Sexless marriage?

[Awake]

Because the sexual act is necessary for the Sacrament of Marriage to be true. Sex in marriage is really similar to Communion. In the Sexual act you are worshiping your spouse, in Communion you are worshiping Christ. Just like sex, Communion is not necessary other then once to be a Catholic in full Communion. But just like Communion, we all called to do it as much as possible to keep our bodies from sin. What you are speaking of does happen with religous couples who are part of an order that allows spouses into their ranks.

This is the reason why the Church will not recognize someone who is not able to have sex, but they can be allowed to marry under the Bishops advice I believe. Procreation is not necessary for the Sacrament of Marriage but they must be open to it.

If anything, an impotent man who gets married but is willing to procreate if a miracle occurs is much more open to life than a potent man who gets married and willfully refuses to procreate.

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

The way I see it is sterility can be fixed by modern medicine, and sometimes even sterile people can beget children (Remember Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist)? But impotent people (e.g. those who have been castrated) has 0% chance of begetting children, and currently nothing can be done to improve the odds. See the difference?

No, I don’t. It was already established that a childless marriage is acceptable. The reason for the childlessness can hardly matter.

 

[Corki]

No, I don’t. It was already established that a childless marriage is acceptable. The reason for the childlessness can hardly matter.

There are two fruits of marriage - children and unity. There are two purposes of marriage - procreative and unitive. The ends are intregal; the fruits are not guaranteed. A couple that cannot bear children still has fulfilled both purposes but does not enjoy one of the fruits. A couple that cannot consumate the marriage does not fulfill either purpose of the marriage.

The unitive aspect of marriage is often misrepresented as the emotional “togetherness” feeling. But it also includes the complementary physical union. The latter is not possible if one partner cannot participate in the marriage act.

Does that help at all?

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

There are two fruits of marriage - children and unity. There are two purposes of marriage - procreative and unitive. The ends are intregal; the fruits are not guaranteed. A couple that cannot bear children still has fulfilled both purposes but does not enjoy one of the fruits. A couple that cannot consumate the marriage does not fulfill either purpose of the marriage.

The unitive aspect of marriage is often misrepresented as the emotional “togetherness” feeling. But it also includes the complementary physical union. The latter is not possible if one partner cannot participate in the marriage act.

Does that help at all?

It helps your position look incredibly petty.

 

[Gertabelle]

It helps your position look incredibly petty.

It’s not his/her position – it is the position of the Catholic Church.

If you are asking for personal reasons (i.e., for yourself or someone you know), you may wish to engage in an actual face-to-face discussion with someone like a priest.

If you are simply engaging in a discussion on a topic of interest to you, you might want to also do a little research into Catholic Church teaching, such as the Catechism and/or Papal writings. You can browse copies of these for free on a variety of reputable Catholic websites (including Catholic Answers). I like www.newadvent.org for a large number of Catholic writings.

I’ll let the apologists take over from here. But if you have a problem with what Corki wrote, then you have a problem with Church teaching, so why call Corki “petty” for explaining that teaching?

God bless you.
Gertie

 

[Corki]

It helps your position look incredibly petty.

How? And it isn’t “my” position. I was trying, as you asked, to explain the Church’s teaching.

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

It’s not his/her position – it is the position of the Catholic Church.

If you are asking for personal reasons (i.e., for yourself or someone you know), you may wish to engage in an actual face-to-face discussion with someone like a priest.

If you are simply engaging in a discussion on a topic of interest to you, you might want to also do a little research into Catholic Church teaching, such as the Catechism and/or Papal writings. You can browse copies of these for free on a variety of reputable Catholic websites (including Catholic Answers). I like www.newadvent.org for a large number of Catholic writings.

I’ll let the apologists take over from here. But if you have a problem with what Corki wrote, then you have a problem with Church teaching, so why call Corki “petty” for explaining that teaching?

God bless you.
Gertie

As I said, the position is petty. Whether you take offense to this is up to you. This is the kind of thing that causes people to shake their heads and drift away from the Church.

 

[Gertabelle]

As I said, the position is petty. Whether you take offense to this is up to you. This is the kind of thing that** causes people to shake their heads and drift away from the Church.**

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found lacking, it has been found difficult and left untried.” ~ Chesterton

by Peter Maurin, from www.catholicworker.com

Christianity Untried

Chesterton says:
“The Christian ideal
has not been tried
and found wanting.
It has been found difficult
and left untried.”
Christianity has not been tried
because people thought
it was impractical.
And men have tried everything
except Christianity.
And everything
that men have tried
has failed.

People do leave the Church, shaking their fists, shouting over their shoulders, “I’ll show you! You won’t let me do what I want, so I’m leaving!” They laugh at and scorn the Church’s establishment and the people who remain in the pews. They claim unfairness and lack of charity. Then they go off and do their own thing, try it their own way… Echoing what you say, whether people take offense to the Church is up to them.

I left the Church back in 1992 because the Church wasn’t fair, and the Church didn’t allow what I wanted. So for some 14 or 15 years I wandered around and did my own thing. Catholicism was nuts, in my appraisal. But I was miserable inside, always longing for something I’d left behind. I kept seeking in every church I attended and every religion or religious practice I tried that which I had left behind. God through His mercy brought me back. Now when I find Church teaching difficult, petty, unrealistic, legalistic, etc., I look to my own thoughts and heart first before “shaking my head and drifting away”

I take no offense by your comment. I’ve been there and done that. I’m saddened for you and will pray for you.

