C
chevalier
Guest
As much as I would love to, I can’t honestly claim that one.
- Status
J
joandarc2008
Guest
You can’t claim it - but you can use it freely - it worked for me!!As much as I would love to, I can’t honestly claim that one.
C
chevalier
Guest
Lol, naah, I spent my time chasing the wrong girls and I wasn’t exactly a saint in those relationships. Wasn’t the type to get involved with religious groups in which young people and, consequently, the church girls were. Can’t claim I’m not reaping what I sowed.
L
LilyElain
Guest
Oh and I did…quiet quickly!~Any woman who is dating a man who is threatened by her intelligence, or feels it is a turn off…should run for the hills!(at lightning speed, I might add lol)
D
djeter
Guest
Some very good reasons on how to be single are here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/12/30/dawn-eden%e2%80%99s-reasons-to-be-chaste-a-short-list/
Dawn Eden and others reflect on why chastity is a good idea.
dj
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/12/30/dawn-eden%e2%80%99s-reasons-to-be-chaste-a-short-list/
Dawn Eden and others reflect on why chastity is a good idea.
dj
F
flyingfish
Guest
I’m surprised you equate wanting with intention to be honest. I would think that given the rules about children, there would be conflict between want and intend for many obedient Catholics. It’s hard to believe for me that many people actually want to have many children.
As for your second point, I don’t know. It would imply that people who have medical difficulties (whether physical or mental illnesses) that prevent them from ever being ready to have children can never marry.
I’ve never seen it said even by the conservative theologian that sick people are incapable of valid marriage. It would be pretty cruel if it were so in my opinion.
C
chevalier
Guest
No, I don’t equate wanting with intention (I could split hair between the verbs: to want, to will, to intend if I really had to), but that’s what’s done in everyday spoken language and it must be taken into consideration when dealing with short statements that don’t come in a wider context.I’m surprised you equate wanting with intention to be honest. I would think that given the rules about children, there would be conflict between want and intend for many obedient Catholics. It’s hard to believe for me that many people actually want to have many children.
As for your second point, I don’t know. It would imply that people who have medical difficulties (whether physical or mental illnesses) that prevent them from ever being ready to have children can never marry.
I’ve never seen it said even by the conservative theologian that sick people are incapable of valid marriage. It would be pretty cruel if it were so in my opinion.
As for the rest, you may be right about the conflict being there, but we hear plenty from people who don’t have that conflict.Nope, there is much difference within what you speak about and it’s not a single category. Infertility is not a cause of nullity unless it was directly and principially intended by one of nupturients (to-be-spouses)–practically just like any other trait. Mental illnesses are a whole different cup of tea because they affect the consent itself and canon 1095 is very clear on this (some reading: ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm). Thus a person with a chronic fear of sex that can’t be overcome, can’t validly marry. A person with a phobia of children, whose condition started before the wedding and persists–likewise. A person with a sexual disorder which prevents faithfulness to one spouse–the same. A person willing to have children but unwilling to take part in educating or providing for them–likewise. Someone wishing to make no contribution to the marital home at all and put of all it on the spouse’s shoulders–also.
Marriage has two participants and essential goods. We must always consider both participants, not just one, and the essential goods without which there is no marriage. This is why psychological inability to assume the duties such mutual support, faithfulness, indissolubility, procreation and education of children, renders marriage invalid. This has nothing to do with being cruel to sick people.I’ve never seen it said even by the conservative theologian that sick people are incapable of valid marriage. It would be pretty cruel if it were so in my opinion.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t know, the kind of examples that you give seem pretty unusual. The more common mental illnesses can make a person unable to have children just like a physical illness can in that it would make it too much for them to handle.
I see no moral reason to treat illnesses of the body differently from illnesses of the brain, which after all is just another body part.
If a person is not a whole person, and can’t handle children, they certainly shouldn’t have them. But to condemn these people to a single life when there is no vocation to such just seems cruel.
C
chevalier
Guest
Oh, but I suppose you were primarily concerned with my statement that staying unready throughout the whole time of marriage would likely be a canon 1095 psychological case, rather than what immediately follows from canon 1095.
