Marriage question concerning impotency / infertility

[Phemie]

This was not an inability to have sex but rather a choice to have a josephite marriage. Not the same thing.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

A reversal is not going to happen. Costs more money than I can afford and would keep me out of work for longer than I have PTO for as well as could not afford that much time off as I wouldn’t be paid after the PTO runs out. As an EMT there is no such thing as light duty. From what I have been reading the general consensus is no lifting for four weeks and the main part of my job is lifting and I’m lifting over 200 pounds routinely.

I did ask my priest about reversal when talking about getting married again at some point and he said that a reversal is not required, especially if it is a financial burden.

 

[TheLittleLady]

A marriage may be perfectly valid, a marriage may be sacramental, and never be consummated. You have to be able to perform the marital act, and willing to do so if your valid spouse requests.

 

[TheLittleLady]

While a Josephite marriage has no bearing on the current topic, I would be interested to see a Canonist review this situation. This is very much thwarting the rights of a spouse. To do this voluntarily, great. To be forced to make such an intimate decision public, just raises an eyebrow.

 

[OraLabora]

A marriage may be perfectly valid, a marriage may be sacramental, and never be consummated. You have to be able to perform the marital act, and willing to do so if your valid spouse requests.

That’s my point. As long as the possibility exists, even if it requires medical intervention, the priest gives the couple the benefit of the doubt. Almost any man today short of physical absence of the required organ due to disease or accident, can thus put himself into the necessary state to complete the act. Unless the couple flat out states to the priest that they never intend to have intercourse, in which case he has to refuse to marry them, he gives the couple the benefit of the doubt.

It’s a lot more delicate than asking a couple of 75 year olds “are you planning to have sexual intercourse”?

If the couple choose not to consummate the marriage by mutual accord, it is their private affair which will never come to the fore unless the couple apply for a decree of nullity. I would assume that a couple at an advanced age, that come to such an agreement, won’t suddenly be demanding their “rights”.

 

[1ke]

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?

I am sorry if something in this thread troubled or confused you.

Sterility is NOT an impediment to valid marriage. You can certainly marry in the Church. Please listen to your priest. Remember, threads on internet forums can sometimes contain inaccurate information, and also people go off on tangents. Your pastor has advised you regarding your marital situation. Be at peace.

 

[1ke]

I did ask my priest about reversal when talking about getting married again at some point and he said that a reversal is not required, especially if it is a financial burden.

Yes, this is true. Not required. Please listen to your priest. Do not feel burdened by what people here are saying. They were simply offering suggestions based on the fact you said you were coerced into something you didn’t want to do.

Don’t take their statements that reversal is possible to mean it is required. You have been informed correctly that it is not.

 

[Gorgias]

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?

Sorry. You misinterpreted me. I meant that you make a mockery of the sacrament when, although it cannot validly be celebrated, you permit it simply because “oh well, they’ll go out and marry civilly.”

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

Again, I think that the framing of the question allows for an affirmative answer that both follows the intent of the law and allows for sensitivity. Sadly, over the past fifty years, “pastoral” has often become code-word for “do whatever I want, in contradiction of the Church’s guidance”. You may have a ton of this kind of ‘pastoral’ sense, but conforming the Church to “the real world” helps neither our people nor the world.

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?

Now I know you’re on the ropes. Puh-leeze… (p.s., that’s not a mixed marriage, and it isn’t sacramental, regardless where celebrated. But, nice try… )

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, they should be banned until the Buddhist has converted to Catholicism.

No. They. Shouldn’t!

The canon law of the Church allows for it. It has some pretty strong warnings to give the couple, but it’s allowable, in the hopes that there will be a conversion of heart.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Precisely!

 

[Gorgias]

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

The funny thing is, you’re arguing the wrong position.

Typically, what we see is that elderly couples want the benefits of companionship, but without civil marriage (since that tends to eliminate or at least decrease certain financial benefits from the state).

So, what is more common is that they cohabitate but then ask for a private ‘marriage’ without the recognition of the state. The ‘pastoral’ (yet completely illegal) thing to do in this case is to allow it. I wonder which you would do…

 

[Gorgias]

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).

“in continence”, not “celibately”. Celibacy has to do with not being married; continence has to do with not having sex.

This is very much thwarting the rights of a spouse. To do this voluntarily, great. To be forced to make such an intimate decision public, just raises an eyebrow.

