No Church Wedding For Impotent Man

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='prose' post='1569637' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:07 PM']I think you got this mistaken a bit, from this source, she and her husband decided to be chaste until a bishop suggested to them otherwise. It was only 10 months of non-sexual marriage.

[url="http://www.sttherese.com/Parents.html"]http://www.sttherese.com/Parents.html[/url][/quote]


The bishop told them to stop being chaste???


I think you mean celibate or abstinent.

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1569636' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:05 AM']Just to prevent confusion, wouldn't it read better as "Marriages that cannot be consummated aren't valid"[/quote]
Yes, that would be the correct way to state it. From that post by Jimmy Akin:
[quote]If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble.

[b]Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph's marriage to be valid.[/b]

Could a couple get married today, always abstain from the marrital act, and still have a valid marriage?

Yes. This is known in Church history. It is referred to as "Josephite marriage" after St. Joseph. With a billion Catholics in the world, there are likely a number of such couples out there right now.[/quote]

[prose]

I found this on wikipedia about Josephite marriage:

[quote]Spiritual marriage is a concept that has a long history in Catholicism, and is also known as a "Josephite marriage" after the marriage between Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary.[citation needed] A feature of Catholic spiritual marriage, or Josephite marriage, is that the agreement to abstain from sex should be a free mutual decision, rather than resulting from impotence or the views of one party.[/quote]

[XIX]

[quote name='prose' post='1569589' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:10 PM']Well then, using this line of thinking, Mary was never married to Joseph because they never had sex.

Clearly, there is at least one exception to the rule.[/quote]
Mary and Joseph were completely capable of having sex. They chose not to have sex.

This is 100% different from impotency.

[prose]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1569643' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:15 PM']The bishop told them to stop being chaste???
I think you mean celibate or abstinent. [/quote]

Yes I meant abstinent.

[prose]

[quote name='XIX' post='1569652' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:28 PM']Mary and Joseph were completely capable of having sex. They chose not to have sex.

This is 100% different from impotency. [/quote]

The previous post that I quoted stated that a marriage was not valid if it was not consummated. I was clarifying. I am quite clear on the difference between abstinence and impotence. I think, though, that it needs to be clear that a marriage can be valid without consummation (if it is by choice). That is all I was saying.

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='StColette' post='1569602' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:21 AM']That's actually debated in Theology, I believe. If they were actually formally married or just remained betrothed, which is quite different than our engagements. The betrothal back then required a bill of divorce of some type from a Rabbi, I believe, in order for it to be nullified. I believe a formal marriage in the Jewish tradition during that period of time began with a betrothal and became a marriage when the two became one.[/quote]
That's interesting. So according to what Jimmy Akin is saying, they were validly married according to what the Church would define today, non-sacramentally, but the marriage was never consummated. But according to the Jewish tradition at that time, they may not have been formally married, but betrothed, which is different than our engagement.

[XIX]

[quote name='prose' post='1569659' date='Jun 12 2008, 02:33 PM']The previous post that I quoted stated that a marriage was not valid if it was not consummated. I was clarifying. I am quite clear on the difference between abstinence and impotence. I think, though, that it needs to be clear that a marriage can be valid without consummation (if it is by choice). That is all I was saying.[/quote]
Sounds about right.

[mommas_boy]

Ok. Just wanted to add: I think that the Church's teaching that impotence invalidates marriage is correct, with the assumption that the couple is 100% assured of that being impossible both at present and in the future. I do, however, question if every impotence is necessarily permanent, due to the broad range of drugs and mechanical means which can affect potency, and especially those means which CatherineM outlined.

[StColette]

[quote name='prose' post='1569628' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:53 PM']That is really interesting!![/quote]

Yeah, I remember going over this Theological stand point in a few of my classes at FUS and I believe I read it in one of Mariology books. The Jewish custom of betrothal is quite beautiful. The Church has a similar I guess you could call it a rite, i'm not sure. I know a few from FUS that had their engagements and then were betrothed by the Church. Pretty awesome stuff.

You can read more on Betrothal in the Catholic Church here

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02537c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02537c.htm[/url]

[StColette]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1569630' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:54 PM']I believe that is called the Petrine privilege. An unconsummated Sacramental marriage could be dissolved by the Pope I think.[/quote]

There are actually two different privileges the Pauline or the Petrine.

This might explain them a little better

[quote]A: A Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. The Pauline Privilege is so-named because it is based upon the apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul gives instructions concerning problem marriages. In verses 10-11 he discusses sacramental marriages (marriages between two baptized people) and indicates that they are indissoluble. It is possible for a husband and a wife in a sacramental marriage to separate, but they cannot remarry. They must remain separated and not attempt to marry again, or they must reconcile with one other.

