Regarding marriage of people who can't have children

[Melek]

I understand that the main reason we as Catholics don’t approve of homosexual marriage is because when people can finally have sex properly, they are supposed to do it for pleasure and procreation. Since homosexuals can only fulfill one of those requirements, they should not be marrying or having sex.

So my question is, if there are two heterosexuals marrying, and one of them is not physically able to have children, are they not supposed to be marrying each other?

Now, suppose they do marry without knowing of this, what should they do if they find out after they’re already married?

 

[Rence]

I was taught by my instructors that they may marry, as long as they can complete the marital embrace.If they find out after they get married, they can remain married. It’s still a licit marriage. I’m sure others will quote the CCC and other documents to support this. But I know that as long as both of them can complete the marital embrace, they’re allowed to be married. Even a woman past menopause can be married.

And as far as I know, I haven’t seen any documentation of people with sterilizations being not allowed to be married. If there is documentation that says otherwise, from the Vatican or CCC, I’d be interested in seeing it. It’s always good to know.

And the Church doesn’t require those who have previously been sterilized to reverse the sterilization.

 

[colmcille1]

I understand that the main reason we as Catholics don’t approve of homosexual marriage is because when people can finally have sex properly, they are supposed to do it for pleasure and procreation. Since homosexuals can only fulfill one of those requirements, they should not be marrying or having sex.

So my question is, if there are two heterosexuals marrying, and one of them is not physically able to have children, are they not supposed to be marrying each other?

Now, suppose they do marry without knowing of this, what should they do if they find out after they’re already married?

Hi Melek,
I am somewhat confused by your first paragraph. You state “when people can finally have sex properly”. It is generally believed that the opposition to homosexual marriage, from a Catholic standpoint, is that homosexuals can fulfill neither of those requirements.
It is the very act of gay sex which is intrinsically disordered.

I agree with the other poster’s points re the heterosexual marriage is still valid despite the inability to procreate.

God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Phemie]

The Church does not say that one must have children, it says that one must accept them if God sends them to us and not impede God’s will by artificial means.

When the pre-nuptial investigation is done the priest asks each person if as far as they know they are capable of having intercourse; he does not ask the couple if they can have children but asks them if they understand and agree that they must accept any child that God sends them. The question in the US Rite of Marriage is " Are you willing to accept with love the children God may send you and bring them up on accordance with the law of Christ and His Church?"

 

[JohnDamian]

I understand that the main reason we as Catholics don’t approve of homosexual marriage is because when people can finally have sex properly, they are supposed to do it for pleasure and procreation. Since homosexuals can only fulfill one of those requirements, they should not be marrying or having sex.

So my question is, if there are two heterosexuals marrying, and one of them is not physically able to have children, are they not supposed to be marrying each other?

Firstly;

A heterosexual marraige can still be consumated with the *intent *to procreate. Taking the example of Abraham and Sarah; believing in miracles and practicing the faith we can see that a naturally ordered sexual act can produce children even if we believe we are infertile – this is why Isaac (meaning laughter) was called such, as this was Sarahs reaction to God stating they would conceive.

However; a homosexual act is disordered and unnatural; and poses a direct and intentional avoidance of the chance to conceive; much like using artificial contraception; or otherwise practicing masturbation, sodomy and so forth.

A natural marital embrace is ordered naturally towards procreation; and there is no intentional obstruction of this. So they may marry even knowing this.

Now, suppose they do marry without knowing of this, what should they do if they find out after they’re already married?

If one partner *witholds *from the other knowlege that they are medically infertile; or any other information that would otherwise have prevented the marraige - then the marraige is only a putative marriage; this is Canon 1098; and would pose grounds for pursuing an annulment if desired.

Furthermore; under Canon 1101; if individuals marry with no *intent *to have children (particularily if one individual witholds information with regards to their infertility) then the marraige is likewise putative; and there are grounds to pursue an annulment.

However; if neither partner knew of this state beforehand; then the individuals in question should remain together despite the burdens they face being infertile; and may want to instead consider adoption if Children are an important part in their lives.

