Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. How sad. Where is the love and compassion?
   Be compassionate as your Heavenly Father is compassionate. I am very happy to read that the curate of the parish was present at the civil ceromony.

   Posted By: Pat

2. With regards to the paraplegic man marrying in the church: this sort of lack of compassion is what is turning people off the church. My main question is : What would Jesus do?

   Posted By: Penny Bourke

3. How perfectly stupid! Tha couple obviously love each other, and there is more to marriage than sex. The Bishop is an idiot!
   Now they've married outside the Church anyway, and two more are probably lost to the Church, as perhaps other family members & friends. So much for bringing people to Christ!!!

   Posted By: Stan

4. Whilst I can see that non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for an annulment, based on scripture (ie: Man cannot separate what God has joined together etc...) I must admit confusion, at what seems to be an inconsistent stance vis-a-vis disinterested marriage. If the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary is to hold, what is the extension of Church teaching that Joseph and Mary were never technically married?
   
   If tradition accepts that married couples can and have lived in non-sexualised relationships, how then does this sit with the decision that has been handed down? I think that the Church really needs to examine her position either on Canon Law, or revisiting tradition and ask herself whether the doctrine/ philosophy is really tenable, especially in the absence of any scriptural basis to support it, or basis in terms of reason.

   Posted By: Neil

5. Apparently the secular media decided to present this unremarkable and perennial fact as "news", as part of the evil campaign to convince people that "marriage" can be redefined to mean simply a public declaration that two people love each other.

   Posted By: Ronk

6. What a disgrace when marriage is considered a Sacrament. If truth be known, this could be an example of transference - the bishop is probably impotent himself! He sure does not have a sense of what marriage is. Fear seems to dominate the thinking and lives of many priests and especially bishops. The couple wanted to do all that is right by the Church and as usual, they have been let down. Each day, more and more rubbish about the institutional Catholic Church is published. Who would be proud to belong to the institutional church? Why can't these bishops abide by the beautiful theology that is being given us by sensible and spiritual theologians? They are chasing people out of the church all the time and they ask why the seats are becoming vacant! Of course, they do not look at their own person - it is never their fault!

   Posted By: pamela McSweeney

7. What a nasty keyboard you have M/s McSweeney (I notice you've dropped the "PBVM"). It never ceases to amaze me how often when some priest or bishop teaches the same thing that the Church has always taught, many people (like you, Pat, Penny, Stan and Neil) instantly become self-appointed expert "Popes" who declare that said hapless cleric is hopelessly ignorant of Scripture, Jesus, compassion, reason etc. The Church's doctrines weren't invented by this priest on a rainy night; they are the faith of the Apostles developed and refined for 2000 years by thousands of the greatest minds and holiest saints in history. But you people know better don't you? (though Neil at least refrained from personal abuse.)
   
   And yes you are correct Neil, the BVM and St Joseph were never sacramentally married; St Joseph died before the sacrament was instituted. And they were never physically joined in marriage, otherwise the BVM would be a bigamist, since she is married to the Holy Spirit. (If you say she is not, you are calling Our Lord a b.....d.)

   Posted By: Ronk

8. While I can understand doctrine which states that impotence which is kept a secret from ones partner is reasonable grounds for an annulment, surely if both parties are fully aware then there needs to be consideration made. As someone else said, marriage is more than sex and procreation. And if it is, well then we better make sure that women who've gone through menopause don't get married! Also, does this mean that if a man or woman has to receive surgery on their sexual organs which results in impotence that the Church will consider their marriage null and void if they don't have children or haven't yet had a chance to consummate their marriage?
   
   Oh well, at least we're still using these rules to keep the gays out! (Let's just not claim that we have internally consistent views.)

   Posted By: Alex Knight

9. The majority of comments on this issue demonstrate the power and insight of the '"sensus fidelium".
   
   Where our the bishops peers? The silence is quite worrying. Let's hope a later news item reveals the bishop reversing his decision and apologising to this couple for his ignorance and misplaced zeal.
   
