Quick! (Take 2)

[Offdoodykcrn]

As it was though you were/are still the wife of your first husband. As your first marriage was valid. without investigation. The Church views the marriage as valid until it has been proved/discovered otherwise.

My first marriage was not valid, because my first husband lied about his intent and misrepresented himself. I consulted a councilor at our parish recently - she assured me it had nothing to do with what happened after we were married. She was surprised I had stayed in the marriage as long as I did - and offered to assist me in completing the forms, but then said it wasn’t necessary when she learned my first husband wasn’t baptized.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

An implant may have been able to make Doug “functionable”.

What is the point of being made ‘functional’ if he was unable to experience any sensation? People with similar disabilities understand that sex does not originate in the genitalia, but in the mind. To state that the physically disabled are unable to have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses is simply not true. How can an able bodied person make this determination for someone else without understanding that? I understand the views of the Church, I just see them as antiquated, myopic and psychologically unhealthy.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What is the point of being made ‘functional’ if he was unable to experience any sensation? People with similar disabilities understand that sex does not originate in the genitalia, but in the mind. To state that the physically disabled are unable to have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses is simply not true. How can an able bodied person make this determination for someone else without understanding that? I understand the views of the Church, I just see them as antiquated, myopic and psychologically unhealthy.

If the Church says that a marriage can’t happen if either spouse cannot copulate, then a) I’m glad I wasn’t personally affected for my marriage, but b) IMO it is such a reductionist view to marriage that it makes it meaningless. Animals copulate, but do they marry? How are we different from animals if that’s how we define marriage, except a piece of paper?

Alan

 

[RoseMary131]

I have had a bothersome conundrum rolling around in my brain for the past few days, and I would appreciate the kind and gentle insight of my friends at CAF (like fbl9, Alan, RoseMary131), …I am honestly in search of wisdom.

I just saw your post and know that to answer it I need more time than I have at the computer just now. So, I will write at a later time.

You are in my thoughts and prayers.

Peace,
Rose Mary

 

[fbl9]

My first marriage was not valid, because my first husband lied about his intent and misrepresented himself. I consulted a councilor at our parish recently - she assured me it had nothing to do with what happened after we were married. She was surprised I had stayed in the marriage as long as I did - and offered to assist me in completing the forms, but then said it wasn’t necessary when she learned my first husband wasn’t baptized.

Have you made a solemn relgious profession or has it been dissolved by papal dispenstion? If not to my knowledge your marriage remains. This councilor has not the authority to declare your that first marriage was invalid. Get the paper work done is my suggestion.

 

[aemcpa]

Sex is essential to marriage because marriage is the context in which God wills that children be brought into the world and within which they are to be raised. Other relationships between a man and a woman aren’t necessarily considered evil, sinful, invalid, etc., but sexual intercourse is a essential component (not the be all and end all, but an essential component) of marriage.

If there was a possibility of Doug receiving an implant to overcome his impotency, I could foresee that canon 1084, §2 being the basis for the Church allowing a marriage to proceed and having it considered valid: “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.”

Ultimately, the Church has been given the responsibility to dispense the Sacraments in accordance with God’s will, but given the fact that marriage is administered between the spouses themselves, coupled with the fact that we always have imperfect knowledge about the physical, mental, psychological and emotional states and also the intentions of people who are marrying, it is inevitable that a Church run by human beings will get some decisions wrong in the area of valid vs invalid marriages. We on Earth are bound by the judgment of the Church, but God is not. The best practice is to be honest and transparent with the Church regarding the reality of our situations, just as we would expect the Church to be honest and transparent with us regarding her rules and requirements. The Church never had a chance to say that you could not be married in the Church, but even if she had said no, it doesn’t mean that your relationship wasn’t of spiritual benefit to both of you. There are many types of relationships that are of mutual spiritual benefit other than marriage; in fact, any relationship between two people can be spiritually beneficial as long as it is geared toward keeping each other in the state of grace and helping each other get to heaven. I would say that any relationship between two Catholics should have that goal as a starting point.

 

[aemcpa]

The councilor at your parish is correct that it has nothing to do with what happened after the marriage, and it is true that defect of intention invalidates a marriage, but only the diocesan tribunal has the authority to declare a marriage null, so I agree that it is best to do the paperwork. However, since your second marriage has been dissolved by death, the mere fact that the Church presumes you to be bound in your first marriage doesn’t prevent you from receiving the Sacraments. If you chose to do so, you could return to the Eucharist simply by going to confession, and you could even finally receive Confirmation if you so desired.

