Can Catholics get married if they cannot have children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter littlebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Simply wanting, desiring something does not mean it is possible.

It is simply impossible for someone who lacks the ability to have intercourse to be called to the vocation of marriage.

Not about being mean or killing romantic dreams, it is possible and impossible.

I can desire to be a professional basketball player. I can be a wonderful person, full of hope and love, however, I am only 4 feet tall. It is simply physically impossible for me to play professional basketball.

Same goes for those who permanently lack the ability to have intercourse (as explained above, “paralyzed” is a very broad term. Some people with spinal injuries are able to have intercourse.)
 
Peebo said:
Wow…I didn’t realize the Catholic Church was so coldhearted and lacking in compassion…so a couple through no fault of their own…paralyzed…but as good Catholics wishing to be married in the eyes of God…is refused because they cannot consummate that marriage …talk about a law written by the Pharisees…as a happily married…fully functioning Catholic I have to say this is the first time I have ever personally felt disgusted by any church teaching…and if anyone says I’m questioning the authority of the church go right ahead…I’ll take my chances with God
Click to expand...
The Church does not perform a ceremony of matrimony for a couple who cannot actually marry.

It is not compassion to lie to people by pretending to marry them; by conducting a ceremony without a marriage.

If you cannot see that, that’s your problem, not the Church’s.
 
Peebo said:
Wow…I didn’t realize the Catholic Church was so coldhearted and lacking in compassion…so a couple through no fault of their own…paralyzed…but as good Catholics wishing to be married in the eyes of God…is refused because they cannot consummate that marriage …talk about a law written by the Pharisees…as a happily married…fully functioning Catholic I have to say this is the first time I have ever personally felt disgusted by any church teaching…and if anyone says I’m questioning the authority of the church go right ahead…I’ll take my chances with God
Click to expand...
so sad isn’t it.
 
Last edited:
I’m new to the site, but what a roller coaster ride my first couple days have been! I’ve been motivated, relieved, upset, hopeful, disheartened.

I hope I’m not mistaken in thinking that God wants EVERYONE to be happy. I’m all for following rules (for the most part,) but this sounds ridiculous. Funny how rules can be bent when money is involved!
 
Yes, he is.

Not that I know him personally, but I have read enough of his posts where I do not doubt it.
 
I think it may be safe to say that society at large is going toward the perspective that there is no such thing as an “impediment” to marriage (since marriage itself is defined in various ways, all apparently based on personal preference). Catholics, too, can be pulled along with this secular current. Right now, the only (divine law) impediment that I think people still accept, by and large, is consanguinity. I wonder how long that will last.

Dan
 
Last edited:
I can only pray that the Bishop has stepped in here and remedied the situation. A parish council holding the priest “hostage” until he bends to their whim? Stunning.
 
Well the Priest has since left. And the new Priest I understand prefers not to get involved. His stance I understand, is that Communion is left up to the Individual. It is not my Parish, I was just made aware of it during some regional KOC meetings at the Parish it happened at.

The Priest has taken the Communion stance that the Pope has addressed.

The Bishop does not want to get involved in matters. He is too busy running his See to worry about such things. We have had some pretty bad Priests in are Diocese and nothing gets done about it. Which is another contention of concern. One bad Priest just forced into Medical Retirement and another is waiting to be Age Retired in 2 years.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
. A parish council holding the priest “hostage” until he bends to their whim? Stunning.
Click to expand...
It is not the Parish Council holding hostage, it is the “Deep Pockets” that voiced their displeasure and their own personal remedy to the problem. The Parish Council was just the Messenger.

Trust me, no one here wants the Diocese to take over a Church if they find themselves not able to pay their bills anymore. That is why our Priest was removed 6 months ago and placed on Permanent Medical Retirement, he was real bad, we were looking at not being able to pay bills in Nov and Dec because so many People had actively left and/or stop tithing. We now have a great interim Priest from the Philipines working on restoring us back to our former glory.
 
Would a Catholic priest refuse to answer if someone asked if he is a priest ?
 
littlebird said:
Would a Catholic priest refuse to answer if someone asked if he is a priest ?
Click to expand...
That depends on the context of the question itself.

Since you did ask the question I just quoted, I’ll respond: If the question is intended to be accusatory or inflammatory, then indeed he might feel the better choice is to ignore the question.

In an earlier post you simply asked the question of am I a priest, so I’m not going to assume any motivation and I’ll take the question at face value.

To answer the question, yes, I am a priest. Forum rules prohibit anyone from impersonating clergy and the CAF staff investigate the status of anyone who claims to be clergy either in posting or by virtue of username. They are extremely careful in enforcing that rule, and for good reason. When I first registered here, my status was immediately suspended until the staff investigated whether or not I am a priest. I’ve been an active member here for more than 10 years.

Feel free to ask the forum staff if my answer doesn’t suffice. Unless my status is proven, I guarantee they will suspend the username.
 
acanonlawyer said:
I think it may be safe to say that society at large is going toward the perspective that there is no such thing as an “impediment” to marriage (since marriage itself is defined in various ways, all apparently based on personal preference). Catholics, too, can be pulled along with this secular current. Right now, the only (divine law) impediment that I think people still accept, by and large, is consanguinity. I wonder how long that will last.

