Asexual Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrea_Day
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrea_Day said:
As I said, I don’t really understand your question, but what I can say is I am trying to understand marriage/whether God wants me to marry and part of that for me is examining all the ways I have seen marriage. As an asexual person who experiences same sex romantic attraction and struggles with the sin of reading erotica, perhaps the kinds of marriage and love I am frequently exposed to are those that you call “fringe”. These less stereotypical marriages are often spoken little of by the Church (to my knowledge). So to understand what marriage is/whether it could work for me requires my asking, “Well, is this a marriage–why or why not”, and the place I have been doing that lately is here, because it seemed a suitable place to do so. But I have run into a lot of hostility when I ask questions and have discussions here, so I’m thinking about leaving. 😦
Click to expand...
I think you need to talk to a priest for some spiritual direction on any calling to marriage.
 
Andrea_Day said:
As I said, I don’t really understand your question, but what I can say is I am trying to understand marriage/whether God wants me to marry and part of that for me is examining all the ways I have seen marriage. As an asexual person who experiences same sex romantic attraction and struggles with the sin of reading erotica, perhaps the kinds of marriage and love I am frequently exposed to are those that you call “fringe”. These less stereotypical marriages are often spoken little of by the Church (to my knowledge). So to understand what marriage is/whether it could work for me requires my asking, “Well, is this a marriage–why or why not”, and the place I have been doing that lately is here, because it seemed a suitable place to do so. But I have run into a lot of hostility when I ask questions and have discussions here, so I’m thinking about leaving. 😦
Click to expand...
I’ve seen no hostility. What I have seen is either an unwillingness or inability to really grasp what the sacrament of marriage would look like as a sacrament that would help you achieve heaven. Do you have a certain spouse in mind?
 
I will also add that if you feel defensive that the best way to handle these threads is with honesty and a level of understanding that you are talking to strangers on the internet. But people on CAF can be gunshy when it comes to agendas in a marriage post. The best way to combat this is to be honest and open in the discussion. Otherwise we are on the lookout for the other shoe to drop.

If your searching is sincere and your communication fair and expressed well, you should find almost no hostility here. As it is against forum rules.
 
Wow, Sooooooo much answers!
Andrea_Day said:
Would it be sinful for an asexual man and an asexual woman to marry and remain celibate for the duration of their marriage or have sex only once over the course of their marriage?
Click to expand...
Short answer: No, the situation you propose* is not, per se, sinful.

tee
Disclaimer: Not A Canon Lawyer

(* Heh)
 
Andrea_Day said:
As I said, I don’t really understand your question, but what I can say is I am trying to understand marriage/whether God wants me to marry and part of that for me is examining all the ways I have seen marriage. As an asexual person who experiences same sex romantic attraction and struggles with the sin of reading erotica, perhaps the kinds of marriage and love I am frequently exposed to are those that you call “fringe”. These less stereotypical marriages are often spoken little of by the Church (to my knowledge). So to understand what marriage is/whether it could work for me requires my asking, “Well, is this a marriage–why or why not”, and the place I have been doing that lately is here, because it seemed a suitable place to do so. But I have run into a lot of hostility when I ask questions and have discussions here, so I’m thinking about leaving. 😦
Click to expand...
Without the ability to consummate a marriage, and proper consent, there can be no marriage. This is on the part of either spouse. Consent is defective with the intention to deny granting of the gift of the proper marital act.
 
Time for me to wade in and I’m still single as yet myself incidentally.

I think the only real reason for the Church’s stance is that it wants to discourage Catholics from embracing superstitious reasons for refraining from sexual relations within marriage, as well as spreading propaganda advocating same.

If a couple can assent to the points in Easter Joy’s post then they may surely marry because it is not defined as “asexual” and neither of them quite knows whether “asexual” is going to turn out a complete description in hindsight. It’s obviously legitimate to describe oneself informally and provisionally (in private) as relatively asexual.

As for priests’ intrusiveness in confessions that’s a whole extra subject. The guiding principle should surely be whether their way of life is genuinely (as opposed to allegedly) adversely impacting the faith or morals of other Catholics?

The advocates of lots of show-offy sex in marriages should go gentle on others’ consciences. The subject should generally, be reasonably cloaked and only raised respectfully (even on anonymous forums!). Those with a more show-offy approach should accept that not everyone of a more discreet and delicate sensibility is actually out to undermine them!

It’s time to stop making the Catholic faith heavier going than God intends it to be, and to stop blurring boundaries between one’s proper private affairs and others’.
 
Vico said:
Without the ability to consummate a marriage, and proper consent, there can be no marriage. This is on the part of either spouse. Consent is defective with the intention to deny granting of the gift of the proper marital act.
Click to expand...
So in the sense of what Easter Joy said, it’s up to the couple to say whether they “intend to deny granting” (three very strong words indeed, one after the other) and up to everybody else to believe them when they say it’s nothing as serious as that (if they comment on the subject at all).

