Marriage Denial to Impotent a moral evil?

[LJN21]

I am asking how this teaching can be morally justified. I believe it’s a moral evil.

I can believe that cats are a moral evil but that does not make it so.

Its morally justified because its impossible for the spouses to engage in the marital act. Marriage isn’t about two people that really love each other hanging out and having a good time. Its about two people becoming one flesh, if that can happen there can be no marriage.

Also to that point, what’s the point in them getting married if intercouse is impossible? Marriage does not give carte blanche to all sexual acts, the only acts that are licit are the ones that end in intercourse, if you can’t have intercourse no other acts would be moral.

 

[Bookcat]

I can believe that cats are a moral evil but that does not make it so.
.

Well. I am offended.

Bookcat

 

[LJN21]

Well. I am offended.

Bookcat

Oops! How about dogs then?

 

[Bookcat]

Oops! How about dogs then?

Hee hee (my dog here also objects…)

 

[Bookcat]

for one) marriage is -]forbidden/-] not possible.

Birds whose wings do not work due to accident or defect - cannot fly. It just is not possible.

Marriage yes by nature involves the ability to consummate the marriage.

Such is yes something physical that can impede being able to marry.

 

[LJN21]

I can believe that cats are a moral evil but that does not make it so.

Its morally justified because its impossible for the spouses to engage in the marital act. Marriage isn’t about two people that really love each other hanging out and having a good time. Its about two people becoming one flesh, if that can not happen there can be no marriage.

Also to that point, what’s the point in them getting married if intercouse is impossible? Marriage does not give carte blanche to all sexual acts, the only acts that are licit are the ones that end in intercourse, if you can’t have intercourse no other acts would be moral.

 

[JimG]

Can they live together in opposite sex marriage recognized by the law but not the Church?

Depends on the law and the jurisdiction. The law does not usually ask the question about ability to have marital relations. Still, in many jurisdictions, either party might file for annulment, not divorce, if such inability were later discovered.

 

[cycleman]

I can believe that cats are a moral evil but that does not make it so.

Its morally justified because its impossible for the spouses to engage in the marital act. Marriage isn’t about two people that really love each other hanging out and having a good time. Its about two people becoming one flesh, if that can happen there can be no marriage.

***Also to that point, what’s the point in them getting married if intercourse is impossible? ***

Marriage does not give carte blanche to all sexual acts, the only acts that are licit are the ones that end in intercourse, if you can’t have intercourse no other acts would be moral.

Responding to the text highlighted above. How about living together in love and commitment, and raising adopted children?

 

[Bookcat]

Responding to the text highlighted above. How about living together in love and commitment, and raising adopted children?

Marriage involves by nature the capacity to become “one flesh”. Without that capacity there can be no marriage.

 

[twf]

This is not the practice of the Church. The only time, something like the sorts is required, and it is not an oath by far, is at a marriage between a Catholic and another non-Catholic christian or between a Catholic or an unbaptized (not christian). And then there is something called a Reversal, that states that the non-Catholic part has taken to knowledge that the Catholic part must do all that he can that the children may be baptized and raised Catholic. That’s it. There is no oath. Cannon 1125,2

As Phemie pointed out, it is definitely the case that the prenuptial interview is taken under oath. I was required to place my hand on the book of the Gospel and testify under oath that I would answer all of the questions truthfully to the best of my knowledge / ability. The questions included whether I had been previously married, whether I was aware of any impediment (including the ability to have physical intercourse), among other things. It could be that this varies from diocese to diocese…but it certainly makes sense to me given that the priest must have moral certitude that both parties are free to marry. I also had to bring in a witness (in this case my father) to testify under oath that he knows no reason why I should not marry. My fiancee will have to go through the same process shortly. It is certainly quick and easy…but still an oath.

 

[cycleman]

How about living together in love and commitment, and raising adopted children?

Marriage involves by nature the capacity to become “one flesh”. Without that capacity there can be no marriage.

OK, then what are the options for a man and woman who love each other and wish to raise adopted children? Is civil marriage the only option? Is there no Church sponsored sacramental recognition of such a union?.

 

[twf]

How about living together in love and commitment, and raising adopted children?

OK, then what are the options for a man and woman who love each other and wish to raise adopted children? Is civil marriage the only option? Is there no Church sponsored sacramental recognition of such a union?.

If a couple is physically able to consummate the marriage (even if only with the help of drugs and or surgery) in some way and are open to life, God willing, but are in actuality sterile, adopting children is certainly a possibility.

 

[cycleman]

If a couple is physically able to consummate the marriage (even if only with the help of drugs and or surgery) in some way and are open to life, God willing, but are in actuality sterile, adopting children is certainly a possibility.

No, my question is about those who are , without question, impotent before marriage. The clear consensus of posters here is that such a couple may not marry in the Church. (This is what I find morally wrong, but what I think doesn’t necessarily mean anything).

However, such a couple may be very much in love, and very willing and able to give adopted or abandoned children a loving, Catholic home. But raising children should always be done, if possible, within a marriage, right?

So, are these couples, and their potential adopted children, to be denied such a home within the church? It seems to me the only way to legitimize such a union is to abandon the church (at least with respect to recognizing the union), and enter into a civil marriage.

 

[Vico]

Thank you for the replies. I know there are issues about whether impotence is permanent or possibly curable, variations in the way priests observe (or ignore) the teaching, but I guess the bottom line for me is that involuntary impotence should not deny a loving man and women the sacrament of marriage.

