FMEO: physical disability and sexuality

[Offdoodykcrn]

‘FMEO’ - For Married Eyes Only

It is my intention to discuss the nature of human sexuality and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I am not a Catholic, and the reason why I am here in CAF can be found here. For those who do not wish to earn a badge in tenacity by reading (currently 13 pages, covering 190 posts) a long and involved, but interesting thread, I will provide a brief synopsis:

My late husband was Catholic, as is his family. I have a mixed religious background - which includes Catholicism, but I never confirmed. I did attend Catholic school, my mother and her family was raised Catholic and I am familiar with many of the doctrines, although I do not profess to be an expert. I am in search of my place - if there is one, in organized religion. There are many things I like about the Catholic Church, and I have a deep respect for those that believe in its doctrines. It is not my intent to challenge anyone’s beliefs or create discord within the church. I am here to challenge my own beliefs, to reconcile - if possible, the things about the nature of God and human existence that I hold to be true out of personal experience and a great deal of study of the bible, world history and various religions and philosophies.

The issue I wish to address in this thread is human sexuality and Church doctrine regarding marriage. I have long felt that puritanical views on sex are antiquated, myopic and psychologically unhealthy. I have noticed the numerous posts by young people who are tortured with the idea that self-gratification is a sin. In a different thread - post # 8, I discussed my opinion that it is a normal, healthy aspect of being human:

What if…
‘pleasuring yourself’ was viewed as the same as blowing your nose with a tissue? You don’t have to do it, but we all agree we feel better after we blow our nose - especially if we have a cold or allergies. Most prefer to do it in private and almost all of us agree you should throw the tissue away and not show the contents of the tissue to other people. If the contents are weird, you should see a doctor - but that is between you and your doctor.

I hope you find peace
I hope you know that God loves you

• no matter what color your eyes are,
  or how often you blow your nose.

The particular aspect of church doctrine I find myself at odds with, is the stance that men who are impotent should not marry. My husband was in a car accident when he was 21 yrs old, which resulted in paralysis from the waist down. He had no sensation or reflexes below the waist. People with similar disabilities understand that sex does not originate in the genitalia, but in the mind. To state that the physically disabled are unable to have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses is simply not true. The church teaches anything other than ‘traditional’ coitus between married people is a sin. How do other disabled Catholics - married or not, view this doctrine?

Peace.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I have long felt that puritanical views on sex are antiquated, myopic and psychologically unhealthy. I have noticed the numerous posts by young people who are tortured with the idea that self-gratification is a sin. In a different thread - post # 8, I discussed my opinion that it is a normal, healthy aspect of being human:

Just a note, our views aren’t puritanical. Puritanical implies being derived from puritanism, which is a deluded offshoot of Protestantism, which is itself a deluded offshoot of Catholicism. Our views on human sexuality are shaped by the 3600+ year history of Catholicism and Judaism.

Self-gratification is a sin because it removes the intended purpose from the sexual act. It makes it a self-centered act, rather than the loving act that it was envisioned as. I can tell you from experience, being a person who has been addicted to such acts for the vast majority of my life, that I feel much, much better when I’m NOT doing it than when I am; and that has nothing to do with religion. (This correlation was readily apparent to me long before I returned to the Church) I guarantee that there are dozens of other men on this site who will attest to the same.

It seems that your understanding of Catholic sexual theology is highly underdeveloped; you are applying protestant concepts which simply do not exist in our teaching. Read The Theology of the Body by Blessed John Paul II to get a better idea of how we view sexuality (with a distinct respect and awe) We definitely don’t think impotent men aren’t to marry, and I have no idea where you got that idea. So long as, whenever they do engage in sex, they are open to the possibility of life, then it’s perfectly fine, just like in every other marital relationship. You are 100% mistaken on that, and I have no idea where you heard that the Church teaches that. We also believe that sex is a wonderful activity, to be engaged in exclusively by married couples, and exclusively within the confines of the marital vow (no threesomes or swinging or anything like that) Outside of that the only other clear cut rule is that the act must end in the traditional marital embrace (vaginal penetration) so as to be geared towards procreation. Beyond those rules, you’re welcome to enjoy your sexual nature and whatever fetishes you may have (so long as you are treating your partner with the dignity due any human being)

As to how they are to view it; they are welcome to detest it; and there’s nothing wrong with that. The Church doesn’t say you can’t detest your cross, only that you should be willing to carry it as Christ carried his. If it were a good thing, it wouldn’t be a cross. Just because it’s difficult, however, doesn’t mean they’re free to ignore morality to suit their earthly desires. It sucks, but I’d rather deal with a lifetime of discomfort than an eternity without God. And, if they falter, as most of use will every now and then (I know I do) there’s always confession.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

By stating a person who is unable to procreate in the ‘usual fashion’ and impotent, is not allowed to marry anyone, how is the church saying they can have a healthy romantic relationship with their spouse - if *they are not allowed to have a spouse *to begin with?

