paraplegic marriage

[Catholic2003]

YinYangMom:

It was my understanding that if a person knows they are infertile they cannot be married in the church.

This seems to be at the root of your misunderstanding. Dr. Colossus already quoted canon 1084 §3: “Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.”

If you know you are infertile, but you have lied to your future spouse about this, then the marriage may be invalid under canon 1098 (fraud). Otherwise, infertility is not an impediment to a valid marriage.

 

[Catholic2003]

YinYangMom:

Also, if impotence/infertility afflicts the person after a valid marriage that couple’s marriage continues to be valid, correct?

Correct.

Infertility is not a problem whether before or after the wedding.

Impotence that occurs after the wedding does not invalidate the marriage. Impotence must be permanent (incurable) and must have existed prior to the wedding for it to make a marriage invalid.

With rare exception, a marriage is either valid or invalid based solely on facts in existence at the time of the wedding ceremony.

 

[YinYangMom]

Catholic2003:

Correct.

Infertility is not a problem whether before or after the wedding.

Impotence that occurs after the wedding does not invalidate the marriage. Impotence must be permanent (incurable) and must have existed prior to the wedding for it to make a marriage invalid.

With rare exception, a marriage is either valid or invalid based solely on facts in existence at the time of the wedding ceremony.

Well I just don’t understand the distinction then…
If one knows they are infertile but capable of engaging in the marital act…they are allowed to have a valid sacramental marriage even though no children knowingly will be the result of any conjugal union (I suspect this is because ‘miracles’ can happen???)

But a person who is incapable of engaging in the marital act, thereby knowingly cannot bring children into the relationship cannot. (Miracles can’t happen for them??? and what if they are committed to adopting??)

Sexual union serves two purposes in a marriage, procreative and unitive. Both unions here cannot meet the procreative purpose. But why is the parapalegic union any less ‘unitive’ just because there is no sexual union? Sex isn’t necessary for having a united, committed, loving relationship…it’s a plus…but I certainly don’t see it as critical. Look at couples in their menopausal years, when impotence comes into play, it doesn’t mean they can’t remain united and strong in their love for each other.

Which raises another question…if a person learns later in the marriage the partner lied about his/her fertility the marriage can be ruled invalid. This would be because it forced the spouse to not have children when he/she expected it would be possible. I get that.

But if I’m the fertile one and my intended spouse is the infertile one, and he tells me this up front, why am I allowed, as a faithful practicing Catholic to commit my life to someone who cannot help me fulfill the procreative part of the marriage vows. I would think that would be me openly refusing to fulfill my purpose in God’s plan…

What if I’m fertile but I don’t want children - for whatever reasons (body, convenience, etc.) - if I seek out a marital partner (say a divorced man who had a vasectomy already - why would I be allowed to have a blessed, valid, sacramental marriage??

I don’t understand why a loving couple with one of the members being incapable of conjugal relations is deemed less in need of the sacrament than some of the examples stated above.

I’m not disagreeing with the Church’s position…I’m trying to understand it better. Help?

 

[didymus]

Rob's Wife:

I agree this is a sad tale, but I agree with the church here. Infertility is a seperate issue. Permanent impotence will become an issue eventually if this couple were to marry.

What about when she wants children? (And she probably will!) Most adoption agencies would not place a child in this home? Should the church change canon to allow this couple to have IVF, surrogate mothers, ect…?? What about her own natural sexuality? Marrying an impotent man in this situation would be much like becoming a nun, but I doubt she thinks that way now?

So if they were already married but one got AIDS (from a transfusion, just to keep things simple). The Church would tell them that they cannot use condoms even to prevent transmitting HIV, so they’ll just have to both remain celibate for the rest of their lives. [which teaching I am **not disagreeing with]

But here we have two people who are going into this situation with full knowledge aren’t being allowed to? Something’s off-kilter here. Now might be a good time to ask WWJD?

Eventually, I think there would be a further seperation from the church at some point and certainly a deep resentment would begin to fester in such a marriage.

As opposed to the resentment they feel now?

I would like to add I think it was very brave of the priest to ask this question (I think it shows he truely does want to marry those who understand the faith and will have strong marriages) and for this man to answer honestly, I think he truely does want to follow the church. I would like to think that the priest will be able to continue working with this couple.

What if the priest had gone ahead and married them and the bishop hadn’t found out until later? Can the Church issue a decree of nullity without one of the spouses asking for it?

 

[amantoan]

YinYangMom:

Well I just don’t understand the distinction then…
If one knows they are infertile but capable of engaging in the marital act…they are allowed to have a valid sacramental marriage even though no children knowingly will be the result of any conjugal union (I suspect this is because ‘miracles’ can happen???)

But a person who is incapable of engaging in the marital act, thereby knowingly cannot bring children into the relationship cannot. (Miracles can’t happen for them??? and what if they are committed to adopting??)

