I believe Pope Sixtus V decreed that only eunichs could be prevented from marrying by authority.

What does the Church think about hermaphrodites?

(1) Once a marriage has been consummated, it is forever, even if impotence later develops.

(2) If the infertility was not known to either party, then it will not be a grounds for an annulment. If one spouse knows him/herself to be infertile and does not reveal this, it is grounds for an annulment.

(3) If either party attempts to into the marriage truly "not wanting children," that is, not intending to have them, this is grounds for an annulment.

Okay, now with regards to (2) and (3) if it is known that one party is infertile then the couple cannot "want children"--of their own anyways--any more than I "want to fly".

Your being a traditional Catholic does not change the fact that you are bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which makes it clear that all perpetual impotence (so long as it is certain) is an impediment to marriage. (Cf. Canon 1084)

But in any event Canon 1084 (1983) is copied pretty much verbatim from Canon 1068 (1917):

My translation:

That is, if the impotence is known certainly, then matrimony is to be impeded.

You actually can't see any difference between the sense in which a paraplegic wants to walk and the sense in which you want to fly? The paraplegic wants something that is proper and normal for human beings, where you want something that is beyond human nature.

Is the principle you're following something like "all that matters concerning intentions and desires is the absolute possibility that the desire will be realized?"

I was agreeing with you!

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with that principle?

Also, maybe I missed it, but if a couple knows it is infertile, are they allowed to marry? Both parties involved know the situation from the start, so neither is trying to deceive the other.

This is addressed by canon law.

Canon 1084.3 states that sterility neither impedes nor invalidates marriage, so long as, per canon 1098, there is no deceit about the issue.

In that a person "wants to fly" in the true sense of the idea--he REALLY wants to fly--it is no different from a paraplegic who wants to walk. I don't know what "is proper and normal for human beings" means in the context of homosexuality which has been widely practiced throughout history. Many homosexual couples REALLY want children.

So a sterile heterosexual couple can marry and have sex(?) even though all are in agreement that they can't make children this way. Are you claiming that the church allows this because, so long as you change 1 thing about the couple, they would be able to produce children? Because you'd only have to change 1 thing about a gay couple, too. There is nothing about either couple that makes them fundamentally more able to have children.

I am curious what the "one thing" you can change about a gay couple to make their sexual acts reproductive would be, but this is irrelevant.

Sterility is an accidental characteristic of the individual that does not change the fundamental purpose and character of the sexual act as ordered towards reproduction.

If nothing else, there are plenty of biblical precedents for men and women thought barren to eventually conceive. And several similar cases rather relevant in my own life; to take one example, my father was repeatedly diagnosed as sterile before my mother eventually did conceive.

Make one the other gender.


Yes, it does. When the couple knows they are sterile, then the purpose of them having sex is NOT to have children. There is nothing about them having sex that is aimed at reproduction.

You mean there are biblical references to non-barren women conceiving. And I feel bad suggesting this (seriously, I'm not intending any personal disrespect, though it may be taken that way), but are you sure your father is your father?

... okay ...?

edit: how is this not just a concession of the point that the heterosexual act is ordered toward reproduction?

Again, the sexual act is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction. It is the purpose of the act. This has nothing to do with whether the people are sterile.

I'm not sure how in the world you could think that question wouldn't suggest some disrespect, but I'll take your word for it. In any event, obviously I wouldn't have raised it as an example if there were any doubt about this.

It's a not shocking statement that non-sterile heterosexual sex is made for making babies. Change a sterile heterosexual couple or a non-sterile homosexual couple into a non-sterile heterosexual couple and you have baby-making capabilities. Without that change, neither can accomplish that task.

Sex between a fertile male and a fertile female is aimed at reproduction (except when it's not...). Sex between a sterile male and a sterile female is not aimed at reproduction. That couple is not having sex for the purpose of having a kid. How can you honestly claim otherwise?

Because I'm suggesting your mom slept around. And of course they would hide the doubt from you. Most parents don't admit their affairs to their children, and your dad could possibly not know either.

Okay, so I give you a pass when you said you meant no disrespect, and that I am not in any doubt about who my father is, and then you say this?

