Marriage and "Consummation"

[SMHW]

Check Humanae Vitae… it is the impotent, not the infertile, who are impeded.

Infertile sex is still objectively procreative.

 

[1ke]

Check Humanae Vitae… it is the impotent, not the infertile, who are impeded.

Um… yes, that’s what I stated.

 

[1ke]

So my question seems to stand. How does one reconcile the contradiction

There is no contradiction to reconcile.

Sterility and impotence are in no way similar.

The right to intercourse is absolute because marriage is an exchange of persons. Impotence, by its nature, makes one unable to make that exchange of persons.

The right to children is not absolute. Sterility does not impede marital union. Each act of intercourse is objectively procreative, even if subjectively infertile due to age, rhythm of the cycle, pregnancy, or defect.

without concluding that the Church is either stuck in the past (with respect to reproductive knowledge) and/or overly obsessed with sex to a point that sex makes or breaks our state in life?

The Church is neither.

 

[1ke]

Follow up question:

Is this considered an infallible teaching, in the domain of the deposit of faith?

Or is this merely an issue of canon law that can at some point be rescinded, reformed, etc?

It is not an impediment that can be dispensed. It is not merely ecclesiastical law. It binds with the force of divine law-- it goes to the heart of what marriage IS. Notice the canon states that impotence is by its nature an impediment to valid marriage.

Marriage is the exchange of persons and the right to intercourse. One who cannot make this exchange of persons cannot contract marriage.

If it is the latter, then are there any Eastern Catholic Churches (with their own canon law) that marry impotent couples?

No. The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches is exactly the same:

Canon 801

1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates a marriage.
2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, either by reason of doubt of law or of a doubt of fact, the marriage is neither to be impeded nor is it to be declared null as long as the doubt exists.
3. Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for can. 821.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Infertile sex is still objectively procreative.

No. If you are sterile, then any sex you have is not objectively procreative.

And what’s with this “objective VS subjective” distinction? How can an act even be subjectively procreative? Either procreation is possible or it isn’t, it matters now what a person thinks about it.

I’m still waiting for the “why”.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

There is no contradiction to reconcile.

Sterility and impotence are in no way similar.

The right to intercourse is absolute because marriage is an exchange of persons. Impotence, by its nature, makes one unable to make that exchange of persons.

So the only way to have an “exchange of persons” is by having sex? There is no concept of love? How then were the BVM and St. Joseph “married” if they never had sex and so subsequently had not “exchanged persons”?

The right to children is not absolute. Sterility does not impede marital union. Each act of intercourse is objectively procreative, even if subjectively infertile due to age, rhythm of the cycle, pregnancy, or defect.

Could you explain this subjective nature of procreation? To my knowledge as a biologist, there is no such thing as “subjective procreation”. You either physically can or cannot have children. It’s not something one can will. I’m thinking there must be a religious definition for this that I’m unaware of (I have a habit of thinking in empirical terms).

 

[SMHW]

No. If you are sterile, then any sex you have is not objectively procreative.

And what’s with this “objective VS subjective” distinction? How can an act even be subjectively procreative? Either procreation is possible or it isn’t, it matters now what a person thinks about it.

I’m still waiting for the “why”.

Sexual intercourse is objectively procreative. It is the nature of sexual intercourse. This is true for a significant number of species on our planet!. The nature of sexual intercourse is not defined by the individuals (human or otherwise) who engage in it.

The fact that there are subjective instances of infertile sexual acts between some individuals at some points in time, (and that would include all acts between an infertile couple), does not change the objective nature of sexual intercourse.

 

[Just_Lurking]

One other thing to note is that canon law impotence is defined differently than medical impotence. Some men who are considered medically sterile but not medically impotent are nonetheless classified as impotent by canon law, because they have a defective ejaculate.

 

[1ke]

So the only way to have an “exchange of persons” is by having sex?

Yes. That is the *purpose *of marriage-- and that is what the marital convenant is.

Matrimony = the making of a mother

There is no concept of love?

Love is not the *purpose *of marriage.