In any case; they might want to speak about this matter with their Priest.

 

[1ke]

I understand that the main reason we as Catholics don’t approve of homosexual marriage is because when people can finally have sex properly, they are supposed to do it for pleasure and procreation.

No. This is not correct. Same-sex “marriage” is not possible because the matter for the Sacrament of Marriage is one man and one woman. Two men or two women are invalid matter and no marriage can come into existence.

Since homosexuals can only fulfill one of those requirements, they should not be marrying or having sex.

Not exactly. Marriage is ordered to procreation. This means that the only way we can properly use our sexual faculties are (a) inside the Sacrament of Marriage and (b) in a way that is ordered,* per se*, to procreation.

So my question is, if there are two heterosexuals marrying, and one of them is not physically able to have children, are they not supposed to be marrying each other?

The marital embrace is ordered per se to procreation. The sex act must be *ordered *to procreation, it is not necessary that it *result *in procreation. So, yes, those who are infertile are capable of contracting a valid marriage.

 

[Mark77]

Jesus taught us;

"He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (MT 19:4-6)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC);

"The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.(CCC 1653)

Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. (CCC 1654)

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Betterave]

I understand that the main reason we as Catholics don’t approve of homosexual marriage is because when people can finally have sex properly, they are supposed to do it for pleasure and procreation.

Actually, no, pleasure is a byproduct (licit and desirable) of sexual intercourse, not a purpose. It’s purpose is procreative and unitive (an expression of the conjugal bond/marriage vows).

 

[Newbie2]

**The Church does not say that one must have children, it says that one must accept them if God sends them to us and not impede God’s will by artificial means. **
When the pre-nuptial investigation is done the priest asks each person if as far as they know they are capable of having intercourse; he does not ask the couple if they can have children but asks them if they understand and agree that they must accept any child that God sends them. The question in the US Rite of Marriage is " Are you willing to accept with love the children God may send you and bring them up on accordance with the law of Christ and His Church?"

Boo-yah.

I think this is misunderstood quite often.

I wonder too, if this could imply that if the situation presented itself where a “sterile” couple had an opportunity for adoption fall into their lap, whether they could in good conscious refuse such an adoption?

This of course would necessitate a certain set of circumstances be present. For example, the circumstances of a newly married young couple both, say, in med school or some other time-sucking obligations without the proper time (or perhaps finances) to raise or nurture a baby wouldn’t necessarily apply.

But a emotionally, relationally and perhaps financially stable couple who otherwise could procreate if they were not sterile…could they follow this promise if they refused a “perfect” adoption placed in their lap(s)?

 

[JimG]

Heterosexuals who are capable of completing the marital act may certainly marry, even if one or both is sterile.

Homosexual couples cannot by the very nature of things, complete a marital act. Thus, marriage is not possible.

 

[DavidPalm]

This of course would necessitate a certain set of circumstances be present. For example, the circumstances of a newly married young couple both, say, in med school or some other time-sucking obligations without the proper time (or perhaps finances) to raise or nurture a baby wouldn’t necessarily apply.

But a emotionally, relationally and perhaps financially stable couple who otherwise could procreate if they were not sterile…could they follow this promise if they refused a “perfect” adoption placed in their lap(s)?

Adoption is never mandatory, even for those who are unable to conceive. As a priest put well to me once, adoption is really a calling related to, but distinct from, the vocation of marriage. While all married couples have the obligation to be open to conception by virtue of their vocation, not all married couples have the calling to adopt.

 

[Newbie2]

Adoption is never mandatory, even for those who are unable to conceive. As a priest put well to me once, adoption is really a calling related to, but distinct from, the vocation of marriage. While all married couples have the obligation to be open to conception by virtue of their vocation, not all married couples have the calling to adopt.

Right. Certainly we are not in a position to judge and adoption as you said is not mandatory. However, I still wonder about how the Almighty would look on a married couple who he gave all the gifts except biologically being able to have their own children, having come as close as literally placing an adoptive child in their lap…how could they not adopt.

I guess this is more of a speculative hypothetical question than a “church rule” question.