I don’t think the potential for children is the issue here. Marriage is a type of relationship that involves total self giving, including sexual relations. When that has happened, even one time, the marriage is consummated and thus valid until one of the people die. That is why factors that come into play after the marriage don’t effect the validity of the marriage (it’s already consummated). If the relationship you have cannot involve sex ever, then the relationship simply is not what we call a marriage. It can still be a deeply loving and committed relationship, but it does not meet the definition of a marriage.

YinYangMom:

Sexual union serves two purposes in a marriage, procreative and unitive. Both unions here cannot meet the procreative purpose. But why is the parapalegic union any less ‘unitive’ just because there is no sexual union?

I think you answered your own question. If you can’t have sex, you can’t have physical unity at all. Without full unity (spiritual and physical) that relationship is simply not a marriage.

YinYangMom:

But if I’m the fertile one and my intended spouse is the infertile one, and he tells me this up front, why am I allowed, as a faithful practicing Catholic to commit my life to someone who cannot help me fulfill the procreative part of the marriage vows. I would think that would be me openly refusing to fulfill my purpose in God’s plan…

Well, you don’t take a vow to procreate, but being open to procreation must be part of it. And as you said, miracles can happen.

YinYangMom:

What if I’m fertile but I don’t want children - for whatever reasons (body, convenience, etc.) - if I seek out a marital partner (say a divorced man who had a vasectomy already - why would I be allowed to have a blessed, valid, sacramental marriage??

If you get married with the intention of NOT having children, that is not considered a valid marriage. If you can prove one or both parties had no intention of having children that would be a “slam dunk” for an annulment.

YinYangMom:

I don’t understand why a loving couple with one of the members being incapable of conjugal relations is deemed less in need of the sacrament than some of the examples stated above.

Someone made the analogy to a cookie above. That seems fairly apt to me. A marriage must have certain ingredients for it to be a marriage. If any of those ingredients is missing, you might still have something really good, but you don’t call it a marriage.

I guess my point is that not every loving relationship has to be called a marriage. And not calling it a marriage doesn’t demean what that relationship is. It’s just calling a spade a spade.

I hope this helps rather than confuses.

 

[cargopilot]

I’m wondering how any man could know he was infertile and incapable of producing life without actual/factual fertility testing?

I knew a parapalegic (non-C) many years ago who was from the chest down, quite paralized. He was married, and did in fact, have two kids. I’m quite sure that the marital act was not what we might consider ‘industry standard’ but it was certainly enough for them to have children.

By the same token, another friend, also a non-C, is married, and quite capable of the marital act in the normal way, but will never have children, barring some kind of miracle.

Both could have only assumed, at best, what their fertility was.

My question is, in the above mentioned case, if there was significant doubt about there being any possibility of transmitting life, would it make sense to have a doctor test for that? If he were able to produce live, motile spermatozoa, would he be not be quite eligible for marriage?

 

[Prometheum_x]

If the marriage can never be physically consummated, it is invalid. It doesn’t matter how much spiritual or emotional connection two people have. Marriage is a one flesh relationship, and if there is no consummation, there is no two becoming one flesh.

Those who are incapable of marriage because of such a defect are in no way prohibited from having a deep, strong relationship. They may even be lovers of some kind. They can be the best of friends and the closest of companions. But not husband and wife.

It isn’t an issue of the Church being insensitive or authoritarian or some other such word – it simply can’t call something a marriage if it isn’t a marriage. This is related to the “question” of whether the Church should ordain women as priests. It has no authority to do so, and no woman can ever be a priest, even if some bishop were to have an ordination ceremony and everyone pretended that she was.

 

[Prometheum_x]

cargopilot:

I’m wondering how any man could know he was infertile and incapable of producing life without actual/factual fertility testing?

I knew a parapalegic (non-C) many years ago who was from the chest down, quite paralized. He was married, and did in fact, have two kids. I’m quite sure that the marital act was not what we might consider ‘industry standard’ but it was certainly enough for them to have children.

By the same token, another friend, also a non-C, is married, and quite capable of the marital act in the normal way, but will never have children, barring some kind of miracle.

Both could have only assumed, at best, what their fertility was.

My question is, in the above mentioned case, if there was significant doubt about there being any possibility of transmitting life, would it make sense to have a doctor test for that? If he were able to produce live, motile spermatozoa, would he be not be quite eligible for marriage?

That’s a confusion between infertility and impotence. Infertility would be not having live, motile spermatozoa, for example. Impotence is being incapable of succesfully completing the act of intercourse, whether or not such an act would be fertile or not.

 

[cargopilot]

My point is, simply that it is very possible for a parapalegic to transmit life, without outside assistance.

I’m trying to keep my question PG, here, so you might have to fill in some of the blanks. I guess my question should be what is ‘incabable of sucessfully completing the marital act’? If the parapalegic husband’s wife can help complete the act, is he completely impotent? By the same token, would a man suffering from E.D., but completely fertile, who can complete the act, albiet with difficulty and much help be unable to marry?