So, if the nupturients don’t exchange a right which pertains to marriage, e.g. the right to sexual intercourse, to fidelity, to indissolubility, then that’s simulation, there’s no consent. However, a trickier case is canon 1095, which deals with an incapacity to form consent resulting from being unable to provide what is being promised. If someone can’t deliver, the same person can’t promise. One *can *promise what one is unable to deliver currently but will be able to deliver in the future. However, a temporary thing by definition does not last the whole life. Thus a person who never got to be ready for children for psychological reasons probably wasn’t validly married (never became able to confer on the spouse the right to procreate offspring together, without conferring which right marriage is impossible), while a person who continued to be in such financial distress throughout the whole marriage that feeding and clothing a child would’ve been impossible, said person has no such problem.
So, if the nupturients don’t exchange a right which pertains to marriage, e.g. the right to sexual intercourse, to fidelity, to indissolubility, then that’s simulation, there’s no consent. However, a trickier case is canon 1095, which deals with an incapacity to form consent resulting from being unable to provide what is being promised. If someone can’t deliver, the same person can’t promise. One *can *promise what one is unable to deliver currently but will be able to deliver in the future. However, a temporary thing by definition does not last the whole life. Thus a person who never got to be ready for children for psychological reasons probably wasn’t validly married (never became able to confer on the spouse the right to procreate offspring together, without conferring which right marriage is impossible), while a person who continued to be in such financial distress throughout the whole marriage that feeding and clothing a child would’ve been impossible, said person has no such problem.
C
chevalier
Guest
Actually, I believe the examples I give are less unusual than yours and they fit squarely into what canon law concerns itself with, i.e. the psychological incapacity to form consent, in this case.
As for the example you give, if said illness occurs *after *the wedding, then it has nothing to do with validity. If said condition was present at the moment of the wedding and has persisted until the present moment, then it has everything to do with validity.
People who expect their condition to be permanent shouldn’t marry. Also, while e.g. being infertile removes the possibility of pregnancy (or so we think), it doesn’t make the person incapable of exclusion of offspring because such a person too may reserve for himself or herself the right to make a decision not to have children, which reservation invalidates marriage.
By that token people with split personalities would be able to marry, people afflicted with nymphomania and people with disorders making them dangerous to live under one roof with. That would be absurd.
Also, an illness of the arm or leg or heart or throat makes one’s life difficult but does not affect one’s reasoning or willpower. By contrast, illnesses of the brain have everything to do with one’s ability to contemplate his choices and make decisions. The difference between the two is very clear.
And thus the person shouldn’t marry because whoever shouldn’t have children shouldn’t marry.
It has nothing to do with condemning, it has everything to do with capacity or lack of it.
Plus, you could say that prohibition against divorce condemns people to “single” (not really) life when they have been abandoned by a spouse in a valid marriage, and that it’s cruel. Except it’s not cruel not do things which we are not allowed to do, e.g. give divorce from a valid and consummated sacramental marriage. Allowing illusions of things (illusions of marriage where there can be none) is not an answer to problems.
F
flyingfish
Guest
In marriage it’s not required to promise to have children, the required promise is to be open to life. If someone uses NFP because they have reason not to have children throughout the entire marriage, they are being open to life. They’re not saying they’ll never have children period, they’re saying they will not have children while they have just reasons not to, which might end up lasting throughout the entire marriage.
It seems like you are holding some conflicting positions. On the one hand, you say that someone with a mental illness (but not a physical illness) is unable to consent to a marriage and that is why they shouldn’t marry.
On the other hand you say that people who shouldn’t have children (period) and expect their condition to be permanent shouldn’t marry.
The second position would include not only mentally ill people, but also people who for physical reasons should not have children. Essentially you’d be saying that someone with a heart defect that would kill during pregnancy and is permanent should never marry. I’ve never read anything in Church teaching that would suggest this.
The first position would include only people with mental illnesses that make a person incapable of consenting. By far the most common mental illnesses are depression and anxiety disorders, those hardly disable a person to the extent of being unable to consent but might well make it so that the person is unable to handle children.
Even more severe illnesses like schizophrenia don’t mean an inability to consent while the person is on medication/ is not psychotic.
F
flyingfish
Guest
A person never promises to have children though, the required promise is to be open to life. If someone uses NFP because they have reason not to have children throughout the entire marriage, they are being open to life. They’re not saying they’ll never have children period, they’re saying they will not have children while they have just reasons not to, which might end up lasting throughout the entire marriage.
