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

[Fogwalker]

I was taught a long time ago in a Catholic religion class that if a man and woman love each other, but one of them is physically not capable of producing children for biological reasons due to some kind of defect or injury or something (read: not by choice), then that couple is not allowed to be married in the Church because there is no possibility of procreation.

That seems really harsh. Is that true?

 

[sw85]

I was taught a long time ago in a Catholic religion class that if a man and woman love each other, but one of them is physically not capable of producing children for biological reasons due to some kind of defect or injury or something (read: not by choice), then that couple is not allowed to be married in the Church because there is no possibility of procreation.

That seems really harsh. Is that true?

To my knowledge, that is false.

Natural law is concerned with the procreative potential of the conjugal act in principle, without regard to individual or temporal circumstances. This is why NFP is morally permissible.

So long as the infertile couple continues to have sex that is objectively ordered toward procreation, there is no reason why they cannot marry.

 

[_L]

It is my understanding that people who are infertile can marry in the Church as long as they are actually able to engage in intercourse and the man is able to ejaculate (doesn’t mean he needs to be fertile) in order to consummate the marriage, which is what the phrase: “and the will two become one flesh” means; it is not merely the exchange of vows that consummates a marriage but the marital act is what does the consummating. The Church does not separate sex from marriage which is often the view of many non Catholics and even non Christians in general. When someone is married in the Church it is predicated on the idea that they are able to fulfill the marriage “contract” meaning that they will be able to actually do what a marriage entails, and sex is intimately tied to marriage. So when the Church says those unable to engage in intercourse cannot be married, it is not a statement of exclusion or discrimination it is a statement of what marriage is, and that means if someone is unable to have sex then they are by the same token unable to be married because that is what marriage itself entails for it to be a marriage.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is my understanding that people who are infertile can marry in the Church as long as they are actually able to engage in intercourse and the man is able to ejaculate (doesn’t mean he needs to be fertile) in order to consummate the marriage, which is what the phrase: “and the will two become one flesh” means; it is not merely the exchange of vows that consummates a marriage but the marital act is what does the consummating. The Church does not separate sex from marriage which is often the view of many non Catholics and even non Christians in general. When someone is married in the Church it is predicated on the idea that they are able to fulfill the marriage “contract” meaning that they will be able to actually do what a marriage entails, and sex is intimately tied to marriage. So when the Church says those unable to engage in intercourse cannot be married, it is not a statement of exclusion or discrimination it is a statement of what marriage is, and that means if someone is unable to have sex then they are by the same token unable to be married because that is what marriage itself entails for it to be a marriage.

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?

 

[Bookcat]

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?

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.

 

[Bookcat]

If they are perminately unable to engage in the marital act…then they are not able to marry…for part of the very nature is the exchange of this right.

It is not harsh it is just the reality of marriage. Lots of people with various difficulties are unable to do many things in life…we all have our various struggles in life…and joys.

 

[_L]

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?

Regardless of the couples inability to actually have sex, they should still refrain from co-habitating because of the potential for scandal if they are faithful Catholics. I have seen faithful catholics come on these very forums and ask whether it would be ok for them and their spouse to be to live in the same house even before they married when they are both committed to purity, and the answer was invariably no, because in spite of their good intentions the potential scandal is still there (not to mention occasion for sin) and that is enough to dissuade them from living together before marriage.

And the intentions of these moral premises is not to cause grief, and sadly stuff like this happens all the time and everyone has their crosses to bear. The couple that is married and desperately wants children cannot conceive, a young wife is abandoned by her husband and cannot marry again and has no choice but to live alone, and those who cannot physically have sex cannot engage in marriage because that is what marriage itself entails. I hope I am not being curt because that is not the intention, but if we know the Truth we need to live by the Truth and sometimes it hurts… heck it may hurt all the time…in this life. but pain and heartache in this life is a small price to pay for the reward in the next life, and I am thoroughly convinced that those who faithfully bear such difficult crosses in this life will be rewarded immeasurably in the next.

