SPLIT: Can't believe that impotent couples can't marry.

[cycleman]

[edited]

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond? Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[1ke]

It is very sad that the world has so successfully distorted marriage that even some Catholics reject the fundamental teachings on what marriage IS and what it requires.

 

[Della]

My nephews have Multiple Dsytropy and one of them was married in a Catholic church to a girl with the same thing. Both are in wheelchairs. Their parish is quite orthodox in teaching and practice. Apparently there are either exceptions allowed or they were able to show that they are able to have children–I don’t know which since I didn’t ask–none of my business to ask when their pastor not only okayed it but celebrated their wedding.

When a man and a woman come together in wedlock they are not just joining themselves to each other, but they are also creating a family. They may or may not have children. My dh and I have no children, for instance, but that was due to stricly natural causes. However, if we had been able to have children we would have. We may have used NFP if health and finances made that a prudent choice.

The point is that marriage is about creating families not just about two people loving each other and wanting to spend their lives together. It’s that too, of course, but that’s not all it is. If a couple cannot by any means have children do to impotency, that is a barrier to naturally creating a family.

Adoption is always an option, of course, but it’s not the primary means of producing a family. Once a society abandons the primary reasons for marriage it destroys the very concept of marriage and it becomes a free-for-all in which any kind of relationship may be labeled “marriage,” which exactly what we see happening in the world right now.

 

[St_Francis]

[edited]

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Right, because marriage involves sexual activity. If a person can not engage in sexual activity, then he or she cannot promise to “give” his or her body to the other. Without that ability marriage is not a possibility. It would be like promising to give someone a unicorn.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond?

Yes, they can have a lifetime loving bond, but it is not marriage.

Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

There is a “best” type of situation into which to place children in need of a family, and there is a “less-than-best” place. The Church does not *forbid *the adoption of children by single people, people with disabilities, or people who might be, brother and sister. It’s just that the Church does encourage and practice the placing of children under their own authority in situations which are the “best;” thus, married couples.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

I am sorry that, having been given the great gift if being a Catholic, you did not stick with the Church and grapple with the issue.

But I wonder why you tell us this?

 

[meltzerboy]

[edited]

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond? Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

Frankly, I am surprised that this is the teaching of the Church. Then again, there are several teachings of my own faith that I do not fully understand either. With regard to marriage in Judaism, the primary functions are the intimacy of companionship and love. It is interesting to note that companionship comes first although romantic love, but not in the sense of unrequited love, does have its place in Jewish teaching. Procreation as a purpose for marriage comes second, which is NOT to say that procreation is unimportant according to Jewish law. Far from it. But it is still secondary to companionship and love, that is, the unitive function afforded by marriage. Unlike Catholic teaching, being unmarried is not considered something holy in Judaism but rather something unnatural and an occasion for sin, and therefore, if possible, to be avoided.

 

[Della]

Frankly, I am surprised that this is the teaching of the Church. Then again, there are several teachings of my own faith that I do not fully understand either. With regard to marriage in Judaism, the primary functions are the intimacy of companionship and love. It is interesting to note that companionship comes first although romantic love, but not in the sense of unrequited love, does have its place in Jewish teaching. Procreation as a purpose for marriage comes second, which is NOT to say that procreation is unimportant according to Jewish law. Far from it. But it is still secondary to companionship and love, that is, the unitive function afforded by marriage. Unlike Catholic teaching, being unmarried is not considered something holy in Judaism but rather something unnatural and an occasion for sin, and therefore, if possible, to be avoided.

The primary function of marriage in the Church is also love between a man and a woman and children come second, it’s why couples who are infertile may marry. They must be able to consummate the marriage, however or it is not truly marriage, except when that is waived in rare cases in which both wish to remain continent due to a vow of continence within marriage, but as I say that is pretty rare.

As for singleness being holy, no, not automatically. Every life may be holy, married or not. Singles are not looked upon as be holy merely for being single, but being single carries no sin nor is it considered unnatural. Some people simply never meet the right person–in our day that’s more likely to happen when families aren’t so involved in meeting potential mates. Those who consecrate themselves to a religious order and so do not marry are not necessarily holier than married people. Vocation alone does not denote holiness, although consecrating one’s life to God is more directed towards holiness, but doesn’t guarantee it.

 

[meltzerboy]

The primary function of marriage in the Church is also love between a man and a woman and children come second, it’s why couples who are infertile may marry. They must be able to consummate the marriage, however or it is not truly marriage, except when that is waived in rare cases in which both wish to remain continent due to a vow of continence within marriage, but as I say that is pretty rare.

As for singleness being holy, no, not automatically. Every life may be holy, married or not. Singles are not looked upon as be holy merely for being single, but being single carries no sin nor is it considered unnatural. Some people simply never meet the right person–in our day that’s more likely to happen when families aren’t so involved in meeting potential mates. Those who consecrate themselves to a religious order and so do not marry are not necessarily holier than married people. Vocation alone does not denote holiness, although consecrating one’s life to God is more directed towards holiness, but doesn’t guarantee it.

Thanks for the information, Della.

 

[Antegin]

**Just for reference the canon law is:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

It is one man one woman, open to life, in conjugal union, a permanent union that is the image of God. When the man or woman are unable to consummate the marriage, the arrangement adulterates that image the same way using ABC and same sex unions do.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
Della13097935:

My nephews have Multiple Dsytropy and one of them was married in a Catholic church to a girl with the same thing. Both are in wheelchairs. Their parish is quite orthodox in teaching and practice. Apparently there are either exceptions allowed or they were able to show that they are able to have children–I don’t know which since I didn’t ask–none of my business to ask when their pastor not only okayed it but celebrated their wedding

.

