Can sterile people marry?

[KCT]

maklavan:

Even in the eyes of the State, consummation of marriage is regarded as essential for legality.

I suppose it’s not actual intercourse the state considers consummation if some states are recognizing ‘gay marriages’.
—KCT

 

[mikew262]

LittleDeb:

Just making sure the understanding is clear here. If a person becomes impotent the marriage is still valid. It is only if the marriage is entered with impotency that it is invalid.

Doesn’t make alot of sense, does it? I guess paraplegics (sp?) whose sexual function is gone can’t get married either, huh? Amazing!

 

[fix]

mikew262:

Doesn’t make alot of sense, does it? I guess paraplegics (sp?) whose sexual function is gone can’t get married either, huh? Amazing!

Marriage intends specfic things. If a marraige is simply self defining then anything would be a marriage.

 

[mikew262]

fix:

Marriage intends specfic things. If a marraige is simply self defining then anything would be a marriage.

How about marriage defining the love between a man and woman?

 

[beckers]

Okay here is another questions—

Can a catholic women even date a man who wants to get a vasectomy. If they continue to date and talk about marriage would it be considered vaild since they are in a since not open to life from the get go?

 

[precious_roy]

beckers:

Okay here is another questions—

Can a catholic women even date a man who wants to get a vasectomy. If they continue to date and talk about marriage would it be considered vaild since they are in a since not open to life from the get go?

Which begs another question: could someone who has taken a vow of celibacy get married? What about Josephite marriages? Technically they wouldn’t be considered open to life in the strict sense.

 

[JimG]

precious_roy:

Which begs another question: could someone who has taken a vow of celibacy get married? What about Josephite marriages? Technically they wouldn’t be considered open to life in the strict sense.

Well, they wouldn’t be contracepting, and supposing they are both capable of sexual relations, I’m guessing the marriage would be valid, even though never consummated.

 

[quandry]

In our 1953 senior year textbook “Moral Guidance” at St. Aloysius College, we were taught that a sterile person could not marry. The purpose of marriage is procreation.
HOWEVER:
A predominant theme in many other topics contained within this website has to do with Faith and the Will of God.

Sooooo - if a sterile person marries, who is to say that the Hand of the Lord will not intervene and restore the individual(s) to sexual potentcy? We are taught to have Faith in all other matters, so why not in this instance?

 

[LittleDeb]

In our 1953 senior year textbook “Moral Guidance” at St. Aloysius College, we were taught that a sterile person could not marry. The purpose of marriage is procreation.
HOWEVER:
A predominant theme in many other topics contained within this website has to do with Faith and the Will of God.

Sooooo - if a sterile person marries, who is to say that the Hand of the Lord will not intervene and restore the individual(s) to sexual potentcy? We are taught to have Faith in all other matters, so why not in this instance?

The Church has never taught that sterile people cannot marry. Perhaps this textbook application was addressing impotency not sterility?

A permanently impotent person cannot marry because he or she is permanently incapable of consummating the marriage vows. A sterile person is capable of consummating. Procreation is not interchangeable with reproduction. None of us know for sure that we can reproduce until we, in fact, cooperate with God and make a baby.

Welcome to CAF. I hope your stay here will help bring you to a deeper understanding of Church teaching.

 

[didymus]

Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

I remember reading about a case where the Church refused to marry a couple because the man was paraplegic & unable to consummate the marriage, even though the woman was aware of this and willing to marry under those conditions.

My question, why will the Church bless a marriage where the couple makes known their intent never to consummate their marriage, a so-called “Josephite” marriage?

 

[thistle]

I should not have asked. Now you gave me something else to disagree with the church about.

The teachings of the Church are the teachings of God. If you choose not to accept them then you are saying God is wrong.
Why don’t you actually read the CCC on the teachings about marriage? Maybe then you will understand.
In case you don’t have the CCC here is an online version:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Newbie2]

GAH! Why can’t you just… set aside your own arrogance and believe the church?

When the going gets tough… do you quit?

Faith is not easy.

Sometimes it takes time to mull over the implications of a teaching…it’s not always arrogance that prevents one from accepting such.

Well, they wouldn’t be contracepting, and supposing they are both capable of sexual relations, I’m guessing the marriage would be valid, even though never consummated.