Edit: removed the angry language since this appears to have been a mistake on your part.

Its inconsistent because it would mean as long as anal sex is just included into foreplay and ejaculation is saved for the vagina it should be moral.

Also if it was as simple as that (which the churches view isn't) it would mean contraception should be allowed if it didn't prevent ejaculation into the vagina .

You asked why my question could be taken as disrespect. I answered. And you're shocked that the question looks disrespectful?

Like I said, it was a serious question. There's no way I can think of to ask it while hiding its implications. But the implications aren't what I was asking for. I was asking only about the way in which the situation is relevant to this thread.

I asked you how in the world you could think it wouldn't be disrespectful: Anyway, if your impression from this thread is that I'm an idiot who needs something like this explained to me, I should probably just quit, eh?

Why is birth control frowned upon then?

Also you didn't answer me that many homosexual couples really want to raise children in the same manner that infertile couples want to do so.

Oh, sorry, I misread. Well then, here's a better response:

Because I'm really just interested to know how an infertile man can have a child. Was he misdiagnosed? Or did he in fact not help make a kid? That it happens to be about your parents and implies things about them is not something I'm interested in. I'm not looking to judge you/your family or say anything about them.

You made a claim that 'sterile' people can have kids. I'm questioning this, but there's no way to do so in isolation of the rest of what it brings along.

If you look at the intent of my question, you'll see that I'm not trying to disrespect you. In this sense, you can in fact take the question to be as benign as it is intended if you would choose to do so.

My point was only what I said it was, that people that are practically certain they are infertile do sometimes go on to conceive naturally. My dad wasn't misdiagnosed, as far as I know (it wasn't a one-time diagnosis and my parents were married for almost 20 years before I was born), but obviously his condition changed at some point, even if only temporarily.

Not in the case of a 60+ elderly couple. We dont need to go there again, just saying.

I'm sorry that you didn't get appropriately educated from your project.

This is false. What you probably mean to say is that psychologists aren't allowed to diagnose them with the disorder of homosexuality. Plenty of therapists still "treat" gays in the manner you're describing, that didn't stop in the 1960s. Of course, it has never been remotely effective.

No gays have been able to change sexual orientation according the physical measures. Homosexuals have brain scans that differ from those of heterosexuals. There is no recorded case of anybody ever changing this. It's also extremely rare for homosexuals to lose subjective desire for the same sex. Finally, even though some of the so-called "changed" gays claim to have developed an attraction for the opposite sex, plethysmographs of males continue to show physical responses toward only one sex (the same sex among gays, including "cured" gays). Lesbians show a better ability to be attracted to men, but female sexual responses are something we don't understand especially well yet. Regardless, indicators like brain scan differences do not change. A gay person going from gay to bisexual still has a "gay brain."

Regardless, no experimentation has been done so causation hasn't been identified. If you actually took graduate-level psych courses, you ought to know enough basic science to avoid making the causal claims you are making.

And in a graduate course in psychology, you are presumably expected to have a background in statistics to analyze these claims and determine which are supported by evidence. Right?

You really couldn't remember the difference between this and colon cancer? And you couldn't remember the difference between a fundamental risk and a statistical correlation that varies depending on the conditions?

You're not presenting much of an outline. And I'm not convinced of your ability to study anything, apparently you think "study" means "read a bunch of stuff." Ah well, just another reason to shake my head over the state of psych departments. I've been thinking about changing my major to math; it's a sausage-fest, but at least it doesn't encourage vapidity.

A number of recent masses have provided opportunities to preach about the sin of homosexuality. It always seems that the Catholic Church wants to condemn homosexuality, and is prepared to jump through whatever hoops it needs to do that. And I have never understood why.

The Catholic position on the ordering of the sex act reminds me of a visit to a deli a few years back. I ordered a pastrami sandwich with cheese, and was told I couldn't get cheese with my meat sandwich. I apologized, saying I didn't realize it was a kosher restaurant. Then the waitress told me that it wasn't a kosher restaurant - it was a kosher-style restaurant. In other words, they served food that looked like it could be kosher - but it wasn't.