paraplegics being denied marrige (i cant spell)

[vluvski]

The issue here is not paralysis, it’s impotence. Let’s not get confused over the actual nature of the impediment.

I think it is possible for a couple to agree to a Josephite marriage (both take vows of celibacy, or at least mutually agree never to consummate their marriage) with a dispensation, but I can’t back that up.

 

[jman507]

Now for say these two cannot marry in the Church cause they cannot consummate the marriage. Can they still get married civilly and be able to recieve communion?

 

[vluvski]

josea:

Are sterile people allowed to married? What I know is that sterility found after marriage can be a cause for nullity but, is it really an impediment to marriage if one finds it before?

I haven’t ever heard of sterility discovered after the marriage being a cause for nullity, but I’ve never researched it either. It was my understanding that sterility is only an issue if one spouse does not disclose a known condition prior to marriage.

Sterility is certainly not an impediment to marriage because the Church marries couples after menopause.

 

[Orionthehunter]

jman507:

Now for say these two cannot marry in the Church cause they cannot consummate the marriage. Can they still get married civilly and be able to recieve communion?

I would like to see someone quote from Canon Law that the Church wouldn’t sacramentally bless a union between a couple physically incapable for consummating the marriage. While the norm might be such a marriage is not to be done but there might be a procedure for an exception. This is a very interesting question.

That being said, I also don’t see any reason that two celibate people can’t form a civil union as there are tangible economic and fellowship and affection love benefits. And since they are not fornicators, I see no reason that this would preclude them from recieving the sacraments. Again, though an interesting question that requires a person w/ greater Canon Law knowledge than I possess.

 

[vluvski]

Here’s what I found at Jimmy Akin’s apologetics blog:

Okay, here’s what the Code of Canon Law says:

Canon 1084

§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

          §2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

§3 Without prejudice to the provisions of Can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

Now, I’ve quoted all three parts of this canon because folks often confuse infertility (sterility) with impotence (inability to have sex). It’s important to be clear on the distinction. When you commit to marriage, you are committing to a relationship in which the other party has a right to have sex with you (at least at opportune times). You are promising the other person to fulfill the marital duty (which is a euphemism for sex) upon the reasonable and opportune request of the other party.

That act may be fertile or infertile. It is always infertile in the case of a couple past the age of childbearing and, even in younger people, is infertile during most times of the month. But one is still capable of fulfilling one’s marital duty.

If one is impotent, however, one cannot do this. Some folks become impotent during the course of marriage, but as long as they weren’t impotent when the marriage began then then there was no barrier to them validly contracting a marriage. The loss of potency is thus a tragedy that may befall one in a marriage.

Frequently, though, the impotence is not permanent. Many (maybe most) men experience transitory impotence from time to time. That’s quite common. Even when the impotence is longer-lasting, we’ve got all kinds of treatments (up to and including the use of surgery or surgical implants) to make it possible for the vast majority of individuals to be able to fulfill the marital duty at least some of the time. Given the change in the medical treatments we have, we either are living or will soon be living in a world in which only the total absence of the relevant anatomy or severely debilitating psychological conditions (e.g., a pathological fear of sex, perhaps due to a trauma) would genuinely render one perpetually impotent.

Consequently, this is a vanishing problem.

But . . . if someone really is permanently and untreatably unable to perform the marital act from the very beginning of the marriage onward then the person is not able to give valid matrimonial consent.

There is another entry where he explains that even a Josephite marriage is not an option for an impotent person because a Josephite marriage still includes the surrender of your body to your spouse in sex even if there is no intention to pay the marriage debt. Basically, you cannot surrender something you do not have.

 

[1ke]

jman507:

Now for say these two cannot marry in the Church cause they cannot consummate the marriage. Can they still get married civilly and be able to recieve communion?

From Canon Law:

*Canon 1084

§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null. *

 

[Nonie]

Andrew_11:

No, you had a little misunderstanding, the reason was not that they were a paraplegic, it was that they were unable to consummate the marrige. Read the whole post and the thread in ask an apologist. I do however agree with you that this is discrimination. I have never really questioned a church teaching, but im questioning this one.

Hello,
I read the whole post the apologist wrote. Here it is:
The Code of Canon Law states:

Quote:
Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage (canon 1084 §1).

If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null (canon 1084 §2 ).

If it were doubtful whether a disabled person could consummate the marriage, or if it were believed that the injury could be reversed, the marriage could proceed. Since the person of whom you heard was denied marriage, my guess is that his injury was such that the marriage cannot be consummated and the inability to consummate the marriage is believed to be permanent.

Please note that impotence is not the same thing as sterility. Sterility on the part of either the man or the woman is not an impediment to marriage (canon 1084 §3). What is at issue is with whether or not the marriage can be consummated (a necessity), not with whether or not it is possible for the marital relations to produce children (not a necessity, although the couple must remain open to its possibility).

So basically if you can’t get an erection you can’t get married. SICK!!!

I hope this apologist is incorrect because if the whole of marriage, its beauty, grace, and potential is reduced down to a physical act. GOD HELP the Church!!!

