Sterile couples vs homosexual couples

[awatkins69]

I was having a conversation with someone recently, and they made the point that the Catholic Church does not proclaim those sexual acts immoral which involve two married people who are both infertile due to health reasons. In other words, two infertile people cannot have children, but they may still have legitimate sexual relations. Whereas two homosexuals cannot have children, but they may not have legitimate sexual relations.

Let me know if I’m understanding this right. This is what I wrote: “We must also understand the nature of the human act in terms of morality. For an act to be good, it must be good in both form and intention. Let’s first look at form. The good form of the reproductive act involves it being directed towards the end of form of the reproductive organs. Here homosexual acts fail, insofar as they are directed to a disordered end. Secondly, it involves intention. Now, for a reproductive act to be good, it must [not be directly opposed] to reproduction. If it is sterile, involuntarily, then it is not wrong. Most of the time the reproductive act is sterile. However, the Church does teach that those who get vasectomies or use birth control with the intention of halting reproduction are indeed committing immorality. So, if you’re arguing against the consistency of the Church, I don’t think you are correct.”

 

[Dj87]

Speaking as a part of a “Infertile” couple, I would say this, When I was a boy I wanted to have a large family like seven, eight, or nine kids. My wofe and I went through years of heartache trying to conceive. So many nights crying ourselves to sleep, passing by baby stores in the mall with nothing but despair on our face seeing the young couple pushing a stroller on a spring day wiping away tears. After more than a decade we were blessed with our son, our only wonderful boy. I’m 41 now, and still would love to have kids any time any place so our marriage is open to pregnancy 100% of the time even though we probably will never conceive.

 

[JohnDamian]

It is correct.

You might want to give more support to the allowance of sex between “infertile” people with referance to Sarah and Abraham. Sex between partners is only immoral if there is a direct intent or opposition to the procreative nature of sex; be that through contraception; sodomy; surgery and so forth – however; with regards to people who are infertile; and people who have previously undergone surgeries; then there is no direct and willed opposition to the procreative function; and thus there is no **wilful **denegration of the act to a mere physical function.

 

[awatkins69]

Thanks, Dj. This is how people with infertility should handle their marriage.

It is correct.

You might want to give more support to the allowance of sex between “infertile” people with referance to Sarah and Abraham. Sex between partners is only immoral if there is a direct intent or opposition to the procreative nature of sex; be that through contraception; sodomy; surgery and so forth – however; with regards to people who are infertile; and people who have previously undergone surgeries; then there is no direct and willed opposition to the procreative function; and thus there is no **wilful **denegration of the act to a mere physical function.

Okay, good. But in that case, what is the function of this kind of marriage? If it cannot be procreative, how can the Church call marriage a union between two heterosexuals for the purpose of procreation? They cannot procreate. Also, do you think that gender is an accidental or essential property? Is gender like color, or is it like rationality (as opposed to irrationality in lower animals)? I’ve always thought that there was a substantial difference between male and female. I could of course be wrong. But I’d like to know how. Also, how is the reproductive organ of a male essentially different from that of a female? Aren’t their natures just “organs for reproducing children”?

 

[GEddie]

AIUI, the difference is that a “gay” couple is intrinsically unable to procreate because the biology of the 2 persons is incompatible for that. Whereas, when a man and woman come together, their physical nature is compatible for procreativity. If it can’t happen for whatever reason, that is an accident of the biology not an intrinsic situation.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[awatkins69]

Hmm, but how is the end for two heterosexual, infertile people different? Let’s suppose that in both cases reproduction is impossible. So how is it different? How is it categorically different for a man and woman to have sex without possibility of reproduction, as opposed to a man and a man having sex without the possibility of reproduction? The end is the same, no? Maybe form and formal causality ties into this more, but it is somewhat more vague to me than I thought. And I’d still like to know what I asked about in my second post.

 

[JohnDamian]

Okay, good. But in that case, what is the function of this kind of marriage? If it cannot be procreative, how can the Church call marriage a union between two heterosexuals for the purpose of procreation? They cannot procreate.

A marraige between two heterosexual people; one or both of whom appears infertile is not essentially an obstacle to marraige. Having the disposition open to procration is distinct from having the physical capability to produce it.

The form of a heterosexual union is united to the end of procreation; where there is a disposition against procreation the marraige there cannot be a valid and full marraige; there can only be a putative marriage - canon 1101s2

Now; if there is a physical impediment to the marraige it is significantly less of a prohibitation to a full and proper union; in the example of Abraham and Sarah; the apparrent lack of ability to conceive did not pose an obstacle to their union. This is compounded by the Catholic belief in the possibility of miracles; and an understanding of the imperfect nature of science.

