If marriage is for procreation

[Abu]

oneofmany, #78
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?
….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.

From Christ Himself, His Apostles and St Paul, against such confusion, emphasize that all actions, speech and writing must be judged against Christ’s truth, through His Church, so that we can know and show right from wrong; good from evil. To claim that the Church cannot teach right from wrong is mindless. The sensus fidei calls us to think with the Church. (Msgr George A Kelly, Battle for the American Church (Revisited), Ignatius, 1995, p 33).

It is high time to face reality.

Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).
“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgement on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).
“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerised by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.

 

[1ke]

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?

Because in marriage you are exchanging the *absolute *right to marital intercourse. You have to be able to to have intercourse.

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.

This is so black and white I don’t know why people think it’s gray.

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.

Marriage is someething specific. It’s twofold purpose is procreation and education of children and unity of the spouses. That unity is a physical unity. The vows are perpetuity, fecundy, and exclusive fidelity. These require the ability to have intercourse.

Companionship and such other things are not the **purpose **of marriage, they are the **fruit **of marriage. If you have a relationship with companionship and caring that cannot include the exclusive exchange of the marital embrace, you don’t have a marriage. You have something else-- friendship.

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.

Nope.

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!

The reason people are advised to talk to a priest is because in the case of impotence the Church would investigate and determine if it is truly perpetual impotence according to the meaning of the laws of the Church or not.

If it is, then no marriage can take place.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Companionship and such other things are not the **purpose **of marriage, they are the **fruit **of marriage. If you have a relationship with companionship and caring that cannot include the exclusive exchange of the marital embrace, you don’t have a marriage. You have something else-- friendship…

Then tell me this: Can such couples, unable to have intercourse and therefore unable to marry, still have this friendship by living together as brother and sister?

 

[Jen929]

How would one know if they were able to have sex and a valid marriage if the church teaching says wait til marriage? If you’ve never had sex you wouldn’t know if you are impotent. What does a newly married couple do then, especially if they’d been together years before getting married?

 

[Big_Pat]

Hear! Hear!. Makes sense to me.

 

[oneofmany]

I am saying I don’t think the church will go in and tell this couple they do not have a marriage or they should not live together anymore. I don’t know if the woman told her priest she was not going to have children before her marriage but maybe after when she learned how demanding it was to take care of her blind husband.

He has had a job/jobs during the marriage. Really he is the main bread winner. She got him to his jobs, etc. etc. etc. After 40 years I think they have done well for themselves.

I don’t know too many couples or very many women who would chose this lifestyle and give up children, etc. but they did and it worked.

I heard Fr. Groeschel say he knew of a gay couple that had been together for so many years he would not tell them to stop living together since they must have a strong bond that they need. I think Fr, Groeschel was saying put charity first in these cases.

 

[1ke]

Then tell me this: Can such couples, unable to have intercourse and therefore unable to marry, still have this friendship by living together as brother and sister?

That would need to be taken up with their priest. Such an arrangement could lead to the nears occasion of sin and temptation to engage in immoral non-intercourse sex acts. So it would depend upon individual circumstances and that is best discussed with their priest.

 

[1ke]

How would one know if they were able to have sex and a valid marriage if the church teaching says wait til marriage? If you’ve never had sex you wouldn’t know if you are impotent. What does a newly married couple do then, especially if they’d been together years before getting married?

In cases of disease, physical defect, or accident, one would know. In some cases, particularly female, one might not know until the marriage takes place. Hence paragraph 2 of canon 1084.

 

[Abu]

Great posts 1ke.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That would need to be taken up with their priest. Such an arrangement could lead to the nears occasion of sin and temptation to engage in immoral non-intercourse sex acts. So it would depend upon individual circumstances and that is best discussed with their priest.

So why isn’t the same advice given to a real brother and sister?

 

[Big_Pat]

Most all these posts are absurd to me. Intent, love, commitment, conscience don’t they make the difference.

 

[davidv]

Most all these posts are absurd to me. Intent, love, commitment, conscience don’t they make the difference.

Can you be more specific about what is absurd?

The Church’s teaching on marriage and the proper use of our sexuality is highly rational and is based on firm principles.

 

[ahs]

So why isn’t the same advice given to a real brother and sister?

I would assume that siblings are not normally prone to have intimate desires for one another and would not view themselves as a “couple” as you described. If they did, however, they would need to bring this to light to a Priest.

 

[oneofmany]

How would one know if they were able to have sex and a valid marriage if the church teaching says wait til marriage? If you’ve never had sex you wouldn’t know if you are impotent. What does a newly married couple do then, especially if they’d been together years before getting married?

