paraplegic marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leisa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
she_he:
Ok simple now aday terms a man whom has had a vasectomy is sterile he has no “swimmers” to seek out the womans egg.

an impotent man has the swimmers, but cannot gain an erection which everyone seems to think is needed for coitus to happen.

Penetration can be achieved without an erection,however it is difficult,and you do not need an erection to ejaculate
so to me there is no problem consumating.
However the church has taken a stand denying a marriage to a paralyzed man and it makes no sense.
Code: 
                                         John
Click to expand...
Actually a vasectomy doesn’t stop the man from producing sperm, it only cuts off it’s ability to leave the body. After a vasectomy the man’s body just reabsorbs the sperm. So, while he is sterile–in that sperm can’t leave his body, he is still producing sperm. But I’m not sure what this has to do with the conversation, I just wanted to clarify what you stated.
 
actually I knew that, just did not put down what the ejaculated fluid content was. as so many posts seemed to be lost in the difference between impotent and infertile.

was strictly for ease of understanding.
 
I guess I’m confused on what the question is here.

I am under the impression that penile implants, drugs which help enable erections, and manual stimulation were all considered perfectly acceptable by the Church so long as the end result is that the man ejaculates directly into the woman’s vagina. I would assume that ‘visual aids’ would only be acceptable if they only involve the couple.

A man such as I have described here would not be considered impotent and would be allowed to marry by the Church.

Of course the problem is that not all couples have access to all the available ‘tools’ due to the place they live, poverty, etc. This, in my mind, is where the doubt about impotence comes into play.

If such a couple is denied marriage then it is not really “Church Teaching” which is denying the marriage but a particular priest, parish, and/or diocese. Unfortunately the distinction is lost for that particular couple.
 
This was almost exactly what we were told last night by our priest, that the denial should never have happened

there is no way possible to prove consumtion cannot take place at SOME point in the marriage,and with medical help its “almost never impossible now”

so as far as I am concerned the denial was out of place
Code: 
Peace be with all

                    John
 
40.png
SMHW:
I guess I’m confused on what the question is here.

I am under the impression that penile implants, drugs which help enable erections, and manual stimulation were all considered perfectly acceptable by the Church so long as the end result is that the man ejaculates directly into the woman’s vagina. I would assume that ‘visual aids’ would only be acceptable if they only involve the couple.

A man such as I have described here would not be considered impotent and would be allowed to marry by the Church.

Of course the problem is that not all couples have access to all the available ‘tools’ due to the place they live, poverty, etc. This, in my mind, is where the doubt about impotence comes into play.

If such a couple is denied marriage then it is not really “Church Teaching” which is denying the marriage but a particular priest, parish, and/or diocese. Unfortunately the distinction is lost for that particular couple.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches this:

If there is NO cure in the future for the impotence, then it is forbidden.

If there is a cure available in the future, then it’s O.K.

In the case above, poverty and one’s inability to obtain the present cure at the present time would not make a good case for denying the marriage. As long as the couple maintained that in the future, they would be working toward getting one of the “cures,” it would be O.K.

The key is, is there a cure? Is there a likelyhood of consumating the marriage in the near future? If the present methods have been tried and do not work for the man, and no forseeable cure is on the horizon, then you would have to deny the marriage.
 
Hmmm, I find this somewhat odd as I just read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and gave a presentation about it to a high school youth group (gasp!), and I am not so sure this seems correct to me.

I tend to crunch things down to simpler terms as I don’t like a bunch of rules. John Paul did tend to be a bit windy (or so I’m told), and what I really seem to get from is is that marriage ‘is total donation of self to the spouse.’

In parallel, I am not sure as to why no one responded to the Josephite marriage objection. From the way I understand it, for a valid marriage, each has to exchange the right to marital congress, even if they have no intention to use it.

So, if I were to provide a stupid example, someone could enter into a Josephite marriage, and then immediatly paralyze themselves (hopefully no one finds this offensive, its just an example to make a point), and that would be acceptable because he had never intended to consumate the marriage. But getting married after paralysis is acceptable? Seems odd.

Back to the total donation of self; I think that a paralyzed person can totally donate themself to the spouse, its just that intercourse is not theirs to give.
 
40.png
precious_roy:
So, if I were to provide a stupid example, someone could enter into a Josephite marriage, and then immediatly paralyze themselves (hopefully no one finds this offensive, its just an example to make a point), and that would be acceptable because he had never intended to consumate the marriage. But getting married after paralysis is acceptable? Seems odd.
Click to expand...
I am sure someone can answer this? I would think a marriage intends one is exchanging the right to the marital embrace. In a Josephite marriage the right is still there, just not used. However, one must have the ability to use that right in the first place. If one cannot have intercourse then how can they give another that right?