Someone responding to this might note that then according to this it may be claimed similarily of homosexual marraige. The responce to this is that a miracle may only fulfill a teleology of a natural order; and not one of an unnatural order; in as much as a miracle does not elicit a contrarity; ie - it is not fitting or natural for a man to conceive. Now; in responce to this a person may state that it may be possible for homosexual women to conceive in this manner; as according to the infallible declaration on the immaculate conception; to this it would be responded that although it is possible; it is not “fitting” per se; in as much as the teleology of the immaculate conception functioned with procreation as an essential part (viz. full hypostasis). Thus; it cannot be said that the function of procreation could operate either in a male or female homosexual couple; although possible through the power of miracles; it is not fitting.

Wheras; the unity of an infertile couple has both the possibility; and with the right disposition the fitting nature to produce a child.

Also, do you think that gender is an accidental or essential property? Is gender like color, or is it like rationality (as opposed to irrationality in lower animals)? I’ve always thought that there was a substantial difference between male and female.

There is a substantial difference between male or female. The physical dispositions of their bodies are accidental to the individuators (rational soul); thus physical characteristics cannot individuate these individuals. (see; Scotus; Ordinatio II.d3,1,1-6.)

It follows from this however; an interesting objection that rightly must be refuted; That is the issue of people with confusion about their gender (physical or mental); in such physical cases it is apparrent that the individuals in question are unable to fulfil any particular marital role; even after surgery; which is merely a symptomatic treatment - however; in the cases of those of mental confusion upon remedy to this; the natural order of their soul may be restored that they may find marital unity.

Also, how is the reproductive organ of a male essentially different from that of a female? Aren’t their natures just “organs for reproducing children”?

The actual organs in question are rather irrelevant; the question is the rational soul of the individual. If someone has male genetalia they are not necessarily male; for we could with some difficulty however; transplant certain organs; thus we cannot say that per se; organs denote sexuality; or those who are mutilated so as to be another sex must be accepted as that other sex. Thus; we can only say that it seems the case that those born with certain physical dispositions are of this or that gender; even though the organs are not themselves the determinants; merely a symptom of the natural unity of gender within the individual’s rational soul.

At least; this seems to be the case.

 

[GEddie]

also, do you think that gender is an accidental or essential property? Is gender like color, or is it like rationality (as opposed to irrationality in lower animals)?

It’s essential; gender goes right down to the basic DNA of the entire body, and affects the whole human body (hormones, muscular mass, bone structure etc) as well as its mind, not just the sexual system.

I’ve always thought that there was a substantial difference between male and female. I could of course be wrong. But I’d like to know how. Also, how is the reproductive organ of a male essentially different from that of a female? Aren’t their natures just “organs for reproducing children”?

It’s very different. The bodies of a man and woman are physically compatible. 2 bodies of the same gender are not, and what may go on sexually between them is unnatural, and in some cases damaging.

And, no, the male and female human nature are not just about reproducing children; consider that one is always a man or woman, and thinks and acts as a man or woman; whereas one “behaves sexually” only a small part of the time.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Dale_M]

There is a substantial difference between male or female. .

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that men and women have basic differences in their nature. And this is the reason for the opposition to homosexual behavior and to same-sex marriage.

According to the Church, men and women are complementary. A man is incomplete without a woman, and a woman incomplete without a man. As humans we only achieve wholeness in marriage.
Pope Benedict:

While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

The question in the first post asks why infertile heterosexual couples are permitted to marry, but not (equally) infertile homosexual couples. However, the purpose of marriage is not simply one of procreation, there is a unitive aspect which is also fundamentally important. As such, an infertile heterosexual couple still gain from marriage, because it leads to the wholeness of both persons. From the Church’s perspective, such a unitive benefit does not happen in a same-sex marriage because a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) can not complete one another.

BTW, even the priesthood and religious life use the metaphor of marriage to Christ or the Church to describe this complementary union, and resulting wholeness of being

 

[awatkins69]

There is a substantial difference between male or female. The physical dispositions of their bodies are accidental to the individuators (rational soul); thus physical characteristics cannot individuate these individuals. (see; Scotus; Ordinatio II.d3,1,1-6.)

It follows from this however; an interesting objection that rightly must be refuted; That is the issue of people with confusion about their gender (physical or mental); in such physical cases it is apparrent that the individuals in question are unable to fulfil any particular marital role; even after surgery; which is merely a symptomatic treatment - however; in the cases of those of mental confusion upon remedy to this; the natural order of their soul may be restored that they may find marital unity.

