Gay Marriage

[OraLabora]

So the church would not marry an Iraqi war veteran who has damaged genitals because he couldn’t meet the prescribed requirement of consummation.

Correct. Unless the defect can be medically treated or surgically corrected.

And since it isn’t about the act but about the pro creative possibility the church won’t marry older people who are incapable of having kids, and it won’t marry women who have hysterectomies and can’t have kids.

No. You misunderstand the Natural Law. Marriage is invalid if it is not consummated, not if it is not fertile. A couple engaging in intercourse that is naturally (menopause, pregnancy, lactation, period of the month) or medically sterile, is still coming together as “one flesh” and engaging in a natural process even. A man incapable of intromission, however, can’t even engage in the process. Even in fertile intercourse, not every act of intercourse leads to conception. Even a couple who have been sterilized against Church law to avoid procreation, but confess their sin, can validly and licitly engage in intercourse afterwards (this is often the case for people who convert to the faith later in life).

Or it will marry them and the marriages won’t be valid and the some of the participants would then be fornicators.

Is that what you are saying? Because that is the result of what you posted.

A validly married couple, even if sterile, engaging in sexual intercourse, are not fornicating. And a sterile couple can still become “one flesh” in the act of marital union even if the act cannot result in conception.

However a couple not validly married are either fornicating (no previous marriage) or committing adultery (one or both parties previously married without annulment).

As for same-sex marriage, no such thing exists. Just because you call a cow, a horse, doesn’t make it a horse.

Read up on Natural Law, and Canon Law concerning sacramental marriage, and get back to us.

 

[portarica]

Actually you’re quite wrong.

A non-consummated marriage can be annulled unilaterally.

A couple incapable of completing the marital act cannot be validly married in the Church:

“Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

“Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.”

As Canon 1084 states, a couple incapable of completing intercourse have a specific diriment impediment and cannot be validly married in the Church. They can be civilly married though, but even in civil law (at least Canada), non-consummation is grounds for annulment.

That does not mean there aren’t other reasons for invalidating marriage and intercourse is still possible in those cases. But the conjugal act is at the core of “becoming one flesh” in marriage. In the Church, no consummation = no valid marriage.

You’re understanding of sacramental marriage is very flawed. You need to get better informed about what the Church truly teaches.

The only real point I can make about those references is that the church (if those canons are still valid) has a very immature and unChristlike view of marriage.

If those canons are still valid the church has no business being in the marriage business.

Peace

 

[OraLabora]

The only real point I can make about those references is that the church (if those canons are still valid) has a very immature and unChristlike view of marriage.

If those canons are still valid the church has no business being in the marriage business.

Peace

The Canons were taken directly from the Vatican website.

You are free to hold that as your opinion, but the Church is not running a popularity contest.

You’re wrong though, to say it is not consistent with the teachings of Christ.

There are plenty of Bible references to support the Church view.

 

[portarica]

Correct. Unless the defect can be medically treated or surgically corrected.

No. You misunderstand the Natural Law. Marriage is invalid if it is not consummated, not if it is not fertile. A couple engaging in intercourse that is naturally (menopause, pregnancy, lactation, period of the month) or medically sterile, is still coming together as “one flesh” and engaging in a natural process even. A man incapable of intromission, however, can’t even engage in the process. Even in fertile intercourse, not every act of intercourse leads to conception. Even a couple who have been sterilized against Church law to avoid procreation, but confess their sin, can validly and licitly engage in intercourse afterwards (this is often the case for people who convert to the faith later in life).

A validly married couple, even if sterile, engaging in sexual intercourse, are not fornicating. And a sterile couple can still become “one flesh” in the act of marital union even if the act cannot result in conception.

However a couple not validly married are either fornicating (no previous marriage) or committing adultery (one or both parties previously married without annulment).

As for same-sex marriage, no such thing exists. Just because you call a cow, a horse, doesn’t make it a horse.

Read up on Natural Law, and Canon Law concerning sacramental marriage, and get back to us.

I suggest you take a look at the law in cannon 1804. While you note that a validly married couple (that become impotent after marriage) are not fornicating, if they got married after being becoming impotent it would not be a valid marriage. Therefore everything that followed would be invalid since the marriage really didn’t happen , right.

And back to the vet. That is a no brainer, validly marrying the vet would be in total concert with what Jesus taught.

Peace

 

[portarica]

The Canons were taken directly from the Vatican website.

You are free to hold that as your opinion, but the Church is not running a popularity contest.

You’re wrong though, to say it is not consistent with the teachings of Christ.

There are plenty of Bible references to support the Church view.

The science of sex in the church was based on the spilling of little babies out of the man. The canons you reference are morally bankrupt.

