<p>A fairly minor miracle could reverse impotence.*</p>
<p>sure…and at that point the person could marry. </p>
<p>A sacrament can’t occur unless the proper form has taken place. Until that point, no sacrament. </p>
<p>Again, the Church has a logical expectation that the marriage will be consumated within a reasonable time (24 hours? a week or two maybe? But not decades…lol) To hang hopes on a possible miracle that might never occur or might occur 25 years later would not be reasonable. The Church has no intention of participating in marriage ceremonies where there’s a reasonable expectation that the marriage will never be consumated, and therefore would be declared invalid. The Church wants to avoid invalid marriages, not knowingly participate in them. Does that make sense? </p>
<p>That said, a man may not know that he’s impotent. ) I know, that’s not really likely, but it could be argued.) </p>
<p>Priests really don’t ask grooms if they’re impotent. Really, the subject would probably only come up if the man had had testicular cancer or something and had lost his abilites that could not be regained by any method. If there were a method or one were to become available, then he’d be free to marry. </p>
<p>there is another possible way that this subject would come up. If Couple A got an annulment because the husband had always been impotent (unconsumated marriage), then the annulment would indicate that the H would not be free to remarry in the Church unless that issue was resolved. (As you can see, an annulment does not always leave both parties “free to remarry.” In the cases where one party is gay, that would be another instance).</p>
<p>I’m not Catholic. I don’t believe in miracles. I’m just reporting what they say. Personally, I believe in testing these things out BEFORE spending lots of $$$ on a marriage ;)</p>
<p>I have no idea why a miracle can’t cure impotence but apparently can cure infertility. Miracles must be selective.</p>
<p>Hanna…what Noonan wrote has to do with how doctrines will further develop or be more fully understood over time. New ones aren’t created. Old ones aren’t eliminated. </p>
<p>The doctrine against stealing would develop to include “high tech theft” or other white collar crimes that didn’t exist at the time of Christ. The doctrine against theft isn’t new, but is further defined to include modern-day thieving injustices. </p>
<p>He specifically mentions that the integrity of Catholic doctrines must always be preserved.</p>
<p>That said, whatever he writes isn’t really relevant, because he doesn’t have the authority to declare what is doctrine and what isn’t. He’s had roles as an advisor, amongst many other advisors (some might be saying other conflicting things). So whatever he says or writes could be filled with error or misunderstanding…and can simply be his opinion. The reason why the Church has a pope and Magisterium is because theologians conflict. Someone has to have the final say.</p>
<p>I have no idea why a miracle can’t cure impotence but apparently can cure infertility. Miracles must be selective.</p>
<p>did someone say that? did someone say that a miracle could not cure impotence? Who said that?</p>
<p>“whatever he writes isn’t really relevant, because he doesn’t have the authority to declare what is doctrine and what isn’t.”</p>
<p>Seems to me he has the same authority as any other Catholic to report to the outside world what the magisterium said. If there is a Vatican document listing the points of church doctrine and stating that any belief not listed is practice rather than doctrine, I’m eager to read it.</p>
<p>I also hope you will point out the part of this theological disagreement that merits ridicule, because I’m still missing it.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids, thnks for all your time answering questions. It’s tough to be the Defender of the Faith on a CC thread ;). I hope you don’t mind a few more…</p>
<p>Does the Church teach that only Catholics go to heaven? If it does not teach that—if it teaches that people of all faiths end up at the same heavenly table—then why does the Church believe it’s important to evangelize those who practice other religions? If the Church does teach that only Catholics go to heaven, then what sort of afterlife is in store for those of different faiths? </p>
<p>My understanding is that if a Catholic couple is living together, but is not married, then they are sinning in the eyes of the Church, and should not be receiving communion. What if a Catholic couple is married civilly (e.g., by a judge), but not married in the Church? Are they “sinning” to the same degree as the unmarried couple? Should they also not be receiving communion? </p>
<p>I live in a bilingual parish with a very young population, and most of the babies baptized here are born to unwed, immigrant parents. We also have several same-sex couples as parishioners, and couples who use birth control. Technically, our communion line should be virtually non-existent. If our pastor was the type to follow the letter of the law, he should be denying communion to every other person in line, right? (It doesn’t seem like the average parish could survive that.)</p>
<p>Regarding impotence and miracles: so what? You could jump off a bridge and miraculously survive, but that does not mean that the Church permits people to commit suicide. </p>
<p>Being open to a miracle, or an advancement of science, is logically different from depending on a miracle to happen, without any basis to believe it to be so. You could win the Powerball next week, but you do not buy Bill Gates’ mansion because that might happen. Any lender would be completely within their rights to say, “That’s nice; come back after that extraordinarily unlikely event has happened.” Likewise, the Church’s attitude is, “Come back to pre Cana once you are no longer impotent.”</p>