The actual organs in question are rather irrelevant; the question is the rational soul of the individual. If someone has male genetalia they are not necessarily male; for we could with some difficulty however; transplant certain organs; thus we cannot say that per se; organs denote sexuality; or those who are mutilated so as to be another sex must be accepted as that other sex. Thus; we can only say that it seems the case that those born with certain physical dispositions are of this or that gender; even though the organs are not themselves the determinants; merely a symptom of the natural unity of gender within the individual’s rational soul.

At least; this seems to be the case.

Wait, but you say that there is a substantial difference. If the physical characteristics are accidental, and if they both have rational souls, how are they categorically different? If they are not essentially different, does it follow that there is no difference between same-sex relations and opposite-sex relations?

Here’s a quote of the person I’m replying to: "You keep telling me that form/substance is not mere difference, but you won’t actually tell me what form/substance IS. This is why I compare it to creationist “baraminology;” it is a non-rigorous definition that is easily bent whichever the… subjective winds may blow, as expedient. It is not a coherent and falsifiable definition with high predictive power, explanatory power, and parsimony. It’s just a muddle of bare assertions and ad hoc reasoning.

I ask again: How is possession of a given set of genital organs a CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT sort of distinction than a glass mug vs. a paper cup, or Caucasian race vs. Mongoloid race? You indicated that the former is a substantial difference but the latter two are accidental differences.

WHY?"

I was responding to the claim that there is no difference between the state outlawing interracial marriage, and the state outlawing same-sex marriage. I argue that race is accidental to a person, whereas gender is essential. However, I am having a hard time figuring out how exactly to say that gender and racial are ontologically in different categories.

 

[Holly3278]

There is nothing wrong with two infertile people being married and having sexual relations so long as they are male and female. Look at the Bible, Abram and Sarah who were rather old at the time had a child named Isaac. Abram then became Abraham. Abram and Sarah had been trying for years to have a child but were not able to do so but God blessed them with a son anyway.

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sar’ai your wife, you shall not call her name Sar’ai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “O that Ish’mael might live in thy sight!” God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ish’mael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.” When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.
(Genesis 17:15-22 RSV)

Therefore, we know that it is not a sin for two infertile married people to have sexual relations so long as they are both male and female. However, the Bible explicitly condemns homosexual acts in numerous places because it is unnatural and is a violation of God’s law.

 

[GEddie]

If someone has male genetalia they are not necessarily male; for we could with some difficulty however; transplant certain organs; thus we cannot say that per se; organs denote sexuality; or those who are mutilated so as to be another sex must be accepted as that other sex.

External organs do not determine sexuality; the body’s DNA, on every cell, does.

Sexual organs could be transplanted, but as in any other transplant situation, must be artificially maintained through a plethora of medications, and the receiving body would reject them otherwise. A human body of one gender will not function naturally in the other gender.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JohnDamian]

External organs do not determine sexuality; the body’s DNA, on every cell, does.

Absolutely!

This is why people who are mentally confused about their sex; or who are physically mutilated are not essentially changed in their gender. Thus; physical organs genetalia, and opinion are accidental characteristics in determining true gender.

However; forseeing the future and possible alterations of dna and so forth; we can only hold that DNA appears to be essential to gender; were it possible to change the dna of a person to a different sex; that person would still hold the rational soul of their true gender; thus the soul is the ultimate and prior determinant.

I ask again: How is possession of a given set of genital organs a CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT sort of distinction than a glass mug vs. a paper cup, or Caucasian race vs. Mongoloid race? You indicated that the former is a substantial difference but the latter two are accidental differences.

Possession of particular organs is as accidental as race with regards to the gender of an individual; and their ability to get married.

I was responding to the claim that there is no difference between the state outlawing interracial marriage, and the state outlawing same-sex marriage. I argue that race is accidental to a person, whereas gender is essential. However, I am having a hard time figuring out how exactly to say that gender and racial are ontologically in different categories.

Organs are accidental to Gender; DNA appears essential to Gender; Rational soul is essential to Gender.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, Dj.Okay, good. **But in that case, what is the function of this kind of marriage? If it cannot be procreative, how can the Church call marriage a union between two heterosexuals for the purpose of procreation? They cannot procreate. **Also, do you think that gender is an accidental or essential property? Is gender like color, or is it like rationality (as opposed to irrationality in lower animals)? I’ve always thought that there was a substantial difference between male and female. I could of course be wrong. But I’d like to know how. Also, how is the reproductive organ of a male essentially different from that of a female? Aren’t their natures just “organs for reproducing children”?

I have not read all of the answers so far, and I cannot answer all of your questions here, but wish to address the bolded section above.

The bolded section above seems to presume that the couple you are thinking of knows before the marriage that one of both are sterile. Yet how often is this the case, especially for faithful catholics where any sterility would be natural, not imposed?
I’d venture that in the vast majority of cases, the infertility would not be discovered until well after the wedding day - like in the earlier post by Dj.
In addition we have the biblical precident, evident in both the Old and New testiment of barran couples and even aged couples conceiving and bearing children.