Dan
Click to expand...
Worse than that, there’s no such thing as “marriage” anymore.
 
Call it a heterosexual civil union then.

Most balanced people not prejudiced by too heavy an emphasis on successful sexual acts by those willing to procreate…would recognise their right to have a helpmate, find remedy for concupiscence, form a Christian home (possibly adopting), secure legal rights and protections for that home and establishing affine relationships between the two families.

Canon law is not necessarily a direct and perfect crystalisation of the unchanging principle it seeks to uphold. There may be exceptions and the canon could be changed or modified.

Its likely the same “prudential practice versus principle” is under scrutiny here - as with AL and Communion for the allegedly remarried.

I also note the Canon says prior and perp impotence nullifies marriage but it doesnt actually state that it prohibits marriage. That in itself is an interesting ommission.

It would seem there can exist acceptable putative marriages that may later be declared no longer marriages…with no animosity or blame to be assigned to anybody if later formally nullified and the couple separate.

But then we already knew that since Marriage Tribunals have been operating.

Is the priest at fault for allowing such null marriages to proceed? He can never be sure they are perpetually sterile if he isnt too invasive with his questions I suppose (especially with elderly couples).

Would it be reprehensible if he did not make a big issue of this and 100% establish if antecedent perpetual sterility was actually present? Thats a hard call given the wide range of medical assistance technologies available. It may be impossible to determine in the short to medium term, even by the couple, what may be possible. Its also a hard call because the Canon itself hints that establishing such clarity is difficult (if not ill advised) and if their is any doubt about this (or even about the applicability of the Canon itself) then the priest may overlook the matter. That is exactly how my country treats the matter. The question was not even explicitly stated on the prenup papers. No priest I know of would raise such an issue simply on the basis of age.

But as suggested on the other thread what is the significant pastoral gain to be had by going down this very invasive and likely divisive avenue. What practical gain justifies this? Nobody has yet been able to identify anything other than allegedly honouring this changeable Canon Law and not “mocking the Sacrament” whatever that means.
 
Last edited:
Haven’t read all the posts on this thread; what I did read was an argument/discussion of Canon Law. My initial thought when I read the OP was, Oh well, if so, I guess any single woman who is post menopausal is out of luck.

I wonder how Jesus Himself would answer this question. After all, he didn’t always go by “the rules.”
 
BlackFriar said:
…

I also note the Canon says prior and perp impotence nullifies marriage but it doesnt actually state that it prohibits marriage. That in itself is an interesting ommission.
Click to expand...
It’s quite clear. It makes the attempt at marriage impossible. There is no omission.

Edit: See canons 1073, 1084
It would seem there can exist acceptable putative marriages that may later be declared no longer marriages…
Click to expand...
A marriage that is ratified (ceremony) but not consummated can be dissolved; precisely because it is not a sacrament unless consummated.

Edit: See canon 1061
Is the priest at fault for allowing such null marriages to proceed? He can never be sure they are perpetually sterile if he isnt too invasive with his questions I suppose (especially with elderly couples).
Click to expand...
Yes. Despite your apparent hangup with this, and despite the notion you have that somehow you know more than the priests who actually do this sort of thing on a regular basis, it is the responsibility of a pastor to know that the marriage can be consummated before he proceeds with the ceremony.

So at fault if he does not? Most assuredly.

See Canons 1063 and 1066
Would it be reprehensible if he did not make a big issue of this and 100% establish if antecedent perpetual sterility was actually present?
Click to expand...
YES. It would be reprehensible. It would be a dereliction of his duty as pastor if he were to fail to make a reasonable effort to know that the marriage can be consummated before the ceremony.

Edit: See Canon 1066

I’ve explained this to you numerous times now on several different threads.

You have a problem with this. It is obviously your problem.

The Catholic Church has no problem with the procedures in canon law.

Edit: See Canon 1075

This issue is handled in the pre-marriage investigation and it is done everywhere in the entire Catholic Church.

Whether you happen to like it or not makes no difference. Nor do I think the Church cares much if Canon Law happens to conflict with your personal ideas of what a priest should do.

Edit: See canon 135
But as suggested on the other thread what is the significant pastoral gain to be had by going down this very invasive and likely divisive avenue. What practical gain justifies this? Nobody has yet been able to identify anything other than allegedly honouring this changeable Canon Law and not “mocking the Sacrament” whatever that means.
Click to expand...
As I have said REPEATEDLY now, the Church does not perform marriage ceremonies if no true marriage can exist. I do not stand up in front of a congregation and conduct “pretend marriages” no matter how much you might want me or any other priest to do so.

Edit: I stand by that last comment and will continue to stand by it. The Church only performs marriage ceremonies when the marriage itself can be validly contracted. No valid marriage means no ceremony.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
Haven’t read all the posts on this thread; what I did read was an argument/discussion of Canon Law. My initial thought when I read the OP was, Oh well, if so, I guess any single woman who is post menopausal is out of luck.

I wonder how Jesus Himself would answer this question. After all, he didn’t always go by “the rules.”
Click to expand...
There is much more to this issue than can be understood by just reading a few sentences.
 
“Oh well, if so, I guess any single woman who is post menopausal is out of luck.”

What leads you to that conclusion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top