Civil marriage for Catholics who can't marry

[QwertyGirl]

The Church does not teach that marriage is only about sex, only that sex is an indispensable component and function of marriage.

This is a false concept. It is completely dispensable. Look at any marriage where the couple is not able to have sex. They still may very well have a strong marriage.

 

[Tatum]

According to FrDavid all Dioceses are required to ask the question and most do so via the prenuptial enquiry form (albeit so discretely that you might not know what is being asked without the priest guiding you) . He may be mistaken as it seems many countries do not actually do so.

 

[Tatum]

That would likely be rare in practise given the technologies available.

 

[Phemie]

See my answer above for examples of how the questions are asked in various dioceses in Canada and the US.

According to FrDavid all Dioceses are required to ask the question and most do so via the prenuptial enquiry form (albeit so discretely that you might not know what is being asked without the priest guiding you) . He may be mistaken as it seems many countries do not actually do so.

Did you see my post above with screenshots of the questions asked in various dioceses in Canada and the US?
From blatant:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
to “what exactly are you asking me?”(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[AngelaMarie]

Do priest go into full detail as to what the definition of “obligations of marriage” means? Intervaginal penetration where ejaculation occurs inside the woman?

If they don’t, I bet dollars to donuts, most people filling out this questionaire are doing so ignorantly.

The questionnaire fulfills the letter of the law, I guess, while the couple are left of decide the spirit of it, not knowing the letter

 

[bassmansteiny]

Wow ok, guess I did not know that. Not being a smarta**, but is there a doctrine for this or is it more of a policy type of thing that can change. I mean that would be a bummer like in the original statement someone goes off to war, gets injured where he can’t use his tackle (sorry just trying to use a PG word on here, lol) down there and now can not marry his fiancee or the women he loves. I mean I get that the fruit of marriage is children, but this was not some mutilation he purposely had performed on himself like a sex change operation.

 

[His_helpmeet]

It falls under natural law. Sex is an indispensable part of marriage. Otherwise, you’re essentially living as roommates. If a person is permanently unable to have sex and that inability precedes the marriage, he or she cannot marry. It’s not possible.

 

[His_helpmeet]

In most cases, I would expect, the inability to have sex occurred AFTER the marriage. This would not invalidate the marriage. However, if it’s a permanent, pre-existing condition, the couple cannot marry. They would essentially just be living as roommates. They’re not capable of becoming “one flesh”. They’re not capable of a physical marital union. It’s not possible.

It’s not a case of the Church doesn’t want to marry these people; it’s a case of it is not possible under natural law.

 

[thistle]

Wow ok, guess I did not know that. Not being a smarta**, but is there a doctrine for this or is it more of a policy type of thing that can change. I mean that would be a bummer like in the original statement someone goes off to war, gets injured where he can’t use his tackle (sorry just trying to use a PG word on here, lol) down there and now can not marry his fiancee or the women he loves. I mean I get that the fruit of marriage is children, but this was not some mutilation he purposely had performed on himself like a sex change operation.

Canon Law:

Can. 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.

 

[bassmansteiny]

I understand natural law and what that means. I understand one flesh and all that. Just seems like a bummer is all. I accept all that the Church teaches is fact/law. Just too bad if under the original scenario the OP gave about due to an injury that now the person can’t marry.

I accept it, just a bummer. Guess I am lucky in that aspect.

My problem is I just can’t seem to find a good women and the older I get the harder it is to find someone so I may end up never getting married, lol. I don’t have high standards or anything like that but I always seem to end up with the “fixer uppers”, to the point I end up getting taken advantage of.
Shoot sorry I derailed the discussion there, just made me think about that. Haha

 

[bassmansteiny]

Ok, its Cannon Law. Cannon Law could in theory be changed because it is not a doctrine or dogma, correct? Or am I wrong on that also, haha

 

[bassmansteiny]

I understand, just seems like a bummer is all.

 

[Pup7]

That would likely be rare in practise given the technologies available.

I know plenty of war vets who cannot. Depending on where the spinal damage is or isn’t, many paraplegics cannot. It’s not as rare as you think it is.

 

[Tatum]

I find some of the examples above simply mistaken on some things.
But as I, and others say, FrDavid does seem to be mistaken that couples are universally required to confirm they are capable of the act in practice. It simply doesn’t happen universally and likely so for sound pastoral reasons.

 

[FrDavid96]

I find some of the examples above simply mistaken on some things.
But as I, and others say, FrDavid does seem to be mistaken that couples are universally required to confirm they are capable of the act in practice. It simply doesn’t happen universally and likely so for sound pastoral reasons.

The fact that you are ignorant of something does not make it untrue. You seem to think it does. Well, it doesn’t.

Yes, it is universal that both potential spouses must be capable of the marital act in order to enter into a valid marriage. That’s a fact. It is universal.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok, its Cannon Law. Cannon Law could in theory be changed because it is not a doctrine or dogma, correct? Or am I wrong on that also, haha

No.

It cannot be changed precisely because it is a matter of unchangeable doctrine.

If a couple cannot enter into a valid marriage, the Church cannot conduct a marriage ceremony.

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand, just seems like a bummer is all.

It’s not a “bummer” to be honest with people.

It’s a “bummer” to lie to people by being dishonest with them and conducting a ceremony for a union that cannot be a marriage, but still calling it one.

 

[Tatum]

With respect FrDavid96 the pastoral issue at hand is whether couples must confirm that beforehand.
You have previously opined this is universally required in all dioceses around the world.
In fact this is not explicitly practised (though the opportunity is there if other red flags are evident) - and intentionally so I suggest.

 

[ArielRussu]

That actually has happened before. Read it somewhere. The fiancee (male) ended up injured in an explosion overseas while fighting at war, lost both his legs and genitalia. His fiancee (female) still wanted to marry him but when they went to the Catholic church to be married, the churches response to the couple was no and had the attitude of “too bad, so sad, move on”. So the couple went and got married somewhere else and I believe have not returned to Catholicism since. I don’t remember if they went to another church or had a civil marriage though. If I can find where I found it I’ll post it later.

 

[Tatum]

Exactly so. Sometimes its pastorally better not to ask and let God sort things out so long as both couples know what they are about.
In any case one has to be sure the impotence is perpetual.
With the state of medical science these days and assistive reconstructive technology who knows where the borderline is anymore for sure.