There are also biblical references to stoning women adulterers , they played apart in the formation of church policy.

As far as a popularity contest goes that conclusion couldn’t be further from the truth. It is just common sense applied in a fashion consistent with what and how Jesus taught.

Peace

 

[OraLabora]

There are also biblical references to stoning women adulterers , they played apart in the formation of church policy.

Jesus put a stop to that very cleverly didn’t he (before telling the adulteress to go and sin no more).

But He upheld the unity of marriage, and He upheld the nature of marriage:

"And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,

and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?

So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. " (Matthew 19:3-6)

There is no way to become, physiologically and materially, “one flesh”, other than through the marital union, which is something same-sex partners simply cannot, physiologically, do.

As far as a popularity contest goes that conclusion couldn’t be further from the truth. It is just common sense applied in a fashion consistent with what and how Jesus taught.

Peace

I’m afraid you’re looking at the situation emotionally, rather than objectively.

Calling a cow a horse, doesn’t make it a horse, as much as you would want it to be.

 

[portarica]

Jesus put a stop to that very cleverly didn’t he (before telling the adulteress to go and sin no more).

But He upheld the unity of marriage, and He upheld the nature of marriage:

"And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,

and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?

So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. " (Matthew 19:3-6)

There is no way to become, physiologically and materially, “one flesh”, other than through the marital union, which is something same-sex partners simply cannot, physiologically, do.

I’m afraid you’re looking at the situation emotionally, rather than objectively.

Calling a cow a horse, doesn’t make it a horse, as much as you would want it to be.

Actually the church also compares ordination to a marriage between the priest and the church, does that mean that the priest must… or does it mean the church serves as the … ?

Fill in the blank with whatever part you want.

The bible must be read as a whole and marrying a wounded vet doesn’t mean he can’t be one with his wife.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Actually the church also compares ordination to a marriage between the priest and the church, does that mean that the priest must… or does it mean the church serves as the … ?

Fill in the blank with whatever part you want.

The bible must be read as a whole and marrying a wounded vet doesn’t mean he can’t be one with his wife.

Peace

It is clear that you think you are right, and that you see through the subterfuge of the Catholic Church. But in reality you are blinded to what the Church teaches.

It is impossible to be married if the man and woman can not have sexual relations, that is the definition of marriage, the two flesh becoming one. Sex is not the only part of marriage, but without that element a marriage can not exist.

As far as a popularity contest goes that conclusion couldn’t be further from the truth. It is just common sense applied in a fashion consistent with what and how Jesus taught.

It is actually not consistent with what Jesus taught. What you are trying to imply is that Jesus taught us to Love. He did, but this is the most often abused teachings of Jesus.

The fact is, the Church can not redefine marriage, because it is God that created marriage. Even if the Church succumbs and decreed that a marriage was valid without intercourse, it would not change the reality that it was not a marriage. God’s truth can not be changed.

 

[OraLabora]

Actually the church also compares ordination to a marriage between the priest and the church, does that mean that the priest must… or does it mean the church serves as the … ?

Fill in the blank with whatever part you want.

It’s an analogical expression, not a literal one. That said, ask any religious who has experienced the mystical union. You may be surprised by the answer and the intensity of the experience. You might have trouble getting them to talk though, it’s viewed as an intensely private and intimate experience.

The bible must be read as a whole and marrying a wounded vet doesn’t mean he can’t be one with his wife.
Peace

That is true, but it does mean he can’t be sacramentally one with his wife. The Eucharist is only valid after a valid consecration. Until then it’s just a piece of bread. Similarly, for marriage to be sacramental it must be at the very least validated by consummation.

The New Testament is pretty consistent on its message on marriage:

Mark: "But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;
and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. "

Ephesians: " Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body.For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. "

The Church is not in the business of validating non-sacramental marriages. She leaves that to the civil authorities but does opine on the matter, rightfully so, especially when the state tries to undertake a form of “marriage” that creates scandal and undermines its very definition.

In your example of the wounded vet, nothing stops the couple from contracting a civil marriage or union and expressing their love non-sexually. That would not prevent them from receiving the sacraments in the Church, except for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony or Holy Orders. It’s a modern fallacy anyway, that love has come to equal “having sex with”; unmarried couples can “love” each other just as my mother and her sister did for 30 years after my father died and they moved in together for economic reasons.

But just loving each other and living together, does not mean it’s a marriage. Whether or not same sex activity does or does not take place is fairly irrelevant as far as the definition goes, without consummation between a man and a woman it simply isn’t either a sacramental or natural marriage.