 

[YinYangMom]

Prometheum_x:

If the marriage can never be physically consummated, it is invalid. It doesn’t matter how much spiritual or emotional connection two people have. Marriage is a one flesh relationship, and if there is no consummation, there is no two becoming one flesh.

I’m beginning to understand that more thanks to the previous poster…in that marriage isn’t sacramental marriage until consummation…

Those who are incapable of marriage because of such a defect are in no way prohibited from having a deep, strong relationship. They may even be lovers of some kind. They can be the best of friends and the closest of companions. But not husband and wife.

I’m not so certain about being lovers of some kind…wouldn’t it fall under the same category as homosexuals and other single heterosexuals? It’s not ok to do everything else but have sex - which includes longings, lusts, desires, etc.

 

[Prometheum_x]

cargopilot:

My point is, simply that it is very possible for a parapalegic to transmit life, without outside assistance.

I’m trying to keep my question PG, here, so you might have to fill in some of the blanks. I guess my question should be what is ‘incabable of sucessfully completing the marital act’? If the parapalegic husband’s wife can help complete the act, is he completely impotent? By the same token, would a man suffering from E.D., but completely fertile, who can complete the act, albiet with difficulty and much help be unable to marry?

If you aren’t completely impotent, then you aren’t impotent at all.

 

[Prometheum_x]

YinYangMom:

I’m not so certain about being lovers of some kind…wouldn’t it fall under the same category as homosexuals and other single heterosexuals? It’s not ok to do everything else but have sex - which includes longings, lusts, desires, etc.

What about those engaged to be married? Are they not in some way lovers (those who love) who await the day when that love can be consummated? Of course, they would have to live in a chaste and pure manner appropriate to their state in life, which would be unmarried. But that does not mean that they cannot love each other or be devoted to each other. That’s exactly what an engaged couple does (or should do!). They refrain from sexual intimacy but are certainly intimate in other ways.

 

[Catholic2003]

YinYangMom:

I’m not disagreeing with the Church’s position…I’m trying to understand it better. Help?

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica question Whether impotence is an impediment to marriage? explains this very well. Some excerpts:

In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.

…

Although the act of carnal copulation is not essential to marriage, ability to fulfill the act is essential, because marriage gives each of the married parties power over the other’s body in relation to marital intercourse.

 

[Catholic2003]

cargopilot:

My question is, in the above mentioned case, if there was significant doubt about there being any possibility of transmitting life, would it make sense to have a doctor test for that? If he were able to produce live, motile spermatozoa, would he be not be quite eligible for marriage?

Here is a link to an EWTN article that goes into incredible detail as to what is required of the male ejaculate in order for it to be considered “true semen” and thus adequate for a true marital act.

 

[Catholic2003]

didymus:

What if the priest had gone ahead and married them and the bishop hadn’t found out until later? Can the Church issue a decree of nullity without one of the spouses asking for it?

Yes, if the impotence has been made public:

Canon 1674 The following are able to challenge the validity of a marriage:

1° the spouses themselves;

2° the promotor of justice, when the nullity of the marriage has already been made public, and the marriage cannot be validated or it is not expedient to do so.

 

[otm]

coralewisjr:

I hope that canon law isn’t that bad. I thought that infertile couples are meant to adopt children.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

Impotency and infertility are two different issues.

 

[cargopilot]

Here is a link to an EWTN article that goes into incredible detail as to what is required of the male ejaculate in order for it to be considered “true semen” and thus adequate for a true marital act.

Excellent article! Thank you for posting the link. What I took away from the article was this…It should be noted that it is the practice of the Church “not to hinder marriage” when impotence is doubtful.

So it would appear that, even if one suffered from a significant level of impotence, there would usually be some doubt as to the totality of the impotence, and therefore one would be eligible to marry. It would appear that if one who suffered from some level of impotence and was seeking marriage, they should not simply assume that it is total and complete impotence. Further, they should inform the fiance and the priest that there is some level of impotence, but there is doubt as to the totality of said impotence.

Let me assure you, the marital act can be completed and “true semen” delivered in the normal way, even in the face of total erectile disfunction.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Catholic2003]

cargopilot:

It should be noted that it is the practice of the Church “not to hinder marriage” when impotence is doubtful.

Correct. Dr. Colossus quoted the exact canon law for this as well:

Canon 1084 §2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

 

[Viki59]

Prometheum_x:

If the marriage can never be physically consummated, it is invalid. It doesn’t matter how much spiritual or emotional connection two people have. They can be the best of friends and the closest of companions. But not husband and wife.
.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if two people had a civil marriage of this sort and had adopted children, and then wanted to join the Church and be married in the church, it would appear the best policy for them to follow would be “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The fellow in Brazil can’t be sure he’s impotent, so should just inform the church that there’s doubt, in which case there’d be no impediment.

 

[Giannawannabe]

I’m curious. As a health care rehab professional, I have worked with many paraplegics. There is technology out there that enables men to have an erection and sexual intercourse. Would this be okay? It would not be “natural”, but if it would allow a man to have relations with his wife and possibly conceive a child, it seems that he would no longer be impotent.