If marriage is for procreation

[Manny_DeStefano]

I have read the Cannon above quoted, and I am quite puzzled. My wife and I were married 37 uears ago. We have 7 children. Mt wife is post menapausal. I have had ED issues for the past several years, and there is no medical liklihood that the condition will reverse. As I read the Xannon, our marriage has been dissolced by reason of my inability to engage in marital procreative activity. That should mean that my wife and I are living in sin, and I may not partake of the Eucharist.
When we received the sacrement of marriage, we vowed to each other and to God that we would take each other for life. Jesus taught us that what God has joined together, lry no one put assunder. Yet, by virtue of a medical condition, my marriage is apparently put assunder. Because I can not perfortm a mechanical act that could not result in procreation abyway, by virtue of my wife’s post menapausal status, our mattiage no longer exists.
Is there a Cannonical Law expert out there who can explain this to me?

 

[davidv]

I have read the Cannon above quoted, and I am quite puzzled. My wife and I were married 37 uears ago. We have 7 children. Mt wife is post menapausal. I have had ED issues for the past several years, and there is no medical liklihood that the condition will reverse. As I read the Xannon, our marriage has been dissolced by reason of my inability to engage in marital procreative activity. That should mean that my wife and I are living in sin, and I may not partake of the Eucharist.
When we received the sacrement of marriage, we vowed to each other and to God that we would take each other for life. Jesus taught us that what God has joined together, lry no one put assunder. Yet, by virtue of a medical condition, my marriage is apparently put assunder. Because I can not perfortm a mechanical act that could not result in procreation abyway, by virtue of my wife’s post menapausal status, our mattiage no longer exists.
Is there a Cannonical Law expert out there who can explain this to me?

The law you refer to only applies prior to marriage. After one is married any disfunction that occurs does not invalidate the marriage. You are still validly married.

 

[1ke]

I have had ED issues for the past several years, and there is no medical liklihood that the condition will reverse. As I read the Xannon, our marriage has been dissolced by reason of my inability to engage in marital procreative activity.

I am sorry you have been disturbed by this. You have misunderstood. Put your mind at ease.

Antecedent impotence (meaning before marriage) is an impediment to entering a marriage. If something happens during the marriage-- age, illness, infirmity-- your marriage is 100% valid. Validity occurs at the time you enter marriage and NOTHING can dissolve a valid, consummated marriage between the baptized.

Sterility is no impediment at all at the time of marriage. And menopause happens to every woman. The Church does NOT teach your marriage is invalid or “dissolved”.

That should mean that my wife and I are living in sin, and I may not partake of the Eucharist.
When we received the sacrement of marriage, we vowed to each other and to God that we would take each other for life. Jesus taught us that what God has joined together, lry no one put assunder. Yet, by virtue of a medical condition, my marriage is apparently put assunder. Because I can not perfortm a mechanical act that could not result in procreation abyway, by virtue of my wife’s post menapausal status, our mattiage no longer exists.
Is there a Cannonical Law expert out there who can explain this to me?

None of this is true. You have misunderstood.

Put your mind at ease. Your marriage is valid. Be at peace.

 

[Nate13]

@1ke
Can “perpetual impotence” ever actually be determined 100% sure as you said before?

 

[1ke]

@1ke
Can “perpetual impotence” ever actually be determined 100% sure as you said before?

In many cases, yes, the impotence can be determined.

In *doubtful *cases, canon law addresses this:

Can 1084.2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

 

[iwunnder]

Yes newbie 2 was right. This whole thing is stupid. You mean to tell me that a young woman paralyzed from her waist down cannot marry??? My niece is in this situation. Paralyzed in a car accident at age 14. She is so full of love. She would make a wonderful mother. If she marries some young man would be so lucky to have her. She would look to adopt. A young child would be so lucky to have a parent like her. Yes no wonder why people bail from the Church with thinking like this. I can’t recall any passage from the Bible that talks specifically about paralysis. If this is someone’s interpretation then WOW lookout. Anything can be interpreted in several different ways depending on who is doing the interpretation. This is scary. Seems Hitler tried to dictate who was fit to marry and procreate.

 

[1ke]

Yes newbie 2 was right. This whole thing is stupid.

God is not stupid. And, God’s divine law governs our actions and the sacrament of marriage.

You mean to tell me that a young woman paralyzed from her waist down cannot marry??? My niece is in this situation. Paralyzed in a car accident at age 14.

That is correct **if **she is determined to be unable to engage in intercourse. Which is not at all an established fact merely by the existence of paralysis. It might be likely that this is the case, but would require investigation.

