Posted on 06/09/2008 1:00:14 PM PDT by Borges
Melbourne, June 9: A paraplegic man was recently denied a church marriage by a bishop in Italy because he was impotent, say reports.
The 26-year-old man ultimately had to go for a civil marriage on Saturday in Viterbo.
"No bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment (of the marriage),'' the Australian quoted Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo in central Italy, as telling SkyTG24 television.
The groom has been paraplegic since he was involved in a car accident, said the television report.
His fiancee was aware of his impotency, the report added.
The curate of the parish, who was banned from marrying the couple, was present at their civil ceremony.
It's clear you didn't read them, since you repeat the canard that the issue here is the procreative faculty - which I took great pains to point out in my posts to be a non-issue in this case.
BTW, did you mean to write "parasitical" or "pharisaical"?
Whichever insult you meant to convey, the fact remains that the sacrament of marriage is a holy thing and a real thing.
It possesses objective conditions and laws and imposes objective responsibilities and obligations that are external to people's internal emotional states.
These people are doing nothing illicit, immoral or unnatural.
No one said they were. However, the man in question is not capable of validly contracting marriage.
How about a little Christian Charity?
Would it be uncharitable, then, to deny an eyeless man a driver's license?
There was no insult at all intended. The fact that you saw one tells me that you're more than a little uncomfortable defending your position. You may be right as far as "The Law" is concerned but you are wrong where simple human decency and charity are concerned.
You call all your best friends "pharasitical."
The fact that you saw one tells me that you're more than a little uncomfortable defending your position.
I'm quite comfortable defending the Church's teaching on marriage - which is why I took the time on this thread to explain it in detail - details which you have ignored in order to make emotional arguments.
You may be right as far as "The Law" is concerned but you are wrong where simple human decency and charity are concerned.
And you dodge once more.
I ask again: is it decent and charitable to give an eyeless man a driver's license?
The law exists for our benefit - disobeying it is indecent and uncharitable, not the other way around.
In view of Canon Law I stand corrected.
No, they can be wed in a catholic church.
The church does not bar infertile marriages.
What the church does allow is divorce based on the grounds that should both people be fertile and one choose not to have children and deny the other their desire to have children, the church will recognize this as grounds for divorce.
I am not up on this topic, as it seems that the bishop has an issue with the fact that they may not be able to consumate the marriage because of the husbands condition.
However just because you are sterile/barron you can be wed in a Catholic church.. and no the lack of having a child is not grounds for divorce.. but if you want to have children and your spouse denies against your wishes to have children and both are fertile than this is grounds for divorce. You may not divorce if you desire children and your spouse is willing but is infertile.
You are building a straw man here that is in no way analogous to the situation at hand.
The law exists for our benefit
Sorry but I simply can not see where this aspect of the law provides a benefit to anybody. The bishop did a good job as a Canon Lawyer but an abyssmally bad job as a pastor.
disobeying it is indecent and uncharitable, not the other way around.
Are you seriously saying that allowing a paraplegic man and his fiance to marry would be indecent and uncharitable? And you wonder why I would compare that attitude to the Pharisees?
Not in the slightest.
In both cases we have an individual who is physically incapacitated from being able to possess a certain status.
In both cases we have a situation in which if the status was conferred on the physically incapacitated individual regardless of their disqualification - well then the status itself becomes meaningless and anyone can have it regardless of qualification.
If someone who cannot possibly see the road in front of him is given carte blanche to drive, then there is no reason why we can't give a five year old a driver's license as well. In fact, there are no reasons to have a driver's license in the first place since we are now giving them out to people who are completely incapable of driving. The purpose of the drivers' license in the first place was to include only people who were actually able to drive - now there is no reason to have drivers licenses at all.
Likewise, if we bestow marriage on a relationship between two people who are incapable of naturally consummating the marriage let alone procreating through it, then there is no reason to have marriage in the first place. Any relationship of any kind can be declared a marriage, obviating the need for marriage in the first place.
Sorry but I simply can not see where this aspect of the law provides a benefit to anybody.
Marriage has a purpose. When the purposes of marriage (union and procreation) are fulfilled by married people, the whole community benefits. When marriage is stripped of its purpose and becomes only a name, then the entire sacrament is cheapened.
The bishop did a good job as a Canon Lawyer but an abyssmally bad job as a pastor.
I see. As a pastor, he should have lied to these people.
Are you seriously saying that allowing a paraplegic man and his fiance to marry would be indecent and uncharitable?