   On the eve of World Youth Day this item sends out a message that the Church lacks any compassion and understanding of people who live with disability.

   Posted By: Tony Robertson

10. It seems strange to me. Considering that St Cecelia is venerated for her refusal to sleep with her husband. She convinced him to become a Christian and they lived as married celibates.
    

    Posted By: hiniku3

11. Ronk, do you think it is 'unremarkable and perennial' to the people involved? Grow a heart, lose the head.

    Posted By: Pat M

12. Of course Ronk will disagree, but is it time, for the sake of this website's credibility, that his identity be revealed? You say that comments will be moderated, what is meant by this? There is so much well considered, thought provoking, uplifting comment, it is sad to see the site become Ronk's blog site!

    Posted By: bill adkins

13. Now Bill Adkins, while I on many occasions (well... on most if not all occasions really) disagree with Ronk and do get tired of his often hateful and bigoted comments - I do believe the site has a responsibility to keep Ronk's information private. I also have to defend his right to free speech (even if his flooding of comments is frustrating).

    Posted By: David Ryan

14. Bill Adkins, you seem to think a moderator's job is to refuse to publish, or restrict, anything you disagree with. Personally I'd like to see the moderator refuse to publish the personal abuse, gratuitous insults, and the mockery and blatant denial/misrepresentation of Church doctrines. But I guess he doesn't have time. I imagine he appreciates having me show such interest in many of the articles. In my humble opinion my comments are well considered, thought provoking, and uplifting. They certainly provoke you - to think, hopefully.
    
    Only a minority of commenters here sign a Christian name and surname. Why pick on me just because you disagree with me? Why do you so desperately need to know my identity, are you planning to throw rocks at my house or something? And what on earth has it got to do with CathNews' "credibility"?
    
    You apparently think that "Bill Adkins" identifies you. Do you think you're famous or something? I certainly don't know any Bill Adkins, your name may as well be Rumpelstiltskin as far as I'm concerned. How do we know that's your real name anyway? How do you know Ronk isn't my real name? In our multicultural, multi-ethnic society, I've often had occasion to think "That CAN'T be his real name" only to find it is.
    
    Alex, you're confusing impotence with infertility. Infertility itself is not an impediment to marriage (unless the infertile bride/groom knows and deliberately conceals it) and miracles do happen (eg Abraham & Sarah). Permanent impotence, whether caused by disease or as a side-effect of medical treatment, IS an impediment. There's nothing inconsistent about it and it's certainly not "to keep the gays out", lol, this rule has been firmly defined for centuries before anyone had the idea of "gays" pretending they could "marry".
    
    Tony, you don't seem to understand the concept of "sensus fidelium". It certainly doesn't mean "the Church's consistent doctrine must be turned on its head because five anonymous people said they didn't like it."
    
    "the Church lacks any compassion and understanding of people who live with disability" Nonsense. It is a fact, apparently, that he is permanently unable to consummate marriage. It is not compassionate or understanding to pretend that he can. (And pat m, head and heart are not mutually exclusive, we need both. I think you'll find the Church and its doctrines satisfy both the human head and heart, unlike other religions which lean to one or the other.)
    Being unmarried does not inconvenience him in any way. Marriage is a sacrament, it's not just dressing up to have some nice pictures taken and having a big party.
    
    hiniku3, you're confusing celibacy with impotence. St Cecilia, her husband, the BVM and St Joseph were NOT impotent. If they had been impotent, their vows of celibacy would have been meaningless.

    Posted By: Ronk

15. Let Ronk have his say.

    Posted By: paul

16. So, if after marriage, a couple find they cannot conceive, can they therefore continue to have sexual relations? And what if they are successful with IVF? I seem to think there is something quite illogical in all of this.

    Posted By: Mark

17. M/s McSweeney: "The couple wanted to do all that is right by the Church"
    If they and you think that the Church requires everyone to get married, you are very mistaken.
    
    "Each day, more and more rubbish about the institutional Catholic Church is published."
    Sad but true. Even more sadly, many people, including some Catholics, actually choose to believe the rubbish when they could easily find the truth for themselves.

