If marriage is for procreation

[1ke]

goes full term and is born, does the Church not recognize this child as a “real person” since it was not conceived “right”?

Where on earth did you get such an idea?

Every person is a “real” person.

 

[Corki]

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 origin of the child is irrelevant. All children are real persons, including those conceived through immoral means as you describe, or as a result of other sin (ie rape, fornication, etc.). A good result (the child) is not an excuse for a sinful act.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Why do we allow infertile/sterile people to get married?

---

It’s because these people are selfish and refuse to let the world grow.

What is the purpose without Procreation. Didn’t God say to be fruiful and multiply?

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

jr

 

[Wardog]

---

It’s because these people are selfish and refuse to let the world grow.

What is the purpose without Procreation. Didn’t God say to be fruiful and multiply?

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

jr

Yet the world population keeps growing, even though infertile or sterile people get married, even if not in the Church.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s because these people are selfish and refuse to let the world grow.

What is the purpose without Procreation. Didn’t God say to be fruiful and multiply?

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

jr

Did God say “Those that are impotent must not raise the abandoned children of others, and that these impotent must not pretend to be mother and father, lest they burn in Hell.”

If so, please provide the source.

I can find plenty of quotes on the blessing and treatment of children, yet none on the above (except via hyperbole).

The impotence impediment clearly places the primary purpose of marriage being sex, and family secondary. This is done by implication since impotent people cannot raise children in a mother/father relationship, which they would be able to if family was primary in the marriage.

 

[oneofmany]

I have a feeling the church is going to have a lot of problems with these fertility treatments in the future explaining to the children that came to be because of these treatments. It will be thorny.

My hubby and I had fertility treatments. The first steps of taking hormones did not work and we knew in vitro would not be allowed (we didn’t want any excess eggs destroyed) but at one point the fertility doctor did take my hubby’s sperm and inject it into me to be sure it was getting to the right place. I did not conceive but now I learn that would not be allowed either.

I know technology is growing faster than the church can keep up at times. The priests on the radio have said that and many of these things need to be studied further.

 

[Nate13]

I have a feeling the church is going to have a lot of problems with these fertility treatments in the future explaining to the children that came to be because of these treatments. It will be thorny.

My hubby and I had fertility treatments. The first steps of taking hormones did not work and we knew in vitro would not be allowed (we didn’t want any excess eggs destroyed) but at one point the fertility doctor did take my hubby’s sperm and inject it into me to be sure it was getting to the right place. I did not conceive but now I learn that would not be allowed either.

I know technology is growing faster than the church can keep up at times. The priests on the radio have said that and many of these things need to be studied further.

Yes but when semen is injected you do the exact opposite of what couples who contracept do. You separate the unitive meaning of sex from the procreative meaning of sex. Contraception just takes advantage of the unitive meaning of sex, while injecting semen solely takes advantage of the procreative meaning of sex. Both are distortions and the Church would be inconsistent if it only denied contraception. The fact is these things have been thought out. Once you establish that every sexual act must be both unitive and procreative everything else follows from that.

 

[Big_Pat]

No wonder we are loosing the young to other faiths. Doesn’t conscience count? I bet 20,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[DaveScott]

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

CHAPTER III: INDIVIDUAL DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS (Code of canon Law, 1983)
Canon 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.

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

It seems to me the first and the last contradict each other a bit. Though I am reticent to use the word ‘stupid’, especially with well trained and intelligent people even IF IMHO they are drawing incorrect conclusions, I too disagree with what I percieve is the end here.

I read this as if you are found impotent, you know it, however you know it, the Church forbids you to marry - until that condition may change. Not only that, the wording above says it ‘invalidates marriage.’ This could be taken to mean you are not capable of a valid marriage, or that your current valid marriage is now invalidated. I am not talking about sterility which is already addressed.

What about surgical appliances that would assist you in intercourse - are they ‘unnatural’ so that they are compared to for instance birth control for a woman and not approved for use by the church?

While I love my church, I am at times either confused (certainly) but other times in complete disagreement with the Magisterium. I think the Church qualifying who is capable of expressing God’s love in certain ways is beyond what God intends for us. I am sadly disturbed by this teaching (assuming I understand any of it correctly).

 

[1ke]

Not only that, the wording above says it ‘invalidates marriage.’ This could be taken to mean you are not capable of a valid marriage, or that your current valid marriage is now invalidated.

Correct, a person with antecedent perpetual impotence cannot contract a valid marriage.

What about surgical appliances that would assist you in intercourse - are they ‘unnatural’ so that they are compared to for instance birth control for a woman and not approved for use by the church?

No, that is not the case. The basis of the Church’s teaching re:contraception has nothing to do with being “unnatural”. Certainly one may undergo treatment to correct the defect.

I am sadly disturbed by this teaching (assuming I understand any of it correctly).

It’s not clear that you do understand it entirely, so can you articulate what disturbs you?

 

[Nate13]

Does anyone know of any cases where this has been actually enforced? How can anyone ever determine “perpetual impotence” especially when we are talking about Catholicism. We should be the last ones to ever be able to say something is 100% certain i.e that a virgin can conceive I’d also add that medical technology can never determine anything with 100% assurance again considering the miracles that are coming to mind concerning Padre Pio. You have the case of the blind woman who can see even though her eyes were never actually physically healed or their impediment and the man that could walk even though his knee was never physically healed. As Catholics these things should not astound us considering what happens at mass every Sunday when God becomes present in a piece of bread even though we are not actually perceive this physical presence.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say medical technology is immoral. I said artificial insemination is immoral.