It isn't a question of "allowing." They are incapable of being married. It would be indecent and uncharitable to deceive them into believing that they could be validly married.
That would not only be a disservice to them, but also a disservice to everyone who is validly married by telling them that the obligations and purposes of marriage that they were instructed in and asked to live by were only suggestions and opinions.
And you wonder why I would compare that attitude to the Pharisees?
Indeed I do.
Apparently you are under the impression that "pharisaical" means "following the rules."
It doesn't.
Then why allow the elderly to marry? I know of a case where a couple in their 70’s (I suppose, possibly older) were living together to reduce expenses. They didn’t marry because they were each collecting Social Security and the woman would have her benefits cut if she remarried. They were visited by the priest and told that they were ‘living in sin’ and causing a scandal. He insisted that they should marry. There was no question of procreation. Why should they marry? Why should they even be allowed to marry?
Once again you steer the conversation around to this red herring: it is not about infertility.
People who are involuntarily infertile can be married.
The issue is impotence: the inability to perform the unitive act.
I know of a case where a couple in their 70’s (I suppose, possibly older) were living together to reduce expenses. They didn’t marry because they were each collecting Social Security and the woman would have her benefits cut if she remarried.
I see. It was about money.
They were visited by the priest and told that they were ‘living in sin’ and causing a scandal. He insisted that they should marry.
He insisted that two people who were only living under the same roof as part of a crass business deal should get married? I highly doubt it.
Would the whole story be that they were, in addition to pooling their cash, physically intimate?
There was no question of procreation.
And procreation isn't really germane to the discussion.
Why should they marry?
If they were having a physical relationship, then St. Paul has an answer.
Why should they even be allowed to marry?
Because those who are unimpeded from marriage and who wish to live together as a married couple have a moral right to be married.
No it is the Bishop and Popes conditions for a marriage contract. Sex never entered the picture till being expelled from Eden. Like I said if the RC Church or any Gentile Church hinged on every word of The Apostles there would be very few marriages.
The man wasn't lieing to GOD and GOD knows his condition. Have you ever heard of Joni Tada? A highly remarkable Christian Woman. A complete quadriplegic. Or about her husband a part of her ministry?
To find the answer you need to look at what happened to Peter when it was believed Gentiles were not to receive the Gospel. I would not agree with what the church told the couple if they were Roman Catholic, Baptist, Holly Rollers, Snake Handlers, Pentecostals, Lutherans, or Mormons. It is a misconstruing of Scripture taken to a very extreme. The order Be fruitful and multiply was simply an order just as let there be light. An order of the creation itself giving man and beast that capability.
I have been married 23 years this fall to a quadriplegic and I don't need yours, a Bishops, or a Baptist preacher {my church} to tell me whether it was ordained of GOD or not thank you very much. I was there you were not. If GOD means for something to be it is going to happen despite church leaders and mans own weakness. My second marriage is the best thing that ever happened to me next to my salvation which came years before that.
Thank you, Markomalley. It is very instructive to have the actual Canon Law to reference.
I have to respect Wideawake’s logical consistency and knowledge on the issue. It turns out that it really is all about the erection, after all. Whoodathunkit?
Unlike libs, we conservatives should base our arguments, either for or against something, on facts.
It turns out that it really is all about the erection…
On the off chance that you aren't being facetious, those who say it's about the erection (or similar) are totally missing the spiritual component of sex (it is the reason WHY pre-marital and extra-marital sex is a grievous mortal sin)
Just because some bishop says a person is not entitled to get married, because they are a parapalegic and unable to have sex, does not make it the word of God.
Over the years, I have observed that clery are no better than the ordinary person. They make as many mistakes in judgement as ordinary people. Furthermore, clergy have made really stupid statements. An example is the Methodist minister, chairman of the church board, said that women have a duty to submit to rape. Another example is the Presbyterian Church pronouncing that defending yourself against violent assault was immoral.
Furthermore, it required about 550 years for the Catholic Church to admit that Galileo was correct, the Earth was in orbit about the Sun.
And it is assinine rules such as this that caused me to leave the Catholic Church.
Yeah about that, after dealing with my own ego and about 100 or so people like you making the same stupid statements over 13 years. The truth is you want to be your own Pope.
It's all ego and pride. You committed some sin that you think you know best. You don't feel that you need to go to confession for it, so you blame the Church and take a hike to some place that will tell you "There, there, it's okay"
News flash been there done that, and was smart enough to get over myself.
You might want to consider the same thing.