    Posted By: Ronk

18. The only legitimate query this case could possibly raise is not a theological one, but a medical one. The story states only that the man is "a paraplegic" with no further precision or mention of other injuries. As I understand it (maybe some reader who is a doctor can correct me if I am wrong) it is difficult (perhaps even impossible?) for doctors to state with certainty that a paraplegic man is permanently impotent, because new nerve pathways can grow in some cases. And unlike civil law, canon law is administered on the principle that if there is any doubt, it is interpreted in the most generous and least restrictive way.

    Posted By: Ronk

19. I'm not quite sure where to start with my response to Ronk, but I'll give it a go.
    
    First, if you want to split hairs, "impotence" and "infertility" are considered to be different - however they are often used interchangeably. Still, to satisfy your need for this distinction to be made, I will continue my discussion using “impotence” to describe the inability to copulate, and “infertility” as an inability to procreate.
    
    That said, I would like to point out that the distinction is really irrelevant. You stated before that marriage should not “be redefined to mean simply a public declaration that two people love each other.” By that statement, I assume you mean that a key part of marriage is the ability to have sex (ie. the ability to consummate marriage). I’m also quite certain that you would assert that sex must be open to procreation (as Catholic doctrine teaches). Therefore, according to Church logic, if one or both parties in a relationship are infertile/sterile/etc. the Church cannot permit the two to have sex and therefore consummate their marriage (and if the marriage cannot be consummated that is reason for an annulment and therefore the Church cannot allow the two to be married, yes?). Following this logic, a woman who cannot conceive (let’s hypothetically say that she’s post-menopausal or that she’s had a full hysterectomy because of uterine cancer or something like that) should not be allowed to be married any more than this paraplegic man. You suggest that miracles are possible, however I would say that a post-menopausal woman is just as likely to conceive as this paraplegic man is to have his disability cured (and to be honest, if you take miracles into account nearly anything is possible).
    
    The inconsistency I was referring to was: I’m sure nobody would object to a post-menopausal woman or a woman who’s had a hysterectomy having sex with her husband, or getting married (assuming she fulfilled all the other requirements). Or should I give my mum and dad a call and tell them that, sorry, their sex has to stop because my mother has gone through menopause and therefore their sex is no longer open to procreation?
    
    Finally, my comment in relation to homosexual marriage was that the Church’s logic states that homosexual sexual activity is wrong because it is not open to procreation (and therefore homosexual marriage is wrong because it cannot produce children). And yet, (hypothetical hysterectomy patient) Suzie is as likely to sprout a new uterus as (hypothetical homosexual) Bob is. Point being: both have an equal chance of conceiving so how come Suzie’s sex = okay, where as Bob’s = not okay?

    Posted By: Alex Knight

20. David Ryan, would you please point out anything I have said which you think is "hateful and bigoted"?? As I said, I wish the moderator WOULD exclude hateful and bigoted comments.
    
    Sorry for the "flooding" as you call it, but sometimes it seems that just about every other reader who knows the Church's doctrines and history leaves it up to me to reply to those spreading misinformation.
    
    If someone has actually looked into what the Church teaches and has rationally decided he disagrees with it, he has every right to say so. Even on a Catholic site. But I'm tearing my hair out with the flooding of this site by people who clearly have no idea what the Church teaches other than the distorted snippets they get from the mass secular media, yet this doesn't stop them declaring, often in an extremely hateful and bigoted way, that the Church has got it all wrong.
    
    Mark, you too are confusing infertility with impotence. And you seem to be unaware that the the Church clearly teaches that IVF of humans is gravely sinful.
    
    Dear "Bill" (if that is your name - and how do we know you're not using a dozen different names here?), you'll be delighted to know I won't be able to access CathNews for the next few days.

    Posted By: Ronk

21. Also it looks like hiniku3 may not be as off the path as you think, Ronk. According to the Wiki article which this news post cites, in the impediments of marriage section, the following two are listed.
    