If artificial insemination is immoral, does that mean that Jesus was conceived in an immoral manner? Or does it mean that God the Father inseminate Mary through natural means? It has to be asked.

 

[Abu]

Abu: “Canon 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.”

Abu: “In Casti Connubii (II, 59), `1930, Pope Pius XI, ‘….Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner….so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.’ ”

DaveScott, #48
It seems to me the first and the last contradict each other a bit.

No. The intrinsic nature of the act is impossible if real impotence exists.

While I love my church, I am at times either confused (certainly) but other times in complete disagreement with the Magisterium. I think the Church qualifying who is capable of expressing God’s love in certain ways is beyond what God intends for us. I am sadly disturbed by this teaching (assuming I understand any of it correctly).

The sensible procedure when one is so confused and distrustful of the Magisterium of Christ’s Church is to seek the advice of a competent parish priest, and/or pose the doubts and questions to the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) which has many competent (priests and lay) and whose previous available answers may well have clarified all doubt in many areas.

At: tinyurl.com/3txzgw5 Part of one answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 01-08-2008:
“I am starting to feel like I am pounding my head into the wall over this question.
No one is denying, not least of all me who wrote my Licentiate thesis on the very subject of the personalist elements of marriage of which you write, but the issue revolves around not what marriage is supposed to be in its fulfillment but what it is in its nature and essence. Our culture, and apparently many in the Church, confuse the becoming and the fulfillment of marriage with the beginning and its essence. As important as these things are, they are the fruits of marriage not marriage itself. Otherwise, marriage which doesn’t fulfill its promise would cease to be a marriage, and homosexual unions based on “love,” not sexual complementarity, could be marriages.

Please peruse the questions and answers at:
ewtn.com/vexperts/results.asp

 

[Nate13]

If artificial insemination is immoral, does that mean that Jesus was conceived in an immoral manner? Or does it mean that God the Father inseminate Mary through natural means? It has to be asked.

haha that’s like asking how God can be three person’s in one and expecting to be able to ever get anywhere close to actually understanding it

 

[1ke]

If artificial insemination is immoral, does that mean that Jesus was conceived in an immoral manner? Or does it mean that God the Father inseminate Mary through natural means? It has to be asked.

this indicates to me a total lack of understanding of the Incarnation.

Please give a reasoned explanation of why it would mean either of those two things? It does not.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

this indicates to me a total lack of understanding of the Incarnation.

Please give a reasoned explanation of why it would mean either of those two things? It does not.

You’ve claimed I’m ignorant on the subject, so enlighten me. I asked a question which I believe follows naturally from the conversation.

Also, how does belittling me do you any good? Are we not here to ‘reason together’?

 

[1ke]

You’ve claimed I’m ignorant on the subject, so enlighten me. I asked a question which I believe follows naturally from the conversation.

Also, how does belittling me do you any good? Are we not here to ‘reason together’?

I do not understand your reasoning, please give an explanation of how you believe either of those things to be true.

 

[JAW642]

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

CHAPTER III: INDIVIDUAL DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS (Code of canon Law, 1983)
Canon 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.

Canon 1084.2 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.

Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

---

God says that a man cannot enter into a valid marriage, if he is physically unable to engage in sexual intercourse.

So if John, who is to be married in one day, has an auto accident on the way to his wedding rehearsal, and is paralyzed below his waste, God says that he cannot enter into a valid marriage.

But if John gets married on time, and then one day AFTER his marriage, ( which has not yet been consummated ), he has an auto accident, and is paralyzed below his waste, is his marriage still a valid marriage, OR must God declare his marriage to be an invalid marriage, because he is physically unable to ever engage in sexual intercourse?

Please answer YES or NO and state the reasons WHY.

If God says that John’s marriage is still valid AFTER his auto accident, then why would God say that John cannot enter into a valid marriage, if he is physically unable to engage in sexual intercourse?

If physically being able to engage in sexual intercourse, is God’s requirement for a marriage to be valid, then it is logical for God to declare John’s marriage to be an invalid marriage, AFTER he is physically unable to ever engage in sexual intercourse.

There does not seem to be any reasonable explanation why God would base the validity of a marriage, on whether a paralyzing auto accident occurred either one day Before John’s marriage ceremony, or one day After John’s marriage ceremony.

Is God really so concerned about a ‘TIMING’ issue?

OR is God more concerned about the LOVE and Lifetime Commitment that exists in John’s relationship with this woman, and with God?

I believe that it would be much more Noble for this woman to still Love and to still marry John, knowing that they will never engage in sexual intercourse.

This would be a marriage for Love, and not just for Sex.

Do you believe that God would prevent this union? And WHY would God prevent this union?

---

From JAW642 on 09/27/2011

---

 

[Abu]

JAW642
The Church’s mandate from Christ is clear and Her teaching has been shown with some examples.

Once again, all you have to do is to put your questions to those who are competent to tackle these questions as per post #52. Please peruse the questions and answers at:
ewtn.com/vexperts/results.asp , and ask your own.

 

[irisfromohio]

This whole thing is ridiculous.

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

If two (hetero) people are in love they should be allowed to get married. Period. Even if they cannot procreate, at least they can be an example to the rest of the world on the sanctity of marriage.

…Uh, either you didn’t read the post just before this embarrassing comment or you really ARE lost…