Please, Define Sex

[Aloysius]

Personally, I don't assume the factual historical nature of you, LittleLes. That RESPONSE must have been from an automated robot machine entitled mysterious source "L" that we know nothing about except that it probably was the source of what you just wrote.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:40 PM'][quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 10:16 AM']
If they are married and there is a dubium as to the ability to procreate, then the marriage will be disallowed.  They would need to get a dispensation to get married.  AIDS falls into this category.[/quote]

[quote]RESPONSE:

I'm afraid you are in error.  Impotence, not sterility, is an impediment to the Sacrament of Marriage. An infertile male and female may marry.
[right][snapback]621676[/snapback][/right]
[/quote][/quote]

Incorrect.....in order for a sterile couple to marry, there must be a dispensation granted by the ordinary. Those who are sterile are closed to the gift of life, which is a criteria for marriage.

Canon Law speaks to this directly.

[quote name='CIC Can.1084'] §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.[/quote]

[quote name=' CIC Can. 1098'] A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.[/quote]

What this means, is that dispensation is necessary for sterile couples to marry. While it is not an evil in and of itself, it is an impediment to the sacrament. If one who is sterile and knowingly enters into the Maritial bond, invalidates it because of Can. 1098.

QED

[Guest JeffCR07]

Cam, you have still not answered the question put forward to you. It is clear that a person who knows that he (or she) is sterile must get a dispensation granted by the local ordinary.

However, you previously argued/implied that it would be improper and a sin against marital chastity for a sterile couple to engage in the marriage act.

I reply that this is not so. Sarah was barren, yet God not only did not prohibit her and Abraham from having sex, but indeed commanded it.

God does not contradict himself, nor does he command others to sin.

Thus, it is morally permissible for a couple to engage in the marriage act, even when that couple knows that it is scientifically impossible for them to conceive.

Therefore, it is morally permissible for a couple to engage in the marriage act, even when that couple knows that it is improbable that they will conceive.

What is critical is that no direct action is taken that is in opposition to the ends of the sexual act.

[reelguy227]

"What is critical is that no direct action is taken that is in opposition to the ends of the sexual act. "

I dont get this statement ? Please explain. Thanks

[Birgitta Noel]

Ummmm, let me clarify some things here.

1. All married people are called to live chastely. This does not mean celibately.

2. Those who are impotent (i.e. cannot sustain or have an erection) are unable to marry as they are unable to complete the sexual act.

3. Those who are sterile are not barred from marriage as they are open to life per se. They are not contracepting and (as multiple biblical references posted here remind us) with God all things are possible.

4. Those couples who have intentionally sterilized themselves, ie tubal ligations, or hysterectomies for contraceptive purposes must seek reconciliation with the Church through the sacrament of penance. They are encouraged to undergo reversal of such proceedures when feasable, but are not required to do so.

If I am in error on any of the above I welcome clarification and correction.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Jun 27 2005, 11:50 PM']Ummmm, let me clarify some things here.

1. All married people are called to live chastely.  This does not mean celibately.

2. Those who are impotent (i.e. cannot sustain or have an erection) are unable to marry as they are unable to complete the sexual act.

3. Those who are sterile are not barred from marriage as they are open to life per se.  They are not contracepting and (as multiple biblical references posted here remind us) with God all things are possible.

4. Those couples who have intentionally sterilized themselves, ie tubal ligations, or hysterectomies for contraceptive purposes must seek reconciliation with the Church through the sacrament of penance.  They are encouraged to undergo reversal of such proceedures when feasable, but are not required to do so.

If I am in error on any of the above I welcome clarification and correction.
[right][snapback]625918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do believe that's all correct.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:50 PM']Ummmm, let me clarify some things here.

1. All married people are called to live chastely.  This does not mean celibately.

2. Those who are impotent (i.e. cannot sustain or have an erection) are unable to marry as they are unable to complete the sexual act.

3. Those who are sterile are not barred from marriage as they are open to life per se.  They are not contracepting and (as multiple biblical references posted here remind us) with God all things are possible.

4. Those couples who have intentionally sterilized themselves, ie tubal ligations, or hysterectomies for contraceptive purposes must seek reconciliation with the Church through the sacrament of penance.  They are encouraged to undergo reversal of such proceedures when feasable, but are not required to do so.

If I am in error on any of the above I welcome clarification and correction.
[right][snapback]625918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Right on target!

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2005, 06:19 AM']Right on target!   
[right][snapback]626066[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ha ha


so [i]wait a second[/i]...the impotence thing up there...so if an old couple wants to get marrried they can't (there are quite a few occurences of this situation) ???!?!??!!??!?! [i]whaaa?[/i] if the poor old guy can't get an erection....he then can't marry the woman he loves!! (and the woman obviously can't get pregnant even if he could, uh, whatever, so how does being impotent affect them) gracious, this is craziness...(i mean i didne't want to ask this, but you gotta be informed for the future)

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:50 PM']Ummmm, let me clarify some things here.

1. All married people are called to live chastely.  This does not mean celibately.

2. Those who are impotent (i.e. cannot sustain or have an erection) are unable to marry as they are unable to complete the sexual act.

3. Those who are sterile are not barred from marriage as they are open to life per se.  They are not contracepting and (as multiple biblical references posted here remind us) with God all things are possible.