    "Refusal to have children One of the goods of marriage is children. A man or woman physically capable of fathering or, respectively, conceiving a child but who intends never to have children may not marry in the Catholic Church."
    
    And also,
    
    "Perpetual vow of chastity [22]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See)."
    
    (Apologies about the double post, I didn't see this information until after I'd posted my initial reply.)

    Posted By: Alex Knight

22. I'm sorry Alex, but impotence and infertility ARE two very different things. If you stated in a school exam that they are "interchangeable" you would be marked wrong.
    
    The other key word you're ignoring is "OPEN to children". IF God decides He doesn't want a married couple to have children, that's His business. It's not up to us to make that decision for Him. We must always remain open to His plan.
    
    I repeat, deliberately preventing children, being unable to have children, and being unable to perform the marital act, are three VERY different things which you have hopelessly conflated in your comments here.
    
    Yes you are correct, a PRIOR perpetual vow of chastity is an impediment to marriage. St Ceclia made it after marriage, as did quite a few others. And as I said, St Joseph's and the BVM's was not a sacramental marriage. It was the Jewish custom that a consecrated virgin would have an older man to "marry" her and act as her protector and provider.
    
    
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

23. I'm posting because there is so much incorrect information written here.
    
    The church has no problem with infertile people marrying. I am marrying my likely infertile fiance next May in the Catholic Church.
    
    But a necessary part of marriage in the church is consummation (at least once) of a marriage. This isn't the Bishop's decision. He just has to go by the rules of the church. The couple is free to marry civilly and live together and love each other but consummation is what separates a marriage from good friends. Mary and the Saints with celibate marriages wouldn't really be married more than civilly.

    Posted By: Theresa

24. I have never met Ronk but would sure like to. His thinking is crystal clear because he is obedient to Christ. His critics are such ignorant bigots!

    Posted By: james ross

25. Thank you for your kind comment James, it's relief coming after the huge pile of whatsit that I had to clean up here.
    
    Moderator, would you please send my email address to James Ross.

    Posted By: Ronk

26. Presumably impotence is also an impediment to civil marriage, and the civil registrar who officiated was unaware of the man's impotence.

    Posted By: Ronk

27. The story was interesting but sadly most of those commenting do not have a deep understanding of their faith. Penny believes in the watered down version protestant "WWJD" pat phrase...while Stan is basically clueless altogether. Americans seemingly always want life to turn out the way Hollywood would presents them...like a fairy tale that has a happy ending. The Church teaching on this is very specific and valid.

    Posted By: Bil

28. Love & compassion??
    
    This is the Catholic Church we're talking about here. Benign concepts such as love, compassion and equality have little place in Catholicism.

    Posted By: Rod

29. The Bishop is absolutely correct. It is not for man to define marriage - it is for God, that is to say, the Church, to define marriage. Just because two people love each other does not make it marriage - I love a lot of people but I am not married to them.
    Sure there is more to marriage than sex - but sex is an essential part of marriage. There is more to a car than the steering wheel too - but the steering wheel is an essential component of the car.
    If the equipment doesn't work, it's not a marriage. Simple as that.

    Posted By: Charles Jones - Athens, GA

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Quake couple's story revealed

   A Chinese couple whose wedding photos outside a mountain seminary chapel were cut short by the Sichuan earthquake say that the experience has drawn them closer.

2. General accused of clergy genocide

   A brigadier-general and three other Rwandan army officers have been arrested on charges of murdering thirteen Catholic priests including a bishop during the 1994 genocide.

3. Switzerland's last executed witch to be rehabilitated

   After consultations with Catholic and Protestant authorities, the Swiss canton of Glarus is to rehabilitate a woman executed in 1782 on witchcraft charges.

4. NZ trial begins for St John of God brother

   The trial on sex abuse charges of a St John of God brother has begun in Christchurch following his extradition from Australia.

5. Nuns chain themselves to Vatican post

   Two elderly Italian Carmelite nuns who chained themselves to a lamp post outside the Vatican on Sunday claim to have been expelled from their convent.