Marriage can be denied if it cannot be consumated

[EasterJoy]

Maybe someone ought to look up the term “Josphite Marriage”…

Both parties must be capable of intercourse in the normal human fashion, both must freely elect not to exercise their right to the marital act, and for as long as the marriage is not consummated, it can be dissolved.

 

[TacosRocket]

Hi, OP here.

So I’ve been reading all this debating going on here and… to me it’s sounding like that the churches definition of marriage is just “people who get to have sex with each other” and not much else. If that’s how God wants to define it then… well he’s God he can do that… I’m picturing a couple who are both in wheel chairs living together and acting married even though they cannot be considered married by the church. It seems here to be the assumption that that is still possible. However, as far as I know, living like and acting like you are married is indeed a sin and therefore no, it is NOT possible for impotant people to have this same kind of relationship. You would not be living like you are brother and sister because brothers and sisters don’t have romantic feelings for each other. They don’t smooch or hold hands or anything else a married couple would do and I seriously doubt that two people in love could live in the same house and act more or less like roommates. Are you males and females even allowed to BE roommates in the church?? Not in the physical church, obviously…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Hi, OP here.

So I’ve been reading all this debating going on here and… to me it’s sounding like that** the churches definition of marriage is just “people who get to have sex with each other” and not much else.** If that’s how God wants to define it then… well he’s God he can do that… I’m picturing a couple who are both in wheel chairs living together and acting married even though they cannot be considered married by the church. It seems here to be the assumption that that is still possible. However, as far as I know, living like and acting like you are married is indeed a sin and therefore no, it is NOT possible for impotant people to have this same kind of relationship. **You would not be living like you are brother and sister because brothers and sisters don’t have romantic feelings for each other. They don’t smooch or hold hands or anything else a married couple would do and I seriously doubt that two people in love could live in the same house and act more or less like roommates. **Are you males and females even allowed to BE roommates in the church?? Not in the physical church, obviously…

Just as marriage is much more than “just people who get to have sex with each other”, it is much more than two people who have romantic feelings for each other.

People can have romantic feelings, hold hands and even kiss people that they aren’t married to. Romance is frequently a part of marriage, but even if the romance leaves a marriage, the marriage remains.

You asked earlier how this rule is fair. You are judging the Church rules from your own cultural bias. Think about cultures and times beyond and before our own. Marriage existed long before twenty first century America. In some cultures, it’s acceptable–and even common–for women to marry much older men. Older men sometimes are unable to consummate a marriage. In some cultures if the Church didn’t ask, young women might have no idea that the relationship had no potential of ever producing children and that she was going to spend her child-bearing years being a caregiver to an old man without a chance of ever becoming a mother.

Marriage isn’t “just” about sex, nor is it just about romantic feelings, nor is it just about being a roommate, nor just a caregiver.

As to the hypothetical couple you mentioned, if such a couple exists, they should speak to their priest about the situation. In some circumstances, it would not cause scandal for a man to live with a woman that he is not married to in the Church. But two people who entered into such a relationship would not be bound for life to a marriage commitment they made in Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hi, OP here.

So I’ve been reading all this debating going on here and… to me it’s sounding like that the churches definition of marriage is just “people who get to have sex with each other” and not much else. If that’s how God wants to define it then… well he’s God he can do that… I’m picturing a couple who are both in wheel chairs living together and acting married even though they cannot be considered married by the church. It seems here to be the assumption that that is still possible. However, as far as I know, living like and acting like you are married is indeed a sin and therefore no, it is NOT possible for impotant people to have this same kind of relationship. You would not be living like you are brother and sister because brothers and sisters don’t have romantic feelings for each other. They don’t smooch or hold hands or anything else a married couple would do and I seriously doubt that two people in love could live in the same house and act more or less like roommates. Are you males and females even allowed to BE roommates in the church?? Not in the physical church, obviously…

No, you do not have it right. To say that at sexual relationship is necessary for marriage is not the same as saying it is entirely sufficient all by itself.