:nope: Wonder if they posted this on Verterans Day? :nope:

 

[Nonie]

1ke:

From Canon Law:

*Canon 1084

§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null. *

So how do they find out if you can have intercourse? Is that a part of the engaged encounter that I missed??? :whacky:

 

[vluvski]

Nonie,
It’s not just the CA apologist… this is apparently the concensus among moral theologians. I would suggest reading the Jimmy Akin blog; it is more comprehensive.

 

[Nonie]

Hello again,

A body that is corrupt because of our sin in Adam and our ultimate death at the hands of sin. This person has SUFFERED a loss of some sort, be it a physical loss of part of the body or the use of that body part. The physical nature of man is the point here. It is corruptable because of sin, the devils relm…leads to death. The devil then is preventing this couple from getting married. God cannot unite what the devil has marked?

PS…gay folk are from the get-go opposite sex partners, they do have sex and it is unnatural not intended by God…there is no injury here, birth defect etc.

 

[Nonie]

vluvski:

Nonie,
It’s not just the CA apologist… this is apparently the concensus among moral theologians. I would suggest reading the Jimmy Akin blog; it is more comprehensive.

Hi Vluvski,
I went to Jimmy’s site but couldn’t find an article about this subject. Could you post a link on this thread?

Thanks,
Nonie

 

[Nonie]

Originally Posted by Andrew_11
." I always find that if I dont agree with a Church teaching at first, when I do some research about its reasoning, I understand why it is and accept it. Thanks ."

puzzleannie:

this should be posted in a sticky as required reading for everyone using the forums.

Then why would we have a forum?

 

[vluvski]

It seems the link won’t work unless I use the link on the blog (and the address is correct), so I’ll explain how I got there:

I originally found the article by searching for Catholic Canon Josephite Marriage on google. It was the first or second hit. The web address ends in canon_law or something. There is a lot on the page, so I used Edit>Find and entered Josephite to get to the relevant portion. Just above where the word Josephite appears, the question in the blog links to two other blog entries, the first of which I quoted and tried to link, and the second of which I didn’t find as relevant to our discussion (marriage and intersex-born people).

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

<< Consider this analogy I have heard: Would you consider the fact that blind people aren’t allowed to drive an attempt to allow only the “perfect people” have access to driving their own vehicle?>>

Well, to be honest yes - I would consider it - IF IT MADE SENSE:banghead:

HOM

 

[1ke]

Nonie:

So how do they find out if you can have intercourse? Is that a part of the engaged encounter that I missed??? :whacky:

Certain cases-- paralysis, accident/injury, congenital defect-- would be known prior to the marriage. The paperwork you fill out with the priest certifies that you have no known impediments. Failure to disclose permanent impotence would be fraudulent and nullify the marriage. The impediment itself makes it an invalid attempt at marriage.

Impotence is not presumed in any other case. If it is discovered through the process of attempting to consummate the marriage then it can be grounds for nullity.

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

Nonie:

So how do they find out if you can have intercourse? Is that a part of the engaged encounter that I missed??? :whacky:

 

[1ke]

Orionthehunter:

I would like to see someone quote from Canon Law that the Church wouldn’t sacramentally bless a union between a couple physically incapable for consummating the marriage. While the norm might be such a marriage is not to be done but there might be a procedure for an exception. This is a very interesting question.

It has already been posted. See Canon 1084 on impediments to valid marriage. Impotence is an impediment to valid marraige.

 

[1ke]

josea:

Are sterile people allowed to married? What I know is that sterility found after marriage can be a cause for nullity but, is it really an impediment to marriage if one finds it before?

Sterility is not an impediment to marriage. Sterility found after the marriage is NOT grounds for an annulment unless it was known by the sterile party and concealed from the spouse. Then fraud is grounds for annulment, not the sterility itself.

 

[Nonie]

puzzleannie:

Canon law does not rest on personal opinion and is not up for a vote. The full answer lies in a complete understanding of marriage and natural law. A marriage that cannot be consummated because of the physical incapacity of either party is not valid because it is not marriage. This is also the reason why two persons of the same gender cannot validly marry, they are incapable of the marriage act. Christopher Wests Theology of the Body for Beginners is an excellent introduction to the topic of marriage in natural law.

Hello Annie,

Thought I would share part of an article from CA’s site.

Ten Questions about Canon Law
By: -Pete Vere and Michael Trueman

"The Church does not need a Code of Canon Law, but it has chosen to use such a structure. Canon law deals with the day-to-day affairs of the Church.

The New Covenant of Christ gave birth to a new set of laws for the Christian community. The Church eventually used aspects of the legal system of the Roman Empire to enforce these laws. The Church in turn was the principal means of stability for Europe through the Dark Ages. Law kept the Church focused on its mission to evangelize the nations and provided an environment in which the Church was more receptive to God’s plan.

…the Code of Canon Law was issued first in 1917, revised in 1983, and will be revised again at some point in the future.
"

Canon law is not scripture, nor is it written in stone. Personal opinion on the scriptures formed the Canon. It is changeable.

Nonie

 

[puzzleannie]

josea:

Are sterile people allowed to married? What I know is that sterility found after marriage can be a cause for nullity but, is it really an impediment to marriage if one finds it before?

Jose

if you refer to the AAA post OP mentions you will see that sterility is not an impediment to marriage.