So - Given these factors, the Church can easily define marriage as being procreative in intent, and the couple, even if they are aware of reproductive problems (due ot an accident or whatever) can still promise to accept children as a gift from God.
Homosexual couples simply cannot do this. The marriage is not and cannot be ordered toward procreation.

Peace
James

 

[awatkins69]

Possession of particular organs is as accidental as race with regards to the gender of an individual; **and their ability to get married. **

Organs are accidental to Gender; DNA appears essential to Gender; Rational soul is essential to Gender.

Alright. In that case, how is the rational soul of a woman essentially different from that of a man? Also, based on this understanding, how could we say that homosexual acts are immoral in terms of teleology? And are you saying that two people with male genitalia can be married validly, so long as one has a female soul??

 

[JohnDamian]

Alright. In that case, how is the rational soul of a woman essentially different from that of a man?

We don’t know; but we know that they are different (Gen;27).

Also, based on this understanding, how could we say that homosexual acts are immoral in terms of teleology? And are you saying that two people with male genitalia can be married validly, so long as one has a female soul??

We cannot know directly if someone has a particularily gendered soul; but we can know through the symptom of their natural gender (ie; the one they are born with) which gender their soul is.

Even if later in life they alter this; through surgery or other treatments; their essential self (soul) is the one they were born with; and this cannot be changed by surgery even though the body can.

If one person born a woman; and the woman underwent sugery to physically resemble a man; she would still essentially be a woman; albeit a mutilated one. In that regard; if she later confessed and converted (if necessary) she could validy marry a male with male genetalia. So long as there was no deception (Canon 1098).

In the same way as a person who has undergone a vasectomy can marry without undergoing a reversal; so can a woman who has undergone such mutilation. The only problem in this regard is Canon 1101s2 which could pose an impediment to marraige; however this canon would also equally apply to the infertile. However; if both parties know this beforehand then there should be no problem; so in theory two people with male genetalia (one born male; the other born female) could be permissable. Although; this would be rather disquieting…

A homosexual act is immoral in regards to teleology because it is a direct frustration of function; wheras an act of infertile partners (or a partnership described above) would not be a direct frustration of the marital act; and thus would not be a wilful frustration of the teleology of the act; even if the teleology is obstructed naturally (infertility etc.).

 

[awatkins69]

A homosexual act is immoral in regards to teleology because it is a direct frustration of function; wheras an act of infertile partners (or a partnership described above) would not be a direct frustration of the marital act; and thus would not be a wilful frustration of the teleology of the act; even if the teleology is obstructed naturally (infertility etc.).

Okay. Now, why isn’t kissing wrong? What’s the logical reason? And, more importantly, why are female and male genitalia essential for the form of the action be properly ordered, yet, as in the case of a sterile couple, sperm and egg are not?

 

[havana1]

I thought the Canon Law (Canon 1084, specifically) prohibits some couples from marrying. (Which seems to be a very “anti-family” policy that undermines the opposition to ‘gay marriage,’ but that’s beside the point.) Was Canon Law revised?

 

[awatkins69]

I thought the Canon Law (Canon 1084, specifically) prohibits some couples from marrying. (Which seems to be a very “anti-family” policy that undermines the opposition to ‘gay marriage,’ but that’s beside the point.) Was Canon Law revised?

Well, that canon speaks in regards to impotence. There is a difference between impotence and sterility. To be impotent is to not have the ability to have sex in the manner of procreation at all, while being sterile involves not being able to contribute to procreation. So people with certain conditions that make it so they can’t even have sex cannot be married. And homosexuals are, properly speaking, impotent, since they cannot have sex in the manner of procreation either. So neither of them can consummate the marriage.

The sterile on the other hand, while having an involuntary impediment to procreation, can still be unopposed to it, and they can still consummate the marriage. They do everything correctly, but something that’s not their fault, nor inherent in their form, is blocking them from procreation.

 

[havana1]

Well, that canon speaks in regards to impotence. There is a difference between impotence and sterility. To be impotent is to not have the ability to have sex in the manner of procreation at all, while being sterile involves not being able to contribute to procreation. So people with certain conditions that make it so they can’t even have sex cannot be married.

It’s an undeniably “anti-family” policy, not to mention “anti-adoption,” also. A couple who would adopt a Catholic child and raise that child Catholic, and they are forbidden from a sacramental marriage? That seems to add insult to injury. I wonder how many Catholics leave Rome for Protestantism because of this arbitrary rule. One would think the Church would be encouraging eligible couples to get married, not seeking out criteria that excludes those who would uphold “family values.”