me; I’m trying to figure out my Catholic faith.

 

[jhynds]

Simple… Adopt

 

[puzzleannie]

I By definition, I would not be allowed to marry because I can’t conceive; I learned that I went through menopause at 14 (yeah, I’m a fascinating case…)

"

you have misinterpreted the law. the relevant canons are quoted in a concurrent thread here on the same topic. your friend was right. The law says only complete impotence, the inability to complete the marital act at all invalidates the marriage, or the corresponding disorder in the female inability to accept any degree of penetration whatever. and where there is doubt the law should err on the side of allowing the marriage. Where there is the mutual self-giving between one man and one woman that the marriage act entails there is always the possibility of life–read the bible it has happened before. Only were the act cannot be completed to any degree can it be said there is no possiblity of marital union. That btw is why gay marriage is an oxymoron. As a medical student you must admit two persons of the same sex between them do not have the requisite functioning body parts to complete the marital act.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

So then the Catechism is inaccurate in stating that a marriage is for unity AND procreation? If we can just change our interpretation of the word “and”, I think gay people should be allowed to change their interpretation of the words “man” and “woman”.
…

No, the Catechism is not inaccurate. Just because marriage is “for” unity and procreation does not mean that procreation must result. The fallacy here is confusing both specific and general design with mere knowledge, or results. Think of the absurdity of this, both in practical and theological terms: some couples would find out that they were never “married” until ten years down the road when they discover some medical deficiency in their reproductive systems. But the Catholic Church does not work this way. The Catholic Church instead focuses on the specific intent of the parties at the beginning of the marital commitment and marital act. This is very similar, for example, to our basic notions of contract formation. The intent of the parties when acting is always what matters, and there is a difference here between mere knowledge and specific design.

 

[puzzleannie]

So then the Catechism is inaccurate in stating that a marriage is for unity AND procreation? If we can just change our interpretation of the word “and”, I think gay people should be allowed to change their interpretation of the words “man” and “woman”.

See my moral dilemma? It’s unfair for me to say that I can change one word and still be peachy-keen in God’s eyes, but a gay man who has been faithful to his partner for years is not held in the same esteem.

the catechism is stating the doctrine, the canon law gives the nuts and bolts and applies the doctrine to specific cases. No the CCC is not inaccurate, but in being too dogmatic and refusing to accept after many attemps there the relevant canon law explanation, someone who wants to cling to a wrong interpretation won’t be convinced. The case of gays does not even get into this debate since by definition with each other a same sex couple is not capable of performing the marriage act. Penetration in another orifice than the one God designated is not the marriage act, it is rightly called a perversion of that self-giving life-accepting act.

 

[JimG]

Infertility is not an impediment to marriage in the Catholic Church.

Stating that marriage is by its nature “ordered toward” the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children, is simply a statement of the nature of marriage.

It is not a canon stating anything about fertility. One’s body in completing a marital act is tending toward this very nature to which it is ordered, even though those ends may be inhibited by a medical condition of sterility.