paraplegics being denied marrige (i cant spell) - Page 3

Nonie · #31 Nov 17, '05, 7:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by vluvski

Nonie,
It's not just the CA apologist... this is apparently the concensus among moral theologians. I would suggest reading the Jimmy Akin blog; it is more comprehensive.

Hi Vluvski,
I went to Jimmy's site but couldn't find an article about this subject. Could you post a link on this thread?

Thanks,
Nonie

Nonie · #32 Nov 17, '05, 7:48 am

Originally Posted by Andrew_11
." I always find that if I dont agree with a Church teaching at first, when I do some research about its reasoning, I understand why it is and accept it. Thanks ."

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzleannie

this should be posted in a sticky as required reading for everyone using the forums.

Then why would we have a forum?

vluvski · #33 Nov 17, '05, 7:53 am

It seems the link won't work unless I use the link on the blog (and the address is correct), so I'll explain how I got there:

I originally found the article by searching for Catholic Canon Josephite Marriage on google. It was the first or second hit. The web address ends in canon_law or something. There is a lot on the page, so I used Edit>Find and entered Josephite to get to the relevant portion. Just above where the word Josephite appears, the question in the blog links to two other blog entries, the first of which I quoted and tried to link, and the second of which I didn't find as relevant to our discussion (marriage and intersex-born people).

Heart Of Mary · #34 Nov 17, '05, 8:00 am

<< Consider this analogy I have heard: Would you consider the fact that blind people aren't allowed to drive an attempt to allow only the "perfect people" have access to driving their own vehicle?>>

Well, to be honest yes - I would consider it - IF IT MADE SENSE

HOM

**1ke** · #35 Nov 17, '05, 8:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonie

So how do they find out if you can have intercourse? Is that a part of the engaged encounter that I missed???

Certain cases-- paralysis, accident/injury, congenital defect-- would be known prior to the marriage. The paperwork you fill out with the priest certifies that you have no known impediments. Failure to disclose permanent impotence would be fraudulent and nullify the marriage. The impediment itself makes it an invalid attempt at marriage.

Impotence is not presumed in any other case. If it is discovered through the process of attempting to consummate the marriage then it can be grounds for nullity.

Heart Of Mary · #36 Nov 17, '05, 8:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonie

So how do they find out if you can have intercourse? Is that a part of the engaged encounter that I missed???

**1ke** · #37 Nov 17, '05, 8:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orionthehunter

I would like to see someone quote from Canon Law that the Church wouldn't sacramentally bless a union between a couple physically incapable for consummating the marriage. While the norm might be such a marriage is not to be done but there might be a procedure for an exception. This is a very interesting question.

It has already been posted. See Canon 1084 on impediments to valid marriage. Impotence is an impediment to valid marraige.

**1ke** · #38 Nov 17, '05, 8:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by josea

Are sterile people allowed to married? What I know is that sterility found after marriage can be a cause for nullity but, is it really an impediment to marriage if one finds it before?

Sterility is not an impediment to marriage. Sterility found after the marriage is NOT grounds for an annulment unless it was *known* by the sterile party and *concealed* from the spouse. Then fraud is grounds for annulment, not the sterility itself.

Nonie · #39 Nov 17, '05, 8:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzleannie

Canon law does not rest on personal opinion and is not up for a vote. The full answer lies in a complete understanding of marriage and natural law. A marriage that cannot be consummated because of the physical incapacity of either party is not valid because it is not marriage. This is also the reason why two persons of the same gender cannot validly marry, they are incapable of the marriage act. Christopher Wests Theology of the Body for Beginners is an excellent introduction to the topic of marriage in natural law.

Hello Annie,

Thought I would share part of an article from CA's site.

Ten Questions about Canon Law
By: -Pete Vere and Michael Trueman

"The Church does not need a Code of Canon Law, but it has chosen to use such a structure. Canon law deals with the day-to-day affairs of the Church.

The New Covenant of Christ gave birth to a new set of laws for the Christian community. The Church eventually used aspects of the legal system of the Roman Empire to enforce these laws. The Church in turn was the principal means of stability for Europe through the Dark Ages. Law kept the Church focused on its mission to evangelize the nations and provided an environment in which the Church was more receptive to God’s plan.

...the Code of Canon Law was issued first in 1917, revised in 1983, and will be revised again at some point in the future.
"

Canon law is not scripture, nor is it written in stone. Personal opinion on the scriptures formed the Canon. It is changeable.

Nonie

**puzzleannie** · #40 Nov 17, '05, 8:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by josea

Are sterile people allowed to married? What I know is that sterility found after marriage can be a cause for nullity but, is it really an impediment to marriage if one finds it before?