Sorry for being harsh, but you are going to either ignore this or tell, me I don't know what I am talking about, Just like everyone else.
Just so you know If I am wrong about you it will be the first time, and I am not wrong about you either.
Yeah about that. Galileo was trying to teach it as a theological truth, as opposed to a scientific theory. Copernicus was teaching the same thing with out being censured by the Church.
Since you are so wrong about this maybe you are just as wrong about your little rant.
“I’m sorry, young man. We can’t marry you. You’re impotent.”
“Impotent? I’m absolutely essential! Who ever heard of a marriage without a groom? Seriously.”
The Apostle who wrote the most about marriage was Paul and he had plenty to say it seems. Paul thought it better man not marry actually. Paul too was human.
Marriage to someone with severe physical disabilities is a serious act and a commitment beyond the typical traditional marriage as it means one of the spouses will also be a caregiver till death do you part.
I do remember this much though. When my wife went into rehab the Director asked us how long we had been married. We said about a month. He breathed a sigh of relief and told us this much. Couples who marry into a disability situations after the fact fair far better than those who were married to healthy spouses who became severely disabled. He had seen plenty not last beyond rehab. The healthy spouse wanted the old spouse back and rejected them.
GOD's calling or vocation is different to each person. When call calls on a person to do something and the person refuses and does otherwise that is sin. The calling may be to preach the Gospel to distant lands. It may be to teach a Sunday School Class or be a Priest. It may well also for reason GOD has yet to reveal to become married into what many would see as being an impossible situation.
What good does it do me or anyone else if I live by every church law yet lack the compassion and love Christ asked of us? What good would it do me to ignore a calling by the Spirit and turn away instead and say no? What good does all the laws written do for man when they lack love and compassion to help the very ones Christ ministered to the most?
In my own situation GOD's hand was in it as even the mere chance I would have ever met the woman I am married to now were nil. It was a chain of events which occurred after my wifes death any one of which my decision would have meant we never would have met had I not thought out my choice. One choice I made the one that put us in the same location was a slip of my tongue by taking a job offer I was calling my boss to turn down instead the words flew out I'll do it. Well I said it so I did. The next year to follow was a spiritual journey which turned me inside out and test my faith more than it ever had been. By The Grace Of GOD I survived and His will prevailed.
I would tell anyone considering marriage in a disability situation to think long and hard and pray for guidance. It's been a real blessing to me and I can not think of another woman Icould have had a better life together with despite our many struggles. As for having kids? LOL we're raising two right now both of us in our 50's. A situation we did not wish for but yet refused to run from either. I've helped raisse 4 kids now none of them I fathered. GOD knew what He was doing.
Go for it my friend. I have no intentions of telling you that you are wrong.
I know what the Pastor told me 30 years ago. He told me I had to make a choice between my education/career and the Church. He also informed all other Lectors that if any of them covered for me they would immediately be expelled. All I had asked for was a semester hiatus of serving at Sunday morning Mass because I had been given a morning news shift at the college radio station - totally unheard of for a freshman. I was perfectly willing to take on all Saturday and Sunday evening Mass and any other Mass, as long as it was not between 6am and noon on Sunday.
If seeking an education and being granted an opportunity to get some experience in my chosen field is a sin, then I accept the label of sinner proudly.
I won’t bother you with the details of how a Father dealt with my wedding arrangements while I was in the hospital other than to say he not only never bothered to visit me, he didn’t even bother to return my phone calls.
Not all of them are like that. My wife was literally physically protected in a Catholic Hospital when she went quad. An abusive man her ex was trying to get in to in his words watch the B die. A sister with a blackbelt escorted him out. The sisters even though we were Baptist ministered to her needs even the spiritual ones. The day of our wedding her own dad disowned her in an attempt to stop our wedding. The sister who knew him and had seen it all told her to marry and not to let him stop it. The man was a sadist of the highest order. He was threatening to place her kids in an orphanage and her in a nursing home. We talked of marriage in our future. When this crisis arose we speed-ed up our plans.
The Nuns attended the ceremony as did the hospital Chaplin a RC Priest. We had our Minister do the honors as his wife has also helped my then girlfriend through her abandonment by her first husband for another woman a kid actually. Yes we did recieve our ministers counceling before marriage. We still have the cross the Nun gave us as a wedding present and the Priest blessed.
How ironic too. My family is about 50% RC on my dads side and my cousin a Vicar General in a city I will not reveal. There's several in our family who in their youth were confined for life to wheelchairs Only one has not married and it's simply that persons choice. It's never been made an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.