Unprecedented coalition of religious leaders call Americans to stand for sanctity of life, marriage, and religious freedom

[rlg94086]

I just want to clarify that the inability to consummate a marriage (not the choice) is an impediment to marriage within the Catholic Church. Thus those who cannot physically form a conjugal union are not permitted to marry. This might be shocking but there is a whole rhyme and reason to this. Below are links for further inquiry if one is interested. This does not preclude marriages where a man and a women are physically able to consummate a marriage choices not to. That is not an impediment to marriage. Nor is infertility an impediment.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

catholiccompany.com/catholic-gifts/1004188/Good-News-About-Sex-Marriage/?category=789

Here is another, more direct, link to the subject of impotency and marriage:
newadvent.org/cathen/07695a.htm

Impotency is the state of one who is incapable of normal sexual relations.** It is clear that an impotent person cannot validly contract marriage since he is physically incapable of realizing its object.** For this particular impediment we must refer to the technical treatises on the subject and limit ourselves to some conclusions. **The impotency which is a cause of nullity is the incapacity of having conjugal relations (impotentia coeundi), not incapacity of engendering (impotentia generandi), in other words, sterility. **No one is presumed impotent once he has reached the legal or real age of puberty; consequently, no one, except eunuchs, can be prevented by authority from marrying (Sixtus V, 27 June, 1587). The different classifications of impotency, absolute or relative, antecedent or subsequent, perpetual or temporal, to be met with in various treatises, are of no practical importance now. Only perpetual antecedent impotency is a cause of nullity; nowadays it is seldom necessary to examine too closely into this matter, as all cases arising from it are treated as far as possible under the form of dispensations of non-consummated marriages.

 

[Fitz]

Just signed and was 60, 701.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

We will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a marriage. After all, can you address what I said about a disabled man and disabled woman becoming married? How is that considered a marriage if they can’t have sex with one another?

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

§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

§3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Christopher68]

So the coalition is asking government to enforce the sanctity of life and traditional marriage (i.e. a strong and proactive role for the federal government in these areas), yet wants ‘religious freedom’, which is essentially freedom FROM government??? You can’t have it both ways!

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

On the one hand. On the other hand, no democracy I know of mandates freedom FROM religion, whereby, if it corresponds to the beliefs of a religion, it cannot be advocated in the public square. It is a violation of freedom of religion if someone decrees you must believe this or that. It is also a violation of freedom of religion if one cannot advocate moral choices, even to the point of protecting them through laws, because they flow from religious principles.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Havard]

I don’t see what is so unprecedented. Christians are always glad to join up to oppose freedom of marriage and make Christianity the state religion.

I think you’ll find most civilizations have defined marriage between man and woman, including pagan civilizations. Equating an effort to keep the traditional concept of marriage with an attempt to make Christianity the state religion is disingenuous.

 

[maggiemay2u]

I think you’ll find most civilizations have defined marriage between man and woman, including pagan civilizations. Equating an effort to keep the traditional concept of marriage with an attempt to make Christianity the state religion is disingenuous.

As Homer (Skruggs, not Iliad) might put it…you play the cards your dealt if that’s all you got…

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t see what is so unprecedented. Christians are always glad to join up to oppose freedom of marriage and make Christianity the state religion.

Christianity does not exist as a cohesive, institutional organization. There is no Christian church that everyone agrees on, so Christianity will never be a state religion.
We can however join together as a moral force to promote the Judeo-Christian values that our countries were founded on.