Some say the main purpose of marriage is procreation, and if it impossible (there are cases where impotence is for all intents and purposes known and permanent - severe spinal injury for one) marriage is forbidden.

I still haven’t heard anyone say why that is a moral good. If such a couple cannot marry, they are unable to adopt children and raise them in a loving home. How can that possibly be a good thing?

Are only those capable of having biological children suitable parents for adopted children?

I suppose you did not read what St. Paul wrote given in my post. No matter. It would be tempting, by design, to the couple living together that could not have conjugal relations yet by living together would lead to sins of lust due to inability to fulfill those desires justly.

 

[Marie5890]

No, my question is about those who are , without question, impotent before marriage. The clear consensus of posters here is that such a couple may not marry in the Church. (This is what I find morally wrong, but what I think doesn’t necessarily mean anything).

However, such a couple may be very much in love, and very willing and able to give adopted or abandoned children a loving, Catholic home. But raising children should always be done, if possible, within a marriage, right?

So, are these couples, and their potential adopted children, to be denied such a home within the church? It seems to me the only way to legitimize such a union is to abandon the church (at least with respect to recognizing the union), and enter into a civil marriage.

Would you want to worship a god who was so narrow thinking? (truly not picking you. You pose the very questions I ask all the time of others, of myself, and of the very God I worship.)

I look at a God who would subscribe to such a view and go, “God or not, could I in good conscience worship such a god?”

God and I have had these kind of conversations frequently.

 

[Petaro]

Soldiers coming home from war, with injuries. They know.

People that have had devastating injuries. They know.

People born without the required parts. They know.

Just the lawyer in me going through the defense. However I know the mercy of God.
Such men do not deserve lifelong loneliness. If you can validly marry after menopause which you can you do not need the Church medical to marry.
I remember when I was going through the ropes to enter the seminary in my youth. I had passed the psychological tests and the priest raised the fact that a man had to be potent to join the priesthood. I told him I was ready for the test, whereupon he laughed and the issue was not raised as an impediment, although my asthma and general health eventually made me unsuitable for the rigours of the seminary where you foraged for wood for heating in a cold environment.
Now with a wife and son I guess I passed the test in a new vocation. I have learnt that God is more merciful than His Church.

 

[LJN21]

Just the lawyer in me going through the defense. However I know the mercy of God.
Such men do not deserve lifelong loneliness. If you can validly marry after menopause which you can you do not need the Church medical to marry.
I remember when I was going through the ropes to enter the seminary in my youth. I had passed the psychological tests and the priest raised the fact that a man had to be potent to join the priesthood. I told him I was ready for the test, whereupon he laughed and the issue was not raised as an impediment, although my asthma and general health eventually made me unsuitable for the rigours of the seminary where you foraged for wood for heating in a cold environment.
Now with a wife and son I guess I passed the test in a new vocation. I have learnt that God is more merciful than His Church.

Gods Church is made up of sinners, just like everyone else just because they individually fail at mercy does not make the Church less merciful than God. Getting married and having a family is not the ultimate end of humanity, nor is it the only way to happiness. Gods Laws aren’t arbitrary rules to make people miserable, its your Father telling you the fire is hot and if you touch it you will burn your self, when we touch the fire His Mercy cleans and takes care of the wound as much as we let Him.

The marital embrace is a fundamental part of marriage, it is the building block. It binds the spouse together physically, and in a sacramental marriage it also provides grace for the spouses. In order to have a sacramental marriage you HAVE to be able to bind yourself to someone. Saying your going to be committed to someone forever is not the same thing as physically binding yourself with them. Without the supernatural gifts of grace in marriage, making a functional family is much harder. Add on to that possible near occasions of sexual sins that aren’t leigitmate because intercoruse is not possble. In short making a family without recourse to the ability to actually marry (because you can’t bind yourself to someone) you’re tossing your self into the fire, sure God is going to take care of you because thats what Fathers do but you’re still going to get burned.

 

[Bookcat]

How about living together in love and commitment, and raising adopted children?

OK, then what are the options for a man and woman who love each other and wish to raise adopted children? Is civil marriage the only option? Is there no Church sponsored sacramental recognition of such a union?.

They can start an orphanage perhaps.

No they cannot get married. Civil marriage would be invalid and wrong to attempt.

 

[JimG]

The Church simply recognizes the nature of marriage. Marriage precedes the Church. Jesus turned a natural institution between man and woman into a sacramental union, but it’s nature remains embedded in the nature of man and woman and the exchange of the rights to marital intercourse.

Here is an article by Jimmy Akin about the matter:

jimmyakin.com/2005/05/impotence_vs_in.html

 

[AJZepp]

I’m just hearing about this, so still trying to get my head around it…

So some of you have said that you have to be able to perform the marital act to “become on flesh” and validate the marriage. But this doesn’t seem to be the main issue, because others have also said that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was valid even though they chose not to perform the marital act, because they both were CAPABLE of doing so. The latter is also consistent with what Jimmy said in the article above. Jimmy doesn’t even mention the “become one flesh” thing. He discusses how married couples commit “to a relationship in which the other party has a right to have sex with you…”. So seems to me it can’t be both. Either it’s the actual physical act that validates the marriage, or it’s simply the ability to carry out the physical act, even in the event that the couple chooses not to actually partake.