What if kids can't be part of the deal?

[LeafByNiggle]

As for the second…they did exchange the right and were able…and lived it actually …and only later lost that ability…just like if I end up in some car crash. So a marriage (all things being equal) is presumed like any other marriage.

So what if a normal couple is married and then on the way to the reception has an accident that renders the man unable to consummate. They would be forced to divorce? But the couple in the very same situation that stopped for a quicky on the way to the reception and then had the accident - they could stay married? This just does not sound reasonable.

 

[LaSainte]

What if a man is engaged but rendered a quadriplegic and unable to have sex? If they cannot get married, but the girlfriend still wants/needs to be there to care for him 24/7 and is willing and desiring to do so, are you saying she cannot? Does he have to go live in some state hospital or permanent care home somewhere paid for by welfare or Medicaid simply to avoid living with someone who loves him and wants to take care of him for he rest of his life?

I actually know someone in this very situation.

Can someone please answer this question?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No …not as such they should not share a house…even living in separate bedrooms.

But you said in posting #12 that they could share a house.

 

[_L]

then suppose that this condition developed after the couple had been married for many years. Does the Church force them to split up too?

Nope, once consummated a marriage is indissoluble. The permanent and irreversible prevention of having sex must be both present and known at the time of the marriage in order to prevent the marriage to my knowledge.

 

[Bookcat]

So what if a normal couple is married and then on the way to the reception has an accident that renders the man unable to consummate. They would be forced to divorce?

They would be married.

They have to be not have “antecdent” and “perpetual” impotence to have intercourse. They did not have antecedent impotence…at the time of the exchange of consent …they were married.

 

[coco2]

No…a woman and man who are not brother and sister…are not to live together without marriage.

How many out there are single and have friends? It is not relegating them to loneliness though that can be part of their life as it can for anyone.

Since when? People are allowed to live as brother and sister together. If there is no sex, or even thought of sex, there is no sin. People these days are having to live under all kinds of circumstances due to finances, safety, etc. More than one family together, friends together, there are places where females are NOT SAFE without a male in the house. This doesn’t mean they are sinning.

 

[_L]

Can someone please answer this question?

I believe charity takes precedence over trying to prevent an appearance of scandal.

example: Man has his lips on another woman who isn’t his wife…scandalous right? Yea… what if he is performing CPR? it would be scandalous in another circumstance but certainly not here.

But I think careful consideration must be made in more complicated situations involving residencies but as I said I believe charity takes precedence over the trying to avoid the mere appearance of scandal.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They would be married.

They have to be not have “antecdent” and “perpetual” impotence to have intercourse. They did not have antecedent impotence…at the time of the exchange of consent …they were married.

What if they had antecedent and perpetual impotence at the time of the exchange of consent but were unaware of it? Does awareness or lack of it make any difference?

 

[Bookcat]

What if they had antecedent and perpetual impotence at the time of the exchange of consent bur were unaware of it? Does awareness or lack of it make any difference?

Well then they would be living in good conscience just as any couple who actually had an (unknown) invalid marriage at the time of the consent.

Marriage is presumed valid.

And in the case of doubt in regards to the impotence question…such too is presumed to be valid until it is found to be not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well then they would be living in good conscience just as any couple who actually had a an unknown invalid marriage at the time of the consent.

And then they would have to split up?

 

[Bookcat]

And then they would have to split up?

How can the do so if they do not know?

One can not act on knowledge that can not be had.

Presumptions stands with the marriage.

 

[Fogwalker]

What if a man is engaged but rendered a quadriplegic and unable to have sex? If they cannot get married, but the girlfriend still wants/needs to be there to care for him 24/7 and is willing and desiring to do so, are you saying she cannot? Does he have to go live in some state hospital or permanent care home somewhere paid for by welfare or Medicaid simply to avoid living with someone who loves him and wants to take care of him for he rest of his life?

I actually know someone in this very situation.

There is a lot about this situation that we don’t know, LaSainte, and that perhaps even you or your friends don’t know. All other things being equal, they physically can’t fornicate in their situation, and since the girlfriend is clearly in a caregiving role I don’t see how anyone in modern-day America would scandalize him or her for it. Without the temptation for sexual sin and without the potential for scandal, there aren’t any barriers to cohabitation. It takes a pretty extreme case for the Church’s barriers to cohabitation to be removed, but it sounds like your friends are in a pretty extreme case.

With that said, there are other circumstances that need to be considered. We have to be open to whatever God’s plans are for us. Could their previous plans lead them to sins of lust if they continue their relationship but can never consumate it? Is God using his suffering to lead his girlfriend into a happy, fruitful marriage with someone else? With the girlfriend then gone, is God calling someone else who had fallen away from God to come back to the light by seeing Jesus in the injured man and caring for him? Again, the answer may well be “NO” to all of those questions, but they are worth thinking about. God’s plan might well be for the girlfriend to take a vow of chastity and devote her life to loving service of her injured fiance. Or maybe His plan is for both of them to take different paths than the one they previously shared. Only the two of them and God can decide that through prayerful reflection, and the goodness of them living together depends on that reflection as well as their situation.

 

[Bookcat]

Can someone please answer this question?