4. Those couples who have intentionally sterilized themselves, ie tubal ligations, or hysterectomies for contraceptive purposes must seek reconciliation with the Church through the sacrament of penance.  They are encouraged to undergo reversal of such proceedures when feasable, but are not required to do so.

If I am in error on any of the above I welcome clarification and correction.
[right][snapback]625918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yup ,soundds good to me .

[Didacus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jun 28 2005, 12:03 AM']
[quote]
1. All married people are called to live chastely.  This does not mean celibately. [/quote]



I do believe that's all correct.
[right][snapback]626025[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So you would say that a married couple, with the woman having the utterus removed from medical conditions, can still engage in the sexual act as long as they remain open to a miracle of some sort?

Boy, this thread is confusing...

[reelguy227]

I agree with Didacus.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 28 2005, 09:37 AM']ha ha
so [i]wait a second[/i]...the impotence thing up there...so if an old couple wants to get marrried they can't (there are quite a few occurences of this situation) ???!?!??!!??!?! [i]whaaa?[/i]  if the poor old guy can't get an erection....he then can't marry the woman he loves!! (and the woman obviously can't get pregnant even if he could, uh, whatever, so how does being impotent affect them) gracious, this is craziness...(i mean i didne't want to ask this, but you gotta be informed for the future)
[right][snapback]626138[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, unless I am mistaken, it is still possible to get married, though you must get special permission from your local ordinary.

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07 @ Jun 26 2005' date=' 03:30 PM']However, you previously argued/implied that it would be improper and a sin against marital chastity for a sterile couple to engage in the marriage act.[/quote]

Actually, I didn't. What I said was that they are to practice chastity and continence. That is not implying anything near a sin against chastity. It is precisely the opposite.

Here is what I said:
[quote name='Cam42 @ Jun 24 2005' date=' 10:52 AM']If the hysterectomy takes place after the marriage is sacramentally sealed, then they are to live a chaste life. Part of living a chaste life is a continent life. Just follow what the Church teaches, if you are Catholic.

Yes, sterile couples are bound to chastity. Why? Because all men, regardless of their state in life are called to chastity. There is more to the marriage than sex.[/quote]

Are you somehow saying that married couples don't have to be chaste and continent at times? All I said is that they should follow what the Church teaches. Don't read more into it than what is there.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 28 2005, 09:11 PM'][. . .]
Are you somehow saying that married couples don't have to be chaste and continent at times?  All I said is that they should follow what the Church teaches.  Don't read more into it than what is there.
[right][snapback]627100[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree. St. Paul recommends that the spouses practice periodic continence, especially for prayer (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5).

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Are you somehow saying that married couples don't have to be chaste and continent at times? All I said is that they should follow what the Church teaches. Don't read more into it than what is there.[/quote]

Cam, you know very well that this is not what I was saying.

I apologize for reading too much into your post, and I pray you will not make my mistake concerning my own posts.

Edit: because I spelled "too" incorrectly

Edited June 29, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:15 AM']Cam, you know very well that this is not what I was saying.

I apologize for reading too much into your post, and I pray you will not make my mistake concerning my own posts.

Edit: because I spelled "too" incorrectly 
[right][snapback]627189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Accepted.....

[Semperviva]

OK
i remembered that this thread went into a NFP discussion..and i was thinking the other day...
what NFP does,
although i realize the reasoning behind why it is approved by the church, it seems to have an aspect of disordered ness to it, to me.
just in this, that God designs the man and woman's body so that they [b]will[/b] have sex [i]WHEN[/i] the woman[i] is [/i]fertile, just because thats [i]when they are designed to want it[/i] most, so that a baby will actually be concieved...it just seems wrong for some reason...like only have sex when you least want to? i mean i am [i]perfectly OK [/i]with the whole [color=red]sacrificing[/color] for your spouse and of course thats not what i have trouble with...its more that NFP seems contrary to God's design for sex...

Edited July 21, 2005 by Semperviva

[Aloysius]

it's certainly not preferred and should not be done without a very good and legitimate reason. but the actual action of sex is not altared by doing NFP and as such it isn't contrary to God's design for sex. it can be misused though.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 21 2005, 02:18 AM']OK
i remembered that this thread went into a NFP discussion..and i was thinking the other day...
what NFP does,
although i realize the reasoning behind why it is approved by the church, it seems to have an aspect of disordered ness to it, to me.
just in this, that God designs the man and woman's body so that they [b]will[/b] have sex [i]WHEN[/i] the woman[i] is [/i]fertile, just because thats [i]when they are designed to want it[/i] most, so that a baby will actually be concieved...it just seems wrong for some reason...like only have sex when you least want to?  i mean i am [i]perfectly OK [/i]with the whole [color=red]sacrificing[/color] for your spouse and of course thats not what i have trouble with...its more that NFP seems contrary to God's design for sex...
[right][snapback]652204[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We aren't slaves to our drives, and that is not God's plan. If there is truth to the idea that the fertile period is a time of greater sexual desire, that just means that the sacrifice of abstinence, for the good of the family, is that much more meritorious. It could hardly be called a sacrifice to abstain only when you don't feel like doing it to begin with. And remember that periodic abstinence is biblical.