Not exceptions but latitude. Any position that can allow for life is accepted as consummation. There are specialists for the disabled who (I’m serious, no jokes ) come up with positions, devices and pharmaceuticals to enable intercourse.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

 

[Della]

"Della:

My nephews have Multiple Dsytropy and one of them was married in a Catholic church to a girl with the same thing. Both are in wheelchairs. Their parish is quite orthodox in teaching and practice. Apparently there are either exceptions allowed or they were able to show that they are able to have children–I don’t know which since I didn’t ask–none of my business to ask when their pastor not only okayed it but celebrated their wedding.

Not exceptions but latitude. Any position that can allow for life is accepted as consummation. There are specialists for the disabled who (I’m serious, no jokes ) come up with positions, devices and pharmaceuticals to enable intercourse.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Thanks for the clarification. :tiphat: I don’t know what latitude was granted (if granted is the right word) in my nephew’s case I don’t know what the situation was exactly, as I said, I didn’t ask. Still, something like that must have been the case.

 

[Memaw]

[edited]

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond? Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

The Catholic Church is quided by the Holy Spirit in a unique and profound way. We are not!! So what I want and what I think is not the rule of life. Christ did not leave me to be the head of His Church. We see what that kind of thinking has done to many denominations and that’s very sad. Seems to me the “lot of studying” you have done has led you into error. Maybe you should go back and rethink what the Church teaches and why. God Bless, Memaw

 

[DaveBj]

Okay, one or both members of a couple is/are impotent. They have a lifetime loving bond and they want to get married, but they can’t get married in the Church. But they CAN get a civil marriage and live together. Impotence = no sex = no sin. What would be wrong with that?

 

[SoMissCatholic]

[edited]

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond? Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

This article by Trent Horn does a good job of explaining the issue.

 

[St_Francis]

Thanks for the clarification. :tiphat: I don’t know what latitude was granted (if granted is the right word) in my nephew’s case I don’t know what the situation was exactly, as I said, I didn’t ask. Still, something like that must have been the case.

WRT your disabled relatives, they may not be impotent. And in fact, even some (or many?) quadriplegic people are able to consummate a marriage.

 

[cycleman]

But I wonder why you tell us this?

I can see why you might be puzzled as to why I posted what I did. When the moderator split my post into this new thread. s/he edited out the text I was quoting from a previous post. My ‘half post’ was then without context. I was replying to and supporting statements by poster Young Ludovicus.

Here is the reconstructed original post. (from Liturgy and Sacraments)

Original Text Quoted

This explanation doesn’t work for me. I’ve even looked up the ‘Catholic Answers’ about this. And I was dumbfounded really. A person which has tied his tubes get’s to marry because there is a chance life would come from intercourse. (how unlikely it may be)
A person who wasn’t at any fault, resulting in impotence can’t marry.

So why is it okay for couples who marry to remain celibate (and thus without intercourse) their whole lives, but it isn’t allowed if they remain celibate because one of the two can’t perform intercourse.

I’m deadset against this, this is the only time I severely severely disagree with the church.

(Funny though that is on this issue as I’ve never heard anything about this. But do hear other things causing commotion which I tend to agree with.)

My Reply (all that was left when the post was moved)

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond? Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

 

[SMH_2015]

I guess this doesn’t make sense to me either. If a couple is chaste until marriage, which is proper, how will they know if they can’t consummate the marriage until the wedding night…?

 

[St_Francis]

I can see why you might be puzzled as to why I posted what I did. When the moderator split my post into this new thread. s/he edited out the text I was quoting from a previous post. My ‘half post’ was then without context. I was replying to and supporting statements by poster Young Ludovicus.

Here is the reconstructed original post. (from Liturgy and Sacraments)

Original Text Quoted

My Reply (all that was left when the post was moved)

I was wondering why you posted that this was one of the reasons you left the Church?

 

[Rence]

[edited]

The Church says sexual ability is required for marriage, but fertility is not. Plain and simple.

Do you believe that an impotent couple (say a one is quadriplegic) cannot have a loving lifetime bond? Do you believe that such a couple could not be loving parents to adopted children? I don’t, but the Church does.

This is one of the doctrines that caused me to leave the Church. In my heart of hearts, I believe this is not what God intended. The bottom line then becomes that I don’t believe something that the Church teaches, but that same Church says that it is impossible for them to teach doctrinal error. At this point, I don’t see myself changing my mind ( I really have studied this a lot) and I know that the church will not change.

I’m sure you’re not the only one. It’s contradictory to refuse to marry a couple that can’t perform the act while promoting adoption as a good thing. But those same rules that reject an impotent couple are the same rules that reject same sex marriage, remarriage, and cohabitation.

 

[Rence]

The primary function of marriage in the Church is also love between a man and a woman and children come second,

That can’t possibly be true, otherwise a man and a woman who can’t have sex would be allowed to marry because they have the option to adopt. They can still raise a family, they just can’t do it through the Church.

 

[Rence]

Okay, one or both members of a couple is/are impotent. They have a lifetime loving bond and they want to get married, but they can’t get married in the Church. But they CAN get a civil marriage and live together. Impotence = no sex = no sin. What would be wrong with that?

I don’t see anything wrong with it. It seems like the perfect solution. The church requires a civil marriage anyway and the civil marriage (not the sacramental one) is the one that provides the legal benefits. No sex = no sin = no problem. What would the sin be? It’s not like you can take the sacramental paperwork (without the civil marriage documentation) and have any legal benefits. So those impotent couples do have other avenues.