Sacrament of marriage for paraplegic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Korbin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
heaintheavy said:
Great point!
That would be the loophole, as it were.
Even if a doctor told a man who is paralized that it would be impossible for him to ever complete the act…they could never know for sure until he tries…right?
And since he’s not supposed to try until he’s married, then it is not for sure that he cannot.
Therefore…there is a chance…and therefore, he can get married!
No one can say for sure that he would not be able to consummate the act!
Click to expand...
A sacramental marriage is only so after both witnessed vows and consummation. What you are describing would not be considered valid by the Church until it was consummated.
 
Big_Feet said:
A sacramental marriage is only so after both witnessed vows and consummation. What you are describing would not be considered valid by the Church until it was consummated.
Click to expand...
Not correct.

Exchange of consent makes a valid marriage. Consummation makes it indissoluable.
 
heaintheavy said:
I agree with you on the compassion sentiment…but the facts seem to show that this is how it is and as a Catholic, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are supposed to agree with it even if it feels wrong to you. Your feelings are not supposed to come into play, I think. You are supposed to adhere to the rules even if you feel they should be different.

What you describe is one of the main points people bring up on this site when they argue against gay marriage… that gay people cannot get married because the marital act cannot be completed and procreation is impossible–even tho they, too, want also to “have a life partner to love and grow with” and they would tell you it’s “no fault or choice of their own” that they cannot.
Click to expand...
good analogy!
 
I know what a Josephine marriage is. That doesnt change the definition. The couple still must be able to take part in the marital embrace.

You were completely missing the idea about the vegetarian. It was about mere definition. Not equating.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I don’t see how your “definitions” work. Two opposite-gender people past puberty have “the ability to engage in the sexual embrace,” but that doesn’t, by itself, make them “married.” Your vegetarian analogy doesn’t work either. Unlike what you stated, a vegetarian is someone who CHOOSES not to eat meat; clearly,they retain the physical ability to eat meat. A couple can choose not to have sex, but that choice doesn’t un-marry them nor invalidate their marriage. You might also want to research a “Josephite marriage.”
Click to expand...
Perhaps the explanation was not very good. It is rather the the exchange of marital consent which makes them married (the vows). Part of that consent is the “marital act.” They give rights to their body to their spouse, and the “two become one flesh.” This is the meaning of marriage as God designed it. 🤷 You cannot vow something which you do not have. Which is why Josephite marriages are possible, because if one spouse wants to begin their conjugal life, then they must do so and are able to do so. Those who cannot do this, cannot be married.

1 Cor 7:4
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Click to expand...
 
People speak of the inability of being married as “unfair”. We have to remember that the Church doesn’t see marriage, or any vocation, for that matter, as a universal right - it is a gift from God and a calling. Everyone has their trials. God has a purpose even for those who are unable to marry… they may be called to unite their struggles to Our Lord’s passion and cross and live a life of celibacy in His service - a state that Church (and St. Paul) sees as even greater than that of marriage. Another poster suggested that the Church’s teaching shows a lack of compassion - Christ never promised an easy path for His followers. In fact, He was quite clear that the road to eternal life is a difficult and narrow one. As Catholics, we trust that God allows suffering for a reason…and find solace in participating in the redemption of Christ by uniting our penances, both voluntary and involuntary, to His holy cross:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, *
(Col. 1:24)
 
Big_Feet said:
A sacramental marriage is only so after both witnessed vows and consummation. What you are describing would not be considered valid by the Church until it was consummated.
Click to expand...
Right. But the point is…there would not be reason enough to deny a couple like this a marriage in the church. Whether or not they would be able to consummate it afterward is another story, something no one knows…but at least they would and should be able to get married and give it a try.

And how much time does a couple get, rule-wise, to consummate a marriage, by the way?
Is there some sort of deadline for that…and if they don’t do it in a specific amount of time, they must separate?
 
1ke said:
No, this is not correct universally, although it could be true in an individual circumstance.
Click to expand...
How could this not be true?
If he’s never tried, how can you know 100 percent for sure he cannot do it, despite what a doctor says?

If God makes seas part and heals sick and makes old women pregnant and comes back from the dead in the flesh…well, He just might just see it fit to allow a guy who marries a woman he loves to consummate his marriage.
 
JK61 said:
As a mom of a 19 yr. old who was born with disabilities… how does someone know if they can consumate a marriage if they are a virgin prior to marriage? How do you find a doctor that can explore this without inappropriate means? My son talks about being married but I don’t know that he could have a valid marriage from the info here.
Click to expand...
Inquiry (and also a tumescence test during sleep).

If the matrimonial covenant’s requirements are met, with the approval of the Church, then once celebrated it becomes ratified but unconsummated, and is both valid and licit. Then upon living together it is presumed to be consummated, but if actually was not, it could still be dissolved in this state, through the dispensation of the Holy See.
 
heaintheavy said:
Great point!
That would be the loophole, as it were.
Even if a doctor told a man who is paralized that it would be impossible for him to ever complete the act…they could never know for sure until he tries…right?
And since he’s not supposed to try until he’s married, then it is not for sure that he cannot.
Therefore…there is a chance…and therefore, he can get married!
No one can say for sure that he would not be able to consummate the act!
Click to expand...
I would think it would be a rare man who didn’t know whether or not he could achieve an erection by the time he was old enough to consider marriage.
 
JK61 said:
Another question. Was Mary and Joseph’s marriage valid?
Click to expand...
Yes, consumation is not required for validity, although the capacity for consumation must be thought to be present at the time the vows are spoken. An unconsummated marriage can be dissolved; a consummated marriage can’t be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top