Marriage question concerning impotency / infertility

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is why many Catholics will be on the wrong side of history (both secular and Catholic) re civil unions.

In 100 years SS civil unions will be of no more concern to the Church than charging interest, decriminalisation of Sodomy and many other hot potatos that were never matters of direct moral principle but prudential praxis afterall.
 
TheLittleLady said:
This exactly the same sex marriage debate.
Click to expand...
Maybe SSM isn’t all that bad. I’ve never heard of two loving SS partners shooting up an elementary school or a mall. They are children of God. They cannot create a child, but the can become “one flesh.”

If two older persons want to be Mr. and Mrs., I think it’s horrible to deny them based on a lack of sexual activity. Yet some younger people who consider sex a form of recreation and relaxation and have been living in sin for years find the church doors thrown wide open for their “wedding.”

It makes sense on paper, but not in real life.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know its not. I part ways with mainstream Catholicism on a few issues, but I still follow the dictates of the Church. I follow the laws of the State of California, where I live, though I do not agree with every law.
 
Which is exactly why canon law based questionairres are very blunt, one size fits all instruments for settling the matter.
It is an issue that requires considerable pastoral discernment by an experienced priest.

Which is why I laud my NCBishops which has not explicitly placed this question in their preNup forms.
 
Last edited:
My brother’s Buddhist wife, next to me, (who has attended his Church for the last 20 yrs but personally retains her Buddhist faith) asked me to pass you a message:
Please get a life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BF - I take it you view the impediment as stated in the Canon law as not warranting the status of an impediment that cannot be dispensed? Thus, it is not so much the practice of ministers to ascertain facts and observe the Law, but rather the law itself, with which you take objection?
BlackFriar said:
What exactly is the downside of marrying them please?
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes it clear. You disagree with the law.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
When you can’t have intercourse, you cannot make a marriage.
Click to expand...
While this is true, I think that the point is that given the state of medical technology today, “complete and antecedent impotence” is a rare occurrence, at least the “complete” part. There are medications, injections, mechanical devices and surgery. That someone is ineligible for all of them would be rare indeed.

What the priests in my diocese have been doing, from what one told me, is giving the “benefit of the doubt” that couples “of a certain age” can, if they choose, engage in intercourse when they marry, in other words the option is open and if necessary they can pursue a medical solution, i.e. get some “chocolate chips” as you put it. If they flat out say that they have no intention, then that’s another matter. But if they aren’t closed to the idea, then the priest gives them the benefit of the doubt, with discretion being the better part of valour in how they approach the question.

If they then choose to not consummate the marriage after the ceremony for whatever reason, it is between the husband and wife. If nobody demands their “rights”, and if the need for a decree of nullity never comes up, then nobody will be the wiser, and the chocolate chips can remain in the cupboard. If some day they decide to make some chocolate chip cookies, they’ll have the ingredients, but they aren’t obliged to; they can have a Josephite marriage.
 
Do I even need to respond seeing you are a mind reader?
Clearly one would be mistaken to believe it is currently a dispensible impediment.

What do you see as the downside of the Church rescinding this current requirement wrt the elderly?

Lets not hide behind the predictable AL type copout (its an unalterable teaching of the Church not a prudential practice).
Its just a thought experiment.
 
Last edited:
I have rarely seen such a complex and delicately balanced theological and pastoral issue handled so clearly and adroitly.
 
BlackFriar said:
Do I even need to respond seeing you are a mind reader?
Click to expand...
Not minds, but words. I quoted you, if I drew the wrong conclusion, you need only clarify.
BlackFriar said:
What do you see as the downside of the Church rescinding this current requirement wrt the elderly?
Click to expand...
Did I say I saw any? I was just asking whether your argument was with the law as it stands - it seems to me it is.
 
OraLabora said:
What the priests in my diocese have been doing, from what one told me, is giving the “benefit of the doubt” that couples “of a certain age” can, if they choose, engage in intercourse when they marry, in other words the option is open and if necessary they can pursue a medical solution, i.e. get some “chocolate chips” as you put it. If they flat out say that they have no intention, then that’s another matter. But if they aren’t closed to the idea, then the priest gives them the benefit of the doubt, with discretion being the better part of valour in how they approach the question.
Click to expand...
That seems charitable, realistic, and still within the law. Glad to read that.
 
YES, ABSOLUTELY! I used to live in New York and there was a young couple in their mid-20’s who desired to get married. None of the many priests they approached would agree to marry them because they were NOT going to consummate their marriage as the man had full blow AIDS. The cardinal (this was in the mid-to late 1990’s) agreed to marry them as long as the woman vowed to live celibacy until her husband’s death). She made such a vow during the marriage ceremony!
 
Herculees said:
YES, ABSOLUTELY! I used to live in New York and there was a young couple in their mid-20’s who desired to get married. None of the many priests they approached would agree to marry them because they were NOT going to consummate their marriage as the man had full blow AIDS. The cardinal (this was in the mid-to late 1990’s) agreed to marry them as long as the woman vowed to live celibacy until her husband’s death). She made such a vow during the marriage ceremony!
Click to expand...
I think that’s wonderful! Christ commanded us to “love one another as I have loved you.” The above seems to fit that.
 
Wondering also. If one has never had sex before, how can she or he know that one is unable to engage in intercourse?
 
fin said:
Wondering also. If one has never had sex before, how can she or he know that one is unable to engage in intercourse?
Click to expand...
I would think for a man, it’s rather obvious. For a woman, if she has regular check-ups, any abnormality would surely be detected.

If there is nothing wrong physically and they are willing to consummate the marriage, then there is no complete and antecedent impotence and hence no impediment. If there is a psychological barrier after the ceremony beyond first night jitters or clumsiness, that is not antecedent to the wedding, and is a different issue altogether that probably requires counseling.
 
This makes me curious.

A couple years ago when my wife and I separated and ultimately divorced (I have since gotten a lack of form from the church approved) I had no where to go, no money in the bank and no job as I was staying home taking care of her as she has MS, I had to go live with my parents. One of their stipulations was that I must get a vasectomy because I have seven kids. They did not want me to have any more.

So it was that or live out on the street and I wasn’t about to live out on the street, so I got the vasectomy even though it wasn’t a choice I would make on my own, but forced into doing so. I talked with my priest and was given forgiveness as it wasn’t a choice I would make and was forced to do it in order to have a roof over my head. I was given permission to receive communion and he said I could pursue a relationship with a mother woman and ultimately marriage when I felt ready to do so.

After reading through this thread, I am confused. It seems like I cannot pursue marriage after all because I am unable to have kids as I have been rendered sterile.

Am I still able to pursue marriage through the church?
 
Yes, the impediment is not the ability to have children but the ability to have sex.

Regardless, you could look into a reversal of the vasectomy if you are independent again.
 
lonegreywolf20 said:
After reading through this thread, I am confused. It seems like I cannot pursue marriage after all because I am unable to have kids as I have been rendered sterile.
Click to expand...
Sterility is not relevant. The discussion has been about impotence - which is an inability to engage in marital relations.

And FYI, vasectomy is often reversible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top