Rant

[migurl]

I think Pro-life teen is totally right. Perhaps the Idea is too hard for people to want to live by, but as catholics we are called to higher things. Society tells us that sex is important, but not exclusive and that when things get tough, quit. God does not say tht however. If my fiance cheated on me, then I would have to seriously consider giving him back his ring since we are not married yet I am under no obligation to spend the rest of my life with him and might not want to risk having him cheat on me when I am pregnant and already have 2 or 3 kids. But once we are married, that is it. If he cheated on me I would be heart broken and would need time to forgive him. But I would still love him and would do my best to pull him back into God’s grace. Now, as far as the lack of sex in marriage, I have heard from many people that at first sex happens a lot, but after the years pass it becomes less frequent. As long as you are doing other things together to express your love I think sex doesn’t have to be every day. But, in the catholic faith sex is part of marriage and if yuo refuse to have sex with your spouse without a valid reason (you’d been raped therefore sex is traumatizing, disease, illness or pain) then you are not performing your duty as a wife or husband. There is nothing sinful about saying “HOney, I’m not in the mood.” but to refuse because you just don’t want to is being selfish and withholding yourself from your spouse to whom you are supposed to surrender your entire self to.

 

[sanpablo]

I think that if a man commits adultry, or vice versa, a divorce/annulment is probably in order. By commiting adultry, one then says that they are not tied to their spouse, thus forfeiting their vows at the altar.

 

[migurl]

Not according to the Catholic Church. Divorce is not possible and annulments are rare and must satisfy certain requirements. Check the catechism.

 

[StCsDavid]

cheddarsox:

It is not the same as not being able to do the act of sex. One must be able to compleate the sexual act, because it is considered the marital duty and what one must be able to give to their spouse if the spouse desires it. Two people can marry and agree not to have sex, but they must be able to have sex incase one later desires it.
cheddar

Just being devils advocate… let’s take our male friend who is paralyzed. There are mechanical devises that can be implanted to allow such a man to perform the act. Do you posit that he would be allowed to marry simply because he now had the ability to physically complete the act; whereas if he had no such device employed, he would be excluded from the sacrament?

 

[cheddarsox]

StCsDavid:

Just being devils advocate… let’s take our male friend who is paralyzed. There are mechanical devises that can be implanted to allow such a man to perform the act. Do you posit that he would be allowed to marry simply because he now had the ability to physically complete the act; whereas if he had no such device employed, he would be excluded from the sacrament?

I can’t answer this. This is the law of the church, not my law. The church catechism states that the church will not marry anyone who is not capable of completing the sex act. For men, that includes ejacualtion, though they do not have to be fertile, they must be able to ejaculate.

You might want to pose your situation on the “ask an apologist” forum to get an answer that would be in keeping with church teaching.

cheddar

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

cheddarsox:

Please share more insight on this. I have asked this question on the forums before, what marriage is about, why it was instituted. I think it is a very important question and one that bears discussing as the majority of people here will be married at some point in their lives.

cheddar

I am sorry it has taken me awhile to get back to you.

In the beginning 18

The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”

So God’s first purpose was for companionship. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament by definition is

1114

“Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers,” we profess that "the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord."31

Therefore Mary and Joseph could not have had a sacramental marriage that is a Catholic marriage. You are right in your assertion that the Church says that a marriage is not valid until it has been sexually consummated.

The reason is the nature of a sacrament. Sacraments have an outward sign of inward grace. That outward sign is when the sacrament is conferred. In baptism it is the pouring of the water and saying I baptize you in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. The outward sign in marriage is intercourse until that take place there is no marriage because that is the conferring of marriage. As in baptism, if there is no water poured and the words said, there* is no baptism. So it is with marriage without intercourse, no sacrament. *

 

[ProudToBCathlic]

Way to go Pro_Life_Teen!!! I think that divorce is a way too-often-used alternative in todays society. And you have a good point about husbands and wives are supposed to stick together…through anything.

 

[Mijoy2]

Pro-Life_Teen,

I thin your perspective is wonderful. Although ideal. Not that there is anything wrong with ideal, we’d be so much better off if more people were idealists.

That being said, withholding sex (I’ll speak from a man’s persepective) is not a trivial matter. Of course you didn’t get into the reason(s) in this particular case but a wife withholding sex from her husband can cetainly be a tramatic thing. In most cases, of course, this is not something the man planned on. He likely went into the marriage expecting sex was something he would enjoy until death or health matters that make it impossible occured in his life. Assuming his wife is healthy, sex, should not be withheld. This could be tortorous and test a mans faith beyond his wildest imagination. He may have no choice but to leave and attempt an annulment. The strength being asked of him may be too much for him to bare. I don’t think it is fair (not you, Pro-Life_teen, anyone) to compare a religious choice of celebacy (St Joseph, Priesthood, other religious vocation) with a forced and unexpected celebacy.

I certainly feel for this man.

 

[migurl]

Marriage vows make the answer pretty clear. " I____promise to love and cherish you____for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer til death do us part."

That being said, it wouln’t be fair for a wife to withhold sex if she is mentally and physically healthy, and if the husband has talked with her and taken every other kind of road available, perhaps an annulment is neccessary. In order for a marriage to be valid, consent has to exist, and if the man married this woman knowing his duties but her not knowing or willing to perform hers, then they were married under false pretenses, it would be like a Catholic marrying a person said they wanted to have many children but who, once they were married, changed their mind and now says they don’t want ANY children. That Catholic was lied to, it is not his/her fault that the other person lied about that, so in that case annulment would be possible. But, if this man yuo speak of wants to be truly holy, he would have patience and pray for the answer, sometimes the only way to save your spouse is through your relationship with God. A wive’s salvation may be thru her husband and visa-versa