<p>I’m hoping they finally let impotent people get married. (Under the existing rules they can’t.)</p>
<p>For real?!!!</p>
<p>To pick up on a digression, the one of interest, remember that in Merchant of Venice Bassanio is a spendthrift who has ruined his credit and is turned down by the Christian lenders in Venice before he approaches Shylock (and then only when he gets a guarantor - who happens to be a Jew hater known to Shylock as such). There was always lending at interest. It was sometimes disguised - as is done today in most Islamic banking - by setting a return on the investment which just so happens to equate to interest. It seems that railing against money lenders in much of Western history has been largely an excuse for some landed gentry with power to avoid paying debts. And if those are owed to people who can be murdered or driven out, all the better. </p>
<p>And since I’m already digressing, two very quick ones both from Merchant of Venice. Note that Shylock’s demand would have been illegal under Jewish law. First of course he couldn’t have demanded flesh but more importantly to the plot a pound of flesh under Jewish law would also be limited to just that, meaning he could not collect because collecting would kill or might well kill. That comes directly from Genesis: an eye for an eye is the limit of justice, not a demand for equal vengeance. If you lost an eye, you could only take an eye, not both and not a life. That translated into odd things like if a one-eyed guy took your eye, you couldn’t then take that guy’s eye because he would be blind. See? But the point is not accuracy but that Christians - and Muslims too, though in the West we rarely think of that - use Jews and Judaism as an “other” which exists in Christian thought and analysis as a way of delineating what Christianity is even though that image of Judaism has little to nothing to do with actual Judaism. So Shakespeare could use Jewish law to portray Christian mercy though of course Christians refused to lend money at all and Jewish law would have both prevented the transaction and would have prevented collection. To twist another Shakespearean phrase around, “Otherness is all.”</p>
<p>According to this, no, they cannot: [Marriage</a> Without Children](<a href=“http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0155.html]Marriage”>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0155.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not pretend to be Catholic. I left the church long ago. Someone can correct this if they’d like.</p>
<p>Here it is straight from the Vatican website.</p>
<p>[Code</a> of Canon Law - IntraText](<a href=“Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents”>Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents)</p>
<p>“Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”</p>
<p>If two people want to marry, but the woman is 70 and beyond child-bearing age, may they marry?</p>
<p>Yes, older couples past child-bearing age can marry. Assuming God could perform a miracle.
I haven’t looked it up, but I think that even when someone has previously been diagnosed as infertile, or even previously sterilized, they may marry, again, assuming that miracles could happen.<br>
I do know a couple who got an annulment due to inability to consummate their marriage.
(The woman had been sexually abused as a child and refused counseling.) The man was free to marry again (and then had 11 children!)</p>
<p>Lots and lots of unchangeable doctrine has changed. The mortal sin of eating meat on Friday is probably the most famous/recent one. There were married priests for the first three or four hundred years of the Church</p>
<p>lolololololol</p>
<p>NONE of those things are doctrines. Why would you think that they are/were???</p>
<p>No doctrine has EVER been changed. They can’t change. Period. There have been no new doctirnes since the death of the last apostle. Period. </p>
<p>What you’re talking about are just customs and disciplines…they aren’t doctrines. The church HAS married priests…lots of them. Always has had some married priests. Celibacy has NEVER been doctrine.</p>
<p>Not eating meat on Fridays was a discipline. Never a doctrine. </p>
<p>Another example of a custom would be the colors of a priest’s vestments for different occasions. They wear purple during Lent and Advent. They wear red on feast days of martyred saints. They wear green during ordinary times. They wear White for weddings and funerals. They USED to wear BLACK for funerals, then that was changed. That is a custom change. not doctrine.</p>
<p>Doctrines are final because believing in them is a necessary part of God’s plan for salvation.</p>
<p>If two people want to marry, but the woman is 70 and beyond child-bearing age, may they marry?</p>
<p>Of course they can. Being past child bearing age is not a hindrance. They can’t help the fact that they can’t naturally bear children. </p>
<p>However, they need to be able to have intercourse because that completes the marriage sacrament. They aren’t “fully married” until they’ve had intercourse. (the “unkissed bride”…so to speak.)</p>