 

[fbl9]

What is the point of being made ‘functional’ if he was unable to experience any sensation? People with similar disabilities understand that sex does not originate in the genitalia, but in the mind. To state that the physically disabled are unable to have healthy romantic relationships with their spouses is simply not true. How can an able bodied person make this determination for someone else without understanding that? I understand the views of the Church, I just see them as antiquated, myopic and psychologically unhealthy.

If the Church says that a marriage can’t happen if either spouse cannot copulate, then a) I’m glad I wasn’t personally affected for my marriage, but b) IMO it is such a reductionist view to marriage that it makes it meaningless. Animals copulate, but do they marry? How are we different from animals if that’s how we define marriage, except a piece of paper?

Alan

Yes the first book in the bible is antiquated. For God made them man and woman. Go be fruitful and multiply.
Man was not meant to be alone that is why women were created.
It is only reductionary if that is the only purpose but it is not. Child rearing maybe primary but that does not mean the spouse’s union is meaningless.
For child rearing to be “sucessful” the spouses need to be in union with one another. not just physically but in spirit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sex is essential to marriage because marriage is the context in which God wills that children be brought into the world and within which they are to be raised. Other relationships between a man and a woman aren’t necessarily considered evil, sinful, invalid, etc., but sexual intercourse is a essential component (not the be all and end all, but an essential component) of marriage.

Then why doesn’t the Church prevent marriages when one or both spouses is known to be sterile? If the only valid reason to marry is to have children then wouldn’t the sex act be an act of personal gratification if it were known to be a sterile act? Such as in the case of medically removed reproductive organs for example, or a post-menopausal woman? I still don’t have a clear idea about this. I understood that sex was supposed to be both procreative and unitive; I understood the only reason sterile sex was licit was that it was unitive and not procreative. But if we must be procreative to have a valid marriage, then it seems inconsistent that we require them to perform the physical act, even when there is literally zero chance, with no doubt (as in the doubt referred to by canon law if the situation is reversible) that the act cannot possibly be procreative? So if there was a hysterectomy done, for example, due to ovarian cancer, on both sides, then there is no doubt. Is it a matter of what sort of technology we have do gauge these things?

Where is reason in all of this? Or are we misinterpreting Church teachings to overly simplify or for that matter overly complicate the matter?

Also I wonder if there is a man who is truly chaste, who literally doesn’t know before marriage whether has reproductive organs will respond, then what do they do, go ahead and walk through a ceremony, only to find out later if it’s going to be a valid marriage?

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Also I wonder if there is a man who is truly chaste, who literally doesn’t know before marriage whether has reproductive organs will respond, then what do they do, go ahead and walk through a ceremony, only to find out later if it’s going to be a valid marriage?

As a boy enters puberty, it is both common and normal for proof of his virility to manifest while he sleeps. I would think any young man that had not experienced such an event would naturally question his potency. It has nothing to do with the boy’s intention to remain chaste - he simply has no control over certain aspects of his physiology. Any young man who claims his devotion to the teachings of the church has given him an unnatural ability to control his body’s response, even while sleeping - is obviously either lying (in a likely effort to avoid the perceived ‘sinful’ implications of self gratification) or has defective equipment.

Since I am not a man, and my knowledge of anatomy, physiology and the natural maturity of a boy comes from books and professors while I pursued a degree in nursing, I will accept a challenge of the veracity of my statements from male members of the CAF.

Resume the melee - as peacefully as possible.

 

[aemcpa]

As a boy enters puberty, it is both common and normal for proof of his virility to manifest while he sleeps. I would think any young man that had not experienced such an event would naturally question his potency. It has nothing to do with the boy’s intention to remain chaste - he simply has no control over certain aspects of his physiology. Any young man who claims his devotion to the teachings of the church has given him an unnatural ability to control his body’s response, even while sleeping - is obviously either lying (in a likely effort to avoid the perceived ‘sinful’ implications of self gratification) or has defective equipment.

Since I am not a man, and my knowledge of anatomy, physiology and the natural maturity of a boy comes from books and professors while I pursued a degree in nursing, I will accept a challenge of the veracity of my statements from male members of the CAF.

Resume the melee - as peacefully as possible.

