If marriage is for procreation

[TimothyH]

Marriage is ordered to both procreation and unity of spouses.

And that is because marriage is modeled after the Trinity.

God the Father loves God the Son. God the Son loves God the Father. The perfect intercahnge of self sacrificing love between God the Father and God the Son is the Holy Spirit. We testify to this at Mass when we say the creed.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the Giver of Life,
who proceedes from the Father and the Son.

With all due respect to our eastern brothers and sisters, the Holy Spirit proceedes from God the Father loving God the Son perfectly and God the Son loving God the Father perfectly. And children proceed from husband and wife loving each other perfectly, sacrificing themselves for each other, holding nothing back.

Marriage is ordered to procreation because it is modeled after the Trinity. And if a marriage is lived out in selfless, self-sacrificing, trinitarian love, it confers great sanctifigy grace. As we learn to sacrifice our desires and wants for the wellbeing of our spouse, we become more like Christ. That is why marriage is a sacrament. And just as the Holy Spirit proceedes from the Father and from the Son, children proceed from husband and wife and are at their best when husband and wife are in a totally commited relationship.

1ke is exactly right. .

-Tim-

 

[timotheos]

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but on a related note, what if the impairment is psychological instead of physical? If one spouse is extremely psychologically and emotionally damaged, and has a great fear of having children and may not want them, and the priest who “married” them never required Catholic marriage preparation to explore these issues, is the marriage valid?

 

[thequeen]

Makes me wonder as well. There are many illnesses that make people infertile. Even mumps for men when they were younger. I think if these people go to a priest they would be told it was ok to marry, I don’t see why not, they can adopt.

makes me wonder also because as a cervical cancer survivor I have had a total hysterectemy done when I was 29 years old I am now past 40 never married That doesn’t mean that I am not allowed to get married thanks one of many for making toal sense on this thread.

 

[1ke]

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but on a related note, what if the impairment is psychological instead of physical? If one spouse is extremely psychologically and emotionally damaged, and has a great fear of having children and may not want them, and the priest who “married” them never required Catholic marriage preparation to explore these issues, is the marriage valid?

This is a question for the marriage tribunal.

 

[timotheos]

This is a question for the marriage tribunal.

And in order to determine this, the marriage must be dissolved in the secular sense first?

 

[1ke]

And in order to determine this, the marriage must be dissolved in the secular sense first?

Yes, generally speaking.

If the couple is married they need to talk to their priest and a therapist.

 

[timotheos]

Yes, generally speaking.

If the couple is married they need to talk to their priest and a therapist.

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Newbie2]

makes me wonder also because as a cervical cancer survivor I have had a total hysterectemy done when I was 29 years old I am now past 40 never married That doesn’t mean that I am not allowed to get married thanks one of many for making toal sense on this thread.

If you are capable of having sexual intercourse, you are allowed to get married. Whether or not you are sterile is immaterial to getting married.

 

[Abu]

Lost_Sheep
And they wonder why people are bailing out of the CC left and right because of all these stupid (yes, I said “stupid”) rules.

Fancy calling Christ “stupid” for giving us His Church with His authority When many of His disciples regarded Christ’s teaching on eating His Body and drinking His Blood as “stupid” Christ did not call anyone back after “many walked no more with Him”. (Jn 6:66).

Christ teaches ““He that is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad,” (Mt 12:30). Who better than His Church to tell us when we are right and when we are wrong?

“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

How stupid can you get?

 

[thequeen]

If you are capable of having sexual intercourse, you are allowed to get married. Whether or not you are sterile is immaterial to getting married.

Thank you Newbie for that post it really made me feel better.

 

[oneofmany]

I am almost 99.9 percent sure if a couple is determined to marry and one of them cannot have intercourse but they want to adopt children, the priest will marry them. And why not?

Better to marry than to burn as St. Paul said. I don’t know why the church is not up to date on sexual relations. A couple can have a very fulfilling love life without intercourse.

If a woman fell in love with a man before he goes to war and he comes home paralyzed below the waist and never capable of intercourse it is cruel to tell that woman to forget about him. I think the church has allowed many marriages such as this. At least I would hope so.

 

[Abu]

Oneofmany, #31
I don’t know why the church is not up to date on sexual relations.

Yet another erroneous assumption.

Why don’t some calling themselves “Catholic” do their homework and refrain from misrepresentation in public forums?
In referring to The impediments of Matrimony, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine *has these words of wisdom:
“We mention the impediments below, but do not state in all cases how far the Church dispenses, or whom has the authority to give a dispensation from them (e.g., one’s Bishop, or the Pope). The Church does not dispense without a reasonable cause. This outline cannot answer all questions concerning marriage laws…If there is any practical question or doubt, a prospective couple should see a priest or canon lawyer at the earliest opportunity, and avoid making premature plans.” Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop M Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 606.

The following may aid viewers’ understanding:
Father Joe : tinyurl.com/6dbrtyg

Catholics/Sterility, Impotence, and the RCC
Expert: Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. – tinyurl.com/5v7zau2

 

[Quirious]

Permanent impotence is an impediment to valid marriage. The example of paralysis was a generalization, as you rightly point out some paralyzed people can have intercourse. If a person can have intercourse, as you describe above, them they can marry. Yes, today there are many technologies to assist those with impotence. However, artificial insemination is immoral, that cannot substitute for the ability to have intercourse and is never s moral option for conceiving chidden.

Again, sterility is not an impediment because a person can exchange the marital right to intercourse while an impotent person cannot. See canon 1084 of the Code of Canon Law:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

How is using medical technology to assist with pregnancy immoral? Where do you draw the line on which technologies are moral, and which are immoral?

