paraplegics being denied marrige (i cant spell)

[lifeisbeautiful]

<< 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

Maybe this will make it easier to understand: The ability to see is needed for driving, the ability to have sex is needed for marriage… No amount of sympathy towards a person that is blind (its not their fault) will change the fact that they do not have something that is needed to be able to drive. (I looked it up and this analogy is used in Christopher West’s Good News about Sex and Marriage). Sight is not the only thing needed for driving (just like sex is not the only thing needed for marriage), yet if you can’t see you can’t drive.

 

[puzzleannie]

Nonie:

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

Nonie

Canon Law is not formed by polling personal opinions of random Catholics, it is formed to reflect the reality of what the Church teaches in regulating sacramental practice and administration of the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. It is changeable because it deals with discipline, not doctrine, but there is a theology of canon law, and it reflects theology, but does not define it.

Canon law cannot change the underlying doctrine it reflects. For instance, Canon law can never change to allow the ordination of women to the priesthood. Canon law also cannot change natural law, which is the underlying basis of theology on marriage, a sacrament which is regulated by canon law. For example, canon law could never be changed to allow homosexual “marriage” because this would be an impossibility under natural law.

 

[1ke]

Heart Of Mary:

There have been previous posts about how to be intimate with a spouse WITHOUT sexual intercourse in this forum wihich explained quite well that there ARE alternatives (I believe that it was in context of NFP and ways to be intimate without becoming pregnant).

Intimacy w/o sexual intercourse would be things like hugging, kissing, holding hands, talking. No discussions on NFP have ever condoned genital intimacy that replaces intercourse. This is clearly not allowed based on Church teaching.
Heart Of Mary:

I see no good reason (ok - I know that is asking for trouble when there will be a quote from the catechism and the previous post’s link to the same question) why anyone can’t get married even if they are not capable of intercourse.

The Church teaching on the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage makes intercourse a requirement. Canon Law regarding the Sacrament as well as the Catechism and numerous encyclicals on marriage are clear. Marriage is a divine institution, not a human institution. It is a Sacrament-- it is not a right of every person just as Ordination is not a right of ever man, nor are any of the other Sacraments. Church Law governs all Sacraments.
Heart Of Mary:

I thought being open to children is what counts. It is up to God if he will bless a couple with children - not man.

No, it is not about being “open to children” in the sense that you are implying here. The marital embrace (sexual intercourse) is an integral element of marriage and the Sacrament.
Heart Of Mary:

To say that this couple cannot get married is the same as saying marriage is only really about sex…

No, it is not saying it is “only” about sex. It is saying that sex is one of the essential element of marriage and none of the elements can be separated-- ALL of the elements are required.
Heart Of Mary:

I know a couple where she was a quadraplegic and they could not have “intercourse” per se…Well, she DID get pregnant (yep - his little soldiers made their way to where they needed to be - no intercourse).

If they had sexual intercourse then that was fine. Anything else was a misuse of the sexual faculties and itself gravely disordered.

 

[fix]

1ke:

It is saying that sex is one of the essential element of marriage and none of the elements can be separated-- ALL of the elements are required.

I think that understanding is a central issue in all this.

 

[Heart_Of_Mary]

1ke:

Intimacy w/o sexual intercourse would be things like hugging, kissing, holding hands, talking. No discussions on NFP have ever condoned genital intimacy that replaces intercourse. This is clearly not allowed based on Church teaching.

The Church teaching on the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage makes intercourse a requirement. Canon Law regarding the Sacrament as well as the Catechism and numerous encyclicals on marriage are clear. Marriage is a divine institution, not a human institution. It is a Sacrament-- it is not a right of every person just as Ordination is not a right of ever man, nor are any of the other Sacraments. Church Law governs all Sacraments.

No, it is not about being “open to children” in the sense that you are implying here. The marital embrace (sexual intercourse) is an integral element of marriage and the Sacrament.

No, it is not saying it is “only” about sex. It is saying that sex is one of the essential element of marriage and none of the elements can be separated-- ALL of the elements are required.

If they had sexual intercourse then that was fine. Anything else was a misuse of the sexual faculties and itself gravely disordered.

Well, if what you say is true (and I do not for one split second believe it is) then consider this: If we are to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity then I guess she was never really married to Joseph. Go figure…And I always thought they were married…

HOM

 

[mosher]

The issue of the Marriage of Joseph and Mary are not relavent to the discussion because it deals with a comletely seperate issue. Here we are addressing the issue of the inability to consumate the marriage. For an earlier post that asked if this was something that we must believe as Catholics the answer is yes. The reason why it is yes is because it is not merely a matter of canon law (which we are bound to believe anyway) but it is a matter of the the nature of the Sacrament. For a mariage to be valid it must have the proper requirements of minister, form, intention, matter, canonical form (for catholics) and consumation. If any of these essential parts are missing then the sacrament does not happen.

Scripture points this issue out well. Christ himself points out that some are unics by choice some by nature and some for the kingdom. Sometimes we don’t have a choice. A person that cannot validly enter into marriage has the gift knowing that he is called to live the single life (which by the way is a true vocation) and this is a great gift.

