No Church Wedding For Impotent Man

[Greyhawk]

From what I have been told, you cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders either if you are impotent.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1568820' date='Jun 11 2008, 06:54 PM']I dealt with a case like this, and the young man's doctor talked to the priest. There are electrical stimulation procedures that can be done in the doctor's office that allow a paralyzed man to provide a specimen for IVF purposes, that can also be used for the purposes of consummation. It's actually men who have lower breaks that have the most trouble because they end up having permanent catheters. It might not be the most ideal situation for a wedding night, but it does satisfy the requirements of canon law, and it only takes once.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
the Church (rightly so) is against IVF.

[CatherineM]

They weren't using the procedure for IVF, just to consummate the marriage. They planned to adopt children.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1569156' date='Jun 11 2008, 10:03 PM']They weren't using the procedure for IVF, just to consummate the marriage. They planned to adopt children.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
okay, gotcha, i was confused.

[Kitty]

I had not heard of this teaching until now. Oh well, up it goes on the "Do not agree with" shelf, next to the teaching on gay marriage. Sorry, but I think this particular teaching is absolutely ridiculous.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Greyhawk' post='1569061' date='Jun 11 2008, 11:17 PM']From what I have been told, you cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders either if you are impotent.[/quote]
hmm...haven't heard that...can you source?

[quote name='Kitty' post='1569267' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:39 AM']I had not heard of this teaching until now. Oh well, up it goes on the "Do not agree with" shelf, next to the teaching on gay marriage. Sorry, but I think this particular teaching is absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]

[CatholicCid]

I must admit, I knew of this teaching, but thought it applied only too natural impotence. For a situation with an accident, I have heard of the method CatherineM described and I wonder if they sought it out.

As for this explicit case, I would wonder if it was 100% impossible for the man to participate in the 'maritial embrace'. If it is the case, then I think it makes sense. Though, I would assume that the article would not have all the facts due to the sake of privacy and we must always give the Bishop the benefit of the doubt.

Though, I'd think again why not consider a Josephite (sp?) marriage then.

Edited June 12, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1568827' date='Jun 11 2008, 09:00 PM']Wha? So if you are 65 and finally meet someone, and of course a woman is no longer able to have children at that time of her life... would she be denied marriage as well?[/quote]
Clarification: "impotent" means inability to have sex, not inability to conceive.

That's why the ability to adopt has nothing to do with this case, because this isn't about fertility, it's about sexual capability.

If two can't become one physically, then two can't become one sacramentally. That's why it can't happen.

And in response to Kitty, who said it was dumb, it's not dumb...it makes good sense. If you can't have sex, you can't have a true marriage.

I hope this helps.

God bless,

Micah

[reelguy227]

I'm sorry, but can't the Church not place stipulations on one thing? It seems that it does this a lot, especially in terms of sex. I'm in full support of its decisions, but seriously, there is a point where you can go a tad too far....

[Kitty]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1569304' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:57 AM']And in response to Kitty, who said it was dumb, it's not dumb...it makes good sense. If you can't have sex, you can't have a true marriage.[/quote]

Well, it makes 0 sense to me. And besides, why does the church want to pry into this man's sexual capabilities? If this couple came to the bishop and asked to be married, did the bishop ask them if they could have sex? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?

[Paladin D]

Wow, I think my credibility and I.Q. level has reached an all-time low.

Please ignore my previous two posts, obviously I was not adding one and one together, and didn't realize how impotence would hinder the sacramental nature of marriage. I didn't connect the dots.

This what happens when you read something too quick, don't think it through (or think at all), and comment on it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1569327' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:12 AM']Well, it makes 0 sense to me. And besides, why does the church want to pry into this man's sexual capabilities? If this couple came to the bishop and asked to be married, did the bishop ask them if they could have sex? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?[/quote]
The Church is the servant of God and helps us to understand God's will. God invented sex and He certainly intended it for something. Therefore, the Church has a right to tell us how to use it.

Now, sacraments, such as Marriage, are based on nature, meaning that God's grace uses human nature and build on that. So in marriage, the union of two persons (grace) is based on physical union of two persons (nature). If two persons can't be physically united (nature), then there's nothing for grace to build on and the two can't truly be united. In fact, it's even simpler than that. You see, there are different kinds of marriages. There's a sacramental marriage (a marriage between two Christians, which has grace) and a natural marriage (there are more types of marriage, too, but they're irrelevant). Natural marriage is the most basic kind of marriage based on natural law. Its the most basic type of marriage. In order for a sacramental marriage to take place, a natural marriage must also be possible. Now, one qualification of a natural marriage (and therefore of a sacramental marriage) is that the couple consummate the marriage through the sex act. Since marriage always involves sex, a couple that can't have sex can't get married, even through natural marriage, the most basic kind of marriage. Since natural marriage isn't possible, and sacraments are built on nature, a sacramental marriage is also impossible. It's not the Church trying to be cruel, it's just the way things are. In fact, the Church quite understandably is sad for those involved, but we can't change the way things are. If a disease or injury keeps a person from being able to have sex, the Church can't let that person marry any more than the Church can cure cancer. It's just the way things are.