 

[Fogwalker]

My question was specifically geared towards cases of sterility, not of obstacles to sex itself. Thanks all for clarifying. And apologies to my old religion teacher - this is probably a case of my bad memory rather than her bad teaching!

And why could a couple who could not engage in sex not live together? The reasons that cohabitation is sinful (as has been explaned to me when I questioned it on this forum several months ago) are that cohabitation tempts a couple to have sex outside of marriage and causes scandal by making others think that an illicit relationship is taking place. But for the couple that can’t have sex, how can a sin that is physically impossible to commit cause temptation or scandal?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

So this unfortunate person who cannot ejaculate is first denied by nature the ability to have children. But that is not enough. The Church then says he cannot marry. Nor can he even enjoy the economic benefits of sharing a home. Talk about kicking someone when he is down!

OK, suppose a normal couple gets married, and then shortly after that the condition of not being able to ejaculate is discovered. (For being a good Catholic, he never masturbated and so never found out that he could not ejaculate.). Does the Church then force an annulment on the couple?

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

 

[LaSainte]

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.

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.

 

[_L]

My question was specifically geared towards cases of sterility, not of obstacles to sex itself. Thanks all for clarifying. And apologies to my old religion teacher - this is probably a case of my bad memory rather than her bad teaching!

And why could a couple who could not engage in sex not live together? The reasons that cohabitation is sinful (as has been explaned to me when I questioned it on this forum several months ago) are that cohabitation tempts a couple to have sex outside of marriage and causes scandal by making others think that an illicit relationship is taking place. But for the couple that can’t have sex, how can a sin that is physically impossible to commit cause temptation or scandal?

The scandal is the presumptive way in which the couple presents themselves. If they are not married, and are living together, sadly the assumption in our society is that they are having casual sex outside of marriage, and this is where the scandal takes place when they don’t take a simple measure to prevent scandal in the first place. It is not an issue of being self conscious about what people think when they are mistaken, it is about working in charity to remove such a potential stumbling block from someone who could assume that either Catholics think pre marital sex is okay, or Catholics are hypocrites who think pre martial sex is bad but then go ahead and live with their boyfriends/girlfriends and have sex anyways. And sadly people are so misinformed to believe either proposition these days.

 

[Bookcat]

So this unfortunate person who cannot ejaculate is first denied by nature the ability to have children. But that is not enough. The Church then says he cannot marry. Nor can he even enjoy the economic benefits of sharing a home. Talk about kicking someone when he is down!

Nope not so…this just the sad nature of things sometimes…due to mishaps of nature or of man. It is a suffering (and can be borne with great merit even)…and we all have suffering to varied degrees in this life…

as to the other…there are many other ways to have friends…and even share a house…in fact there are various communities etc.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If they are perminately unable to engage in the marital act…then they are not able to marry…for part of the very nature is the exchange of this right.

What if it is uncertain whether the condition is permanent or temporary? Can such a couple marry?

 

[Bookcat]

OK, suppose a normal couple gets married, and then shortly after that the condition of not being able to ejaculate is discovered. (For being a good Catholic, he never masturbated and so never found out that he could not ejaculate.). Does the Church then force an annulment on the couple?

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

I am not an expert on all the aspects that could be involved…the Church would have to look at the question in each case. Usually this is not a frequent happening I think.

In the first…if he is unable to have intercourse (we could get technical here but I will not)…and this is perpetual …then he was unable to exchange that right…that aspect of marriage was not present…

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

My question was specifically geared towards cases of sterility, not of obstacles to sex itself. Thanks all for clarifying. And apologies to my old religion teacher - this is probably a case of my bad memory rather than her bad teaching!