In verses 12-16 Paul gives instructions concerning the thornier case of a couple who have only a natural marriage. A sacramental marriage, one that communicates supernatural grace, requires that both partners be baptized. If neither is or only one is, their union is only a natural one. Sometimes one party to a natural marriage converts and becomes a Christian, which can cause the marital problems that Christians are expected to face (Luke 12:51-53, 18:29-30).

While natural marriages should be preserved if at all possible (1 Cor. 7:12-14, 16), they can be dissolved in some cases. Paul tells us in verse 15 that if the unbelieving spouse refuses to live with the Christian partner, the unbeliever can be allowed to withdraw from the marriage, leaving the Christian partner unbound, free to remarry. The Pauline Privilege thus may apply when the Church dissolves a natural marriage after one partner has become Christian and there is a just cause, such as the non-Catholic's refusal to live at peace with the Christian partner.

The Pauline Privilege differs from an annulment because it dissolves a real but natural marriage. An annulment is a declaration that there never was a valid marriage to begin with.

The Pauline Privilege does not apply when two baptized people marry and later one quits being Christian. These people had a sacramental marriage forged between them, and this marriage is indissoluble, even if one partner is failing to fulfill his marital responsibilities. In that case 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which concerns such problem marriages, applies.

The Pauline Privilege also does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege (which it seldom does).

A biblical precedent for the Petrine Privilege, where some of the faithful marry unbelievers and then are permitted to divorce them, is found in Ezra 10:1-14, where the Jews put away their foreign (pagan) wives.[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312qq.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312qq.asp[/url]

This is pretty helpful as well:

This chart should be a big help in determining what process needs to be followed when a person has been previously married and is asking about an annulment. The chart is read as follows:

If a Catholic and another baptized person marry in the Catholic Church, a formal annulment process is required.
If a Catholic and another baptized person marry anywhere else with dispensation from form granted by the bishop, a formal annulment process is required.
If a Catholic and another baptized person marry anywhere without the dispensation, the process based on lack of form is used.
If a Catholic and an unbaptized person marry in the Catholic Church, the formal annulment process or the Petrine Privilege (also called Favor of the Faith) may be used.
If A Catholic and an unbaptized person marry anywhere with dispensation from the bishop, either the formal process or Petrine Privilege is used.
If a Catholic and an unbaptized person marry anywhere without dispensation, the lack of form process may be used.
If two baptized persons who are not Catholic marry anywhere, the formal annulment process is required.
If two baptized persons marry, and either was previously married without an annulment, the process for Ligamen is utilized.
If a baptized person who is not Catholic and an unbaptized person marry anywhere, either the formal process or Petrine Privilege is used.
If two unbaptized persons marry anywhere, either the formal process or Pauline Privilege is used.

[url="http://lcdiocese.org/Annulments/determine.htm"]http://lcdiocese.org/Annulments/determine.htm[/url]

[Sage]

Hi,

I wish I could've joined this sooner than I did.

I have lots of thoughts on this subject from my own experience.

I was denied myself due to the fact I'm a paraplegic.

Anyone want to discuss?

[Guest]

 Welcome to Phatmass, Sage    Congrats on your first post.

I am saddened and even shocked that you had to go through what you surely must have suffered and perhaps still do.

This is a very old thread.  You just might have better luck generating discussion if you started your own thread on the subject here in this Open Mic Forum and if you do, I hope it will be a rewarding discussion for you. 

Quote

Anyone want to discuss?

Can't promise that I will join in any discussion, but I sure will post if I have something I would like to say.   

 

[Sage]

Hi BarbaraTherese,

Thanks for your reply.

I have had my issues with many clergy about this they all have come to the same decision: no

I have consulted with 2 Canon Law attorneys and have yet to get an answer.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

[Guest]

Well, I would assume that canon lawyers know their subject for sure.  I can't think of a higher court, other than to have an appointment with your bishop

I am only a very ordinary lay practising Catholic.  I don't know anything about your subject but I am just shocked that a person would be denied marriage due to physical disability.  God is Love and when two people fall in love, it is an astounding gift indeed, a holy and sacred gift in my book and not one to be handled lightly.  Canon Law can be a minefield and it does take canon lawyers to sort out a question often.

But I am not really one to talk, since I really do not know anything about the subject and Church law.  As I said before, you just might have more replies if you open your own thread in Open Mic, or even the Debate Forum as I am pretty sure debate would be generated on the subject.

As you can see since you posted on 4th May, only I have contributed and a lowly I at that - in that I am only barely conversant with Church Law and not at all on your subject.

I went back to the original opening post by cappie (a Catholic priest) and his response came across to me as a maybe.  I didn't read much further.  Do try opening your own thread.  I do wish I could help, but I can't.