As for the privacy of the man involved, generally, these sorts of things are discussed as a part of pre-cana, when the engaged couple discusses marriage with the priest, so that all this can be sorted out. It's not an invasion of privacy because this is an area where the Church has a right to speak up and discuss things with people. The Church is like a doctor, she has the right to get involved in very personal things.

God bless,

Micah

[prose]

Can somebody please explain to me why the Church has approved marriages for couples that are non-sexual. Like... hmmm ... lemme think of one... A non-sexual couple....


Um Mary and Joseph????

And there are other instances where the Church has approved marriages that are not sexual in nature.

[CatholicCid]

I just did a little bit of research and would like to withdraw my question on 'What about a Josephite marriage?' From what I read up on from [url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/07/marys_marriage.html"]Jimmy Akin[/url]'s blog, it appears that a couple must still have the possibility to consumate the marriage to enter into such a marriage.

To quote directly:
[quote]Impotence is the inability to perform the marital act. Perpetual and incurable impotence is an impediment to marriage because marriage involves exchanging the right to conjugal relations. Giving valid matrimonial consent means binding oneself to pay the marriage debt if the other party reasonably requests it.

Therefore, if you don't have the ability to pay the marriage debt then you cannot truthfully promise to render it to another. Consueqently, you cannot give another the right to conjugal relations with you, and thus you cannot exchange valid matrimonial consent.

It is possible, however, to exchange the right to conjugal relations even if neither party plans to exercise that right. To parties can plan never to have conjugal relations and yet exchange the right to do so should one or the other (or both) change their minds.[/quote]

-edit-
Prose, I believe this would answer your just posted question.

Edited June 12, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Paladin D]

[quote name='prose' post='1569346' date='Jun 12 2008, 02:30 AM']Can somebody please explain to me why the Church has approved marriages for couples that are non-sexual. Like... hmmm ... lemme think of one... A non-sexual couple....
Um Mary and Joseph????

And there are other instances where the Church has approved marriages that are not sexual in nature.[/quote]

Josephite marriages?

I'm curious about this as well (since I'm ignorant on the issue).


[size=5][b]Edit:[/b][/size] Seems like [b][i]CatholicCid[/b][/i] satisfied my curiousity.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Paladin D

[Deus te Amat]

What about St. Therese's parents? They were advised, by their spiritual director, to live as brother and sister for many years, to increase their devotion to God. Eventually, he told them to make it a physical relationship, and so Therese and her sisters were born.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1569350' date='Jun 12 2008, 02:38 AM']What about St. Therese's parents? They were advised, by their spiritual director, to live as brother and sister for many years, to increase their devotion to God. Eventually, he told them to make it a physical relationship, and so Therese and her sisters were born.[/quote]

See [b]CatholicCid[/b]'s find, it's a couple posts above.

[CatherineM]

It's not the civil marriage or remarriage after divorce that gets you in trouble with the church, it's the sex. If two people are living together, but non having sex, then there is no impediment to their receiving communion.

To have a sacramental marriage, there has to be an indistinguishable bond. It is the one sacrament that isn't actually conferred by the priest, but rather by the couple. They confer the sacrament on each other, and the priest is just a witness to the vows. That's why when a couple who has been married civilly, when they have their church ceremony, it is called a marriage blessing. The sacrament isn't complete until it is consummated, even if it is only consummated once, then there is a bond.

To those of us who have experienced this sacrament, the rules make complete sense. The church is just codifying what we have known for centuries about marriage, but lately as a society seem to have lost track of, and that is the bond between a man and woman. I heard it described once as two people who love each other so much, that they want to be as close as they can possibly become. Becoming one in marriage is something that only a man and a woman can experience, and everything else is just a pale imitation, that includes gay marriage, promiscuity, or self abuse.

[aalpha1989]

I'd just like to say that I'm sorry for coming down so hard on you guys and Paladin, you show amazing humility which I wish I had. I work at it, but you are much better . Maybe that's why you deserve the flag.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1569384' date='Jun 12 2008, 02:46 AM']It's not the civil marriage or remarriage after divorce that gets you in trouble with the church, it's the sex. If two people are living together, but non having sex, then there is no impediment to their receiving communion.[/quote]

That's not entirely accurate. Grave scandal can also be an impediment to Communion, and cohabitating is a scandalous thing.