Let’s picture this couple you’re talking about…they’re living as brother and sister. A brother and sister can live like that; they cannot marry. They can love each other, care for each other, understand each other like no one else does, and yet they cannot marry. Why? Because marriage, on its more fundamental level, is a sexual relationship. Once the marriage is consummated, a couple has a sexual relationship, even if they never have sex again. And why is it different when that brother and sister smooch and hold hands than if they had a sexual relationship? You know and I know. Your wife is not your sister, friend. You know it and I know it. And what about having a sexual relationship that you are never given the right to consummate, that is never genital in nature? No frustration there, is there? Well, if you give that up by choice, that is one thing, but the Church is saying that your spouse must at least have the capacity to grant you your marital right. You always have that right. If you are in a Josephite marriage, then if you decide you want a marriage that has sex, you and your spouse have to decide to have an average sort of marriage, or else what you had may be dissolved.

But let’s turn tables…let us say that marriage does not involve a right to have sex. You get married, and your wife will not have sex with you. Is that a marriage? No, if you marry someone, they promise to have a marital relationship with you, and then you never have sex even once the entire time you are married, the promise to you has not been honored. Your spouse implied you had a right and had no way to give you your right or has decided to withhold that which the fundamental nature of marriage implies. Your wife may refuse to clean your trout, she may refuse to be nice to your mother, she may refuse to watch football with you, but she may not refuse to have sex with you entirely. She would be refusing to act married.

Honest to goodness, people are acting as if it is petty for one spouse to insist on a right to consummate their marriage. Their marriage!!! As if marriage is about “caring”, not about sex. I have news: The whole Christian life is about caring. Marriage is something else again. Marriage is about the authentic expression of the sexual faculty, something that moderns who do not like the age-old concept of marriage have totally divorced from each other in favor of either a) a nebulous sense of hearts and flowers and “I’ll be there for you” that does not belong exclusively to marriage or b) a relationship in which some aspects of the sexual faculty have been split away from intercourse open to procreation.

 

[TacosRocket]

No, you do not have it right. To say that at sexual relationship is necessary for marriage is not the same as saying it is entirely sufficient all by itself.

Let’s picture this couple you’re talking about…they’re living as brother and sister. A brother and sister can live like that; they cannot marry. They can love each other, care for each other, understand each other like no one else does, and yet they cannot marry. Why? Because marriage, on its more fundamental level, is a sexual relationship. Once the marriage is consummated, a couple has a sexual relationship, even if they never have sex again. And why is it different when that brother and sister smooch and hold hands than if they had a sexual relationship? You know and I know. Your wife is not your sister, friend. You know it and I know it. And what about having a sexual relationship that you are never given the right to consummate, that is never genital in nature? No frustration there, is there? Well, if you give that up by choice, that is one thing, but the Church is saying that your spouse must at least have the capacity to grant you your marital right. You always have that right. If you are in a Josephite marriage, then if you decide you want a marriage that has sex, you and your spouse have to decide to have an average sort of marriage, or else what you had may be dissolved.

But let’s turn tables…let us say that marriage does not involve a right to have sex. You get married, and your wife will not have sex with you. Is that a marriage? No, if you marry someone, they promise to have a marital relationship with you, and then you never have sex even once the entire time you are married, the promise to you has not been honored. Your spouse implied you had a right and had no way to give you your right or has decided to withhold that which the fundamental nature of marriage implies. Your wife may refuse to clean your trout, she may refuse to be nice to your mother, she may refuse to watch football with you, but she may not refuse to have sex with you entirely. She would be refusing to act married.

Honest to goodness, people are acting as if it is petty for one spouse to insist on a right to consummate their marriage. Their marriage!!! As if marriage is about “caring”, not about sex. I have news: The whole Christian life is about caring. Marriage is something else again. Marriage is about the authentic expression of the sexual faculty, something that moderns who do not like the age-old concept of marriage have totally divorced from each other in favor of either a) a nebulous sense of hearts and flowers and “I’ll be there for you” that does not belong exclusively to marriage or b) a relationship in which some aspects of the sexual faculty have been split away from intercourse open to procreation.

