Asexual, Homoromantic Relationship

[Ice_nine]

In terms of hospital visitation and medical benefits - in my country this isn't an issue because everyone gets state healtcare access and the patient decides who can visit them in hospital. If there is a restriction on visitor numbers (2 or 3 niminated people only) then the patient gets to decide who they are. Friends, as well as family, can be next of kin or the patient can make an advance directive on these things (in case of future incapacity).
 

 

This makes perfect sense. what genius country are you from?

[Benedictus]

UK ;)

[Anastasia13]

Unfortunately the Church can't recognize same sex unions even if they're asexual and even if they're for financial reasons only, because if it's not a man and a woman and not sexual it's not a valid sacramental marriage and saying otherwise corrupts the meaning of the term, does scandal to the faithful, and erodes the proper place marriage should have in society.

 

As far as I know though, the Church does not oppose revisions to medical insurance, tax law, or hospital visitation to allow for same sex couples to receive fair treatment.

 

Of course, but let's say someone has a civil marriage like that. Do you think they would be allowed to commune or need to change anything first?

[Benedictus]

Of course, but let's say someone has a civil marriage like that. Do you think they would be allowed to commune or need to change anything first?

 

Like anything it's better to ask a person who knows professioanlly. But (as far as I know) in terms of heterosexual civil marriage - they shouldn't  commune, but there are exceptions. If they are a convert couple and were married before they were received into the church. Or if they got civilly married because there was no priest available or one of the parties was in danger of death according to Canon 1116. Or if they were dispensed from the proper ordinary form. Or if they corrected the situation by either convalidation or radical sanation.
In terms of those in a homosexual cvivil marriage -  no, they shouldn't commune.

[Benedictus]

Just realised, amid noticing my spelling mistakes, that you probably meant living together. :hehe2:  Not commune, as in communion. OK I need to go and have a nap and stop using this forum on my phone

[Fidei Defensor]

I choose to believe that God wouldn't condemn a loving relationship between a couple of the same sex in which each holds a true love for the other, enough to overcome the temptations of lust and the flesh—essentially an asexual loving relationship.

[arfink]

ever heard of a jospehite marriage? I think it's been discussed here before very briefly.

 

Yes, I have heard of them. At least in Roman Catholic canon law, they are forbidden for the reasons I gave. I do not know about how that works in the East. Much like married/celibate priesthood, I am fairly certain this is an issue of discipline, although I am not an expert on canon law to say that with certainty. That said, if you told a Roman Catholic priest in the US you intended to enter a Josephite marriage, I do not believe he would be allowed to marry you. That I do know fairly well, since I was in seminary. ;)

Edited April 8, 2014 by arfink

[arfink]

I choose to believe that God wouldn't condemn a loving relationship between a couple of the same sex in which each holds a true love for the other, enough to overcome the temptations of lust and the flesh—essentially an asexual loving relationship.

 

I agree with this statement. :) I am afraid this whole topic got rather gradually derailed into the subjects of sacramental marriage over the last few posts, probably because of me. Mea culpa.

[Ice_nine]

Yes, I have heard of them. At least in Roman Catholic canon law, they are forbidden for the reasons I gave.

 

good to know.

[Anastasia13]

In terms of those in a homosexual cvivil marriage -  no, they shouldn't commune.

 

Even in the absence of any sexual activity?

[Benedictus]

Even in the absence of any sexual activity?

 

Correct. Those living as 'brothers' in a celibate state wouldn't seek a marriage contrary to the church understanding of that state of life. Any sexual acts they may, or may not, engage in are a secondary issue. The same applies to heterosexual couples on civil marriage, as the posts above outline.

[Credo in Deum]

Benedictus, I believe that for heterosexual couples wishing to be married in the church, declaring your intent to never have sex is in fact a canonical bar to marriage, as it indicates your intent to prevent your spouse from having children and your intent to not consummate your marriage, thus making it non-sacramental. A couple who intended to have sex one time to fulfill the letter of the law could get around this I suppose, but a good pastor would need to counsel them to reconsider marriage, as without sexuality there is no family and in that case there is no need for marriage.

 

True, however, I do not believe a marriage that has not been consummated is non-sacramental.  There is a site called Canon Law Made Easy that talks about it.  The official title is "ratum sed non consummatum".  Consummating the marriage does however render it indissoluble.