Civil marriage for Catholics who can't marry

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Paul said not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, and that anyone who did so brought condmnation on himself.
 
His_helpmeet said:
St. Paul said not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, and that anyone who did so brought condmnation on himself.
Click to expand...
I believe my post asked where Jesus excluded anyone from the Eucharist. Where He put limits on it. Yes, I am familiar with Paulā€™s words, but that isnā€™t the question I asked.
 
Youā€™re setting up Jesus in opposition to Paul then. As a Catholic thatā€™s a no-no.
 
The Church could marry them as a Josphite marriageā€¦ Mary and Joseph we married this way, but the motive must be spiritual unionā€¦

A feature of Catholic spiritual marriage, or Josephite marriage, is that the agreement to abstain from sex should be a free mutual decision, rather than resulting from impotence or the views of one party.
 
Paulā€™s writings are inerrant scripture, NOT the proclamations by ā€œany Church leaderā€. ALL scripture is inerrant, not just the direct quotes of Jesus.
 
There would be no abstention in this case, because the topic here is about people who arenā€™t capable of sexual intercourse. Even in a Joshephite marriage, a couple has to be at least capable of sex.
 
godisgood77 said:
The Church could marry them as a Josphite marriageā€¦ Mary and Joseph we married this way, but the motive must be spiritual unionā€¦

A feature of Catholic spiritual marriage, or Josephite marriage, is that the agreement to abstain from sex should be a free mutual decision, rather than resulting from impotence or the views of one party.
Click to expand...
No.

Any attempt at invalid marriage is morally wrong.
 
Crusader30 said:
Our Lord would never allow so called ā€œirregular unions or marragesā€ in the Church since they are by nature adultery and sinful.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by sinful I suppose.
Do you mean sanctifying grace is lost in all cases? Pope Francis denies this.
Therefore it is surely legitimate for us laity to say likewise, that such irregulars may well be graced and free of personal sin in this area despite the objective disorder.
 
Could you just find Magisterial wording for what it is you are trying to defend?
I personally see no universal immorality in simply obtaining a marriage not recognised by the Church.
It depends on circumstances.

I donā€™t think your intent argument flies ā€¦ at least not the way you word it.
Some types of rules simply donā€™t require intent.

Would you think the one hour fast rule necessitates intent if broken?
For example one unthinkingly had a cuppa and biscuit with the lads 45 mins before Communion at midday mass and only tweaked after sitting down in the pew.
Can one receive because there was no intention to break the fast?
 
Last edited:
TheAdvocate197 said:
Yes, for things like health insurance and such. Exactly.
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons I was 100% against same sex marriage, but pro-making it easier for roommates to receive next of kin rights.

If we would have been smart, we could have made it a lot easier for two people living together to legally receive next of kin rights or ā€œspousal rights.ā€

If we would have done this, not only same sex couples, but it could have been used in the situation you describe, by a mother living with her adult child, two adult siblings living together, two widows living together to save money, etc.

But noā€¦
 
deMontfort said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
there are errors in Scripture.
Click to expand...
^^^^^ According to the Church, thatā€™s heresy. Itā€™s YOU that needs to be real careful here.
Click to expand...
AS a subsequent poster said, scientific errors, yes, religious errors, no. Error from a religious standpoint, well Scripture seems to condone slavery, at least in the OT, but last time I checked, that was part of Scripture. Then there is the old agnostic/atheist question about God intervening and killing the enemies of the Israelites. An error?? Actually, I believe the word ā€œcontradictionā€ might be a better term. After all, one gospel writer wrote Jesus preached a sermon on the mount, another, that sermon was on a plain. Whoā€™s right, whoā€™s wrong, or is it a simple contradiction. That said, they both canā€™t be right.
 
Last edited:
So, um, do priests actually ask a couple in the Pre-Cana process if they are capable of having intercourse?

Itā€™s a serious question.
 
Do you mean they ask physically disabled people that? Or everyone?
 
So what about a couple who is joining or reverting to Catholicism who have been married. Do they ask them?

And if they ask them, and the answer is no, are they refused from joining the Church???
 
Last edited:
Itā€™s possible for a man who is not physically ā€œdisabledā€ to still be impotent for several other medical reasons.

There really arenā€™t too many medical reasons that would make it impossible for a woman to have intercourse, disabled or otherwise
 
I think we should try to make a lot more benefits available to those who are in various situations.

For example, the whole system where health insurance is tied to your job for the majority of the population really doesnā€™t make a whole lot of sense.

With modern resources, thereā€™s really no reason why we couldnā€™t have a simple setup where you can nominate anyone as your ā€œnext of kinā€ to make decisions. We already have the legal framework, itā€™s just very hard right now to make sure itā€™s found at the right time. Similarly, people should be allowed (within reason) to select a few people who can visit them in the hospital, even if theyā€™re not legal kin.

I would also support allowing people to declare a certain number of individuals that they can use family leave for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top