How then were the BVM and St. Joseph “married” if they never had sex and so subsequently had not “exchanged persons”?

Joseph acted as the protector of Mary and the Christ child. They were married according to secular and Jewish law.

They were both physically capable of intercourse. They did not excercise their conjugal rights.

What’s your point?

Could you explain this subjective nature of procreation?

The conjugal act is objectively procreative. It is designed to be procreative. That’s what it does. Man ejaculates inside woman and sperm is deposited in her reproductive organs.

Every conjugal act that is done in this manner is ]*objectively *procreative, meaning by its nature and purpose.

Not every act results in conception. Subjectively, an individual conjugal act can be fertile or infertile depending on many environmental factors including age, rhythm of the cycle, existing pregnancy, or defect of the human person.

Another example: Legs are objectively for locomotion in animal species. It’s what they were designed to do and in fact what they actually do. Objectively, legs are for motion.

Subjectively, legs of a paralyzed person do not result in locomotion due to a defect in the person. Subjectively, legs do not result in locomotion in babies until they can control their muscles.

So, while objectively legs are for locomotion, legs can be subjectively immobile. Objectively, legs are for locomotion. Subjectively, a specific pair of legs may be unable to locomote.

To my knowledge as a biologist, there is no such thing as “subjective procreation”. You either physically can or cannot have children.

Certainly there is. You are merely not grasping the distinction.

 

[FrDavid96]

First, let’s clarify that we are speaking about the ability to consummate the marriage soley. Not infertility after entering in to marriage, and having consummated it.

I got the notion in discussing these issues in a Catholic Sexual Ethics course, as part of an MA in Theology. One cannot be married if they are unable to consummate it! My response of what the “loving thing” is came from asking the question of “what to do if…” to one of the top canon lawyers and moral theologians at Regina Apostolorum in Rome. It is a hard teaching, but it makes sense.

Also, it’s a funny rule, because it’s rather one-sided, isn’t it? A woman would not fall under this rule, because she can presumably always be open to the marital act. So it’s the one instance in the whole Church where men are discriminated against.

But you do bring up an interesting question… Mary and Joseph.

There is no way they were sacramentally married, which is what we are speaking of. And I’m not even talking about what makes marriage a sacrament-- I’m talking about the fact that sacraments did not exist before the Church, and the Church did not exist until 50 days after Christ was resurrected, long after Joseph had died.

In order to speak of Mary and Joseph’s marriage, we would have to look at Jewish tradition, which I don’t know a thing about.

GBu!

God Himself granted them a special dispensation.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Ok. So marriage’s first purpose is for the couple to have sex, not necessarily raise a family. Is this correct?

 

[Howard_Roark]

xixx - I’ve read throught his thread, and I think you’ve set up a condition wherein you cannot be satisfied by an answer.

Without getting into all of the details, because the first step to understanding something is to understand it simply - marriage includes sex. Other human relationships certainly exist, friendships and dependencies of all types…but they aren’t marriage. Marriage has a definition.

If you object to the fact that marriage has a definition, you migth as well object to any concept having a definition. Up, red, cow…all of these words have definitions that are real. these definitions preclude other things. Red is only red, it’s not blue. Marriage includes a man and a woman capable of mating. It’s not something else.

Why on Earth this would be a problem is certainly beyond me.

 

[Petergee]

So my question seems to stand. How does one reconcile the contradiction

What “contradiction”? You haven’t pointed out any two doctrines which contradict each other.

without concluding that the Church is either stuck in the past (with respect to reproductive knowledge)

It has been obvious to even primitive peoples in ancient times that there are some people who are unable to copulate, and some who are able to copulate but unable to procreate, and that the majority of marital acts do not result in procreation. Modern science has merely shown us by what precise mechanisms these previously-known facts operate.

and/or overly obsessed with sex to a point that sex makes or breaks our state in life?

I’m sure the vast majority of if not all atheists and other non-Catholics would say that a “marriage” with no physical possibility of intercourse is no marriage at all. So why do pick on the Church as being “obsessed with sex” for saying the same thing?

