CatherineM Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753408' date='Jan 16 2009, 09:45 PM']Isn't consummation necessary for a marriage to be recognized? -Katie[/quote] It completes the sacrament. It's not really an issue unless one party wants an annulment. I think that surprised me the most working at the tribunal the number of people wanting annulments on the basis of non-consummation. I didn't think that ever happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1753415' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:47 PM']It completes the sacrament. It's not really an issue unless one party wants an annulment. I think that surprised me the most working at the tribunal the number of people wanting annulments on the basis of non-consummation. I didn't think that ever happened.[/quote] Me neither! It just seems like if you were going to wait 2 years, why get married in the first place? But then, in St. Therese's day things were different. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753454' date='Jan 16 2009, 10:05 PM']Me neither! It just seems like if you were going to wait 2 years, why get married in the first place? But then, in St. Therese's day things were different. -Katie[/quote] I worked on an annulment once where these two had been "married" for 20 years, and never consummated. I thought they were lying to get the annulment, but our investigation couldn't prove they were. They barely spoke to each other all those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1753373' date='Jan 16 2009, 08:26 PM']If you are not in a good position to begin one, then why begin one by getting married? And that is the primary purpose, like you said... but yet you are not in a position (like you noted) to accept such a purpose. Do you plan to abstain for the first year or two totally in marriage? Because they abstained totally. And it wasn't because of money... actually I believe they abstained for five or seven years. I could be wrong, but I think it was a bit longer then two.[/quote] What I am saying is that immediate pro-creation isn't necessary for one to choose to get married. Why didn't St. Therese's parents just abstain and wait until they would want to consummate a marriage together before taking vows? Why was it okay for them to take vows and then abstain? It would be very similar principles as taking vows and practicing NFP while still being willing to accept children if they so came. That's why its NFP and not contraception. Would I be in a good position to begin one? No. Would I be in a position where it would be possible? Yes. I would be in a position to accept such a purpose as procreation if it were to come upon me, but it would not be a purpose that I would be seeking to fulfill within those first two years which is the entire concept of NFP. It wasn't their reason for abstaining that I was pointing out, rather the principle that it was okay for them to choose to do so even within the beginnings of marital vows. I think one could pose the same question to St. Therese's parents "If you aren't going to be starting a family right away, why get married?" Yet they still did and it was seen as a good thing even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1753371' date='Jan 16 2009, 08:24 PM']Why not just wait to get married then?[/quote] Because pro-creation although the primary purpose, isn't the only purpose. And while the fulfillment of the primary purpose would not be being sought (although it would be something that the marriage would be desiring to be sought at some point), there are still other purposes of marriage that could be fulfilled... such as sanctification of the spouses. EDIT: Also, if the only purpose of marriage was procreation, it wouldn't matter if you loved the person you were marrying, it wouldn't matter who you married as long as it was the opposite sex and they were willing to raise kids with you. Other things do matter and do take importance in choosing a spouse. Edited January 17, 2009 by Slappo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Slappo' post='1753480' date='Jan 16 2009, 10:23 PM']Also, if the only purpose of marriage was procreation, it wouldn't matter if you loved the person you were marrying, it wouldn't matter who you married as long as it was the opposite sex and they were willing to raise kids with you. Other things do matter and do take importance in choosing a spouse.[/quote] Yep, and that would mean old fogies like us couldn't get married at all. The church marries older people all the time, and infertile ones (not impotent), that can't have kids. Being open to life is the requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luthien Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I think it needs to be known that St. Therese's parents abstained was because they were trying to live a Josephite marriage, because they believe that was the high road. They originally wanted to live in a religious life, so when they got married they abstained. Later on a priest advised them to refrain from abstaining(lol). Also, I think that it is odd how one would say that marriage isn't JUST for pro-creation, so you can avoid it and focus on the unitive aspect, but if one were to seperate the procreative aspect from the unitive, they are seen as nothing but loveless breeders. Im not trying to be confrontational, just trying to spread a thought. Babies are a huge responsibility, there is no question. But lots of "poor" people have children, people that still have student loans, and work at Home Depot. I know of 3 couples in this type of situation. Its hard, but its definantly doable. There are reasons for NFP, like illness, dire financial situations, or mental health of the parents. I would definantly talk to a solid priest about this, because I don't think anyone here is qualified to tell you what you should do in your situation. I do want to add (Im not sure if you saw this in my topic) that my husband and I are currently expecting our first, with no health insurance (applying for state coverage) and no job. We didn't plan it, we also have not been able to get pregnant our whole marriage (April '07) but God chose the most inopportune time to bless us with a child. We did not expect, nor did we plan for this to happen. I also could not be happier, or more hopeful. I hope you don't take this post as an attack, I really just want to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1753490' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:31 PM']Yep, and that would mean old fogies like us couldn't get married at all. The church marries older people all the time, and infertile ones (not impotent), that can't have kids. Being open to life is the requirement.[/quote] Wait, an impotent man cannot get married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1753518' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:57 AM']Wait, an impotent man cannot get married?[/quote] Good point, what about people with sexual dysfunction? -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753521' date='Jan 16 2009, 10:58 PM']Good point, what about people with sexual dysfunction? -Katie[/quote] From what I've read, true impotence that absolutely cannot be fixed/treated to an acceptable degree is exceedingly rare and maybe nonexistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753523' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:00 AM']From what I've read, true impotence that absolutely cannot be fixed/treated to an acceptable degree is exceedingly rare and maybe nonexistent.[/quote] Ok-there are other sexual disorders though (male and female) that cause painful intercourse that cannot always be cured-I'd feel bad to see someone not able to marry for something that they couldn't control. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753529' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:04 PM']Ok-there are other sexual disorders though (male and female) that cause painful intercourse that cannot always be cured-I'd feel bad to see someone not able to marry for something that they couldn't control. -Katie[/quote] I guess technically they could still have sexual intercourse... just wouldn't very often. Of course I may be wrong. The question arises though: do you really want to get married if that's the case? I dunno. I probably wouldn't. Or maybe I would. I haven't thought about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 canon law is clear that if no consummation is possible, there can not be a marriage in the church. I had a client who was paraplegic, and he had to get a letter from his doctor that he could still consummate with assistance. They basically had their wedding night at the doctor's office. They ended up having a couple of kids that way. I didn't want a lot of the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753532' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:07 AM']I guess technically they could still have sexual intercourse... just wouldn't very often. Of course I may be wrong. The question arises though: do you really want to get married if that's the case? I dunno. I probably wouldn't. Or maybe I would. I haven't thought about it.[/quote] Yeah, maybe if there was enough hope of adequate treatment. I don't really know if I'd want to get married personally in that case, but I guess I just don't see it as fair to deny a couple who had worked through things and wanted more of a companionship marriage. I'll have to think about this one, I didn't know that about impotence, etc. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1753533' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:09 AM']canon law is clear that if no consummation is possible, there can not be a marriage in the church. I had a client who was paraplegic, and he had to get a letter from his doctor that he could still consummate with assistance. They basically had their wedding night at the doctor's office. They ended up having a couple of kids that way. I didn't want a lot of the details.[/quote] It just seems so sad-paraplegia is a good example of a case where someone may be unable to have intercourse-that they have to be alone. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now