And why could a couple who could not engage in sex not live together? The reasons that cohabitation is sinful (as has been explaned to me when I questioned it on this forum several months ago) are that cohabitation tempts a couple to have sex outside of marriage and causes scandal by making others think that an illicit relationship is taking place. But for the couple that can’t have sex, how can a sin that is physically impossible to commit cause temptation or scandal?

It depends. A person who is an invalid would probably not cause scandal by having a live-in caretaker of the opposite sex.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

as to the other…there are many other ways to have friends…and even share a house…

So such a couple could share a house as long as they have separate bedrooms? And would the Church allow them to enter into a civil marriage in order to gain the civil benefits, such as filing a joint income tax return?

 

[Fogwalker]

Regardless of the couples inability to actually have sex, they should still refrain from co-habitating because of the potential for scandal if they are faithful Catholics. I have seen faithful catholics come on these very forums and ask whether it would be ok for them and their spouse to be to live in the same house even before they married when they are both committed to purity, and the answer was invariably no, because in spite of their good intentions the potential scandal is still there (not to mention occasion for sin) and that is enough to dissuade them from living together before marriage.

And the intentions of these moral premises is not to cause grief, and sadly stuff like this happens all the time and everyone has their crosses to bear. The couple that is married and desperately wants children cannot conceive, a young wife is abandoned by her husband and cannot marry again and has no choice but to live alone, and those who cannot physically have sex cannot engage in marriage because that is what marriage itself entails. I hope I am not being curt because that is not the intention, but if we know the Truth we need to live by the Truth and sometimes it hurts… heck it may hurt all the time…in this life. but pain and heartache in this life is a small price to pay for the reward in the next life, and I am thoroughly convinced that those who faithfully bear such difficult crosses in this life will be rewarded immeasurably in the next.

I hadn’t seen this post when I wrote my last one.

Scandal is hurtful and should be avoided, but we have to make good judgements about when scandal is important and what precautions we take against scandal. If a woman showed up at my door on a snowy night in January about to freeze, as the roads ice over, obviously the Christian thing to do is to take her in for the night despite the “potential for scandal” if someone saw us leaving my apartment early the next morning. Her immediate safety and the future safety of her, myself, and other drivers (e.g. if I attempted to drive her somewhere else on the unsafe roads) makes the potential for scandal an acceptible risk to achieve the greater good. And likewise, priests need to take precautions in their relationships with women that lay men do not because of the potential to scandalize the entire Church as well as individuals. My point is that “potential for scandal” means different things in different situations for different people, and only a well-formed conscience can tell us when scandal is more or less important than other things.

 

[_L]

I hadn’t seen this post when I wrote my last one.

Scandal is hurtful and should be avoided, but we have to make good judgements about when scandal is important and what precautions we take against scandal. If a woman showed up at my door on a snowy night in January about to freeze, as the roads ice over, obviously the Christian thing to do is to take her in for the night despite the “potential for scandal” if someone saw us leaving my apartment early the next morning. Her immediate safety and the future safety of her, myself, and other drivers (e.g. if I attempted to drive her somewhere else on the unsafe roads) makes the potential for scandal an acceptible risk to achieve the greater good. And likewise, priests need to take precautions in their relationships with women that lay men do not because of the potential to scandalize the entire Church as well as individuals. My point is that “potential for scandal” means different things in different situations for different people, and only a well-formed conscience can tell us when scandal is more or less important than other things.

I wholeheartedly agree; I am just talking in to normative sense not taking into account extraordinary situations and I still say under ordinary circumstances a man and a woman in a relationship should not be living together before marriage because like it or not assumptions are made about their sexual relationship even if there is none.

 

[Bookcat]

What if it is uncertain whether the condition is permanent or temporary? Can such a couple marry?

Yes…if it is doubtful the marriage can go forward…but it may turn out to be permanent.

 

[Bookcat]

So such a couple could share a house as long as they have separate bedrooms? And would the Church allow them to enter into a civil marriage in order to gain the civil benefits, such as filing a joint income tax return?

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