Most people who are ready to marry should go to a doctor and talk about their fertility and get a check up anyway. Women should for sure. I don’t know if a fertility test on women and men (I also do not know if they can check for men’s fertility) can tell for sure if they can conceive but it does let them know if they are healthy and able to get pregnant.

I was perimenopausal when I got married at the age of 41 so I was worried. I have a real problem with people saying if I had known for sure I was past the point of being able to have children I should have given up on marriage and forget about the love my hubby and I had for each other.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would assume that siblings are not normally prone to have intimate desires for one another and would not view themselves as a “couple” as you described. If they did, however, they would need to bring this to light to a Priest.

So let me get this straight. A couple where the man is paralyzed from the waist down and the woman just wants to live with him and take care of him - that couple is at such a risk for engaging in perverted sex that they should not be allowed to live together, even if they both say they are not interested in sex… But a totally healthy brother and sister in their sexual prime can live together because the temptation to incest is so small?

 

[mwncheesehead]

So let me get this straight. A couple where the man is paralyzed from the waist down and the woman just wants to live with him and take care of him - that couple is at such a risk for engaging in perverted sex that they should not be allowed to live together, even if they both say they are not interested in sex… But a totally healthy brother and sister in their sexual prime can live together because the temptation to incest is so small?

There’s really no scandal to others in a brother and sister living together. There is, however, scandal when non-family (and even some family members) members of the opposite sex live together as if they were in a husband/wife living arrangement. To clarify my point though, as a man I wouldn’t live my female cousin, but if it were my sister, the family line is close enough for it not to be a problem. If a brother and sister would have temptations between themselves, well then duh…don’t live together. But if they had that problem, that’s just gross. :bigyikes:

 

[1ke]

So let me get this straight. A couple where the man is paralyzed from the waist down and the woman just wants to live with him and take care of him - that couple is at such a risk for engaging in perverted sex that they should not be allowed to live together, even if they both say they are not interested in sex.

You don’t have anything straight. No one said in all circumstances such an arrangement would “not be allowed”.

It is quite unattractive to put words in other people’s mouth. What I **actually **said, if you go back and read, is that a couple who intended to live together for reasons other than marriage would need to discern/discuss with a priest whether or not there is temptation to immoral sexual acts.

The original question was about people who want to marry each other. This typically includes a sexual attraction and desire for sexual intimacy.

A person who intends to be a caretaker for another individual, a live-in nurse or companion, can certainly do so.

But a totally healthy brother and sister in their sexual prime can live together because the temptation to incest is so small?

Uh, yeah.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There’s really no scandal to others in a brother and sister living together. There is, however, scandal when non-family (and even some family members) members of the opposite sex live together as if they were in a husband/wife living arrangement.

That is exactly the point that needs to be supported, not just restated. Why is it a scandal if two people who are physically unable to have sex live together? The earlier postings in this thread were about why it is wrong to allow such people to get married. OK, I get that. But the thing that prevents them from getting married is also the very thing that removes the possibility of scandal from a joint living arrangement. It is a triple whammy for the poor unfortunate paralytic. First of all he can’t walk around and have a normal life. That is to be expected. It is his lot in life. Second he can’t get married, even if some girl is willing. OK, I can see that too because, as the title of the thread says “marriage is for procreation”. But then to top it off, he is told that he must always live alone. This is an unnecessary artificial punishment that has no basis in this particular case, since no one is going to be led to sin by observing that this paralytic has a live-in companion.

 

[Newbie2]

That is exactly the point that needs to be supported, not just restated. Why is it a scandal if two people who are physically unable to have sex live together? The earlier postings in this thread were about why it is wrong to allow such people to get married. OK, I get that. But the thing that prevents them from getting married is also the very thing that removes the possibility of scandal from a joint living arrangement. It is a triple whammy for the poor unfortunate paralytic. First of all he can’t walk around and have a normal life. That is to be expected. It is his lot in life. Second he can’t get married, even if some girl is willing. OK, I can see that too because, as the title of the thread says “marriage is for procreation”. ** But then to top it off, he is told that he must always live alone. This is an unnecessary artificial punishment that has no basis in this particular case, since no one is going to be led to sin by observing that this paralytic has a live-in companion**.

I agree.

The interpretation of Church teaching that says such is the case, methinks, is mistaken.

 

[1ke]

But then to top it off, he is told that he must always live alone.

You are quite mistaken.