C
chevalier
Guest
If you read my last post, you’ll see that’s just what I said. The promise is not to be open to life in some vague terms, however, but to accept and bring up the offspring God will provide.
I
No, you are skipping over divisions and refusing to accept the fact that mental issues affect the ability to give consent. You also insist on refusing that someone who can’t perform shouldn’t undertake.
If it concerns a psychological unreadiness, yes. People who expect always not to be ready psychologically shouldn’t marry.
Canon 1095 deals with psychological issues, not physical.
So will that person be using NFP and risk dying during pregnancy? Will her husband gladly have sex with her knowing that if she were to become pregnant, she would die?
People incapable of consenting can’t marry. Canon 1095 says:
That’s binding law of the Church, not my position.
That person is unable to consent to exchange the right to procreation of offspring, which is an essential property of marriage. Compare with can. 1101:
And can. 1096:
And can. 1055:
Now the Catechism, can. 1643:
It can’t be argued that a decision never to have children–which *is *intent–removes openness to fertility (regardless of whether a spouse or the other is fertile or not). And it can’t be argued that your example with a disease that would kill during pregnancy, such a decision is involved.
C
chevalier
Guest
In those cases one needs to look at whether the essential goods of marriage are there, that is if it can still be a community of whole life, aimed at helping each other attain salvation and geared towards procreation and education of offspring. If this is possible but difficult, then yes, there is a valid marriage. If this is not possible, then there is no valid marriage.Even more severe illnesses like schizophrenia don’t mean an inability to consent while the person is on medication/ is not psychotic.
(1654 is your answer regarding infertile people.)
As you see, marriage involves procreation and exclusion of procreation excludes marriage.
Now back for a moment to what you said in the beginning:
In this example you say, “might end up,” not, “are certain to continue.”
By contrast, a permanent condition constituting inability to have children for psychological reasons is a case of canon 1095 sec. 3, i.e. inability for psychic reasons to assume one of the essential duties of marriage. A physical condition expected to be a permanent reason not to have children at any given time would basically constitute lack of exchange of the right to procreation of children and without that there’s no marriage. People could theoretically exchange all the rights of marriage and decide never to exercise them (so called Josephite marriages), but there at least the exchange of the right takes place (and if one of the parties should change mind later, the other would be bound by the vows).
F
flyingfish
Guest
All activities carry a risk, driving in a car carries a risk of dying in an accident. Different people find different levels of risk acceptable. I wouldn’t be surprised if quite a few were willing to risk death to have sex throughout their lives. NFP when used conservatively carries a pretty low risk of pregnancy, something like 1-2% per year. For me that would be an acceptable risk.
It seems you need to show that actually being able to produce children and care for them at some point is an essential obligation of marriage.
I don’t think the quotes you gave show this.
I would also wonder if Can. 1101 would apply the same argument to people unable to have children for physical and other non-“psychic” reasons.
With mental illnesses people are also backed into a corner where they can’t have children because they are too sick to care for them, or take medications that would cause birth defects and so on.
I’m no expert in canon law, and I can say that this issue is not all that important to me. But it does seem to me that the vast majority of priests/bishops and so on would disagree with you and would allow someone with say depression to get married even if they made it clear that having children would be too much for them. Naturally the person would be planning to have children if the illness subsided to the point where that became possible.
C
chevalier
Guest
That is a different kind of risk. That’s mere statistics. You’re talking about a case of medical certainty. You have to be consequent–if it’s total certainty for the purpose of justifying why that person shouldn’t become pregnant, it’s also total certainty for the purpose of determining the rest.
I would not stop contact with my wife if I could contract a lethal disease through it. Doesn’t make it moral for anyone to request that.
Let me remind you that you’re talking about a situation when NFP is *intended *to be used from the beginning to an end in one of your examples and in the other example, the just causes simply happen to continue throughout the whole marriage. The two situations are drastically different.
Actually being able to have intercourse is a requirement. Actually being open to having children (not “we will talk about it” but “we will accept them as God gives them to us”) is also a requirement. These are essential obligations of marriage. This regards physical ability and generally physical circumstances. This does not regard cases such as never overcoming the fear of having children, which are canon 1095 sec. 3 cases, i.e. inability for reasons of psychic nature to assume essential duties of marriage, which include procreation of offspring. Thus an infertile person marries validly, but an impotent person does not. A person who can’t overcome a fear of having children or a desire to keep enjoying the freedom of childlessness or who never becomes mature enough to decide to be a father or mother, marries invalidly.