 

[portarica]

Read up on Natural Law, and Canon Law concerning sacramental marriage, and get back to us.

Don’t put natural law into the equation because it doesn’t recognize the concepts of fidelity or commitment or of monogamy.

As far as canon law goes, wasn’t the process of the inquisition part of canon law? Isn’t the law regarding the secreting of the records of immorality part of it ?

Canon law doesn’t mean it is in accordance with what Jesus taught.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

Read up on Natural Law, and Canon Law concerning sacramental marriage, and get back to us.

Don’t put natural law into the equation because it doesn’t recognize the concepts of fidelity or commitment or of monogamy.

As far as canon law goes, wasn’t the process of the inquisition part of canon law? Isn’t the law regarding the secreting of the records of immorality part of it ?

Canon law doesn’t mean it is in accordance with what Jesus taught.

Peace

Can you give a list of Doctrines that you and your Mom have determined Catholics can safely ignore?

 

[chessmane4e5]

I can’t believe how unfeeling it is for the Church to withhold the sacrament of marriage from people who are impotent. Sex isn’t everything in marriage.

Of all the impediments to marriage, this is the one that seems to trouble people the most. So it’s worth taking some time to explain.

No, sex isn’t everything in marriage. But it’s so essential to what marriage is that if there’s absolutely no possibility of intercourse ever happening, there’s no possibility of marriage ever happening. To clarify, it has to be definitive and perpetual impotence. This, we must realize, is extremely rare.

It’s important not to let our sympathies cloud sound reasoning. For example, when people learn about this impediment, they’ll often think of the sufferings of veterans wounded in war who can’t function sexually. Indeed this is a sad situation that’s worthy of our sympathies.

But it doesn’t change the objective truth of the matter. Sympathy for the blind, for example, shouldn’t lead the state to issue blind people driver’s licenses. It’s a sad situation, but blind people can’t do what driving requires. Similarly, definitively impotent people can’t do what marriage requires. Jesus himself confirms this when he speak of the inability of “eunuchs” (people unable to have sex) to marry (see Mt 19:12)

This impediment isn’t unreasonable but is actually sensible. Think about it. What is it that a man and a woman pledge to share with one another that makes their relationship one of marriage, rather than, just a nice friendship? What is it that a husband and a wife share with one another that is so unique and intrinsic to their relationship that it would be a violation of the meaning of marriage to share it with someone else?

What exactly is ti that makes marriage an “intimate, exclusive, indissoluble joining of man and woman’s lives for their own good and the procreation and education of children”? Sexual intercourse is the defining element of marital love. This doesn’t mean marriage can be reduced merely to sexual intercourse (no more than driving a car can be reduce merely to seeing). But dispense with its possibility, and you no longer have marriage.

We must recognize the influence of the prevailing culture in the difficulty that people have with this impediment. The sexual revolution loosed sex from its social and psychological moorings. Thus for the typical modern mind, sex no longer expresses the marriage commitment. It just expresses some vague sort of desire for pleasure and intimacy, or worse, just a desire for selfish gratification.

The assumptions here are faulty: Sure, married people have sex, but so do lots of other people, and there’s nothing wrong with that, right? So, if a couple couldn’t have sex for some reason, what bearing would that have on their desire to get married? From the perspective of the modern mind-set, none. But from the perspective of the true meaning of sex, it would have direct bearing, so much so that marriage would be impossible.

Here’s a silly analogy that may help clarify things. You can’t reduce chocolate chip cookies merely to chocolate chips, but without the chocolate chips, you no longer have chocolate chip cookies. Chocolate chips are what define this type of cookie. There are other kinds of cookies, but if they don’t have chocolate chips, they can’t honestly be called chocolate chip cookies.

Similarly, without the possibility of sexual intercourse, you can’t honestly call the love that a man and woman share “marriage”. It doesn’t mean they’re incapable of lvoe. It just means they’re incapable of that unique kind of love called marital love.

There are many kinds of love, just like there are many kinds of cookies. Two people may very much want to make chocolate chip cookies, but if by some misfortune they have no possibility of acquiring chocolate chips, the plain reality is they’re unable to make chocolate chip cookies. They’ll have to make some other kind of cookies.

To go further with this banal analogy: If by some tragedy a couple is definitely and perpetually unable to express the defining element of marriage, then the reality is that their love (while it may be a very beautiful, lasting, and intimate love) cannot be the unique and specific love that makes a marriage. No amount of sentiment or sympathy for individual situations - as understandable as such feelings are - can change this reality.