<p>A priest would have to know more about each situation before deciding to deny communion. Being an unwed parent or an immigrant are not sins. Premarital sex is a sin but can be erased thru confession. Living with/loving a same sex partner isn’t a sin. Again, it’s the premarital sex that would be the sin. Again, confession could allow communion. Using artificial birth control is a sin. The priest wouldn’t know or assume someones method of birth control.</p>
<p>^Good heavens, I wasn’t saying that being an immigrant was a sin. I was trying to paint a picture of my parish, where we have many young couples who are not married due to cultural influences and/or problems with immigration status, which they fear might be revealed if they went through the process of preparing for marriage.</p>
<p>Boy, I’m really confused collegekidsmom. If it’s ok for same sex couples to live with/love each other, but premarital sex is a sin, but they aren’t allowed to get married, how does that work?</p>
<p>^
I don’t think that anyone thought you were saying it was sinful. The point is that Catholics believe that once absolution happens then you are able to receive communion.</p>
<p>As far as who gets to go to Heaven and who doesn’t. Those who are better informed than I can correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that anyone can go to heaven, Catholic or not. BUT if you know that the Catholic Church is the one true church and reject it in your life, that is a sin and you will not be welcome in the kingdom of heaven. Otherwise, if you belong to another religion or leave the church because you no longer believe, you can go to heaven because God will not hold your ignorance against you.</p>
<p>By the way, I’m counting on that last bit on the off chance that I am totally wrong in my fairly recently acquired status as former Catholic. Best to cover all the bases.</p>
<p>Bethievt: th Church believes that gay sex is against God’s plan for the human body and is a mortal sin. The OT mentions this over a hundred times, IIRC. (Muslims hold a very similar view.) </p>
<p>Contrary to the belief stated above that it is all about controlling women’s choices, the Catholic Church does not approve of a man’s choice to fornicate with another man.</p>
<p>Well, I’m actually sorry I posted that, since I really don’t want to ruin this thread for those of you who want to chat about the Catholic church.</p>
<p>I’ll just say that I agree with frank Bruni in the NYTs today when he says that it would be a lot better if this pope would focus on the soup kitchens and not the bedroom.</p>
<p>Given that Argentina is 90% Catholic, but still voted to legalize Gay marriage, I’m not sure the Catholic Church believes there is a thing wrong with a man fornicating with another man, though it is clear that many of the clergy would like that to be what the church believes. But the Church is the people.</p>
<p>ETA: as a dissafected Catholic, I will stop posting on this thread now since I think I’m being out of line.</p>
<p>Poetgrl,
I don’t think you are out of line. I’m learning a lot from reading everyone’s posts. I think that your posts illustrate that their is a disconnect between the Catholic tradition/doctrine and the majority or at least a large portion of the people who identify themselves as Catholic. </p>
<p>Some of these people hold out hope that the church will change with them, along with them but some of us gave up on that and have accepted it.</p>
<p>I think it’s like staying in an abusive marriage. At some point you have to take responsibility for your choices and move on.</p>
<p>Poetgrl: people are a lot less likely to need soup kitchens when their parents are married to each other. Never married parents are six times as likely to live in poverty as their married peers. Graduate high school, work, and get married before having kids, and your chances of living in poverty are roughly 2%. Being married is like having another four or five years of education - so high school graduates married to each other have kids who turn out just as well as the progeny of never married women with masters degrees. </p>
<p>I will also point out that income inequality has, predictably, skyrocketed since the Sexual Revolution. Upwardly mobile, educated people are still doing things right, as in, getting married before having babies; the lower classes are not following suit and are giving up there only chance at middle class life and a good start for their kids. </p>
<p>I will stop caring about what people do in the bedroom once their bedroom activities do not cause poverty, STDs, and a generation of criminals. (Did I fail to mention that children of never married parents are much more likely to wind up in jail?) There can never be enough soup kitchens in the world to undo the harm of sexual irresponsibility, and even if there were, you would mostly be treating the symptom, not the underlying problem. </p>
<p>It’s almost like the Church knew this would happen, and that tradition and Scripture point to a deeper understanding of the human psyche and society than that found in modern culture.</p>
<p>I’m not much interested in whether the mixing of wool and linen is truly an abomination. Frankly, as a non-Catholic, most of this stuff seems to be a bunch of debates about issues that Jesus himself wouldn’t even recognize (and, I expect, in many instances of Church “doctrine”, would be horrified.). Heck, if he believed in heterosexual marriage, he would have had one (as was required of all Jewish rabbis in his time). Live by his example. ;)</p>
<p>But isn’t it great that a Pope, the ostensible religious leader of a billion people (perhaps), got elected by his colleagues at least partially because they thought he had a real interest in the poor, and who named himself Francis?</p>
</p>