I met my husband after he became disabled. As far as apparatus to aid impotence, I understand the appeal for men who still have normal sensation. Some paralyzed people have sensation and are able to procreate ‘in the traditional manner’. My husband was not among them. We did, however have a healthy romantic relationship, just as many other disabled people enjoy. I do not see how abled bodied people can make decisions of this nature for the disabled. What happens between a husband and wife - as long as nobody is harmed, should be between them. Furthermore, it is my understanding that people who are unable to conceive are allowed to be married - only impotence is ruled as an exclusion.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

only impotence is ruled as an exclusion.

I don’t think impotence excludes a person from being able to marry within the Church. Remember, all things are possible through God; curing impotence / being barren was shown at least once, with John the Baptist. So long as the couple is still open to life, I don’t think there would be an impediment.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Just a note, our views aren’t puritanical. Puritanical implies being derived from puritanism, which is a deluded offshoot of Protestantism, which is itself a deluded offshoot of Catholicism. Our views on human sexuality are shaped by the 3600+ year history of Catholicism and Judaism.

It seems that your understanding of Catholic sexual theology is highly underdeveloped; you are applying protestant concepts which simply do not exist in our teaching.

With all due respect, you are incorrect on at least 2 points.

Puritanical may imply Puritanism, but the English definition is, “Rigorous in religious observance; marked by stern morality.”

My knowledge of Catholic sexual theology is based on The Code Of Canon Law.
Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t think impotence excludes a person from being able to marry within the Church. Remember, all things are possible through God; curing impotence / being barren was shown at least once, with John the Baptist. So long as the couple is still open to life, I don’t think there would be an impediment.

You seem to be talking about sterility, which is different from impotence.

Impotence is inability of engage in the marital act.

The reason that those who are known to be impotent cannot marry is that they are unable to consummate the marriage. Without the marital act, the marriage does not exist; one merely has two people living together under an apparent marriage, which is not necessarily a bad thing (witness Mary and Joseph).

Inability to consummate the marriage is grounds for annulment both canonically (in the Church) and legally, as is non-consummation, if it can be proven.

 

[St_Francis]

With all due respect, you are incorrect on at least 2 points.

Puritanical may imply Puritanism, but the English definition is, “Rigorous in religious observance; marked by stern morality.”

Nevertheless, Catholc teaching is not puritanical.

My knowledge of Catholic sexual theology is based on The Code Of Canon Law.
Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse.

You are correct about impotence being a bar to marriage. The reason for this is that consummation of the marriage is like the signature on a contract. If I don’t sign on the dotted line, there is no agreement. If I am considered unable to sign–if I were a minor or had been ruled incompetent–then I would not be permitted to enter into a contract.

As to the answer to your other question, there are probably 3,946,283,128,596 threads on that topic on CAF alone. Maybe if you read some of them and had some particular points you didn’t understand rather than a general disagreement, you could bring those points up.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Nevertheless, Catholc teaching is not puritanical.

As to the answer to your other question, there are probably 3,946,283,128,596 threads on that topic on CAF alone. Maybe if you read some of them and had some particular points you didn’t understand rather than a general disagreement, you could bring those points up.

I believe it to be puritanical because it deems self-gratification to be a sin, as well as any sex act other than ‘traditional coitus’. I refrain from listing specifics because, as we are all adults here, it should not be necessary.

My point is not to debate those issues. My point is that people with physical disabilities that include impotence can and do have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses. I had hoped to discuss the issue with people who either have disabilities, or their spouses. There is more to human sexuality than copulation, and there is MUCH more to marriage than just sex. I did look in the forum archives to see if the topic had been discussed, and while there is plenty on a variety of acts and if they are moral or not, I did not see anything about the physically disabled, human sexuality and Church doctrine.

