“IT’S MORE FUN in the Philippines!”
Everybody is getting married. From the mere commoners to the members of quasi local royalty, from simple and plain citizens to high and distinguished public officials, from those counted among the general public to big personalities in government – they are getting married all right.
Well, not all really. There are those who, for a deliberate preferential option or on account of an innate adverse personality cause, stay away from marriage.
And rightly so, it is nothing profound or complex that some men and women do not get married for strictly personal to downright constitutional reasons.
The truth is that everybody must be good for something – but not for everything. All are good for this and that profession, for this and that agenda – but not for all these. It is the same for marriage intents and purposes.
It is a well-known phenomenon that there are three states of life for men and women to choose from, viz., marriage, singlehood and priesthood. Men and women wherefore have no less than three possible options on how to spend their lives here and now – with or without reference to the hereafter and beyond.
One thing is certain: Every individual concerned has to fit his or her choice of a given state of life.
Just for the record, marriage is thus known in its essence, attributions and finalities. Marriage is a covenant by virtue of which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their composite life, intended for their own good as spouses and for the welfare of their children – if any.
This is marriage in the order of nature and according to the norm of right reason. Take away its essential nature, any of its intrinsic attribution or inherent finality – and there can be anything but marriage in the true significance and proper connotations of the matrimonial reality.
It is wherefore not really hard to know and accept the truth that there are individuals who are basically unfit for the marital life more specifically on account of a peculiar personality constitution. This peculiarity is in effect dissonant with the assumption of the obligations inherent to the Marriage Covenant – especially in conjunction with its institutional finality of the spousal good of both the man and the woman concerned.
Over and above the purely material plus the carnal and/or generative attributes on the part of both the parties, theirs should be the capacity to mutually contribute to their own good or benefit as qua spouses.
In other words, it is the finding of a clinical psychology as well as the conclusion of psychiatry that by dint of nature, there are persons who suffer from a disability of their psyche such that they are constitutionally unsuitable for marriage intents and purposes – through no fault of their own.
In legal parlance, such a personal disability is known as “Psychological Incapacity” – specifically in conjunction with marriage.
It might be but right and proper to know more about this malady – considering that it is neither fun nor pleasure for anyone to be afflicted by it./PN