It looks like whatever anyone says you are going to find this question difficult. Many Catholics have one or two doctrines of the Faith which they have to contemplate and study for a very long time to fully accept. Don’t let that deter you from the Faith. The most important thing is that you know Jesus Christ is God and that He founded the Church for you so that you can join Him in Heaven and guaranteed it would never lead you astray, regardless of whether you find some of its doctrines difficult to understand and some of its precepts difficult to carry out. My best wishes and prayers for your journey through RCIA.

 

[Seatuck]

xixx - I’ve read throught his thread, and I think you’ve set up a condition wherein you cannot be satisfied by an answer.

Without getting into all of the details, because the first step to understanding something is to understand it simply - marriage includes sex. Other human relationships certainly exist, friendships and dependencies of all types…but they aren’t marriage. Marriage has a definition.

If you object to the fact that marriage has a definition, you migth as well object to any concept having a definition. Up, red, cow…all of these words have definitions that are real. these definitions preclude other things. Red is only red, it’s not blue. Marriage includes a man and a woman capable of mating. It’s not something else.

Why on Earth this would be a problem is certainly beyond me.

And to take this a step further marriage is a sacrament , it has a meaning and it has a relationship to the other sacraments. Further study into the meaning of the Sacrament of Marriage is needed. Marriage is a communion of persons. It is an image of the other communion we know about- The Eucharist. A gift is given in the Eucharist and is received into the body of a person. The same thing goes for the sacrament of marriage. The gift must be given and received into the other person .

xixxvmcm85 ,
Please do a little more study. You seem to have a very low opinion of the marital act. Sex us Holy. It is part of a Sacrament. It is very special and unique. That is piece of the puzzle that you are missing. It’s not for everyone. It is for married people. It is a necessary part of the Sacrament for it to hold it’s character at it’s inception.

Read any of the works on Theology of the Body. Christopher Wests stuff is easily accessible.
Study the concept of marriage and the Eucharist. John Martignoni pops up most often when you do a search. Chris West will also.
Three to get Married by Fulton Sheen is a more complex study of the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[grandfather]

First, let’s clarify that we are speaking about the ability to consummate the marriage soley. Not infertility after entering in to marriage, and having consummated it.

 

[1ke]

Ok. So marriage’s first purpose is for the couple to have sex, not necessarily raise a family. Is this correct?

These elements are inseparable. The purpose of sexual relations is procreation. That is what our generative organs are for.

 

[ThurstonHowell]

Does the church teach that Mary and Joseph were in a valid marriage? If so, how does that square with Catholic teaching that all marriages must be consummated since, according to Catholic doctrine, Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage.

 

[Vico]

Does the church teach that Mary and Joseph were in a valid marriage? If so, how does that square with Catholic teaching that all marriages must be consummated since, according to Catholic doctrine, Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage.

Consummation is not required for validity. Consummation is presumed with cohabitation however. When not consummated it is called ratum tantum.Latin Canon Law (CIC)

**Can. 1141 **
A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

**Can. 1061 **

§1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.
§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

 

[cycleman]

xixxvmcm85

I posted a thread along these lines a while back, and the discussion covered the same territory as this thread. The bottom line is that I do not believe this Church teaching represents God’s will, but the Catholic Church does not give anyone the option of dissent.

I went so far as to say the teaching is a moral evil. That was probably a bit extreme, but I still in my heart of hearts believe the teaching is wrong. I don’t know whether it is an infallible teaching or not, that really doesn’t matter it is the current teaching.

Is sex (at least once) necessary to make a marriage? The Church thinks so.

So, I have a man and a woman who love each other. They can:

1. Live and long and healthy live together and support each other.
2. Adopt and raise children in a stable, loving Catholic home.

But, the church says no. It says they can’t even enter a civil marriage (or more precisely living together with just a civil marriage is wrong)

Pile on top of that the absurdity that as long as they have sex* just once* everything is OK. So, sex once and nevermore, live together and raise adopted children over a lifetime. No single sex act, cannot do it. Make any sense to you? Do you believe God would want such an absurdity?

I cannot accept this teaching and consider myself an ex-Catholic.