Engaged couple, one having AIDS

[Seatuck]

Seatuck;5043019:

Newbie2;5041462:

Flesh-Flesh contact is a poor qualifiation for “unity”, methinks.

No, you’re right, I’ve read it several times.

What I mean is that when the argument is reduced to whether or not unity is present based on flesh-flesh contact, i.e. that such contact is the only criterion for untiy, it not an argument that will be accepted by too many.

The one flesh union is a very important part of the consummation of the marital vows and the relationship. That’s what I mean- the one flesh union and all that it entails including all those marital vows.

 

[Seatuck]

Biblically, the term for marriage is “one flesh,” so requiring contact of flesh-to-flesh would seem consistent with this (i.e., no marriages between persons who have never had contact, except via telephone or Internet). Whether this would require total nudity without anything else on the body is another matter. Presumably wearing of a wedding ring during marital relations would not be considered inconsistent with being “one flesh,” even if such would hinder contact of flesh to flesh in areas covered by the ring. That this seems generally to be considered a non-issue is presumably because this would not hinder the generative process.

Well we know that the couple might be validly married without being in each others presence but we know that the marriage would not consummated and indissoluble. Marriage requires that one flesh union to achieve consummation.That one flesh union is intercourse. As Dr May says- condomistic sex interferes with that. In no way did I suggest the couple even had to be nude . Those particular body parts need to meet in the way that they were created to meet for the conjugal union.

Rob, I’m sorry if you are dealing with this. I realized a few posts ago I haven’t taken the time to express any compassion or empathy for the difficulty of a marriage in this position. I know you didn’t write in order to get that but it should be said.

Have you consulted with a priest? 2 Priests to make sure?

Why not call up your Diocese to talk to someone? A moral theologian perhaps.

Or like I already suggested the NCBC and see if they will go over it with you .

If they give you solid reasonings on how the church can permit it please let me know what those reasons are so that I may study. At this point we have nothing that permits it.

Peace be with you .

 

[Rob59]

Thank you, Seatuck. I appreciate your gracious words.

At one point physicians advised us to use condoms, and we did so. I researched the issue further, and did not find the empirical basis for this advise to be persuasive, so we have stopped doing so. At the time of my confirmation or marital convalidation we were not using such, nor have we used such since. The issue is very personal for me since we had to face a decision like that raised in the initial post (though my wife was never diagnosed with AIDS), but our understanding of the medical issues differs from that of many on this matter. Still, the idea that Catholic teaching plus the conventional view on HIV-AIDS would have required me to choose between marrying my sweetheart versus risking my life is troubling. In any case, at the time we were married I already was briefed on any health risks involved, and gladly chose to marry her notwithstanding, and would not hesitate to make the same choice again.

 

[YipYupYep]

It seems to me that the man finds himself (through choice or mishap) to be in a position where he must remain celibate. The lady should find herself someone else to marry so as not to risk infection.

Condoms are not a guarantee the infection will not be passed. All it takes in ONE accident.

Yea and no.

The man must remain celibate and can never be married in the Catholic Church. His condition, for all intents and purposes , causes him to be unable to consummate. Therefore, he can not marry as a Catholic.

The woman should find another for the same above reason, not infection. But, yes, she also cant allow herself to become infected.

They may live together as brother and sister in an unmarried state. That’s as close as they can get.

 

[Rob59]

If the couple were married in an Orthodox or Protestant church, would they be excommunicated by the Catholic Church, even if they had first sought marriage in the Catholic Church?

 

[Jermosh]

Nope.

Here’s why:

Using the “pill” for medical needs is by definition a necessity.
Ligation or attempted correction of an ectopic pregnancy is a necessity.

In both cases, if medical intervention is not performed, (physically) something happens.

If intercourse with a condom does not proceed…nothing happens.

There is no principle of double effect with using a condom.

The result can be divorce, masturbation, porn addiction, and adultry. St Paul speaks of this very issue with sex and marriage and the showcases why sex and marriage must happen. See Rom 7 & 1 Cor 7.

 

[Seatuck]

If the couple were married in an Orthodox or Protestant church, would they be excommunicated by the Catholic Church, even if they had first sought marriage in the Catholic Church?

I don’t think it is an excommunicable offense. The marriage would of course be invalid. That would mean the couple is not in union with the church and could not partake of the sacraments until the situation is worked on.

I have stated elsewhere , I don’t think the church is going to refuse marriage to this couple. The couple is capable of having intercourse. There is a hope that they may have intercourse. Whether they follow through and properly consummate the marriage is up to them.

This is of course my opinion. The matter should be brought forth to the church to truly know. I haven’t seen anything implying such a marriage would be denied.

 

[Rob59]

Why would the Catholic Church regard the marriages of all other Christians as invalid? It regards the eucharist as valid when celebrated in an Orthodox church, and regards the baptisms of all other churches as valid, when celebrated with water in the name of the Trinity. Even if it does not presume the validity of marriage in a particular case, that does not mean it presumes its invalidity either.

 

[Rob59]

Jermosh wrote:

The result can be divorce, masturbation, porn addiction, and adultry. St Paul speaks of this very issue with sex and marriage and the showcases why sex and marriage must happen. See Rom 7 & 1 Cor 7.

---

Surely the texts cited should be even more foundational to Catholic thinking than any discussion of unitive and procreative aspects of marriage, which seem to be derived from Aristotle’s philosophy rather than from Scripture. I realize that Catholic tradition employs sources from sources in addition to Scripture, but ideally no conflict with Scripture occurs.

 

[Seatuck]

Why would the Catholic Church regard the marriages of all other Christians as invalid?It regards the eucharist as valid when celebrated in an Orthodox church, and regards the baptisms of all other churches as valid, when celebrated with water in the name of the Trinity. Even if it does not presume the validity of marriage in a particular case, that does not mean it presumes its invalidity either.

Catholics are required to follow church law on marriage . When they do not their marriages are invalid. Other Christians should follow the laws of their churches if they have any and it would be considered valid as long as they were free to marry.

Not sure what you mean by the last line. Do you mean you could hide it ? Yeah I guess you could but that doesn’t mean that it still wasn’t a sin to disobey church law. A Catholic who recieves communion unworthily enacts a very serious sin. It’s a sacrilege. We need to be in union with Christ through his church in order to receive communion. In addition a person with mortal sin on the sould does not receive the graces from the Communion . This is true of any of us who are in mortal sin. When I know that I need to go to confession( because I am conscious of a mortal sin) and haven’t been able to do so I do not receive communion when I go to Mass. A Catholic who marries outside of the church should go to mass but not receive communion. The church is very clear on this. The only exception is when this couple is undergoing spiritual direction ,is living as brother and sister ( no marital relations) or separated and they would not cause scandal to receive communion ( in other words the laity at their church don’t know the situation).