 

[vluvski]

Heart Of Mary:

Well, if what you say is true (and I do not for one split second believe it is) then consider this: If we are to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity then I guess she was never really married to Joseph. Go figure…And I always thought they were married…

HOM

I think it is somewhat more accurate to say that the sacrificial gift of self that characterizes the sexual union is what is necessary to have a valid marriage. We are to assume that the spiritual connection between Mary and Joseph superceded any need (and I’m not talking about physical need, as in libido) for the unitive or procreative elements of sex. They did not need to freely give their bodies in sexual union to realize that sacrificial gift of self because the bond was already created. In other words, they enjoyed a bond far stronger and far more intimate than the marital embrace.
This same idea is expressed in scripture when Paul recommends celibacy to the majority of the population. A person who has achieved a more perfect union with God and all humanity through their celibacy or who in anticipation of this union chooses a celibate life has no need/desire for sex on the spiritual level.

 

[cheddarsox]

A couple of months ago this subject came up on another thread and I investigated it.

Both partners must be able to consumate the marriage for the marriage to be valid. They do not NEED to consummate, but they must be capable of doing so.

An unconsummated marriage (like Mary and Joseph) is valid, but it is not indissolvable. Marriage only becomes indissolvable after consummation.

I got this info from the online catechism, so it is not hearsay. I do not have the capability to cut and paste on these forums (some issue between my firewall and the software) so unfortunately I cannot provide the excerpt here.

cheddar

 

[Nonie]

puzzleannie:

Canon Law is not formed by polling personal opinions of random Catholics, it is formed to reflect the reality of what the Church teaches in regulating sacramental practice and administration of the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. It is changeable because it deals with discipline, not doctrine, but there is a theology of canon law, and it reflects theology, but does not define it.

Canon law cannot change the underlying doctrine it reflects. For instance, Canon law can never change to allow the ordination of women to the priesthood. Canon law also cannot change natural law, which is the underlying basis of theology on marriage, a sacrament which is regulated by canon law. For example, canon law could never be changed to allow homosexual “marriage” because this would be an impossibility under natural law.

Annie,

Here is a bit about natural law from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia…
Natural Law…
‘The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see GOOD). For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong…Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man’s nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society.’
Aquinas-
Aquinas on whether impotence is an impediment ot marriage…
“…But if he cannot fulfill the carnal act with a virgin, while he can with one who is not a virgin, the hymeneal membrane may be broken by a medical instrument, and thus he may have connection with her. Nor would this be contrary to nature, for it would be done not for pleasure but for a remedy.”
:twocents: Just as a medical instrument is used to aid in consumation here why could it not be used for the man as well? Not for pleasure but for remedy. :twocents:

And he continues…"Although old people have not sufficient calidity to procreate, they have sufficient to copulate. Wherefore they are allowed to marry, in so far as marriage is intended as a remedy, although it does not befit them as fulfilling an office of nature. "

So would it follow that a man who cannot procreate but could copulate and could use a medical instrument to do so (as stated above) would this then be permissable? When breaking the membrane of the virgin they are using a medical insturment. The instrument is then allowing them to have intercouse. And as we discussed before sterility is not an issue here. So the man could have a prosthetic penis and this should fulfill the marriage contract should it not?

 

[Nonie]

Heart Of Mary:

Well, if what you say is true (and I do not for one split second believe it is) then consider this: If we are to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity then I guess she was never really married to Joseph. Go figure…And I always thought they were married…

HOM

nonie

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Since when is canon law retroactive to a time BEFORE the RCC existed (Mary and Joseph)?

 

[Nonie]

cheddarsox:

Both partners must be able to consumate the marriage for the marriage to be valid. They do not NEED to consummate, but they must be capable of doing so.

cheddar

Isn’t this another way of saying they need to be male and female?

This whole subject is very disheartening. Who would have thought that the Church would deny Marriage to a man or woman because of physical disability!!! This is very sad. And it is wrong. People write the Canon and people can be wrong. People also interpret these laws etc and they too can be wrong.

Sadly yours,
Nonie

 

[twhicke]

Nonie:

Isn’t this another way of saying they need to be male and female?

This whole subject is very disheartening. Who would have thought that the Church would deny Marriage to a man or woman because of physical disability!!! This is very sad. And it is wrong. People write the Canon and people can be wrong. People also interpret these laws etc and they too can be wrong.

Sadly yours,
Nonie

I Think you may be right… I’m torn between understanding the reason for marriage, and knowing how they must feel… I don’t know, maybe this is something the RCC needs to revisit… Maybe they didn’t mean it the way it was put?

 

[JimG]

For the life of me I don’t see why this should be causing so much ruckus. I can’t imagine that there are a lot of people asking for marriage in the Church who are physically incapable of consummating the marriage.

Plus, there are many medical treatments for impotence; such a condition is not likely to be permanent. And for the impediment to apply, it must be permanent and incurable at the time of the marriage.

But the Sacrament of Marriage pertains to marriage. There is no corresponding sacrament for roommates.

Back before sex outside of marriage became so common, it was just understood that one of the main purposes of marriage was to have sex. I thought it was still understood.

First, we wanted to have sex outside of marriage. Now, we want to have marriage outside of sex?

It all comes down to the natural law.

 

[Therese_Martin]

Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.