Permanent sterilization is contracepting, no?

This discussion I find interesting…some forumites (not necessarily in this thread) are quick to point out that condoms should never be used even in sterile individuals, because they are an impediment to being “open” to conception…yet at the same time, some are quick to state that impotent people cannot marry.

 

[mikew262]

The teachings of the Church are the teachings of God.

I sometimes wonder if thats always true. While the Holy Spirit is there to guide the Church, I wonder if sinful man, which has and now makes up the Church hierarchy, always listens, but thats a potential topic for another thread.

BTW, I have read the catechism, but that doesn’t mean I always agree with it.

 

[fix]

This discussion I find interesting…some forumites (not necessarily in this thread) are quick to point out that condoms should never be used even in sterile individuals, because they are an impediment to being “open” to conception…yet at the same time, some are quick to state that impotent people cannot marry.

Why do you do find those two items contradictory?

 

[1ke]

In our 1953 senior year textbook “Moral Guidance” at St. Aloysius College, we were taught that a sterile person could not marry. The purpose of marriage is procreation.
HOWEVER:
A predominant theme in many other topics contained within this website has to do with Faith and the Will of God.

Sooooo - if a sterile person marries, who is to say that the Hand of the Lord will not intervene and restore the individual(s) to sexual potentcy? We are taught to have Faith in all other matters, so why not in this instance?

This thread is from 2006. I’m wondering why you posted to a thread that has been inactive for 2 years instead of starting a new one?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Abraham and Sarah were married.

 

[Newbie2]

Originally Posted by Newbie2
This discussion I find interesting…some forumites (not necessarily in this thread) are quick to point out that condoms should never be used even in sterile individuals, because they are an impediment to being “open” to conception…yet at the same time, some are quick to state that impotent people cannot marry.

Why do you do find those two items contradictory?

Lemme 'splain…the recommendation in the first case would be that the couple should abstain, rather than use condoms, advocating a marriage without sexual intimacy. In the second case, if an impotent couple could otherwise marry, they would have a marriage without sexual intimacy.

The second thing is that there’s always the argument that a miracle could happen in a couple who are menaupausic (my made up term ) and they could conceive, so they should not use a condom, but the couple with an intimate partner cannot marry because such a miracle could not happen to render the impotent individual would not happen?

I’m not arguing against church teachings, just commenting on some of the forumites’ explanations of same.

 

[Seatuck]

Originally Posted by Newbie2
This discussion I find interesting…some forumites (not necessarily in this thread) are quick to point out that condoms should never be used even in sterile individuals, because they are an impediment to being “open” to conception…yet at the same time, some are quick to state that impotent people cannot marry.

Lemme 'splain…the recommendation in the first case would be that the couple should abstain, rather than use condoms, advocating a marriage without sexual intimacy. In the second case, if an impotent couple could otherwise marry, they would have a marriage without sexual intimacy.

The second thing is that there’s always the argument that a miracle could happen in a couple who are menaupausic (my made up term ) and they could conceive, so they should not use a condom, but the couple with an intimate partner cannot marry because such a miracle could not happen to render the impotent individual would not happen?

I’m not arguing against church teachings, just commenting on some of the forumites’ explanations of same.

Remember, marital sex should be both procreative and unitive. You have seen the written church teaching to verify this. The marital act must be able to happen and must happen in such a way as to be a total gifting of selves by each partner. The marital act itself whether the couple is fertile or not.That is the reason for what you think of as a discrepency. Contraception gets in the way of the marital act being a total gifting of selves. Whether by chemicals or latex or an act such as onanism.

BTW, as long as there is a hope that the couple may indeed be able to complete the marital act the Wedding can take place. Medical science has done quite a bit in this area to help couples out.

Canon 1084
§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
§2 **If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null. **

 

[thistle]

I sometimes wonder if thats always true. While the Holy Spirit is there to guide the Church, I wonder if sinful man, which has and now makes up the Church hierarchy, always listens, but thats a potential topic for another thread.

BTW, I have read the catechism, but that doesn’t mean I always agree with it.

You have to agree with the teachings otherwise its heresy!!

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

Even in the eyes of the State, consummation of marriage is regarded as essential for legality.

I think if you can’t have children you need permission of some kind.