So marriage is about giving the right for someone to have sex with you at least once, and nothing else? I’m not talking about people who refuse to consummate a marriage, I’m talking about people who CAN’T. What if both people were in a wheel chair? Well if marriage is about sex and nothing else, since all those other things marriage is supposedly about exists outside of a marriage, then there wouldn’t be anything that couple had to feel bad about. And if marriage is about more than sex, which from what I can understand about everything you’ve said here it is not, what else is it about?

 

[TacosRocket]

Sult

Just as marriage is much more than “just people who get to have sex with each other”, it is much more than two people who have romantic feelings for each other.

People can have romantic feelings, hold hands and even kiss people that they aren’t married to. Romance is frequently a part of marriage, but even if the romance leaves a marriage, the marriage remains.

You asked earlier how this rule is fair. You are judging the Church rules from your own cultural bias. Think about cultures and times beyond and before our own. Marriage existed long before twenty first century America. In some cultures, it’s acceptable–and even common–for women to marry much older men. Older men sometimes are unable to consummate a marriage. In some cultures if the Church didn’t ask, young women might have no idea that the relationship had no potential of ever producing children and that she was going to spend her child-bearing years being a caregiver to an old man without a chance of ever becoming a mother.

Marriage isn’t “just” about sex, nor is it just about romantic feelings, nor is it just about being a roommate, nor just a caregiver.

As to the hypothetical couple you mentioned, if such a couple exists, they should speak to their priest about the situation. In some circumstances, it would not cause scandal for a man to live with a woman that he is not married to in the Church. But two people who entered into such a relationship would not be bound for life to a marriage commitment they made in Church.

Culture is irrelevant. There is right and there is wrong. There is not “right in this culture” and “wrong in that culture” right is right and wrong is wrong whether the people from a certain culture knows it or not, are following it or not.

Young girls marrying old men… to me that sounds like something that she would have no choice in, what girl would want that? I’m sure it’s pretty safe to say that the church would not accept an arranged marriage, or an unwilling marriage. Which means that those cases are in fact wrongful.

You told me that marriage is more than about giving someone the right to have sex with you but you did not tell me then what else there is to it. Why should two people in a wheel chair not feel bad about not being able to marry?

I know in that text I sound argumentative an angry, I don’t mean to. Sorry:whacky:

 

[gardenswithkids]

Sult

Culture is irrelevant. There is right and there is wrong. There is not “right in this culture” and “wrong in that culture” right is right and wrong is wrong whether the people from a certain culture knows it or not, are following it or not.

Young girls marrying old men… to me that sounds like something that she would have no choice in, what girl would want that? I’m sure it’s pretty safe to say that the church would not accept an arranged marriage, or an unwilling marriage. Which means that those cases are in fact wrongful.

You told me that marriage is more than about giving someone the right to have sex with you but you did not tell me then what else there is to it. Why should two people in a wheel chair not feel bad about not being able to marry?

I know in that text I sound argumentative an angry, I don’t mean to. Sorry:whacky:

Clarification: I wrote younger women– not young girls! There’s a dramatic difference. The term “woman” implies a female adult.

You ask what else is marriage? Let’s look at another word sometimes used for marriage: matrimony. The base word “matri” means “mother” in Latin. Wives are potentially mothers. Marriage and the potential for motherhood are intricately connected. Couples marrying in the Catholic Church must remain open to the possibility* that the wife may become a mother, (*even if that possibility is highly unlikely.) The way human biology works is that women become mothers by the very same act that consummates matrimony. The marriage act in intricately connected with Holy Matrimony because Holy Matrimony is intricately connected with the potential for motherhood.

You are correct that there is right and there is wrong. You are judging from a culture that has largely attempted to dissolve the connection between sex, marriage and babies. The Church recognizes that it is right for there to be a connection between sex, marriage and babies.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… Why should two people in a wheel chair not feel bad about not being able to marry? …

I would feel bad if I were in that situation. I don’t know what gave you the impression I thought they shouldn’t feel bad. That would be a huge cross to bear! Jesus tells us to take up our cross and follow Him, but even Jesus fell down a few times when carrying His cross. There aren’t too many people who can suffer without complaining or feeling sorry for themselves at some point. I’m sure if I was in a wheelchair I’d find lots of things to complain about.

