When I mean marrying, I mean getting married in the Church the normal way. Would this pose as any problem for those facing this problem?
No it would not provided they were honest to their spouse before marriage about this issue.
It shouldn’t be done flippantly, or to change one’s attractions. And it shouldn’t involve deceiving your future spouse.
But otherwise, it’s fine, since it’s a form of chastity. I myself have SSA and I’m married.
As long as they are attracted to the person they marry, there is nothing wrong with it.
And I see no need that they tell their spouse about this either. I don’t tell my wife about all the women I see every day that I find attractive; if I happened to find other men attractive, that’s just another thing I wouldn’t be telling her.
Not to be nit-picky…but, surely, not telling your future spouse something like this…couldn’t this be grounds for an annulment in the future, if such a situation arose?
That’s not necessary according to canon law
Failing to mention SSA is potential grounds for annulment.
Persons who are capable of having marital relations (which of necessity means sexual complementarity) are capable of marriage.
You do need to be able to consumate the marriage. Ordinarily this would seem to imply some attraction to yur spouse.
Why would it be?
And to apply your own standards here - what in canon law would make it neccessary for a person with SSA to disclose that to their spouse? One would need to conclude that SSA is a “quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life”. From your response above, you don’t seem to think that’s the case. I think it is an issue if the person has exclusive SSA, but if they are bisexual, and freely choose to enter a heterosexual marriage, then I dont see the concern.
SSA is only an issue for a marriage if the person chooses to act on such an attraction. When you marry, you promise to foresake all others, so I see no difference between someone who is say bisexual entering marriage, and choosing to foresake all others (which in that case may include males and females) and a straight person who foresakes all others, in their case the “all others” is merely a smaller pool. But the principle remains the same.
Perhaps there are moral theologians who would interpret this section of canon law regarding validity of marriage and thus the need to disclose SSA to a potential spouse; I can certainly understand that perspective too.
I don’t think you understand men very well. I think most men could copulate while looking at dead fish.
Not that I think marrying without any attraction is a good idea. But a good portion of the male population doesn’t need attraction involved in order to consummate a marriage. (Hence the fact that most gay guys have had sex with women, at some point – successfully!)
Please note though - I am a man.
Anyway, in the case of a man who has exclusive SSA, I am certain that under canon law this would be a “quaity” of the person that would be a defect to marriage that the other spouse has a right to know beforehand.
IMO this is different than if the SSA is not exclusive. But it is a difficult topic of course.
Men can do it without being attracted and women definitely can.
I’ve seen 1095.3 used many times for husbands failing to mention that they’re gay.
And therein lies the difference. You said :gay:, which implies exclusive SSA. I’ve discussed the difference.
I gotta say, as someone who struggles with SSA herself, and who is married to someone who struggles with SSA even more…I absolutely think that SSA, even “non-exclusive”, does qualify as a “quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life”.
(Notice it says “CAN disrupt”, not that it always DOES. My SSA has, so far, not disrupted our marriage much, if at all. But my husband’s struggles have disrupted quite a bit more. SSA definitely, by its nature, has great potential for this.)
If it’s not something that you’ve struggled with, I don’t know if you can fully understand it.
It makes marriage very different. (No less fulfilling, valid, real, fruitful, or whatever…but it definitely makes it different.) And I can’t imagine how such a serious, big issue could be left undisclosed from one spouse to the other!!! It would be like me failing to inform my future spouse that I have huge life-impacting chronic health problems, fertility issues, or whatnot!! When you get married, you (in a sense) take on all of your spouse’s struggles, and how could you give full consent to that if you’re unaware??
One expects that their spouse will have a certain amount of (opposite-sex) attraction to other people. This is the norm. A struggle with SSA is neither common, nor expected in the normal course of events, and I should think it would need to be clear to everybody involved, to obtain full consent.
That’s a fair comment. I don’t personally understand it. But then from an abstract moral perspective there is little to understand - such attractions are not to be acted on. As such - again from an abstract perspective - they *should *not have any negative effect on a marriage.
So while some people may choose to share their struggles with a future spouse, I see no absolute imperative to share, if the person who has SSA, as well as opposite sex attraction, has the firm resolve to never act on it. The only exception being, based on canon 1098, that if a person made it clear to their future spouse that they want to know about SSA, or would not marry someone who struggled with SSA, then the person could not deceive them in order to obtain consent to marriage.
If others hold the opposite view I can understand that. I just don’t see how it could be considered an imperative to disclose.
Yes, if they are not attracted to the opposite sex. It is a mistake to marry without having an attraction to the spouse. Some people with SSA are also attracted to the opposite sex. Marriage can work for them. Others only have SSA. Marriage would not be good. They must live a celibate life. If they can manage their concupiscence well, they may be good candidates for the priesthood and religious life, but single life is also fine (lots of time to serve in the community).
Yes, the sexual attractions are not to be acted on, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other effects on the person.
They don’t have to live a celibate life, they can validly and licitly contract a marriage.
You cite canon 1095 as an impediment to gay people marrying, and yet you say they can validly and licitly contract marriage. You are contradicting yourself.
Please note 1095 cannot be waived. It is not something that disclosure prior to marriage changes - the impediment either exists or does not (same as say impotence). Note the strong and uneqivocal language " The following are incapable of contracting marriage".
If you cited cannon 1098 the situation is different, since it is based on some deceit.
I would be more concerned about Canon 1098.
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.
I’m guessing the Latin for “malice” isn’t quite so strong as the English word. It is hard to imagine a gay man marrying a woman without telling her (at least in some way, shape, or form), unless that man has a reckless disregard for her welfare and autonomy.
It would depend on the subject’s point of view. If he views it as benign or entertains it, then he should delay and work first to rid himself of these thoughts. If the temptations approach him and are rebuffed and cast off immediately, and recognized for the evil that it is, then he should pray to keep up this strength of retaliation.
I’m not sure I understand if your comments have anything to do with same-sex attraction, as such. Would you say that a straight man who views his lustful thoughts toward women as “benign” or entertains them is fit for marriage?
If not, then what does SSA have to do with it? It seems that you’re talking about lust in general, not SSA in specific. Perhaps I’m wrong, though.