I would have to say that yes, that would okay. A Priest told me once that many things like that are perfectly fine. The key is that it ‘restores natural function’. It would seem that in all but the most extreme cases, there would always be some doubt of impotence.
The marital embrace is a means of grace.
1 Corinthians 6:16 indicates that this is exactly what “becoming one flesh” means.
This is a theology that predates the Bible and is based in natural law. The purpose of the reproductive organs (we even CALL them “reproductive” organs) is (ta-da!) reproduction. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation with all the other great stuff that goes with human intimacy in marriage shoring up the procreative purpose.
Right. But with the impossibility of procreation, then the marriage is missing an essential ingredient.
I don’t believe I have ever heard anybody say that spiritual union in Christian marriage is BASED on sexual intercourse.
St. Paul certainly defines sexual intercourse as the definitive point making two people “one flesh.” (I Cor 6:16: Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.”)
Catholic2003 said:
Creative but unconvincing analysis.
Well, one might have “physically and emotionally bonding sex without intercourse” but in a Catholic marriage, the marital act must include ejaculation within the vagina for all of the well-thought-out reasons based in nature, philosophy and theology. To engage in sexual activity otherwise is to fail in “openness to life” and thereby to fall into mortal sin.
The first point above, you say that the possiblility of procreation is essential, but then why are infertile couples allowed to marry? There is no chance for procreation there outside of a miracle. If it is the possibility of a miracle that allows it, the I say, by a miracle a man who is impotent at the time of marriage, may be able to perform intercourse and procreate.
You bring up an excellent point. Yes. In youth, before marriage, chastity (or even inchastity without a track record) would not allow one to know for certain that a person is infertile. As for post-menopause, here is a line from a CA tract. (I’m in a rush now and can’t dig up more resources, but do follow some of the leads on this thread.):
I apologize for my “where in the Bible” crack. But we get a lot of questions that start with that phrase, and they are nearly always hostile.
Thank you for discussing this with me.
I am sorry, I did not realize I was using such loaded words. I belive that God’s word is the final answer to matters such as these, and I honestly was asking to be shown them. I am by no means a Bible expert and as I said, I am trying to understand this.
I really do not think this is the intention of the church. She is simply trying to help people avoid sin. And only in recent years have people like paraplegics survived long enough to consider marriage, and to live independently.
Please think a little deeper for me and explain to me how it is LOVING to tell an impotent man that he can not marry and experience the ulitimate spiritual unity with a woman just because his equipment does not work to the point that he can have intercourse. Furthermore that since he can not marry he can not adopt children to raise in the faith? That ultimately he must live alone since and forego any sexually intimate relationship with a woman, which he is quite capable of, since that clearly is a sin outside of wedlock.
The Catholic Church also teaches that it is gravely immoral for a married couple to deliberately engage in sexual intimacy with no intention of completing the act of sexual intercourse. It is mutual masturbation, mutual self gratification through the use of another’s body. Thus it would appear that in Catholic theology that if a man is capable of legitimate and moral sexual intimacy, he is not impotent. Scripture clearly indicates that some men are “born eunuchs” (Matt. 19) and are included in the group of those who never marry. If one is prevented by some disability from engaging in certain good and moral acts, he does not become free to engage in immoral acts. Your comment about the impotent man not being able to enjoy sexual intimacy has more to do with what constitutes authentic, moral sexual expression than what is essential for marriage.
I was not going to post again, but I will respond to this since I should have made it clear in my last post.
Can you give us the original texts in Hebrew and Greek for that? In the OT, male genitals are discreetly referred to as “feet.” Hm. Since your take on these passages seems to be unique, you might want to demonstrate your rationale for us.
Though I believe you are holding me to a higher standard than you have done for yourself when you quoted the english translation of Paul’s remarks in Corinthians, I will go to the Greek New Testament on this and report back, this will take time, but is not impossible for me. Going to the Hebrew OT is impossible for me, sorry.