Examples, please.
You’re talking about a serious mental health issue and that needs to be examined in the light of canon 1095. Medications possibly causing birth defects are a just cause for NFP. Intending always to be on NFP–unless perhaps it includes acceptance of the possibility that some children will be born anyway–even for a just cause still translates into intending not to have children, which invalidates. Merely expecting the condition to be permanent, but not knowing, is a different situation. There will be many doubts regarding the validity of marriage in such cases and in canon law, doubts are to be interpreted in favour of marriage. Thus in practical terms, you won’t likely see a couple being barred from marriage because of some controversy on one point.
However, if there is any *intent *never to have children–such intent that means, “if my spouse requests we have children, I will always deny,”–that means invalid marriage.
AND
No problem there on the point of having children, but there could be problem with consent in general because such a strong depression as you’re talking about isn’t the time for making irreversible life-time commitments.
Also, it would be different if the current state of medicine suggested the depression would never cease, though it does matter whether the right to procreate offspring is exchanged, as I said.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t see the difference, in both cases it is a just cause that happens to continue throughout the whole marriage. Physical defects are not set in stone. A treatment that will restore health may be around the corner, some illnesses that are generally considered permanent will sometimes (albeit rarely) go away on their own. Likewise with mental illnesses.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Canon Law items you quoted. To me it would seem that they require openness to life (i.e. practicing NFP when there are just reason to do so). A person who uses NFP because they discern mental illness to be a just reason to do so is open to life.
This one is not specific to mentally ill people as 1095 is, and also talks about inability to marry by excluding some essential element of marriage (i.e. physical illness includes never being able to have and raise children). I guess you could say it’s not a positive act of will, but that seems to be open to interpretation because the choice to practice NFP throughout marriage is a positive act of will.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think using NFP continuously throughout the marriage for a just reason meets the openness to life requirement without which marriage can’t be contracted. I think acceptance of children that may be born is a given unless the person falsely believes that NFP is has a true 0% failure rate.
As I said earlier, this is the case with all illnesses. You never know whether it will go away or whether a cure will be developed.
I agree with this provided there are no just reasons to deny.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
Chev- you’ve done it again!!!
C
chevalier
Guest
Now let me draw up a couple of case studies to illustrate the point:
Pure law:
Cases involving opinion:
Pure law:
- A and B marry and at least one of them is infertile, whereas the other one knows and accepts or doesn’t know but wouldn’t mind to the point of not marrying the other. Marriage is valid.
- A and B marry and at least not to have children or at least reserves the right to make a decision in that regard and choose not to have children. Marriage invalid.
Cases involving opinion:
- A and B marry and while one of them is going through some hardship that has psychic consequences that make it a bad time for pregnancy and childbirth but is not prevented from consenting to the exchange of rights regarding procreation and education of offspring. Marriage is valid.
- Same as above but years have passed and said condition is still there with no views to termination–marriage most likely invalid. Yes, this does mean that marrying in a condition when as you describe “having children would be too much” and never recovering from that condition most likely makes for invalid marriage. Basically, if having children would be too much forever, then marrying would thus be too much.
- A and B marry, at least one of them isn’t feeling ready and this minute state stays forever (compare with having a proverbial headache “just tonight” from wedding to death regarding sexual relations) - means the person(s) never got around to being ready (invalidity) OR did simulate consent with regard to offspring (invalidity) OR it went all right with consent, they just were being selfish every single day through sin alone and NO psychological disturbance (valid marriage; condition probably very unlikely to happen in reality, as most subjects will have simulated or will have a psychic disorder).
F
flyingfish
Guest
Agreed
This is the one where we disagree. My understanding is that you think this way because of Can. 1095 and your understanding that being unable to have children throughout the marriage (for “cause of a psychic nature”) invalidates the marriage.
I disagree because I don’t think that ever being able to have children is an essential obligation of marriage. I think an essential obligation of marriage is being open to having children which in this case would mean planning to have them should the just reason for not having them go away.
I also think this “retroactive” invalidation of marriage is a strange way to interpret the law, it either happened when it did or it didn’t. Since neither case 4 nor case 5 knew how things would turn out, those cases should either be both valid or both invalid.
This is what I have been told by priests and what I have read in Catholic literature.
- Status