Can Catholics get married if they cannot have children?

[Gorgias]

There is a Catholic Couple I know of that are both Paralyzed from the waist down.

They love each other with all their heart and soul.

Yet the Church refuses to Marry them.

If “love” were the only standard for marriage, wouldn’t the Church necessarily be required to marry same sex couples?

So they married outside the Church. After being married, the went for Communion at the very next Mass. The Priest attempted to refuse Communion

First problem. After all, what would the reason for the refusal be? I mean… they weren’t “living in sin”, nor would anyone who knew them think that they were fornicating and therefore be scandalized, right?

, They both raised a stink right there and then.

Second problem. That’s not the time or place to raise their objection.

Most of the Congregation came to their defense.

Third problem. Again, not the place nor the time.

The Priest reluctantly gave them Communion as it was not his place to Pass Judgment on the state of their Mortal Soul.

Fourth problem: “not his place”? Really? Actually, it is his place to protect the sacrament from profanation and his people from sacrilege.

After this Mass was over, people brought their concerns to the Pastoral Council.

Fifth problem. This is an issue for pastoral council? Really? There’s a really, really weird understanding of the role of pastoral council in that parish, then…

The general consensus from the people was to stop tithing and missions.

Sixth problem. Withholding funds as a means of forcing policy change?
In the Church? sigh…

Since then, the Priest has not denied Communion, but still will not Bless the Marriage.

This is entirely proper.

To summarize: two people who love each other, but are unable to fulfill marital obligations, marry civilly. The priest, unfortunately, decides he should deny communion. The congregation publicly berates the priest during the Mass and later threatens financial ruin on the parish. The priest relents on the Eucharistic issue (as he should) but refuses to bend on the canonical issue of marriage (again, appropriately). And it’s being suggested that only the Church is acting in an unChristian manner?

There is this odd notion in our society that romantic love is the end-all and be-all of all things and should trump all other considerations. It isn’t, and it doesn’t. That seems ‘cold’ and ‘uncharitable’ to those who misunderstand marriage. The situation calls for charity on all sides, and for better catechesis about Christian marriage…

 

[Phemie]

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.

Are we still talking about two people who cannot have intercourse??

 

[BlackFriar]

I am interested in a cogent response on whatever angle you care to assume and clarify re the above.

 

[BlackFriar]

If “love” were the only standard for marriage, wouldn’t the Church necessarily be required to marry same sex couples?

I dont think that follows. God said it is not good for the man to be alone wrt providing a female helper.

But that aside this is a good argument for non procreative heterosexual Civil Unions being tolerable to the Church in addition to adoption (and possiblySS as well for that matter…but thats another topic).

It is not full “marriage”, but it does recognise the committed relationships we speak of and if Canon Law does indeed deny marriage then most of us here do see a vacuum that needs to be filled lest such couples be accused of sinful cohabitation when the very opposite may be the case.

 

[Phemie]

My understanding is that marital sex is the remedy for concupiscence. If you can’t have intercourse where is the remedy?

 

[BlackFriar]

Monogamous lifelong cohabitations are about considerably more than remedying concupiscence as the acceptability of Josephite marriages make clear.

If the elderly male felt the stirrings of concupiscence chances are with medical assistance he would be given the benefit of the doubt on this matter as canon law supports.

If his partner was the one requiring the debt then what would you see as her sin in attempting to excite her willing husband and achieving “remedy” herself even if this act was not quite successful on his part?

At what point in the marriage must they give up trying (even if neither see a problem in the ongoing situation), seek a declaration of nullity and separate for absolutely no good reason other than being in an allegedly “pretend marriage”.

If they eventually realise antecedent and permanent impotence is operating (its not clear how even they can be absolutely sure I suggest) then must they self accuse and seek nullity and split? Or can they keep quiet and live as happily and virtuously together as any other elderly couple who once were potent can?

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

If “love” were the only standard for marriage, wouldn’t the Church necessarily be required to marry same sex couples?

I dont think that follows. God said it is not good for the man to be alone wrt providing a female helper.

But that aside this is a good argument for non procreative heterosexual Civil Unions being tolerable to the Church in addition to adoption (and possiblySS as well for that matter…but thats another topic).

It is not full “marriage”, but it does recognise the committed relationships we speak of and if Canon Law does indeed deny marriage then most of us here do see a vacuum that needs to be filled lest such couples be accused of sinful cohabitation when the very opposite may be the case.

Civil union is just that.
Civil union is not necessarily part of sacramental marriage.
Sacramental marriage can only be between man and woman. The Church cannot recognize what amounts to an equivocation. That would be deception.

 

[jas84173]

So in that case why can’t homosexuals be married if it’s all about procreation?

 

[goout]

So in that case why can’t homosexuals be married if it’s all about procreation?

Homosexual acts are not procreative in form.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Gorgias:

If “love” were the only standard for marriage, wouldn’t the Church necessarily be required to marry same sex couples?

I dont think that follows. God said it is not good for the man to be alone wrt providing a female helper.

But that aside this is a good argument for non procreative heterosexual Civil Unions being tolerable to the Church in addition to adoption (and possibly SS as well for that matter…but thats another topic).

It is not full “marriage”, but it does recognise the committed relationships we speak of and if Canon Law does indeed deny marriage then most of us here do see a vacuum that needs to be filled lest such couples be accused of sinful cohabitation when the very opposite may be the case.

Civil union is just that.

Agreed, it is not a marriage, nor pretending to be a marriage where intercourse and procreation of children takes place.

Civil union is not necessarily part of sacramental marriage.

