But you are missing that sex is an integral part of the marriage covenant! It’s not some minute thing–it’s part of the binding of the covenant.
Hi.
Infertile is fine by Canon Law, and not an impediment to marriage-being incurably impotent IS an impediment to marriage as the couple will never be able to complete the marriage act, which seals the sacrament of marriage. So, it’s not ‘cruel’, the Church simply recognizes that sex IS an important part of marriage.
I have nothing to add to the conversation, just wanted to say, Rosie24, I like how you wrote this post
Thank you for this post. It is one of the clearest explanations I have read on the topic. Once we each self define marriage, we have strayed from the truth and should we not all be concerned with love and truth, or are we to separate the two?
Well put Anna!
You’ve read up on the matter extensively, would you mind sharing where you came across the writings which show the Catholic Church would consider the apparatus and the shot ‘non-natural’ means and therefore prohibit their use?
Same question with that. Would you mind sharing the references to Catholic documents which would deem the cooperation of the wife in this situation to be against Church rules?
Well I still even get non-catholics baffled by the fact that I’ve accepted the fact, and at peace with, that I will never be a “husband” as defined by the catholic church due to my status as a paraplegic. My ex-girlfriend and I practiced abstinance even BEFORE my snowboarding accident. It’s a very special person that can take this on: being the spuse/significant other of a paraplegic…even more, a catholic paraplegicOK, as usual, I was a bit put off by what I assumed to be a problem with the Church’s teaching on this issue. Then I kept reading and started to gain some understanding. (Thank you to all of you knowledgeable posters!) Isn’t it always that way with controversial issues? We want to see things through our worldly eyes, and often connot conceive of how these issues look in the eyes of God. We are all so quick to judge God and his Church! Shame on us.
I only had one more thought to add to everyone else’s excellent points. Perhaps this law keeps people from committing ongoing sexual sin? It is only natural for married persons to want to have a sexually intimate relationship. In the case of definite (and I mean definite, not suspected) and permanent impotence, would the couple not try to reach this intimacy in “illicit” ways? After all, only one half of the couple would be incapable of having relations and might feel obligated to sexually satisfy their partner *somehow *, right? And since normal relations would be impossible, this would force them to reach this intimacy in a sinful manner. Just a thought, though. Perhaps this teaching of the Church is *merciful * instead of mean, like many presume? As is the case with a good many Church teachings, eh?
You are a GIANT!
God Bless you good and faithful servant. Surely your reward in heaven will be great!! If only we could all submit to the Church’s authority with such humility and faith!! You are an inspiration!! God Love You!!! :tiphat: You have graciously accepted your cross. I am in awe! Truly!!
That’s certainly the way I’ve come to understand and appreciate the teaching through Theology of the Body. The Church is merciful in Her teaching.Perhaps this law keeps people from committing ongoing sexual sin? It is only natural for married persons to want to have a sexually intimate relationship. In the case of definite (and I mean definite, not suspected) and permanent impotence, would the couple not try to reach this intimacy in “illicit” ways? After all, only one half of the couple would be incapable of having relations and might feel obligated to sexually satisfy their partner *somehow *, right? And since normal relations would be impossible, this would force them to reach this intimacy in a sinful manner. Just a thought, though. Perhaps this teaching of the Church is *merciful *instead of mean, like many presume? As is the case with a good many Church teachings, eh?
I agree with you. Lately I have been having the idea that since all that we have has been freely given to us from above, and that we are to be entirely subject to His will, that none of us actually has “rights,” though we ALL have obligations. Too often we think of what we are “owed” or “ought to have” but not what we are supposed to give. We are a sad, backwards culture. 
Ok simple now aday terms a man whom has had a vasectomy is sterile he has no “swimmers” to seek out the womans egg.
John
Because the drug used is a fertility drug.or without drug use a
this is pretty much self explanatory with the above ramifications.
The Church states that an impotent man cannot marry. Paraplegia is one of those situations where, if medical science can come up with an ethical way for a paraplegic to execute “a natural human act of intercourse” the barrier would fall.
For a sacrament to be valid certain conditions must be met. Is marraige an objective reality that has a definition that we all can know, or is it a subjective construct that we each decide for ourselves? If it is strictly subjective than anything goes.
But what Church documents have you read which actually state the fertility drug is prohibited and that the massage is sinful if the massaging makes it possible for the male to enter into female and deposit his sperm?
What you describe here involved artificial insemination, which to me means the extracted sperm are deposited into the female through external means. That, definitely, would be prohibited by the Church, not only for paraplegics but for all Catholics.
It seems you are stating an implant would be prohibited by the Church. What Church documents have you read which state that position. I don’t understand why you would think the Church would be opposed to the implant.
The Church is saying they cannot enter into a Sacramental Marriage. It’s not a ruling as much as it is a statement of fact. Because the covenant cannot be sealed through the proscribed manner (consumation) there would be no covenant, thus no sacrament. It’s not a matter of whether or not they can fulfill their love in physical ways.