 

[Abu]

Quirious
How is using medical technology to assist with pregnancy immoral? Where do you draw the line on which technologies are moral, and which are immoral?

It’s not the use, but the misuse of medical technology which is immoral.

The Church is firm in this area. IVF is not morally acceptable and this is a perfect example of the moral precept: the end does not justify the means.

Condomistic contraception (and every other) is not a “medical advance” but a distortion of medicine just as IVF, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are, as being against the very reality of the natural moral law and the infallibility to teach on morals given by Christ to Peter and his successors, and confirmed by them.

Answer by Judie Brown (EWTN) on Oct-01-2010:
“In vitro fertilization is wrong because it separates human procreation from conjugal union. In the process, couples make themselves the masters of human life instead of its stewards. Conjugal union has both a unitive and a procreative purpose. In other words, conjugal intimacy is meant to express both love and fruitfulness. Because the human person is a unity of body and spirit, both the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act must be expressed spiritually and physically. The Biblical notion of “two in one flesh” (cf. Gen 2:24) has a concrete significance here. Spousal union is expressed both spiritually and physically. And at the same time, the procreative dimension of conjugal union yields both spiritual benefits and physical fruits. When conjugal union is physically fruitful, a couple participates in God’s creative act instead of dominating it.

“If you would like to read the entire document prepared by American Lie League on this subject, please see all.org/article.php?id=11651
Further, the entire Catholic Church document, DONUM VITAE, is at the following website: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM ”

See: tinyurl.com/5taq6cf

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s not the use, but the misuse of medical technology which is immoral.

The Church is firm in this area. IVF is not morally acceptable and this is a perfect example of the moral precept: the end does not justify the means.

Condomistic contraception (and every other) is not a “medical advance” but a distortion of medicine just as IVF, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are, as being against the very reality of the natural moral law and the infallibility to teach on morals given by Christ to Peter and his successors, and confirmed by them.

Answer by Judie Brown (EWTN) on Oct-01-2010:
“In vitro fertilization is wrong because it separates human procreation from conjugal union. In the process, couples make themselves the masters of human life instead of its stewards. Conjugal union has both a unitive and a procreative purpose. In other words, conjugal intimacy is meant to express both love and fruitfulness. Because the human person is a unity of body and spirit, both the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act must be expressed spiritually and physically. The Biblical notion of “two in one flesh” (cf. Gen 2:24) has a concrete significance here. Spousal union is expressed both spiritually and physically. And at the same time, the procreative dimension of conjugal union yields both spiritual benefits and physical fruits. When conjugal union is physically fruitful, a couple participates in God’s creative act instead of dominating it.

“If you would like to read the entire document prepared by American Lie League on this subject, please see all.org/article.php?id=11651
Further, the entire Catholic Church document, DONUM VITAE, is at the following website: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM ”

See: tinyurl.com/5taq6cf

These are nice examples of two existing technologies that the Church teaches are immoral. But that does not answer the general question of how to decide for technologies not mentioned or maybe not even invented yet. Do we have to get a case-by-case judgement from the Church on each technology? Or are there a few general principles from which these judgements flow?

 

[1ke]

How is using medical technology to assist with pregnancy immoral? Where do you draw the line on which technologies are moral, and which are immoral?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say medical technology is immoral. I said artificial insemination is immoral. There are many treatments that assist the natural process of marital intercourse and those are moral. Those that replace intercourse are immoral and a sin against the sixth commandment.

For church documents on the subject see:

Donum Vitae.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

Dignitas Personae.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

 

[1ke]

These are nice examples of two existing technologies that the Church teaches are immoral. But that does not answer the general question of how to decide for technologies not mentioned or maybe not even invented yet. Do we have to get a case-by-case judgement from the Church on each technology? Or are there a few general principles from which these judgements flow?

See Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae

 

[Corki]

These are nice examples of two existing technologies that the Church teaches are immoral. But that does not answer the general question of how to decide for technologies not mentioned or maybe not even invented yet. Do we have to get a case-by-case judgement from the Church on each technology? Or are there a few general principles from which these judgements flow?

The general question is answered by the Church. She does not always “rule” case-by-case. The principal is that new life, a child, is to be brought forth from the marital act. The marital act must be both unitive and ordered to procreation. A technology that divorces the conception of a child from the unitive and procreative aspects is immoral.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The general question is answered by the Church. She does not always “rule” case-by-case. The principal is that new life, a child, is to be brought forth from the marital act. The marital act must be both unitive and ordered to procreation. A technology that divorces the conception of a child from the unitive and procreative aspects is immoral.

Then if a child is conceived outside (from the wife’s egg and the husband’s sperm), the embryo gets implanted in the wife’s womb, goes full term and is born, does the Church not recognize this child as a “real person” since it was not conceived “right”?

 

[Newbie2]

How is using medical technology to assist with pregnancy immoral? Where do you draw the line on which technologies are moral, and which are immoral?

There is not always a clear line. Emerging technologies outpace the theological consideration of specific new procedures.

That being said, there are clear moral principles on which these decisions on morality can be based.

Then if a child is conceived outside (from the wife’s egg and the husband’s sperm), the embryo gets implanted in the wife’s womb, goes full term and is born, does the Church not recognize this child as a “real person” since it was not conceived “right”?

The Church recognizes recognized every embryo as a real person, even those conceived in the act of violence i.e. rape.

The use of the technology can be immoral, however, that does not necessarily make the product of that technology immoral.