She is so full of love.

I’m sure she is full of love of life and her fellow man. *Marital *love is something specific and includes the exchange of the marital embrace.

She would make a wonderful mother. If she marries some young man would be so lucky to have her. She would look to adopt. A young child would be so lucky to have a parent like her.

She could potentially adopt, although it would be difficult for her without a lot of support.

That still does not negate that marital love is something quite different from the virtue of love (charitas) that we are all called to.

Yes no wonder why people bail from the Church with thinking like this.

The Church can only teach the Truth. It is a sad commentary on society that we’ve drifted so far from the Truth that we cannot see what is self-evident regarding the sacrament of marriage.

I can’t recall any passage from the Bible that talks specifically about paralysis. If this is someone’s interpretation then WOW lookout. Anything can be interpreted in several different ways depending on who is doing the interpretation. This is scary. Seems Hitler tried to dictate who was fit to marry and procreate.

Oh yes, throw in Hitler even though it has nothing to do with anything. The Church isn’t preventing anything. A divine law impediment exists. The Church can only communicate what is.

 

[iwunnder]

I am not implying God is like Hitler. I am not saying God is not right. You say God has decided all of this. Show me anywhere proof that God had any commentary on paralysis and marriage. He did not. This is all interpretation. We all know and can feel what is right and what is wrong. I know that a child sharing with another child is right. It warms you, it feels right. This whole idea is cold and it feels wrong. Show me that God decided this. Don’t think the proof is out there anywhere. Some human being interpreted it this way and humans are not perfect. We know that.

 

[1ke]

I am not implying God is like Hitler. I am not saying God is not right. You say God has decided all of this. Show me anywhere proof that God had any commentary on paralysis and marriage. He did not. This is all interpretation. We all know and can feel what is right and what is wrong. I know that a child sharing with another child is right. It warms you, it feels right. This whole idea is cold and it feels wrong. Show me that God decided this. Don’t think the proof is out there anywhere. Some human being interpreted it this way and humans are not perfect. We know that.

So is it your position that the Church is not infallible in faith and morals?

 

[oneofmany]

Medical science is wonderful and given to us by God. They are able to do many things now to further fertility so I don’t know why the church is still insisiting on only intercourse for procreation.

Of course, the procedures go into many questionable areas and the church has every right to say what is wrong but I think the church is saying it is all wrong just to simplify things. The church takes years to study some topics and I don’t think couples can wait for some answers to have a family now. Some things just need to be put into God’s hands and we will all know in the future. I think that topic goes under doing what one thinks is right at the time with the best info they have.

 

[Nate13]

Medical science is wonderful and given to us by God. They are able to do many things now to further fertility so I don’t know why the church is still insisiting on only intercourse for procreation.

Of course, the procedures go into many questionable areas and the church has every right to say what is wrong but I think the church is saying it is all wrong just to simplify things. The church takes years to study some topics and I don’t think couples can wait for some answers to have a family now. Some things just need to be put into God’s hands and we will all know in the future. I think that topic goes under doing what one thinks is right at the time with the best info they have.

The idea that every act of sexual intercourse should be both procreative and unitive is not something that has not been thought out. Pope John Paul II came out and gave a talk every Wednesday for 5 years reiterating all of this.

 

[iwunnder]

First of all I apologize for my earlier tone. That was wrong and I was out of line. I am very emotional as I think of my niece and all that she has been through and all that she has suffered. The Church is not infallible. But humans are. And since Jesus left this earth I don’t know of anyone except Mary that was or is without fault. I believe that unless Jesus touched on this subject which I don’t know for sure but I am guessing he did not then this rule was put in place by human beings. And I am sure they were well meaning human beings that gave it much thought. However they were human beings capable of error. It would break my heart to walk up to my niece and talk to her and even imply that possibly the Church that we lean on for support through tough times might consider not allowing her to marry because of her paralysis. I can’t believe a just God would condone this. Again I am sorry for my earlier negative venting. There are just some things from our Church that I have a hard time agreeing with.

 

[1ke]

The Church is not infallible. But humans are. And since Jesus left this earth I don’t know of anyone except Mary that was or is without fault.

I think you are confusing the Church’s protection against teaching error with human sin. These are two different things. Individuals can sin, but the Church cannot teach error.

I believe that unless Jesus touched on this subject which I don’t know for sure but I am guessing he did not then this rule was put in place by human beings.

Actually, the eunuchs are mentioned in Scripture. (Eunuchs were in a state of impotence). They are in an *umarried *state, as Jesus indicates in Matthew.

And I am sure they were well meaning human beings that gave it much thought. However they were human beings capable of error.

