Marriage question concerning impotency / infertility

[TheLittleLady]

There are more than one. Fecundity, remedy for concupiscence, the good of the spouses are the big three.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I’m not going to even attempt to challenge Church law on any subject, but to me, the inability to have sexual relations precluding marriage just seems harsh and mean to me. And unnecessary, especially when infertility is not an impediment.

The nuns I’ve spoken to explain it like this: An infertile man or woman could experience a miracle, and the woman could find herself pregnant. Or a miracle cure could come along. Or they could adopt. All that is true. I have no problem with that.

But say a man and woman are engaged and plan on marrying when his tour of duty in a war zone is over and he returns to the US. He could be injured, never to have sexual relations again. Or the woman could experience a rape that leaves her unable to tolerate physical relations. Compounding insult to injury, this couple, who are loving and kind, find out that they cannot marry. Well, can’t the same logic be applied to them? A miracle could happen. A miracle cure could come along (it’s not a miracle, but the world didn’t always have Viagra and Cialis), and they, too, can adopt and have a loving family. They can bring much good into the world.

I guess they should just marry civilly. If they are living together without sexual relations, they aren’t sinning, I guess.

It still seems to lack compassion to me. I think this is one of the reasons the Catholic Church is losing members. Not this specifically, but the lack of compassion. Both rules and compassion are necessary.

The downright hate some Catholics have for the LGBT community is appalling to me. Not that I approve of a SS lifestyle or marriage, but these persons are children of God and many are more worthy of love than heterosexuals. It’s not the lack of approval I find appalling, it’s the lack of love. Christ did say, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” not “Love only your heterosexual, non-impotent neighbors.”

I’d better take a Valium.

 

[Gorgias]

It would be good to read the entire thread to gain context before wading in green.

It would be charitable to assume that one has done so.

I would think twice before refusing to marry an elderly couple purely on such grounds.

Here’s the thing: typically, that wouldn’t be the case. After all, the question would boil down to “are you certain that you will never be able to have marital intercourse?”

And then, once the answer is, “well… no!”, then they’re good to go.

Good to give the benefit of the doubt in such scenarios…especially if they are likely to marry civilly if refused.

Right: better to make a mockery of the sacrament than let people do what they darn well please…

 

[Rau]

Yes. But even a permanently impotent person, due to a physical deformity or anomaly, is unable to have sex due to no fault of their own. What about paraplegics who cannot have what we would call normal intercourse? They are unable to be married?

If sex is impossible, why is marriage the appropriate relationship? The sexual element is rather core to making the relationship “marriage” and not just a loving companionship.

 

[1ke]

Well, can’t the same logic be applied to them? A miracle could happen.

Unfortunately, what the nuns taught you isn’t the underlying reason at all.

Yes, miracles “can” occur-- although they rarely do, and certainly do not for women with no uterus via hysterectomy or women who are past menopause.

No, the possibility of a miracle isn’t why infertility is not an impediment to marriage.

 

[1ke]

It still seems to lack compassion to me. I think this is one of the reasons the Catholic Church is losing members. Not this specifically, but the lack of compassion. Both rules and compassion are necessary.

It’s not a rule. It’s a divine law impediment. It’s not dispensable.

 

[ConstantLearner]

It’s not a rule. It’s a divine law impediment. It’s not dispensable.

Where in the Bible does it say a man and a woman must be able to consummate a marriage? Oh, never mind. In Genesis: “…the two shall become one flesh.”

Yes, I know the nuns were wrong. It’s so the marriage can be consummated. I think they said that because they were talking to young girls, but we knew they were sugar-coating it.

Yes, I can see it’s not dispensable, but it still seems harsh to me, especially when annulments are given out so freely, at least where I live. Here, any man or woman can get an annulment by claiming to have been mentally “upset” at the time.

Thanks.

 

[1ke]

but it still seems harsh to me, especially when annulments are given out so freely, at least where I live

I’m not really sure where you are drawing the parallel here. What do decrees of nullity for other reasons have to do with the impediment of impotency?