Jose

if you refer to the AAA post OP mentions you will see that sterility is not an impediment to marriage.

lifeisbeautiful · #41 Nov 17, '05, 8:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart Of Mary

<< Consider this analogy I have heard: Would you consider the fact that blind people aren't allowed to drive an attempt to allow only the "perfect people" have access to driving their own vehicle?>>

Well, to be honest yes - I would consider it - IF IT MADE SENSE

HOM

Maybe this will make it easier to understand: The ability to see is needed for driving, the ability to have sex is needed for marriage... No amount of sympathy towards a person that is blind (its not their fault) will change the fact that they do not have something that is needed to be able to drive. (I looked it up and this analogy is used in Christopher West's Good News about Sex and Marriage). Sight is not the only thing needed for driving (just like sex is not the only thing needed for marriage), yet if you can't see you can't drive.

**puzzleannie** · #42 Nov 17, '05, 8:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonie

Canon law is not scripture, nor is it written in stone. Personal opinion on the scriptures formed the Canon. It is changeable.

Nonie

Canon Law is not formed by polling personal opinions of random Catholics, it is formed to reflect the reality of what the Church teaches in regulating sacramental practice and administration of the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. It is changeable because it deals with discipline, not doctrine, but there is a theology of canon law, and it reflects theology, but does not define it.

Canon law cannot change the underlying doctrine it reflects. For instance, Canon law can never change to allow the ordination of women to the priesthood. Canon law also cannot change natural law, which is the underlying basis of theology on marriage, a sacrament which is regulated by canon law. For example, canon law could never be changed to allow homosexual "marriage" because this would be an impossibility under natural law.

**1ke** · #43 Nov 17, '05, 8:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart Of Mary

There have been previous posts about how to be intimate with a spouse WITHOUT sexual intercourse in this forum wihich explained quite well that there ARE alternatives (I believe that it was in context of NFP and ways to be intimate without becoming pregnant).

Intimacy w/o sexual intercourse would be things like hugging, kissing, holding hands, talking. No discussions on NFP have *ever* condoned genital intimacy that replaces intercourse. This is *clearly* not allowed based on Church teaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart Of Mary

I see no good reason (ok - I know that is asking for trouble when there will be a quote from the catechism and the previous post's link to the same question) why anyone can't get married even if they are not capable of intercourse.

The Church teaching on the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage makes intercourse a requirement. Canon Law regarding the Sacrament as well as the Catechism and numerous encyclicals on marriage are clear. Marriage is a divine institution, not a human institution. It is a Sacrament-- it is not a right of every person just as Ordination is not a right of ever man, nor are any of the other Sacraments. Church Law governs all Sacraments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart Of Mary

I thought being open to children is what counts. It is up to God if he will bless a couple with children - not man.

No, it is not about being "open to children" in the sense that you are implying here. The marital embrace (sexual intercourse) is an integral element of marriage and the Sacrament.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart Of Mary

To say that this couple cannot get married is the same as saying marriage is only really about sex....

No, it is not saying it is "only" about sex. It is saying that sex is one of the essential element of marriage and none of the elements can be separated-- ALL of the elements are required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart Of Mary

I know a couple where she was a quadraplegic and they could not have "intercourse" per se...Well, she DID get pregnant (yep - his little soldiers made their way to where they needed to be - no intercourse).

If they had sexual intercourse then that was fine. Anything else was a misuse of the sexual faculties and itself gravely disordered.

**fix** · #44 Nov 17, '05, 8:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

It is saying that sex is one of the essential element of marriage and none of the elements can be separated-- ALL of the elements are required.

I think that understanding is a central issue in all this.

Heart Of Mary · #45 Nov 17, '05, 9:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

Intimacy w/o sexual intercourse would be things like hugging, kissing, holding hands, talking. No discussions on NFP have *ever* condoned genital intimacy that replaces intercourse. This is *clearly* not allowed based on Church teaching.

The Church teaching on the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage makes intercourse a requirement. Canon Law regarding the Sacrament as well as the Catechism and numerous encyclicals on marriage are clear. Marriage is a divine institution, not a human institution. It is a Sacrament-- it is not a right of every person just as Ordination is not a right of ever man, nor are any of the other Sacraments. Church Law governs all Sacraments.

No, it is not about being "open to children" in the sense that you are implying here. The marital embrace (sexual intercourse) is an integral element of marriage and the Sacrament.

No, it is not saying it is "only" about sex. It is saying that sex is one of the essential element of marriage and none of the elements can be separated-- ALL of the elements are required.

If they had sexual intercourse then that was fine. Anything else was a misuse of the sexual faculties and itself gravely disordered.

Well, if what you say is true (and I do not for one split second believe it is) then consider this: If we are to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity then I guess she was never really married to Joseph. Go figure.....And I always thought they were married...

HOM