Excellent point.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I intend to start a thread discussing the nature of human sexuality for disabled people in the Catholic Church under to sub-forum “Catholic Living > Family Life” with the title “For Married Eyes Only - physical disability and sexuality” - or if that is too long, “FMEO: physical disability and sexuality” - to address the particulars of the issue.

After careful thought and research of the forum rules and guidelines, I have decided to post the thread titled, “FMEO: physical disability and sexuality” under the Moral Theology sub forum. It is not my desire to confuse young people in an area that is already fraught with confusion, and it is my understanding that people aged 13 and older frequent the Family Life sub forum.

Peace

 

[RoseMary131]

I am honestly in search of wisdom.

OK - now that we have established the boundaries…
When I was young and considering Confirmation, I declined because I felt strongly about lying in Church - in front of God and everybody, about my spiritual beliefs.

Hey Off Doody,

You were wise in not being Confirmed in the Church. You didn’t believe in the teachings of the Church, so there was no need to have this Sacrament of Initiation.

I have a side question. Three of our seven sacraments are Sacraments of Initiation - being Initiated into the Church. The first you received in a non-Catholic Church - Baptism. The other two are Holy Communion and Confirmation.

You mentioned that you received communion in a Protestant Church when you were attending church with your dad. I think you said when you attended Mass with your mom you also received Holy Communion.

Did you ever formally receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion - meaning the parish asked for your baptism certificate, prepared you for Holy Communion, you received Holy Communion, and it was recorded in parish records that you had received the Sacrament?

This would have also required you to have received the Sacrament of Confession prior to being able to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

If you had not actually received both the Sacraments of Holy Communion and Confession, then the Church would have been unable to convey the Sacrament of Confirmation upon you (unless you were going to be receiving your First Holy Communion on the same day as Confirmation.)

You would have needed to received the Sacrament of Confession before being confirmed.

In the case of someone being Baptized, Confirmed, and receiving First Holy Communion all at one Mass, they do not receive Confession first since their Baptism will remove all sins. Anyone already Baptized needs to receive Confession prior to their First Holy Communion and prior to Confirmation.

I’m trying to understand this portion of your faith journey.

Peace

 

[RoseMary131]

When my husband and I were dating … He asked me if I would consider completing catechism classes after having our previous marriages annulled so that our marriage could be blessed by the Catholic Church. I agreed that after his annulment was approved (since he had been married in the Church, and we weren’t even sure if my first marriage required annulment), I would complete Catechism classes. This didn’t happen because he never submitted his paperwork.

If you decide one day to join the Church and you decide you would like to have your first marriage annulled for yourself, please do so. You mentioned someone at the parish talking to you about your first marriage. The Church considers all marriages valid unless and until a formal declaration has been declared by the Marriage Tribunal. So, a formal process must always take place beginning with the paper work being submitted to the Tribunal.

I’ve tried putting the issue out of my mind, because now the point is moot. It doesn’t matter, but I keep thinking about how, if everything did go through, I know I would have kept my word. Not because I suddenly believed the doctrines of the Church, but because I loved my husband so much, and would have done almost anything to make him happy.

It is always important that we join the Church because it is our earnest desire. It is beautiful that you love Doug so much that you wanted to make him happy by joining the Church.

Why does it still stay on your mind? Maybe because you have a deep passion for wisdom. You also have a deep love for Doug and the Church was a part of his life.

You don’t need to look at the Church to make anyone happy… but because you have a deep desire to know Truth. Some how you keep looking to the Catholic Church, despite your ability to make “knowledgeable decisions” against Church teachings.

What does this say about me? … Maybe that is why I am here, in this forum - trying to prove to myself that I would have kept my word to Doug, even though doing the exact same thing when I was a kid was so upsetting.

It says you are on a journey. Think of a walk in a park… sometimes we keep going back to the same park… we follow similar trails… sometimes we take a new trail… sometimes we pick a new park… years pass, seasons pass… sometimes we walk with one friend, then another… Your faith journey is like that.

Maybe you aren’t trying to prove you would have kept your word to have your marriage annulled after he did the same and joined the Church. Together you both actually decided not to follow that path. Neither of you pursued the annulment or you joining the Church. That is not positive or negative… simply a fact that together you two chose not to take that part of your faith journey together.