If the Church stated it was immoral for people of different color to marry (which was considered a cultural taboo in the United States 50 years ago) - wouldn’t it be viewed as outdated and close-minded, if not outright bigotry today? Am I wrong to think the physically disabled are being kept from a sacrament that able bodied people are allowed to enjoy?

 

[St_Francis]

I believe it to be puritanical because it deems self-gratification to be a sin, as well as any sex act other than ‘traditional coitus’. I refrain from listing specifics because, as we are all adults here, it should not be necessary.

Well, if puritanical means whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it means nothing at all.

My point is not to debate those issues. My point is that people with physical disabilities that include impotence can and do have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses. I had hoped to discuss the issue with people who either have disabilities, or their spouses. There is more to human sexuality than copulation, and there is MUCH more to marriage than just sex. I did look in the forum archives to see if the topic had been discussed, and while there is plenty on a variety of acts and if they are moral or not, I did not see anything about the physically disabled, human sexuality and Church doctrine.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you were writing about the first issue in the context with the second .o

If the Church stated it was immoral for people of different color to marry (which was considered a cultural taboo in the United States 50 years ago) - wouldn’t it be viewed as outdated and close-minded, if not outright bigotry today? Am I wrong to think the physically disabled are being kept from a sacrament that able bodied people are allowed to enjoy?

But the Church never did teach that it was immoral for people of different races to marry, so the pont is moot.

It is an unfortunate thing in our society that people think that words can mean what they want them to rather than mean something definite. Marriage is a word that has a definite meaning: it is the coming together of two people of opposite sexes to become one. If the two people cannot become one, then they are not engaging in a marriage.

You apprently are not Catholic. Why is it not ok with you that we keep this definition of marriage? Why are you fighting against what we do in our own Church?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Well, if puritanical means whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it means nothing at all.

I already provided the definition - from the dictionary, then gave a two examples of it.

But the Church never did teach that it was immoral for people of different races to marry, so the pont is moot.

I used that hypothetical situation as an example - note the word ‘if’.

It is an unfortunate thing in our society that people think that words can mean what they want them to rather than mean something definite. You apprently are not Catholic. Why is it not ok with you that we keep this definition of marriage? Why are you fighting against what we do in our own Church?

Are you under the assumption that I’m talking about gay marriage? I would not entertain any notion of joining the Catholic Church if that were the case. You seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. Please stop posting here unless you have something constructive, courteous and relevant to contribute.

I wish you peace and prosperity - elsewhere.

 

[St_Francis]

I already provided the definition - from the dictionary, then gave a two examples of it.

I used that hypothetical situation as an example - note the word ‘if’.

Are you under the assumption that I’m talking about gay marriage? I would not entertain any notion of joining the Catholic Church if that were the case. You seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. Please stop posting here unless you have something constructive, courteous and relevant to contribute.

I wish you peace and prosperity - elsewhere.

I apologize; I guess I misunderstood your intention here.

 

[Rico_S]

This doesn’t seem to be a correct interpretation of church teaching since sterility is not an impediment to marriage.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

If I find out, say, tomorrow that I can’t have children, my marriage isn’t as good as other peoples? That is rude. It is like saying, “I’m better than you because I’m able to reproduce.” Or, “I have 7 kids and you only have 0, so my marriage is more fulfilling.” That isn’t nice at all.

 

[Rico_S]

Yes. But you were quite clear in your last post.

One of the essential purposes of “marriage” is children. If children are not possible, one of the essential requirements is missing.

This is simply a wrong statement. It doesn’t really have to do with interpretation of “procreative”

And can couples who are unable to consummate the marriage are necessarily “not open to life” while the sterile couple is “open to life” b/c they can consummate it?

I understand the church is saying you have to be capable of intercourse…I get that. But where you go wrong is when you try to explain why that is using the almost always misused, but go to phrase “open to life”.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I apologize; I guess I misunderstood your intention here.

Thank you for your apology. I’m sorry for my terse response. I am still grieving the loss of my husband and I am desperately trying to find my way back into the world without him by my side. The love we shared still lives, it gives me the strength I need to get on with my life.

I don’t know why this issue bothers me so much. I suppose it is because he had wanted our marriage to be blessed by the church, but he didn’t want to lie about the nature of his injury in order to receive the blessing. Strictly speaking, we could have consummated - but it would have taken some bizarre gadgetry - and probably a third person to operate some of it, in order to complete the act, none of which is particularly romantic. Since he was insensate in that part of his body, I did not see the point. We were open to the possibility of life when we married, it simply would have required a miracle.