It’s very private, and very serious. If they intend to leave everyone else alone, everyone else should leave them alone.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
So in the sense of what Easter Joy said, it’s up to the couple to say whether they “intend to deny granting” (three very strong words indeed, one after the other) and up to everybody else to believe them when they say it’s nothing as serious as that (if they comment on the subject at all).

It’s very private, and very serious. If they intend to leave everyone else alone, everyone else should leave them alone.
Click to expand...
Matrimonial consent is public not private. In the celebration there are witnesses and the intent is presumed to correspond with the words and canon law. That is why pre-marital instruction and investigation is conducted (a check for any impediments).

CIC (Latin canon law)

Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

CCEO (eastern canon law)

Canon 824
  1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to be in agreement with the words or signs employed in celebrating matrimony.
  2. But if either or both parties through a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some essential element or an essential property of marriage, it is invalidly contracted.
 
I may be quite wrong here but wasn’t there supposed to be a rather significant asexual marriage a couple of millennia ago? Some guy called Yosef married a woman called Miriam? 😉
 
Kaninchen said:
I may be quite wrong here but wasn’t there supposed to be a rather significant asexual marriage a couple of millennia ago? Some guy called Yosef married a woman called Miriam? 😉
Click to expand...
That was a celibate marriage. 😉 I’ve never heard that Miriam or Yosef were asexual. 🙂
 
I can’t see how it’s wrong assuming that the couple love each other (asexuals can feel romantic attraction and fall in love, but just not sexually, I believe? Not too sure). Also assuming that the couple understands that there MAY be a change-wife might suddenly have sexual desire, husband cannot just…say no. And also assuming that the couple is generally open to life (they are not abstaining bc they don’t want kids, they may adopt as well)

I’m not a priest though so could be wrong here.

It would suck if I’m wrong. So many people desperately wanting marriage but it’s out of their reach :confused:
 
Vico said:
Matrimonial consent is public not private. In the celebration there are witnesses and the intent is presumed to correspond with the words and canon law. That is why pre-marital instruction and investigation is conducted (a check for any impediments).

… [/INDENT]
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. But imputation, assumption, suspicion etc aren’t part of legitimate instruction nor of public declaration in front of witnesses.

In a random thread, it isn’t apparent that an agenda promoting superstitious refraining from sexual relations is present in the thread.

No-one need go on television to promote a more discreet image to the subject of marriage (however some do so out of genuine wish to educate).

Therefore in response to Andrea’s post 1, it’s not a question of “asexual” being a definition.
 
Kaninchen said:
I may be quite wrong here but wasn’t there supposed to be a rather significant asexual marriage a couple of millennia ago? Some guy called Yosef married a woman called Miriam? 😉
Click to expand...
Good point.

To the naysayers, are Josephite marriages valid?
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
I agree wholeheartedly. But imputation, assumption, suspicion etc aren’t part of legitimate instruction nor of public declaration in front of witnesses.

In a random thread, it isn’t apparent that an agenda promoting superstitious refraining from sexual relations is present in the thread.

No-one need go on television to promote a more discreet image to the subject of marriage (however some do so out of genuine wish to educate).

Therefore in response to Andrea’s post 1, it’s not a question of “asexual” being a definition.
Click to expand...
A prenuptial questionnaire is common practice.
 
Sarcelle said:
Good point.

To the naysayers, are Josephite marriages valid?
Click to expand...
(although I’m not a naysayer…)

An “asexual” marriage and a “Josephite” marriage are not the same thing.

One is born out of sexual dysfunction and the other is born out of a mutual call to sacrifice physical intimacy for the sake of the kingdom, temporarily or permanently.

They cannot be compared as to validity, as the former may have impediments the latter does not have.
 
Andrea_Day said:
But I have run into a lot of hostility when I ask questions and have discussions here, so I’m thinking about leaving. 😦
Click to expand...
You will find that there are people on the forum who deserve only to be ignored and who are better not interacted with. From my perspective, that list has grown over the time I have been in this forum.

There is an ignore feature in the forum, which I would recommend.

The other thing to be aware of is that you will encounter a number of posters who present themselves as if they were an expert when in fact they are not – as those of us who actually are ordained, theologians, and canonists can quite quickly deduce.

For the most part, the question you present really cannot be answered in the abstract anymore than that of any couple, if they are a mental construct of attributes rather than actual individuals.

Over the years, I have married many couples who were acting from a variety of motivations and were in a variety of places in terms of their psychological makeup, life experience, purpose for marrying, and so forth.

You have, frankly, received much bad (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread and I would suggest discussing this with a priest who is actually schooled in theology, in canon law, and has had the pastoral care of souls.
 
Andrea_Day said:
or have sex only once over the course of their marriage?
Click to expand...
I think if a person plans there future to the point of saying I will only have sex once im my marriage, there are bigger issues than asexuality going on:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top