Yes, it goes back to Aristotle, and the teleological argument is the most common argument employed with respect to who should marry regardless of what one’s opinion is. The idea of “Natural Law” is a human construction. Aquinas was a booster. Hence the fascination by Catholics. But there is nothing supernatural about the idea.
To save you the trouble of looking it up, the question posed does not follow logically in the discussion.
Yes, it is interesting that the CC would hold an unconsummated marriage as an ideal, while requiring its adherents to consummate their own marriages. But this opens the whole can of worms of the “virgin birth” cults at the time of Jesus. According to Joseph Campbell, and other scholars of mythology and religion, there were literally hundreds of prophets running around at the time claiming to be of virginal birth. These historians would say that Jesus was just another one of those. It was not an original idea when Christians borrowed it. The Greeks were particularly fond of the idea at the time, which coincides with the backgrounds of the biblical authors who mention it.
Yes thank you, I know what it means. I find humor when people use good words to put down a ridiculous argument.
And they also can’t live together.
If the marriage can’t be consummated because of impotency, then it would be objectively invalid. If the non-impotent spouse wished to remarry, a decree of nullity would be necessary in this case.
why can’t they live together? They are not having sex. They are basically living as brother and sister.
It’s a cause for scandal. You don’t live with someone you’re not married or related to.
Cohabitation between unmarried couples is not permitted. If the two individuals would otherwise be marrying, that is hardly living as brother and sister. Just because they are not having sex does not mean they are being chaste.
Cohabitation as defined by the church is an unmarried couple living together and having a sexual relationship.
A relationship can be sexual without having sexual intercourse.
But remember, one of the primary organs in sex is your brain- The body may not respond in some ways, but not necessarily the mind- And you can sin mortally with the mind alone.
. You don’t have to have sex (the natural kind) to sin against chastity, and living together so closely could provide ample temptation.My thoughts exactly.But remember, one of the primary organs in sex is your brain- The body may not respond in some ways, but not necessarily the mind- And you can sin mortally with the mind alone.
Still though, being unmarried and living together is not necessarily sinful when there’s no sex involved. Some invalidly married couple stay together after their conversion to raise their children and share other responsibilities w/out engaging in sex, until they can properly marry in the church.
But if the impotence only affects the physical male/female sexual organs and leaves the emotional/mental sexual aspects intact, really no assumption of chastity can be made when two adults of that nature who are attracted to each other share living space so closely
Yes, providing knowledge of the impotence was antecedent to the marriage.
Yes, I know I have made the point myself several times in this thread.