Decrees of nullity are granted when evidence of invalidity exists. They aren’t “given out freely”. They are granted when the petition has merit.

Here, any man or woman can get an annulment by claiming to have been mentally “upset” at the time.

Perhaps it does look that way from the outside. But, I would encourage you to talk to tribunal members and learn what really goes on.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Decrees of nullity are granted when evidence of invalidity exists. They aren’t “given out freely”. They are granted when the petition has merit.

ConstantLearner:

I know people who’ve gotten annulments. Some of them went into the marriage with the idea that “if it doesn’t work out, we can get an annulment” and they did.

I do believe the members of the tribunal try very hard to do the best job.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Entering into marriage with those thoughts would prove the person had not the either capacity or intent - or both - to consent.

 

[BlackFriar]

Exactly my point.
Principled arguments that deny marriage simply because successful procreation or successful marital acts may not be on the table appear overly simplistic.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Does that, then, make us any better than people who rush into marriage, then divorce? Multiple times? It would seem to be they are more moral if their intention is to remain married.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Heavens, who is saying those who had an invalid attempt at marriage are bad people?

 

[BlackFriar]

What have I said you seriously disagree with?

Why is an elderly faithful Catholic couple wanting to have the usual legal rights and protections offered to life long committed, chaste and faithful heterosexual couples … making a mockery of the Sacrament by doing so civilly when the Church refuses exactly?

One of us isnt living in the real world, one of us has near zero pastoral common sense. I dont believe its me.

I suggest the Church may even be making a mockery of their legitimate desire to live together and form Christian home.

Should mixed marriages be fully banned as well according to your novel mockery principle. Isnt it terrible and a mockery that Catholics can marry Buddhist girls and have non sacramental sex and cohabitation too?

 

[ConstantLearner]

Heavens, who is saying those who had an invalid attempt at marriage are bad people?

I am. I’m not talking about people who make one or even two sincere attempts. I’m talking about people who rack up one marriage after the other, without even getting to know the man or woman they’re marrying. I deal with the public in work, so meet a lot of people. I know people who’ve been married seven, eight times. And I suppose THEY qualify for an annulment based on lack of sincere intention or mental illness. We might as well allow divorce.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Try it this way. Say Grandma wants to make chocolate chip cookies.

You come over and she has butter and sugar and flour and oatmeal and vanilla and raisins. You tell her “Grandma, you cannot make chocolate chip cookies. You do not have one thing that is vital to chocolate chip cookies, you have no chocolate chips!”

Now, is it kinder to let her make the oatmeal raisin cookies and call them chocolate chip cookies or simply to explain to her that she cannot make chocolate chip cookies, but, she can make oatmeal.

When you can’t have intercourse, you cannot make a marriage.

You can have friendship with someone else, but, you cannot call it marriage even if you get the state to say it is.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Should mixed marriages be fully banned as well according to your novel mockery principle. Isnt it terrible and a mockery that Catholics can marry Buddhist girls and have non sacramental sex and cohabitation too?

Yes, they should be banned until the Buddhist has converted to Catholicism. We’re getting so lax in some areas, there isn’t much to differentiate us. No wonder we are seeing the breakdown of the traditional Catholic family. No, they should not live together or have sexual relations. They should practice self-control, abd the Catholic should remember his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, or should be.

 

[BlackFriar]

When you can’t have intercourse, you cannot make a marriage.

Do you realise how absurd this sounds?
They are still cookies even if they arent cc ones due to circumstances outside her control.

If you dont believe its a full marriage then dont call it one.
But then be consistent and deny the name to the sterile as well. They are not fruitful or multiplying as God commanded.

But please dont tell us, along with some posters, its a sin or a mockery for them to seek the affinative and legal benefits of a civil union (call it civil marriage) when denied.

What exactly is the downside of marrying them please?
There are certainly some very predictable downsides to closing the Presbytery door on them I would not wish to be responsible for.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This exactly the same sex marriage debate.

 

[BlackFriar]

Which isolates the non Catholic nature of this alleged sacramental mockery principle…for in fact your personal view is not in line with current Church practice.