I am a mother, but the idea of never being capable of being a mother stirs great sympathy in my heart. I’m not only a mother, but I am the mother of a large family. When I think of my own cross as the mother of eight and start feeling sorry for myself, (because I do that sometimes) if I compare that to the crosses that people have to bare who cannot have children, well, that makes my own cross feel much lighter! No, no, no! I have not said anywhere that people shouldn’t feel bad if they can’t have marriage and a family. That is not a cross I’d want, so I don’t blame them if they don’t want it either. But to those who have been given that heavy cross to carry, I thank them if they can gracefully accept the Church teachings that unite marriage and the marriage act with the potential for creating new life. I have tried to accept those same teachings gracefully–and thus, because God gives different crosses to different people–I happen to have a large family.

And btw, women in wheelchairs are often capable of consummating a marriage. Sometimes they are even capable of pregnancy and childbirth. And men in wheelchairs might be capable of consummating a marriage too. Yet, if I was a woman in a wheelchair, even if I was capable of marrying and consummating my marriage, I’m sure I’d still find things to complain and feel bad about.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And btw, women in wheelchairs are often capable of consummating a marriage. … And men in wheelchairs might be capable of consummating a marriage too.

To be clear, I think they get out of their wheelchairs first. Otherwise … the mental image just seems very uncomfortable.

 

[silicasandra]

To be clear, I think they get out of their wheelchairs first. Otherwise … the mental image just seems very uncomfortable.

I almost feel like I shouldn’t laugh…but that is really funny.

 

[thewanderer]

So marriage is about giving the right for someone to have sex with you at least once, and nothing else? I’m not talking about people who refuse to consummate a marriage, I’m talking about people who CAN’T. What if both people were in a wheel chair? Well if marriage is about sex and nothing else, since all those other things marriage is supposedly about exists outside of a marriage, then there wouldn’t be anything that couple had to feel bad about. And if marriage is about more than sex, which from what I can understand about everything you’ve said here it is not, what else is it about?

Of course its about more than sex, but that doesn’t mean that the ability to have sex is not necessary to get married. According to the Church’s definition of marriage it is essential to what marriage is that each person gives the other the right to have sex with them. That is not nearly all that marriage is, but it is an essential part of what marriage is, such that marriage, according to the Church’s definition, is impossible without it. That doesn’t make that the sole factor necessary to marriage, the couple must also freely consent to a permanent union to the other and to make a vow to live for the other in loving sacrifice as well as be open to having children. If any of these three things are missing you do not have a valid marriage. They are all essential parts of marriage, its not just about the sex, but that is one of the important aspects of marriage such that without it you will not have a marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

So marriage is about giving the right for someone to have sex with you at least once, and nothing else? I’m not talking about people who refuse to consummate a marriage, I’m talking about people who CAN’T. What if both people were in a wheel chair? Well if marriage is about sex and nothing else, since all those other things marriage is supposedly about exists outside of a marriage, then there wouldn’t be anything that couple had to feel bad about. And if marriage is about more than sex, which from what I can understand about everything you’ve said here it is not, what else is it about?

You’re killing me, here. I wrote very clearly:* To say that at sexual relationship is necessary for marriage is not the same as saying it is entirely sufficient all by itself.* So where did this “and nothing else” come from? Who on earth ever said that impotence was the only impediment to marriage that there could possibly be? I didn’t see that in any posts here!

What exactly are you envisioning these people in a wheelchair doing that a brother and sister or two monks in a monastery, sitting next to each other in their wheelchairs, cannot do for each other? If nothing, then why marry?

If you’re talking about the state setting up domestic unions that are analogous to what monks in a monastery have–that is, a lifelong arrangement of mutual care–and you think that some legal recognition for that, I have no quarrel with that. It is the sexual union outside of ability to give to each other in the marital act that is at issue.