The Church is NOT capable of error.

The teaching on marriage and the sacraments come to us from Jesus through his Church. Marriage is ordered to both procreation and unity. Without the *ability *to consummate the marriage, one does not have a marriage.

It would break my heart to walk up to my niece and talk to her and even imply that possibly the Church that we lean on for support through tough times might consider not allowing her to marry because of her paralysis. I can’t believe a just God would condone this. Again I am sorry for my earlier negative venting. There are just some things from our Church that I have a hard time agreeing with.

Get past this idea that “God would never…” God asked his only Son to die on the Cross. We impose our ideas of what we think God should do on him. We need to take a step back and realize who it was who gave us life and that he orders our lives and that we must submit to Him, not the other way around.

He created marriage for a purpose and with a design. Not all people can be married. It’s just a fact.

 

[ahs]

Get past this idea that “God would never…” God asked his only Son to die on the Cross. We impose our ideas of what we think God should do on him. We need to take a step back and realize who it was who gave us life and that he orders our lives and that we must submit to Him, not the other way around.

He created marriage for a purpose and with a design. Not all people can be married. It’s just a fact.

This is a good point to bring up. There is alot of “how could a loving God allow…?” and “God would not…”. When we makes comments like this we are making the error of setting ourselves up as God’s judge. Here is a great thread on that very topic (very easy to read…just a question and an answer) :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=597301

Iwunnder, why do you assume that you neice cannot engage in the marital act just because she is paralyzed from the waist down? Is this something she has shared with you? Even so, if she indeed is unable to consumate the marrige, then she would be able to be married…because the marriage could not physically be entered into. That would indeed be a tough cross to carry in life…but not heavier than the one Christ carried, is it?

 

[Amolibri]

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.

AMEN. What is this about “may not marry”…people who love each other need to have the protection of society, and the benefits of marriage. If it means that the church will not recognize their love & marriage, then so be it.

 

[Slinger]

I am confused…

So, if one party to a potential marriage discovers they are unable to have intercourse then they are not permitted, in the Catholic Church’s eyes, to have a valid marriage no matter the love and commitment they share. I don’t understand why the church takes such a stance instead of encouraging the couple to pray for healing and have faith and trust in God that He will take care of things in His way. I mean, if people are advocating no birth control for the “trust in God” reason why the not the same here? Where is the logic?

There are SO many grey areas in regards to matters of sexuality that I find it difficult to understand how people on here can make things appear black and white when it is not.

For the record, I am not trying to put down the teachings of the Catholic church but trying to understand the logic in it’s teachings. Perhaps it is the people on these boards that are complicating issues as there are certain people who make an issue appear black and white when it is not. And, there is a lot of inconsistent advice on here when some people advise people to talk to a priest but others who post advice their priest gave them (who is privy to the intimate details and better understanding of the WHOLE situation) and are told the priest is going against church teachings. It really makes me wonder!

 

[Wesley7]

In some particular cases, the boyfriend/girlfriend heterosexual relationship can become long-term and mature without necessarily implying or requiring marriage.

 

[Abu]

Slinger, #75
Perhaps it is the people on these boards that are complicating issues as there are certain people who make an issue appear black and white when it is not. And, there is a lot of inconsistent advice on here when some people advise people to talk to a priest but others who post advice their priest gave them (who is privy to the intimate details and better understanding of the WHOLE situation) and are told the priest is going against church teachings. It really makes me wonder!

Sound statements of moral teaching have been given – some only complain and reject.

You can face reality, and take your particular concerns to those who are competent to further explain, or remain confused.

All you have to do is to check with those who are competent to tackle these questions

You have the questions and answers forum at:
ewtn.com/vexperts/results.asp , and can ask your own.

The following can aid viewers’ understanding:
Father Joe : tinyurl.com/6dbrtyg
And,
Catholics/Sterility, Impotence, and the RCC
Expert: Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. – tinyurl.com/5v7zau2

 

[oneofmany]

Well my cousin is blind and when he got married his wife said she would not have children. She was going to take care of him only. Now some 40 years later they have a very happy marriage and are still together. Who can say they did wrong?

I don’t know about their sex life—it’s none of my business but they have made it work so now it is up to them and God to decide if they did right or wrong—not me and not even the church at this point.

 

[oneofmany]

In some particular cases, the boyfriend/girlfriend heterosexual relationship can become long-term and mature without necessarily implying or requiring marriage.

I agree----if they never plan to have children. A child/children would be confused and mad if they split up. A child may ask his parents why they never took the time to get married when all his friends parents are married.