I suppose the real issue I have with the Church has little to do with the topic of this thread, and I will continue that debate in my original thread. I would still like to find out what other disabled people and/or their spouses think of this issue.

Peace and prosperity to all.

 

[St_Francis]

Thank you for your apology. I’m sorry for my terse response. I am still grieving the loss of my husband and I am desperately trying to find my way back into the world without him by my side. The love we shared still lives, it gives me the strength I need to get on with my life.

I don’t know why this issue bothers me so much. I suppose it is because he had wanted our marriage to be blessed by the church, but he didn’t want to lie about the nature of his injury in order to receive the blessing. Strictly speaking, we could have consummated - but it would have taken some bizarre gadgetry - and probably a third person to operate some of it, in order to complete the act, none of which is particularly romantic. Since he was insensate in that part of his body, I did not see the point. We were open to the possibility of life when we married, it simply would have required a miracle.

I suppose the real issue I have with the Church has little to do with the topic of this thread, and I will continue that debate in my original thread. I would still like to find out what other disabled people and/or their spouses think of this issue.

Peace and prosperity to all.

What a gracious response, thank you.

Now I understand better what you are dealing with (having seen the first page of your other thread). This is a tough situation. You and your husband were unable to form a marriage in the Church because of your husband’s disability, because the Church does not contract marriages knowing ahead of time that the marriage is “annullable,” just as one cannot register a will which is unsigned.

However, this is no way negates the love that you and your husband shared. You describe a beautiful story of true love between two people.

There are several stories I have read of close friendships among saints; St Francis of Assisi and St Clare possibly being the most famous, but also St Francis de Sales and Jane Chantal, St Louis de Monfort and St Marie Louise…

It is difficult because our society’s view of marriage is different than the Church’s which has caused you and your husband this sorrow.

 

[fix]

I believe it to be puritanical because it deems self-gratification to be a sin, as well as any sex act other than ‘traditional coitus’. I refrain from listing specifics because, as we are all adults here, it should not be necessary.

My point is not to debate those issues. My point is that people with physical disabilities that include impotence can and do have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses. I had hoped to discuss the issue with people who either have disabilities, or their spouses. There is more to human sexuality than copulation, and there is MUCH more to marriage than just sex. I did look in the forum archives to see if the topic had been discussed, and while there is plenty on a variety of acts and if they are moral or not, I did not see anything about the physically disabled, human sexuality and Church doctrine.

If the Church stated it was immoral for people of different color to marry (which was considered a cultural taboo in the United States 50 years ago) - wouldn’t it be viewed as outdated and close-minded, if not outright bigotry today? Am I wrong to think the physically disabled are being kept from a sacrament that able bodied people are allowed to enjoy?

It is called the marital act for a reason.

 

[GoldenSeal]

I came across this thread while I was trying to find answers to related questions. I hope someone can give me some (name removed by moderator)ut. Referring to a marriage of approximately 30 years, if the marital act can no longer be completed due to physical problems, is there then no other sexual expression permitted in a Catholic marriage?

Also, is it true that older couples cannot marry in the Catholic church since the woman is no longer capable of having children?

Thanks to anyone who cares to respond to these questions.

 

[St_Francis]

I came across this thread while I was trying to find answers to related questions. I hope someone can give me some (name removed by moderator)ut. Referring to a marriage of approximately 30 years, if the marital act can no longer be completed due to physical problems, is there then no other sexual expression permitted in a Catholic marriage?

Also, is it true that older couples cannot marry in the Catholic church since the woman is no longer capable of having children?

Thanks to anyone who cares to respond to these questions.

You should probably ask this in a separate thread if you need more clarity, but, briefly, no. If one of the two spouses is physcially incapable of performing the marital act, there is no other way there is no other “sexual expression” permitted.

And a man and woman are permitted to marry, all other things being equal, even if they are apparently too old to have children. Impotence, not infertility, is a bar to marriage.

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

You should probably ask this in a separate thread if you need more clarity, but, briefly, no. If one of the two spouses is physcially incapable of performing the marital act, there is no other way there is no other “sexual expression” permitted.

And a man and woman are permitted to marry, all other things being equal, even if they are apparently too old to have children. Impotence, not infertility, is a bar to marriage.

Can someone explain why one is a bar to marriage and the other is not? Both are physiological conditions which prevent the conception of children through sexual intercourse.