As long as both spouses agree to it, I’m not certain that it “violates the rights of a spouse.” However, asking for a vow skates awful close to “placing a condition on the marriage”…

 

[ConstantLearner]

The canon law of the Church allows for it. It has some pretty strong warnings to give the couple, but it’s allowable, in the hopes that there will be a conversion of heart.

Okay, thanks. (I think that’s 16 characters.)

 

[BlackFriar]

I did ask my priest about reversal when talking about getting married again at some point and he said that a reversal is not required, especially if it is a financial burden

That is not entirely accurate.
It is a heavily debated point.

Voluntary sterility is a disordered act, to choose such freely and knowingly is essentially an ongoing act of contraception. However you were under significant duress so the original decision was unlikely personally mortal. However it is a subject of grave matter and a grave and ongoing disorder has resulted which is “dormant” while not married but becomes an “active” issue again when you are in a marital situation.

There is then a moral obligation to reverse the grave disorder and remedy it.
However circumstances do bear on this matter.
Some opine a reversal is trivial medically and therefore the obligation cannot be ignored.
Even if this were true the financial burden must also be considered.

When does the financial burden become so great that one is freed from this serious obligation to restore fertility? If it costs no more than a new 50" TV or perhaps a second car (requiring significant but not prohibitive discipline and saving) that might be a reasonable cut off mark.

I am surprised the priest took this decision of conscience away from you and really decided it for you. It is not black and white at the level of principle.
It is a prudential decision that you clearly have to make before God in your own conscience.

 

[BlackFriar]

Agreed. A vow is not necessary as far as I understand it.
So long as either spouse does not ask for the “marital debt” there is absolutely no issue.
If one asks then the other is required by their marriage to respond (though not on every single occasion obviously).

Josephite marriages, as I understand the matter, do not require a vow of abstinence, nor does it require a public promise. Actually I am thinking a vow of permanent abstinence (even if mutual) would invalidate the marriage!

Joseph could have asked for his marriage rights at any time and I am sure Mary would have obeyed. That never happened. If she was unwilling to do so,even if never asked, their marriage, (from a Christian point of view) does seem questionable.
Perhaps I am mistaken … any new angles on this?

 

[BlackFriar]

I meant that you make a mockery of the sacrament when, although it cannot validly be celebrated, you permit it simply because “oh well, they’ll go out and marry civilly.”

OK, so explain that for us…

Now I know you’re on the ropes. Puh-leeze… (p.s., that’s not a mixed marriage, and it isn’t sacramental, regardless where celebrated. But, nice try… )

Not quite sure what you are on about here.
Obviously I know it is not sacramental, that is my very point. Have another go at discerning my observation…

(BTW you are being just a little pedantic and inappropriately technical with the “mixed marriage” comment. “Mixed Marriage” has a number of legitimate meanings and it is clear which one I meant by referring to Buddhism. I invite you to read the Catholic Encyclopedia on this:

"Technically, mixed marriages are those between Catholics and non-Catholics, when the latter have been baptized in some Christian sect. The term is also frequently employed to designate unions between Catholics and infidels. "

What horrendous marriage downsides do you fear from not explicitly asking the question of an elderly married couple who in every way are model Catholics and well matched?

 

[BlackFriar]

That is not the issue I have faced or am addressing sorry.

So, what is more common is that they cohabitate but then ask for a private ‘marriage’ without the recognition of the state. The ‘pastoral’ (yet completely illegal) thing to do in this case is to allow it. I wonder which you would do…

No that is not the “pastoral” thing to do. We must give unto Caesar the things of Caesar.
In any case such is impossible in many countries. Priests are simply unable to marry a couple without them presenting a civil Marriage Licence which he annotates and returns to the Registrar after the wedding.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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?

You have, frankly, discovered the danger of turning for an answer about very specific matters to an Internet forum that is populated by lay people who have no mandate to speak to these matters…to say nothing about the requisite years of education to receive such a mandate.

There are very few of us who are clerics on this forum…let alone clergy who have gone on for specialisation.

For your own sake, you should be speaking to the priest who is the pastor that your bishop has confided your soul to…or to an official of your diocese entrusted with these matters…or a theologian who holds the mandatum. Otherwise, you will indeed be quite confused.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I did ask my priest about reversal when talking about getting married again at some point and he said that a reversal is not required, especially if it is a financial burden.

Regardless of what you are reading in this forum, what the priest told you is correct.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, they should be banned until the Buddhist has converted to Catholicism

Absolutely not. This is completely alien to the mind of the Church – and repugnant to her thought.