From Christopher West “Good News About Sex & Marriage” page 54-55

 

[chessmane4e5]

1. Marriage is just as much a spiritual union as a physical one. So what if you can’t have sex?

This is certainly true, but the two realities (physical and spiritual) can not be separated. To do so is actually to fall into an age-old heresy in the Church known as Dualism. Dualism makes a divorce in human nature between what is physical and what is spiritual. But human beings are an indivisible marriage of flesh and spirit, body and soul. We’re not persons “in” a body that can be dispensed with. We’re body-persons. This means that our spiritual reality as human beings is expressed through our bodies as male and female.

The spiritual and physical principles in us are so united that only death can separate them. And even after death, the soul is an unnatural state until it’s reunited with the body in the resurrection at the second coming of Christ. Only then will the souls in heaven become, once again, fully human as body-persons (just as Christ and His Blessed Mother are now in heaven body and soul).

Because of this profound spiritual and physical unity of the human person, it’s incorrect, strictly speaking, to make a sharp distinction between “physical” and “spiritual” love in human beings. What we do with our bodies we do with our souls, and what we do with our souls we can only do through our existence as body-persons. Human love is manifested though the human body.

Emotions themselves (not that we can reduce love to mere emotions) are communicated through the body. We can’t even pray without the body. As John Paul II says, any attempt to break the personal unity of the soul and body “strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.”

This profound spiritual and physical unity in humanity is the very principle of the Church’s sacramental life - including the sacrament of marriage. For even God, who is pure Spirit, in order to show human beings his love, took on a body: “And the Word became flesh.” (Jn 1:14). All sacraments are bodily, physical realities.

It’s in and through their bodies that husband and wife express the love that’s unique to the sacrament of marriage. Their “one flesh” union (or at least its possibility) is no more dispensable to the sacrament of marriage than bread and win are to the Eucharist or water is to baptism. It’s in and though these physical realities that the spiritual realities proper to each of these sacraments are communicated. Without the physical reality of the sacrament, there simply is no sacrament.

Christopher West “Good News About Sex & Marriage” page 56

 

[OraLabora]

Don’t put natural law into the equation because it doesn’t recognize the concepts of fidelity or commitment or of monogamy.

It most certainly does. You’re confusing Natural Law with nature.

You really need to do some serious reading. The Natural Law is not the law of “nature” (as in what happens in the wild). It is the law concerning the Natural state of Man as a rational being with a conscience and the ability to make moral choices.

It has at its heart the teachings of the Summa Theolgiae by Saint Thomas of Aquinas.

 

[Jermosh]

Correct. Unless the defect can be medically treated or surgically corrected.

This is not entirely true, the ordinary has this liberty of disposition.

 

[portarica]

I can’t believe how unfeeling it is for the Church to withhold the sacrament of marriage from people who are impotent. Sex isn’t everything in marriage.

Of all the impediments to marriage, this is the one that seems to trouble people the most. So it’s worth taking some time to explain.

No, sex isn’t everything in marriage. But it’s so essential to what marriage is that if there’s absolutely no possibility of intercourse ever happening, there’s no possibility of marriage ever happening. To clarify, it has to be definitive and perpetual impotence. This, we must realize, is extremely rare.

It’s important not to let our sympathies cloud sound reasoning. For example, when people learn about this impediment, they’ll often think of the sufferings of veterans wounded in war who can’t function sexually. Indeed this is a sad situation that’s worthy of our sympathies.

But it doesn’t change the objective truth of the matter. Sympathy for the blind, for example, shouldn’t lead the state to issue blind people driver’s licenses. It’s a sad situation, but blind people can’t do what driving requires. Similarly, definitively impotent people can’t do what marriage requires. Jesus himself confirms this when he speak of the inability of “eunuchs” (people unable to have sex) to marry (see Mt 19:12)

This impediment isn’t unreasonable but is actually sensible. Think about it. What is it that a man and a woman pledge to share with one another that makes their relationship one of marriage, rather than, just a nice friendship? What is it that a husband and a wife share with one another that is so unique and intrinsic to their relationship that it would be a violation of the meaning of marriage to share it with someone else?

What exactly is ti that makes marriage an “intimate, exclusive, indissoluble joining of man and woman’s lives for their own good and the procreation and education of children”? Sexual intercourse is the defining element of marital love. This doesn’t mean marriage can be reduced merely to sexual intercourse (no more than driving a car can be reduce merely to seeing). But dispense with its possibility, and you no longer have marriage.

We must recognize the influence of the prevailing culture in the difficulty that people have with this impediment. The sexual revolution loosed sex from its social and psychological moorings. Thus for the typical modern mind, sex no longer expresses the marriage commitment. It just expresses some vague sort of desire for pleasure and intimacy, or worse, just a desire for selfish gratification.