You are right, that is why its a Civil Union relationship.
Adoption isn’t a marriage either I hope.
But both are ways of establishing affine and family relationships which are useful to society and individuals.

Nor do I understand why you need to speak of Sacramental Marriages.
You do realise there are blessed Catholic Marriages that are not Sacramental don’t you?

Sacramental marriage can only be between man and woman.

The same with blessed non Sacramental marriages too.
And also with valid civil marriages that the Church recognises.
But why are we talking about marriage relationships?
The issue is the goodness of Civil Unions for couples that FD96 would not marry.

The Church cannot recognize what amounts to an equivocation. That would be deception.

That’s why we would call it a Civil Union for impotent heterosexual couples.

The excessive fears of fragile Catholics could be further allayed perhaps by requiring a special dispensation (by reason of impotence) to procure a Civil Union without a Catholic Marriage.

Do you think that remarried Catholics who finally get a declaration of nullity after living in sin for 13 years are likewise deceiving fragile Catholics by not advertising their declaration in the Parish Newsletter? Is that deception compounded by suddenly going to Communion as well?
I often wonder why Canon Law doesn’t require “Successful Tribunal Decision banns”?

What exactly is the grave deception our impotent CU brothers and sisters are guilty of?
It isn’t unmarried intercourse because they were refused marriage precisely on these grounds.

Is this deception (whatever it is exactly) worse than that of abstaining remarried Catholics in our parishes? Is it worse than that of non-abstaining remarried Catholics involved in our parishes?
Is it worse than that of Josephite marriages in our parishes…and is it any more recognisable as a “deception” than any of the above anyways?

 

[littlebird]

My apologies. I asked if you are a Catholic priest because some of your responses didnt seem loving. This is one example below. Again, I am new here and have no idea who anyone is here or if there account name designates anything.

FrDavid96
"Fer Pete’s Sake! How many times do I have to type it out?
How many times???

Can. 1084 §1

Do you need it again?

Can. 1084 §1

Is that not enough?

Can. 1084 §1

Still not seeing it?

Can. 1084 §1

Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1
Can. 1084 §1

Satisfied yet?"

-end of your quote-

I am new here and tried to keep my original post simple and clear. In my post I said " cannot have children ever" and “It is physically impossible and cannot be fixed”.

I now know that I was not clear enough for many people. I said “physically impossible” to have children. I did not say “physically impossible” to have intercourse. I also did not say “temporarily physically impossible”.

 

[BlackFriar]

LB if you are saying your significant other is sterile only then yes they can get married so long as their partner is aware of this before making their vows.

It is more a matter of Canon Law rather than the Catechism.
The Catechism is more about the principles behind the canons.

I believe FD96 has already provided you the canons that refer to sterility.

Impotence is different from sterility.
Impotence means inability to have sex.
If that is not the issue then all is well.

 

[benjamin1973]

Sarah.

I don’t think “cannot” is the right word for people of faith. It should be “almost certainly won’t, but the cannot is up to the will of God.” In other words. . . your responsibility is in the trying.

I’m not an expert like these guys, that’s just my opinion.

 

[ahs]

There is a Catholic Couple I know of that are both Paralyzed from the waist down. They met at the age beyond 40s. Prior to this they had given up on finding a mate. They found each other when no other would have them. They love each other with all their heart and soul.

Yet the Church refuses to Marry them…

I’ll echo Post #70, but I want to point out this very important detail in case it got list in the shuffle. It’s not that the Church is “refusing to Marry” them. They simply are not able to Marry, and the Church had nothing to do with that inability.
God’s Divine Law (Natural Law) defines Marriage. The Church cannot change that.
The Church is also not preventing this couple from happiness. They can be together and comfort each other and love each other all they want (outside of sexual intercourse…which they are not capable of).
Is it sad that they cannot enter into a valid Marriage? Sure. Does a Marriage define happiness and/or make up the sum total of a fulfilling life in Christ? No. Is it possible to find joy and fulfillment in life, along with an opposite sex companion with whom you share your life in every way except sexually? Absolutely! All they have to do is put the focus on Christ and what He wants for them, instead of what they want Christ to give them (Marriage).

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I thought subsequent answers made it clear that infertility is not a barrier to marriage. Impotence (perpetual, antecedant) is. Sex and marriage go together. The church teaches the sex ouside of marriage is wrong because iproper place for sex is within marriage. It’s called the marital act for a reason.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

My understanding is that marital sex is the remedy for concupiscence. If you can’t have intercourse where is the remedy?

Maybe we can ask God on Judgment Day, why he is denying a couple to be married that HE allowed to exit the womb being paralyzed from the waist down? Don’t you see the irony of the situation?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Maybe we can ask God on Judgment Day, why he is denying a couple to be married that HE allowed to exit the womb being paralyzed from the waist down? Don’t you see the irony of the situation?

Maybe we can also ask why he is denying women to be priests that HE allowed to exit the womb being female rather than male. Don’t you see the irony of the situation?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Maybe we can also ask why he is denying women to be priests that HE allowed to exit the womb being female rather than male. Don’t you see the irony of the situation?

Of course I do. It is an equally valid question.

 

[Joe_5859]

Or we can ask why he is denying unusually short people the right to play basketball in the NBA? Wanting to be something and being capable of it are two different things.

Not that I don’t have great sympathy for people in this situation. It is a trial, I am sure. In truth, I have yet to encounter someone who has been unable to marry on these grounds.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The same way God allowed me to exit the womb knowing I would only grow to 4 feet tall even though I want most in life to play Women’s Basketball.