 

[RoseMary131]

I think the reason Doug didn’t go through with his annulment was similar to what is troubling me now. If he was really honest with the Church, Doug risked being told our marriage could not be blessed, because the nature of his physical injury would prevent him from being married to anyone, at least in the eyes of the Church. Perhaps he didn’t want to lie to the church, any more than I would - then or now.

Peace.

You may be right and you may be wrong. Doug apparently never told you why he didn’t seek an annulment. Its okay that you two didn’t discuss “why”.

Maybe like you said he thought the Church would tell him that he couldn’t marry anyone because of his injury and didn’t want to hear that you could not be his bride in a Sacramental Marriage. Maybe not.

Keep in mind, that is one of your thoughts about why he didn’t seek an annulment followed by marriage in the Church with you. Its okay that it is only your thought and not something Doug told you.

Maybe as you said, he didn’t want to lie to the Church saying that he did not suffer from impotency. Remember that is still just your thoughts on what may have been part of his reasoning.

You could think forever and ever on why Doug choose the path he did regarding not seeking an annulment and not seeking convalidation of his marriage with you. Its okay that you didn’t have an answer from Doug while he was alive.

Its okay to not figure out if you would have kept your promise.

Lets follow the path that Doug received his annulment and you received your annulment. Then lets assume you would have joined an RCIA class and Doug would have attended with you each week.

From what you have shared with us, you and Doug would have been a couple passionately searching for all Truths about God and His Church while attending RCIA. When one of you got stuck on a difficult area of teaching, the other would be working to help. Would you have eventually joined. I think Doug would have made sure you only joined because you came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church (with all her human failings of those who make the church) is the Church founded by Jesus. I don’t think Doug would have let you joined “to keep a promise” “to make him happy”.

However, this wasn’t the journey you two took together. You had a wonderful marriage. You loved each other. You both loved God.

Now, you are still drawn for some reason to search the teachings of the Catholic Church. As I have said before, Doug could be one of the reasons you are still searching. He could be praying from Eternity for you to see the beauty in the Church. (That’s only my thought.)

You have a lot of questions. Does God grant to His priests the ability to forgive sins through the Sacrament of Confession? Does God grant to the Head of His Church on Earth (the Pope) the protection from teaching error in matters of doctrine of faith and morals through His gift of infallibility? Does He allow His Church to have some matters that are not held as infallible and have the chance to need to be changed or corrected?

Mostly, I see your heart aches over the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. If the Church can decide that those couples unable to complete sexual unity can be permitted to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Keep praying. Pray for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. I know those are all things you seek.

Peace.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have a question you might be able to answer: I see the Catholic Church as a male-dominated religion. (I don’t have any problem with that, some of my favorite people are male, I even gave birth to one…). When people talk about choices and attitudes of the church (which, as far as I know is set by the pope), people say things like, “The Church doesn’t decide these teachings. She merely transmits what She has received.” Why is the feminine pronoun used, and why allude to a disembodied entity with it’s own will?

Thank you for any insight you might share.

Off,

The Church is the bride of Christ and unlike those in the secular world that believe that wives can be men…the bride is she.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Off,

The Church is the bride of Christ and unlike those in the secular world that believe that wives can be men…the bride is she.

I have heard that, and I know it’s in the bible - it just doesn’t make sense to me. ‘The Church’ is a whole bunch of people with a male leader. If that group wants to call itself the bride of Christ, I don’t object, I just don’t see the logic.

As far as what homosexual people refer to their significant other, I have no idea. I’ve seen pictures of 2 men in wedding dresses, 2 women in tuxedos, and any combination there of, but I don’t personally know any married LGBT couples. Everyone that I personally know that is also gay is single.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have heard that, and I know it’s in the bible - it just doesn’t make sense to me. ‘The Church’ is a whole bunch of people with a male leader. If that group wants to call itself the bride of Christ, I don’t object, I just don’t see the logic.

As far as what homosexual people refer to their significant other, I have no idea. I’ve seen pictures of 2 men in wedding dresses, 2 women in tuxedos, and any combination there of, but I don’t personally know any married LGBT couples. Everyone that I personally know that is also gay is single.

Off,

Our mind/body are created…our logic does not have to make sense. In the bible as well you will find…

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;

and fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom…

I gave up trying to be logical long ago…

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Off,

Our mind/body are created…our logic does not have to make sense. In the bible as well you will find…

and fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom…

I gave up trying to be logical long ago…

Apparently…

I crack myself up… Just kidding, Coptic :hug3: