Nfp, Babies, And College Students

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753558' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:29 PM']Yeah, this is very confusing. -Katie[/quote]
Aren't you glad we've got a Magisterium to help us along?
I know I am. I'd be a relativistic prick without the Church's teachings.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753550' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:23 AM']More or less.
You're looking at it from only one perspective though.
The fact is that they cannot have intercouse, therefore cannot be open to life.
Same as homosexuals, in one way of looking at it.[/quote]

I would not use the homosexual argument, especially since many people believe that homosexuality is not just genetics but environment as well (i.e. not [purely] biological). Also, homosexual attraction is not natural, whereas hetereosexual attraction is. A homosexual CAN get married - just not to the same sex. So a homosexual can get married, but an impotent person can not. This just sounds wrong.


[quote name='Slappo' post='1753553' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:26 AM']To put it bluntly, yes.

If a man was in a war lets say, and a grenade took the lower half of his body off, I.E waste down... and he couldn't consummate his marriage... he can't be married.

As was said before, consummation is a necessary part of marriage. It is the completion of the sacrament. If the sacrament cannot be completed, then it does not take place. I.E they could take vows, but never consummate therefore there would always be grounds for annulment (which means the marriage hasn't happened).[/quote]

This is incredibly sad, that because of something they have no control over, they are denied the love of a spouse. Procreation is important but marriage is not just about reproduction.

Edited January 17, 2009 by HisChildForever

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753563' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:32 AM']Aren't you glad we've got a Magisterium to help us along?
I know I am. I'd be a relativistic prick without the Church's teachings.[/quote]

Yeah but to be honest sometimes it's hard for me to tell the difference between relativism and conscience. -Katie

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1753564' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:32 PM']I would not use the homosexual argument, especially since many people believe that homosexuality is not just genetics but environment as well (i.e. not [purely] biological). Also, homosexual attraction is not natural, whereas hetereosexual attraction is. A homosexual CAN get married - just not to the same sex. So a homosexual can get married, but an impotent person can not. This just sounds wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough. It wasn't my best analogy.
It's been explained better than I could though.
[quote]This is incredibly sad, that because of something they have no control over, they are denied the love of a spouse. Procreation is important but marriage is not just about reproduction.[/quote]
I'll say again: read what CatherineM said.
Keep in mind: while procreation is indeed not the only thing, it is absolutely necessary. That's like saying "being Catholic isn't the only thing necessary to recieve communion at mass." Well yea, that's technically true, but you still can't recieve if you aren't Catholic.
There, better analogy?

EDIT: To clarify, when I say absolutely necessary, I of course mean the marriage has to be open to life. Just so nobody misunderstands what I meant.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753565' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:32 PM']Yeah but to be honest sometimes it's hard for me to tell the difference between relativism and conscience. -Katie[/quote]
OMGoodness, me too!
My hope is that eventually my wildly innacurate and unreliable conscience will be so innundated with the Church that I won't have to worry anymore.

[CatherineM]

This whole area of when NFP can licitly be used and the reproductive issues, the marriage issues, all fall under moral theology. Very fascinating, and infuriating subject at times. The recent Vatican document on BioEthics took them a long time to formulate, and if anything increased the debate rather than settle it. When it comes to these issues, talk to your priest. He's the one who is going to guide you through the process of getting ready for marriage.

[Luthien]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1753573' date='Jan 17 2009, 03:37 AM']This whole area of when NFP can licitly be used and the reproductive issues, the marriage issues, all fall under moral theology. Very fascinating, and infuriating subject at times. The recent Vatican document on BioEthics took them a long time to formulate, and if anything increased the debate rather than settle it. When it comes to these issues, talk to your priest. He's the one who is going to guide you through the process of getting ready for marriage.[/quote]


Haha, what she said.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753572' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:36 AM']OMGoodness, me too!
My hope is that eventually my wildly innacurate and unreliable conscience will be so innundated with the Church that I won't have to worry anymore.[/quote]

Yeah, maybe I'll get there someday... I don't know, though, it's harder for me when the situation is about someone else (even hypothetically). I feel like I can judge myself and what I would/should do in a situation but not someone else. I don't know, though, I honestly don't know any persons with physical disabilities (of a childbearing age, I do have a little cousin) who I could talk to about this. And if I did, you'd better believe I would ask them because my quest for solving all of my conscience/Church conundrums is shameless. -Katie

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753570' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:35 AM']I'll say again: read what CatherineM said.
Keep in mind: while procreation is indeed not the only thing, it is absolutely necessary. That's like saying "being Catholic isn't the only thing necessary to recieve communion at mass." Well yea, that's technically true, but you still can't recieve if you aren't Catholic.
There, better analogy?

EDIT: To clarify, when I say absolutely necessary, I of course mean the marriage has to be open to life. Just so nobody misunderstands what I meant.[/quote]

It can't be this simple. For example, a couple can claim they are open to life but use NFP as a way to avoid conception [i]and[/i] grave sin - in other words, "cheating the system" (perhaps without realizing that their selfish mentality is sinful). Therefore, being open to life is not exclusively about natural intercourse. It's a mentality, a belief. An impotent man can be very much be open to life, the problem is that he physically can't give life (or himself).

[MithLuin]

Being impotent = cannot have sex.

Being infertile = cannot have babies.

The inability to reproduce is not what hinders an impotent person from getting married. The Church will happily marry two 70 year olds, who really aren't going to be having any children together!

Marriage is about procreation and unity. If you cannot consummate the marriage (even once), then you do not [i]have[/i] a marriage. You are welcome to find a companion to share your time/house/life with, but you are not able to marry that person in the Church. You [i]are[/i] welcome to develop a very intimate friendship with that person, and you are not considered to be 'living in sin' - there's clearly no sin involved, after all. I agree it's sad, but the difficult/frustrating part is the physical condition itself. It is very sad that that person cannot get married...but 'pretending' to be married wouldn't really change anything.


[b]havok[/b], I agree that marriage should not be postponed for those reasons. I don't recall the OP mentioning that he and his girlfriend were engaged, though, so there may be other reasons for them not to rush into the situation. Right now, the potential wedding date is years down the road, so they have time to work things out.

Edited January 17, 2009 by MithLuin

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1753586' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:47 AM']Being impotent = cannot have sex.[/quote]

Which is what we are discussing, yes. I am not confused over the definitions.

[quote]You are welcome to find a companion to share your time/house/life with, but you are not able to marry that person in the Church. You [i]are[/i] welcome to develop a very intimate friendship with that person, and you are not considered to be 'living in sin' - there's clearly no sin involved, after all.[/quote]

How is it not living in sin? The man and the woman may not be sexual, but this is cause for scandal (as I am sure the man is not broadcasting his impotency) - two unmarried people living together.

[MithLuin]

I suppose in that situation they could get a state marriage license, if they wanted to avoid scandal? I'm pretty sure the gov't doesn't care whether or not you consummate your marriage.....

[Slappo]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1753586' date='Jan 16 2009, 09:47 PM'][b]havok[/b], I agree that marriage should not be postponed for those reasons. I don't recall the OP mentioning that he and his girlfriend were engaged, though, so there may be other reasons for them not to rush into the situation. Right now, the potential wedding date is years down the road, so they have time to work things out.[/quote]

Earliest possible date would be summer 2010 . Earliest possible engagement would be this coming summer though, and neither of us want a long engagement. I'll probably try to schedule a time to meet with a priest in a week or two to run the idea's around him and see what I can work out for myself.

In general though, I think it's a very interesting topic. I love moral theology.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1753601' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:57 PM']I'm pretty sure the gov't doesn't care whether or not you consummate your marriage.....[/quote]

Unless you are applying for Canadian Immigration, then they practically want pictures.

[philothea]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1753591' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:52 AM']How is it not living in sin? The man and the woman may not be sexual, but this is cause for scandal (as I am sure the man is not broadcasting his impotency) - two unmarried people living together.[/quote]
This was discussed elsewhere recently. As long as all the parts are there, and the couple has the desire to someday consummate the marriage, I believe the ceremony can be performed.

Until the marriage is consummated (and the requirement for this is -- without going into great detail -- very easily achieved) it's not valid. But then, like Catherine said, if it's not consummated, nobody is doing anything wrong and it doesn't matter.