S
Saya
Guest
I know the question sounds silly, but I am really curious what does moral theology have to say about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
J
JayCL
Guest
That would be incest, and if they’re not married that would be adultery, so what would you conclude?
I
Irishmom2
Guest
You’re right, not only is it silly, it is certainly not anything you need to worry about. I am assuming you are not a Siamese twin after all.
S
Saya
Guest
I’m obviously talking about a situation in which one of the twins has sex with a 3rd person (but in a way both twins participate in, as they share a body).
It is interesting though, don’t you think? Can those twins even get a Catholic marriage?
B
Beryllos
Guest
I think the OP means to ask whether one of the conjoined twins may have sex with someone else, like a spouse, given that he or she is always accompanied by the other twin.
Historically I think there have been cases of conjoined twins getting married, and I assume they work out the privacy issues somehow. That would not constitute adultery.
Historically I think there have been cases of conjoined twins getting married, and I assume they work out the privacy issues somehow. That would not constitute adultery.
Last edited:
J
JayCL
Guest
They are two separate people, so of course the participation by the other person would be adultery.
S
Saya
Guest
So when a twin A has sex then the twin B unwillingly commits adultery?
G
graciew
Guest
Are we going to post a thread on whatever crosses our mind to satisfy our curiosity here in CAF?
Where is the limit ?
Where is the limit ?
Last edited:
J
JayCL
Guest
. . . . Being present unwittingly is not the same as participating. If twin B participates that’s adultery. His being present is not inherently sinful.
Last edited:
S
Saya
Guest
Isn’t that one of the purposes of the forum? If I’m breaking the rules in some way then I’m sorry and I’ll delete the thread.
Sorta yes. I should have been more specific. I’m talking about those who share one set of genitalia.
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Take action please^^^
@camoderator
@camoderator
B
BornInMarch
Guest
I have no idea, but my hunch is that it depends on how they’re conjoined.
If they’re not conjoined at the waist then it’s not adultery if the unmarried twin doesn’t participate. That twin can presumably just put on a blindfold to give the couple privacy. It might get more complicated if they are conjoined at the waist though.
If they’re not conjoined at the waist then it’s not adultery if the unmarried twin doesn’t participate. That twin can presumably just put on a blindfold to give the couple privacy. It might get more complicated if they are conjoined at the waist though.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Not really.
B
BornInMarch
Guest
There’s no reason to be so dismissive. Exploring the theological implications of fringe cases is an old tradition in the church and there is no harm whatsoever in it.
In the 9th century a Monk named Ratramnus was once asked whether dog-headed people would have souls and thus be capable of salvation. Rather than scold the inquirer for asking the question Ratramnus wrote out a complex reply.
In the present day, when the topic of extraterrestrial aliens came up, the director of the Vatican Observatory, Guy Consolmagno, said he would baptize an alien who requested this. Others have questioned if sapient aliens would be infected with original sin (and thus need baptism) to begin with.
Last edited:
A
AlbMagno
Guest
I would think conjoined twins would be determined to be not fit to marry…
T
TC2
Guest
I think it’s interesting. My mind wonders about off the wall stuff like this, too. I don’t see the big deal. CAF needs a forum for ‘personal’ questions so people can avoid them and not be shocked.
T
TK421
Guest
It seems likely to be an impediment to marriage on the basis that any sexual act could not fulfill the unitive purpose, as you could never be solely bodily expressing love for one person.
It’s ultimately something that the diocese (or probably Rome itself) would have to examine if it came up unless there is a case where it already happened, but I don’t know of any.
Peace.
Last edited:
W
Weserthy
Guest
I actually think this is an interesting question, if one that will probably be addressed very rarely, if at all. But it could happen. There was a show on TLC years ago about two 20-something year old cojoined twins who openly stated that they wished to get married and have children. I don’t know if they’re Catholic, but what if they are?
This was my thought as well with this issues this condition would present.
What you say about it being an impediment to marriage (assuming that they are conjoined in such a way that they share just one set of generative organs) actually makes a lot of sense, and if I were a betting man, I’d go with that answer.Saya:
It seems likely to be an impediment to marriage on the basis that any sexual act could not fulfill the unitive purpose, as you could never be solely bodily expressing love for one person.
It’s ultimately something that the diocese (or probably Rome itself) would have to examine if it came up unless there is a case where it already happened, but I don’t know of any.
Ditto.AlbMagno:
This was my thought as well with this issues this condition would present.
I am not the least bit comfortable discussing how this deformity would affect two young women, so that is all I have to say about it.
I don’t think this is an intrinsically inappropriate question, though I never would have asked it myself, and I’m not one to shy away from uncomfortable questions regarding morality. I would say Aquinas could answer this very efficiently, if he were here to talk to us about the matter.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Oh, c’mon…
The question, then, would be whether one or the other can be considered to “possess” the necessary equipment, which would mean that the other would seem to be considered to not possess the equipment. That would mean perpetual inability to have marital relations, which would make a valid marriage an impossibility.
Perhaps they would both be considered to not have possession of the necessary equipment, as it were, and therefore, the impediment would exist for both?
Last edited:
- Status