He should seek care from a professional service for his 24/7 health care and continue perhaps in friendship with his former fiancee…(but not living there…but visiting) as well as have other friends too…

Lots of tragedies happen in life…and those who experience them do need love and great friendship…

 

[urielwings4]

So Joseph and Mary were never really married because they never consummated their marriage right? Give me a brake!

 

[GEddie]

So then I assume that such a couple could live together without sinning? After all, the very thing that prevents them from marrying also makes it impossible for them to fornicate. And if you say no, that they cannot live together, then wouldn’t that be relegating at least one of them to a life of loneliness?

Even though there would in this instnce be no fornication, this would still present an occasion of scandal to others (male/female living together without marriage). As such, it would be disallowed.

While loneliness can be a heavy cross, avoiding it is not sufficient reason for an occasion of scandal to be created.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Fogwalker]

Even though there would in this instnce be no fornication, this would still present an occasion of scandal to others (male/female living together without marriage). As such, it would be disallowed.

While loneliness can be a heavy cross, avoiding it is not sufficient reason for an occasion of scandal to be created.

ICXC NIKA

Scandal would be caused by people presuming an illicit relationship. I challenge you to find me one person who would presume they were having an illicit relationship given the situation, who had access to enough of their personal information to know that they were living together and that they are Catholic but did NOT know about the man’s injuries.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even though there would in this instnce be no fornication, this would still present an occasion of scandal to others (male/female living together without marriage). As such, it would be disallowed.

The whole issue of scandal has got me thinking about the basis for it. Most every other moral precept is founded on objective truth: It is wrong to have sex without marriage, etc. But scandal is founded on subjective appearances: It looks like those two are probably having sex.

So scandal is more about what others may assume than about what is actually going on. So how is the standard set for what constitutes scandal? Should it be set so high that no one would ever assume something illicit is going on? That is an impossible standard to achieve, for there will always be synical people who will assume something illicit is going on. For example, two young people are engaged and attending college. They live in the same dormitory, but on different floors. They are living chaste lives, but their friends may assume they are sneaking over to each other’s room to have sex. And statistically speaking, those friends would be correct. Most (secular) engagements under those circumstances would be accompanied by pre-marital sex. So should these two fine people change dormitories? Even then some people will assume they are having sex. Should they change colleges? Or one of them drop out? It is apparent that at attempt to place the possibility of illicit activity beyond anyone’s imagining is just not reasonable. So the standard for determining scandal must be set somewhat lower.

Other examples for non-scandal have been given in this thread, e.g. the quadriplegic. Or consider the case of an unmarried couple in their 80’s. How many people would assume they are having sex?

On the other hand, it is supposed to be permitted for a brother and sister to live together. Yet that could also be an occasion for scandal, especially if the two are in their twenties and are not showing any romantic interest in anyone else. Many people would think that perhaps they are engaging in inscest. So why should there be a cohabitation exception for bother and sister?

A more reasonable conclusion would be that hard and fast rules about scandal must give way to case-by-case considerations involving all the details of the people involved.

 

[LaSainte]

The whole issue of scandal has got me thinking about the basis for it. Most every other moral precept is founded on objective truth: It is wrong to have sex without marriage, etc. But scandal is founded on subjective appearances: It looks like those two are probably having sex.

So scandal is more about what others may assume than about what is actually going on. So how is the standard set for what constitutes scandal? Should it be set so high that no one would ever assume something illicit is going on? That is an impossible standard to achieve, for there will always be synical people who will assume something illicit is going on. For example, two young people are engaged and attending college. They live in the same dormitory, but on different floors. They are living chaste lives, but their friends may assume they are sneaking over to each other’s room to have sex. And statistically speaking, those friends would be correct. Most (secular) engagements under those circumstances would be accompanied by pre-marital sex. So should these two fine people change dormitories? Even then some people will assume they are having sex. Should they change colleges? Or one of them drop out? It is apparent that at attempt to place the possibility of illicit activity beyond anyone’s imagining is just not reasonable. So the standard for determining scandal must be set somewhat lower.

Other examples for non-scandal have been given in this thread, e.g. the quadriplegic. Or consider the case of an unmarried couple in their 80’s. How many people would assume they are having sex?

On the other hand, it is supposed to be permitted for a brother and sister to live together. Yet that could also be an occasion for scandal, especially if the two are in their twenties and are not showing any romantic interest in anyone else. Many people would think that perhaps they are engaging in inscest. So why should there be a cohabitation exception for bother and sister?

A more reasonable conclusion would be that hard and fast rules about scandal must give way to case-by-case considerations involving all the details of the people involved.

Excellent points.

 

[Bookcat]

So Joseph and Mary were never really married because they never consummated their marriage right? Give me a brake!

No one ever said that…from what I said …they were married.

And indeed they were.

 

[Bookcat]

Scandal would be caused by people presuming an illicit relationship. I challenge you to find me one person who would presume they were having an illicit relationship given the situation, who had access to enough of their personal information to know that they were living together and that they are Catholic but did NOT know about the man’s injuries.

it is not just scandal too I would add.

They are simply not husband and wife.

And two friends…one being male and one being female should not be living together…unless they really are brother and sister.