<p>People who are naturally sterile or have become sterile for acceptable reasons (hysterectomy, etc) are not precluded from marriage. </p>
<p>During the Catholic marriage ceremony, a young couple is asked if they are open to having children. If the couple is older (beyond child bearing years), that question is omitted for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>I’m hoping they finally let impotent people get married. (Under the existing rules they can’t.)</p>
<p>Not happening. Intercourse is an important part of the marriage sacrament.</p>
<p>Can someone list what is doctrine, what are rules or practices. Thank you</p>
<p>Some Doctrines (also known as Big T Traditions)</p>
<p>The Trinity - three Persons in one God.</p>
<p>Jesus is both human and divine</p>
<p>Mary conceived Jesus without intercourse.</p>
<p>Mary was sinless because she was the Ark of the New Covenant, and had to be pure to hold the gestating human body of Jesus. </p>
<p>Jesus’ divine nature had no beginning, He always existed. Only His human nature had a beginning. </p>
<p>Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin …Immaculate Conception. (most people get this confused with conceiving without intercourse…wrong.)</p>
<p>God had no beginning and will have no end</p>
<p>God is the Creator </p>
<p>Jesus rose from the dead.</p>
<p>Holy Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ
Of course there are more.</p>
<p>Some disciplines and customs (also known as “little t traditions”)</p>
<p>Not eating meat on Fridays</p>
<p>Celibate priests</p>
<p>vestment colors</p>
<p>Holy Days of Obligation</p>
<p>male only altar servers, which of course has changed.</p>
<p>not allowing cremation…which of course has changed</p>
<p>scattering of cremated ashes…still a “no no” but could possibly change.</p>
<p>This isn’t a perfect analogy, but this may help clarify for some people.</p>
<p>Imagine that in your home you have house rules. Some will never change (capitalized House Rules), and some might (lower case house rules).</p>
<p>For instance, an unchangeable House Rule might be that you would never allow the following in your home no matter what:</p>
<p>Murder
Rape
Illegal drugs</p>
<p>And, you have lower case house rules (customs) that might change in your home might be:</p>
<p>No pets
we always wash our sheets on Mondays
We always have Pizza night on Fridays
We always put our Christmas tree up over Thanksgiving weekend.
We never eat in front of the TV. We only eat in the kitchen. </p>
<p>You would argue that the unchangeable House Rules are set because to allow those things would change who you are as a family. You can change the customs in your home because they aren’t what defines you. </p>
<p>Again, the analogy isn’t perfect, but it might help clarify.</p>
<p>So all of the things that I would ask the church to change in order for me to return are doable? As I listed: doing something about pedophile priests, allowing birth control, putting the poor above the riches of the church, allowing gay people into the church, and treating men and women equally? Heck, I would even return if they did all but the last. I wouldn’t want to be a priest anyway. </p>
<p>Which of those would drive others out?</p>
<p>doing something about pedophile priests, ??? not a doctrinal issue. And, what makes you think that the Church isn’t doing something about this? </p>
<p>allowing birth control, …not happening</p>
<p>putting the poor above the riches of the church, …??? The church is the largest source of charity for the poor. Have no idea what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>allowing gay people into the church,…??? Gay people aren’t banned from the Church.</p>
<p>and treating men and women equally? …??? If you mean ordaining women, no, that’s never happening. that doesn’t mean women aren’t equal. The most important thing in the Catholic church is NOT “becoming a priest.” The most important thing is to die in a state of grace, become a saint and live forever in heaven with God…something men and women have equal opportunity.</p>
<p>The church is the largest source of charity for the poor? If they sold off their land holdings, got rid of their ornate belongings, they could take care of all the world’s poor. Where do you think their riches came from? The poor who donate to THEM every year in spite of having almost nothing. My son used to work at a bank, and every month when she got her social security check, a little old lady would come in and cash it then set aside the portion she gave to her church. She was dressed practically in rags. The church she attended was gorgeous. The priest, very well dressed. It made my son very sad.</p>
<p>Birth control in poor countries is absolutely necessary before they can ever do anything about the poverty. But then we’d have less Catholics.</p>
<p>Okay. Letting gay people marry. How many Catholics would you lose if this were allowed?</p>
<p>And you know darn well what I meant about the pedophile priests and the way the church protected them.</p>