The assumptions here are faulty: Sure, married people have sex, but so do lots of other people, and there’s nothing wrong with that, right? So, if a couple couldn’t have sex for some reason, what bearing would that have on their desire to get married? From the perspective of the modern mind-set, none. But from the perspective of the true meaning of sex, it would have direct bearing, so much so that marriage would be impossible.

Here’s a silly analogy that may help clarify things. You can’t reduce chocolate chip cookies merely to chocolate chips, but without the chocolate chips, you no longer have chocolate chip cookies. Chocolate chips are what define this type of cookie. There are other kinds of cookies, but if they don’t have chocolate chips, they can’t honestly be called chocolate chip cookies.

Similarly, without the possibility of sexual intercourse, you can’t honestly call the love that a man and woman share “marriage”. It doesn’t mean they’re incapable of lvoe. It just means they’re incapable of that unique kind of love called marital love.

There are many kinds of love, just like there are many kinds of cookies. Two people may very much want to make chocolate chip cookies, but if by some misfortune they have no possibility of acquiring chocolate chips, the plain reality is they’re unable to make chocolate chip cookies. They’ll have to make some other kind of cookies.

To go further with this banal analogy: If by some tragedy a couple is definitely and perpetually unable to express the defining element of marriage, then the reality is that their love (while it may be a very beautiful, lasting, and intimate love) cannot be the unique and specific love that makes a marriage. No amount of sentiment or sympathy for individual situations - as understandable as such feelings are - can change this reality.

From Christopher West “Good News About Sex & Marriage” page 54-55

Actually it is the love that makes the difference , else all the church prohibitions for sex would be rendered untenable.

Absent the love , what is the difference between masturbation or prostitution and married sex?

It is not the sex act that is unique , that is common not only to man but to animals as well.

It is the unitive act of loving that makes a marriage. It isn’t that you are willing to have sex with a women that makes it a marriage, it is the willingness to care for her and the kids or her and no kids as the case may be.

The marriage isn’t just about the 30 minutes on the second Saturday evening of the month, it is about the other 700+ hours.

Its interesting how this discussion has devolved into describing catholic marriage as being solely determinant upon the ability to have intercourse.

Is that all there is?

Wow, I am really trying to reconcile that with loving my closest physical neighbor as I do myself and for the love of Jesus.

Its time we have married priests and popes and bishops, because their notions of marriage that have been codified are built on foundations of sand.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Actually it is the love that makes the difference , else all the church prohibitions for sex would be rendered untenable.

So if I love my dog, then I can marry it?

Absent the love , what is the difference between masturbation or prostitution and married sex?

No one has said that sex is the only part of marriage, just that it is a big part of making a marriage valid, hence Jesus talking about “two flesh become one”. What else could Jesus have meant by those words?

It is not the sex act that is unique , that is common not only to man but to animals as well.

Is is unique because God told us it was unique. We are “above” the animals, read Genesis.

Its interesting how this discussion has devolved into describing catholic marriage as being solely determinant upon the ability to have intercourse.

Is that all there is?

The discussion has gone here because we are talking about marriage.

If you read my post from above, you would know that we believe marriage is more, but you can not separate sex and marriage.

“No, sex isn’t everything in marriage. But it’s so essential to what marriage is that if there’s absolutely no possibility of intercourse ever happening, there’s no possibility of marriage ever happening.” Quoted from my post above.

Its time we have married priests and popes and bishops, because their notions of marriage that have been codified are built on foundations of sand.

Truly you need to educate yourself. Read the book I have suggested, although since I feel you are not open to change, it probably would be a waste of time.

 

[portarica]

Chess…“No one has said that sex is the only part of marriage, just that it is a big part of making a marriage valid, hence Jesus talking about “two flesh become one”. What else could Jesus have meant by those words?”

If Jesus had spoken to my wife first , He might be telling us that snuggling on a chilly evening or walking hand in hand on the beach at sunset or holding my hand at my mom’s funeral made us as one as any other time.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Chess…“No one has said that sex is the only part of marriage, just that it is a big part of making a marriage valid, hence Jesus talking about “two flesh become one”. What else could Jesus have meant by those words?”

If Jesus had spoken to my wife first , He might be telling us that snuggling on a chilly evening or walking hand in hand on the beach at sunset or holding my hand at my mom’s funeral made us as one as any other time.

Peace

Except when Jesus was speaking those words He was talking about Marriage.

 

[portarica]

Except when Jesus was speaking those words He was talking about Marriage.

Oh I thought He was talking about sex, my bad.

I have seen that at the parish picnic,around here we call it the three legged race.

In NY they call it the tree legged race.

Peace