|
Post by matisse on Aug 13, 2008 13:01:15 GMT -5
That blog seems to suggest it's either or both. If you are infertile you can't get married, if you can't get it up you can't get married. But it does say that external aids for the purpose of getting an erection, including drugs, are ok. So really, this guy who wanted to get married was a para, seems to me that he should have been able to use viagra, or a shot, or something to get it up.
I think that even under the church's rules, it's quite possible that the guy should have been allowed to marry. Is it really not possible that the bishop simply made a mistake? He may be a bishop but he's still human. If he did make a mistake, would the church correct it?
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Aug 13, 2008 13:16:14 GMT -5
The Church does correct mistakes. It does NOT teach that bishops are infallible (only the Pope, and only then when speaking on matters of faith and morality). I believe that if the para could prove that there was even a slight possibility that he would be fertile, the bishop could reverse his decision. Or someone higher up, such as the bishop's archbishop, a cardinal, the pope...could reverse the decision.
|
|
|
Post by cunning69guy on Aug 13, 2008 13:47:06 GMT -5
As to what the article says, it does not specify whether fertility, or inability to copulate, was the reason the priest denied the "sacrament" of marriage. What it stated was, that since impotence was a grounds for a marriage to be annulled, that ipso facto the priest could not allow an impotent man to be married in the Church (if "innocence" is a reason to free an imprisoned man, then there's no reason to imprison an innocent man in the first place!).
Now as I recall from my Catholic teaching, BOTH the inability to procreate AND the inability to render spousal comfort (i.e. sexual intercourse) are not only grounds for marriage annulment but also prerequisite for marriage as "God" intended it, as interpreted from scripture ("Go forth and multiply", etc.) by the Church.
The unfortunate thing, at least with Catholicism, is that this "rule" is only seldomly and arbitrarily enforced (as far as a prerequisite to marriage, not annulment). In fact, had the person in the article gone to another diocese before or after his denial, chances are good he would have been married in the Church regardless.
Now we know from this site that not only have such marriages been performed, but also that a woman (especially a dev) can be sexually fulfilled by intimacy with a "crippled", and that if pregnancy doesn't occur naturally, that as long as the man is not sterile as well as impotent, that there are alternative methods of fertilization other than the standard "genital to genital intercourse". I'm sure we all know of "chairdudes" with children, whose conception might either have been natural or pharmaceutically or technologically aided.
The unfortunate reality is that discrimination against the disabled (mentally and physically) occurs in all aspects of society by some percentage of the population, and that those people will often go above and beyond keeping their opinions about disability to themselves and will do whatever is within their power to keep the disabled "impotent" in society, be it in housing, education, employment or yes, even marriage.
This is not the first time I've heard of the selective enforcement by certain priests of this little bit of Catholic dogma, by priests who never bother to inquire into the fertility and sexual health of other individuals they marry, be they aging men, post-menopausal women, etc. It seems that the issue of ability and fertility to those priests is only important when they perceive that it will be a problem for them to justify the union of a disabled person to another person, AB or other.
It's unfortunate, but the "tradition" of the Catholic Church, and it's refusal to evolve today (there's no arguing that it evolved during it's first millenium and a half of existence) keep it in the Dark Ages in some aspects of it's teachings, but luckily, it has gotten "desperate" enough to keep its numbers up, that for most people, it's not seeking proof of virginity and sexual health before or consummation through intercourse after a marriage, it's only hoping for it.
Maybe someday, the same fiscal concerns that inspired so many restraints on Catholicism as practiced today will come full circle to allow the practice of Catholicism as it originally was practiced in the first centuries after Christ's death.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 13, 2008 13:54:18 GMT -5
The next one down in the link that Clair posted is from the guy who is a father of several children, became impotent due to diabetes, and would like to be able to have some sex other than intercourse, like oral sex. The answer is very interesting--the priest says that he can't condone it, but then goes on to talk about how hiccups are forgiven, suggesting in my mind that the poor dude should just go ahead and sin and then be forgiven.
It's really a sad state of affairs and one of the reasons why I don't actively participate in the church any more. I just cannot fathom why a god with infinite wisdom would deny the poor guy the ability to be intimate with his own wife in other ways. It just makes no sense to me. I know that you can go back and find all sort of bases in the books for having the rule, but c'mon, there's just fundamentally no answer to the question of why? What terrible thing would happen if a married couple, with kids, explore other ways of being intimate with each other? The god as portrayed by the catholic church is actually not very understanding, nor nice, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 13, 2008 13:55:42 GMT -5
Well, E officially wins with that picture...
...mixing 'logic' with 'faith' doesn't seem compatible - 'logic' is basic human reasoning, and the aspects of 'faith' are beyond simple human reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 13, 2008 14:07:25 GMT -5
Well, E officially wins with that picture... ...mixing 'logic' with 'faith' doesn't seem compatible - 'logic' is basic human reasoning, and the aspects of 'faith' are beyond simple human reasoning. They really are compatible, though. My faith is a result of what I've learned through logic and reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 13, 2008 20:40:01 GMT -5
Well, E officially wins with that picture... ...mixing 'logic' with 'faith' doesn't seem compatible - 'logic' is basic human reasoning, and the aspects of 'faith' are beyond simple human reasoning. They really are compatible, though. My faith is a result of what I've learned through logic and reasoning. How so?
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 13, 2008 21:44:15 GMT -5
They really are compatible, though. My faith is a result of what I've learned through logic and reasoning. How so? Science, historical evidence, and logic all help prove Christianity. As always, I'm happy to go into more detail one-on-one...
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Aug 14, 2008 7:33:13 GMT -5
that light switch is...wow.... and what's really funny is that it was not-i don't think-meant as a joke at all. i get the impression that it's meant to be 100% wholesome.
|
|