If they become unable to have intercourse after they are married that would seem an entirely different set of principles.
 
Understand what you are saying, and that is basically what I was thinking.

But my question boils down to what is the point in exchanging a right that will not be used?
 
However, one must have the ability to use that right in the first place. If one cannot have intercourse then how can they give another that right?

If they become unable to have intercourse after they are married that would seem an entirely different set of principles.

Being a paraplegic, I take offense to both of you!!!
I do not have the ability to consumate a marriage, a fact I’ve accepted as a practicing catholic.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say above.
Think before you speak next time

Scotty
 
40.png
Scotty1084:
Being a paraplegic, I take offense to both of you!!!
I do not have the ability to consumate a marriage, a fact I’ve accepted as a practicing catholic.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say above.
Think before you speak next time

Scotty
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could explain more? I was stating what I have read Church teaching is. A marriage needs to have certain elements to be valid when it is contracted. If one is permanently unable to engage in intercourse the Church says that a marriage cannot be made. If after marriage some problem happens that does not invalidate the marriage.
 
40.png
Scotty1084:
Being a paraplegic, I take offense to both of you!!!
I do not have the ability to consumate a marriage, a fact I’ve accepted as a practicing catholic.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say above.
Think before you speak next time

Scotty
Click to expand...
Well, you can’t please all of the people all of the time I guess… :o
I think that it is fabulous that you understand these teachings and I am most grateful that you do. However I do not and I am trying to understand them. I cannot simply say to myself “here is a person who has a condition and he understand it, so I will accept it as ok.” I just do not think that way.

I am just stating that I cannot understand why the Pope would make such a lengthy address if it really wasn’t even expressing the point of marriage, which seems to require intercourse of some kind. But then again not, because you could abstain throught the entire marriage. I’m just confused as to the difference. :confused:
 
After reading all of the above posts, as much as I am a faithful Catholic, the position taken on a paralyzed man seems to be very unkind. I know several disabled people who are married, and they are faithful, loving spouses and parents.
 
40.png
KatieD:
After reading all of the above posts, as much as I am a faithful Catholic, the position taken on a paralyzed man seems to be very unkind. I know several disabled people who are married, and they are faithful, loving spouses and parents.
Click to expand...
Can you give a bit more explanation as to what you mean by unkind? The OP linked a story that involved an impotent man who wanted to get married. That is very different from a man who** is** married yet becomes impotent.

I have learned from this thread that a Catholic marriage requires certain elements to be present for it to be valid and sacramental. Those requirements are not simply some arbitrary hurdles placed there by legalistic lawyers. The requirments go to the very nature of what consitutes a marriage.

While we all have sympathy for some person who may suffer from paralysis that does not mean one has a right to redefine marriage for individual reasons.

Can you see the point?
 
40.png
she_he:
This was almost exactly what we were told last night by our priest, that the denial should never have happened

there is no way possible to prove consumtion cannot take place at SOME point in the marriage,and with medical help its “almost never impossible now”

so as far as I am concerned the denial was out of place
John
Click to expand...
I must agree with this, which seems to clarify the whole issue. The Church teaches that a marriage once contracted is considered valid unless someone brings up an objection. Also that nearly anyone can marry because with medical help consumation can take place.
The problem seemed to be the individual priest in the case cited. Priests are only human and some make mistakes.
 
What about when she wants children? (And she probably will!) Most adoption agencies would not place a child in this home? 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?

:mad:
Where do I start with this lady!
Why in the world would you think an adoption agency would not place a child with a paraplegic? You are so uninformed!!!
And, marrying an impotent man is like becoming a nun?
That’s the cruelest thing I’ve heard. I’m a paraplegic Catholic…my sex life has been altered as you would expect, but not the way you think. HOW DARE YOU!

I need everyone’s support on this please.

-Scotty
 
What about the Virgin Mary? She did not consummate her marriage with Joseph, does this make them not married?
 
Catherine_W said:
What about the Virgin Mary? She did not consummate her marriage with Joseph, does this make them not married?
Click to expand...
:banghead: nope they are married…there is a term for their type of marriage…I can not think of it right now though…
 
Catherine_W said:
What about the Virgin Mary? She did not consummate her marriage with Joseph, does this make them not married?
Click to expand...
They had the ability to consumate. The case here is that one may not have the ability to consumate. There is the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top