Gertie

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

As a bit of an outsider, it still appears to me that the Catholic Church sees value in the sexual act between a husband and wife, even if no children result, and even if no children *can *result. This is why couples are still allowed to engage in sexual relations even after menopause, or if one or both people in the marriage has some physical impediment to conception.

I do see a bit of a contradiction in forbidding the marriage of those who are impotent or otherwise unable to perform the sexual act, while at the same time looking approvingly on sexless marriages…

And, perhaps the world has had too much of an influence on me, but it is difficult for me to see why anyone who feels called to the married life would *want *to have a sexless marriage. If one wants to live a celibate life, one could certainly do that as a single person.

 

[DavidChrist]

Suppose a married couple tries sex on their wedding night, and afterwards realises they don’t care for it very much. How many times a year are they obligated to have sex in order to preserve the legitimacy of their marriage?

If there is no sex then there is no marriage. They should get divorced and find respective spouses that they will have sex with.

No sex in a marriage is blasphemy.

If they don’t like sex at all with anybody then they should become priests and nuns. Priests and nuns NEVER even think about sex. (Personally, i think they are just too afraid to deal with sexual relationships-- i don’t blame them)

 

[anon5216]

If there is no sex then there is no marriage. They should get divorced and find respective spouses that they will have sex with.

No sex in a marriage is blasphemy.

If they don’t like sex at all with anybody then they should become priests and nuns. Priests and nuns NEVER even think about sex. (Personally, i think they are just too afraid to deal with sexual relationships-- i don’t blame them)

Joseph & Mary were blasphemers??

As to priests, monks and nuns, I don’t think you can make any blanket statements like that at all.
People take those paths for many different reasons and have all levels of success or failure at living their vows.

(oops, were you being facetious? )

 

[lizziebits]

In order for a marriage to be valid, sex must occur at least once.

Someone who is truly impotent can never actually have sex.

If a couple is simply “doesn’t like” sex, I think they probably need to seek some outside help. I suppose their are marriages that after a time decide to live celibate lives for a specific purpose. But I don’t think just not enjoying sex is a very good reason, at all.

 

[Corki]

As a bit of an outsider, it still appears to me that the Catholic Church sees value in the sexual act between a husband and wife, even if no children result, and even if no children *can *result. This is why couples are still allowed to engage in sexual relations even after menopause, or if one or both people in the marriage has some physical impediment to conception.

I do see a bit of a contradiction in forbidding the marriage of those who are impotent or otherwise unable to perform the sexual act, while at the same time looking approvingly on sexless marriages…
And, perhaps the world has had too much of an influence on me, but it is difficult for me to see why anyone who feels called to the married life would *want *to have a sexless marriage. If one wants to live a celibate life, one could certainly do that as a single person.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Church “looks approvingly” on sexless marriages (Mary and Joseph aside). The Church acknowledges that some things in an otherwise valid marriage may displace or preclude sex for a time or more permanently. Many spouses lose capabilties later in life due to injury or illness. Some couples may chose to forgo sex for a long time rather than use NFP if pregnancy would be life threatening. And there is the aforementioned Joshephite marriages. But the latter is to be undertaken only in extraordinary faith circumstances under spiritual direction. (such as the parents of St. Therese)

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

What possible difference can there be between a sterile couple and an impotent couple? The end result–no children–is exactly the same.

Permanent impotence (it’s often a temporary or curable condition which is not an impediment to marriage) is considered an impediment to marriage not because no children can result.

If that were the case, you would be right to suggest that, for the Church’s purposes, there’s little difference.

But it is an impediment not because no children can result. Rather, it is an impediment because sexual intercourse is not possible. For a sterile couple, intercourse is still possible. And while marriage obviously is far, far more than intercourse, sex is nonetheless an integral part of what marriage is. Driving a car is far more than seeing, but without the ability to see one cannot do it.

Needless to say, I think yesukristus’s arguments are incorrect (although I obviously agree with his conclusion).

Man A is impotent, and gets married realizing he can have a loving marriage without having sex.
Man B isn’t impotent, and gets married realizing he can have a loving marriage without having sex.

Why is Man A considered to be living in sin while Man B is considered to be living a virtuous life?

Neither is considered to be living in sin. It’s not a “sin” for “Man A” to get married - it’s simply impossible. For it to be a sin it would have to be something that actually happens which is morally wrong. “Impossible” does not equal “immoral.”

Furthermore, if marriage does become possible for Man A, it is then not sinful. This teaching really is not cruel as people perceive it to be.

What does copulation or lack thereof have to do with marriage if the end result is always “no children”? An impotent man can’t marry but a sterile one who can futilely ape the deed can? That makes no sense.

That’s horrible. A naturally sterile but still marital sex act - while unfortunate in its sterility - is definitely not “futile” nor is it mere “aping” of the sex act, and the Catholic Church does not consider it to be futile or mere “aping” either.

That is the point: a sterile individual can have sex. An impotent one cannot. It is not a matter of whether or not there can be children.

 

[katillac1]

This is off topic to the original post…but Cpl Ferro I have to agree with you.
Here’s a case- By brother has spina bifida. He’s a paraplegic in a wheelchair. His wife has severe CP and is also wheelchair bound. They both consider themselves Catholics, but were married by a JP. Anyway, I’ve never asked, but I do not think they have ever had sex…because they can’t. It’s physically impossible. I know they are intimate with each other though. So from the previous posts, it is to be understood that if they ever wanted “to get officially married” in the Church and have it convalidated, they would be refused? The Church would never accept their marriage simply because my brother is paralyzed from the waist down? Why is a loving and happy marriage (one bright spot to them in an otherwise, hard and difficult life) not enough? Why is the act of sex a deal breaker?