<p>I’ve already said I’d forgive that last one.</p>
<p>So if you’re a woman who physically cannot bear children, you’re allowed to marry because God can perform miracles. But if you’re an impotent male, you’re not allowed to marry because that appears to be a miracle beyond God’s powers?</p>
<p>mom2- thank you. It appears then that there could be an struggle within the Catholic Church to allow things like birth control and gay marriage in the future?</p>
<p>I would think those things would only change if many more people did what EPTR did and left the church rather than stay as “cultural catholics.”</p>
<p>Oh hayden thank you also.</p>
<p>So if you’re a woman who physically cannot bear children, you’re allowed to marry because God can perform miracles. But if you’re an impotent male, you’re not allowed to marry because that appears to be a miracle beyond God’s powers?</p>
<p>Not exactly. An impotent male may not even know it prior to marriage. Future grooms aren’t asked if they have been able to have sex because that would be contrary to the idea that the couple isn’t supposed to be sexually active. </p>
<p>However, if the man has had some kind of surgery that will never allow proper intercourse, then he wouldn’t be allowed to get married if the church were made aware of that prior to the ceremony. </p>
<p>The point really comes into play AFTER the marriage. If the man is found to be inpotent (can’t have sex), then his wife can easily get the marriage annulled because they were never fully married. </p>
<p>As for “God’s powers” for correcting impotence. The argument would be that until that person believes that his impotence has been healed, he should not enter a marriage. It would be unfair/unreasonable to expect his bride to wait weeks/months/years/forever that he might possibly be miraculously healed. lol</p>
<p>Obviously, the church needs to assume and expect that a newly married couple is going to consumate the marriage within a reasonable time…not years later after some hoped for miracle. ;)</p>
<p>The ability to get pregnant or not get pregnant is completely irrelevant to the ability to have intercourse. A woman who is beyond child-bearing years is still able to have intercourse…and she must do so to consumate her marriage.</p>
<p>you. It appears then that there could be an struggle within the Catholic Church to allow things like birth control and gay marriage in the future?</p>
<p>Struggle amongst the Church leaders? no. Struggle amongst the rank and file? yes. The church will never permit BC and will never sanction gay marriage. It doesn’t matter that most of us don’t care if gay people get married or that people use BC. It just won’t ever be sanctioned in the church. The whole premise of Catholic marriage would fall apart.</p>
<p>I have to be honest with you that is the best answer on the issue I have seen.</p>
<p>The church is the largest source of charity for the poor? If they sold off their land holdings, got rid of their ornate belongings, they could take care of all the world’s poor. Where do you think their riches came from? The poor who donate to THEM every year in spite of having almost nothing. My son used to work at a bank, and every month when she got her social security check, a little old lady would come in and cash it then set aside the portion she gave to her church. She was dressed practically in rags. The church she attended was gorgeous. The priest, very well dressed. It made my son very sad.</p>
<p>Are you serious? You want the Church to sell what? The Sistine Chapel? lol The Vatican? (which is a sovereign state).</p>
<p>And do you really think that if the Church sold those things that magically we wouldn’t have any more poor in the world? That it would end poverty? Oh my!! lol</p>
<p>The Church’s beautiful bldgs are largely funded by major donors. Yes, “everyday people” give their small donations. No one forces them to. They choose to. What do you want the Church to do? Tell low-income people that they’re not allowed to put anything in the collection plate? lol </p>
<p>And, what about the value to the people at large that these bldgs and artwork serve? The Church doesn’t withhold access to these bldgs to only bishops. The world comes to enjoy the bldgs, art work, etc. </p>
<p>I have been involved with many Capital Campaign drives for new churches, new Catholic schools, etc. The truth is that the majority of the money comes from wealthly people. The rank and file’s portion is a small percentage. The strategized process for raising the money is a science. Your initial phase is to get the wealthy people “on board” because their dollars are often the seed money that gets things really going. </p>
<p>There is a beautiful Catholic church in my area. While many people have donated to build it, it was largely paid for by about 10 wealthy families. </p>
<p>the idea behind having beautiful churches is to honor God. You decorate your home nicely for your family, right? Why wouldn’t you want to decorate your church even better for God?</p>