Asexuality and Marriage

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

(First of all, my apologies for posting this to the wrong forum if I have. Please feel free to move!)

As some of you may already know, I have identify for some time as asexual (once I discovered that such a term even existed and that I pretty much fit it).

I have had absolutely no sexual desire for as long as I call recall, genuinely and truly. My mind simply does not connect sexual intimacy with other forms of mental/spiritual closeness and I simply have no desire to engage in the physical act. In fact, I have no desire to have desire, so it’s not something I feel I want to correct. Really, the furthest I could ever see myself going in terms of the physical is “cuddling” (so as to promot spiritual/mental closeness) but nothing remotely that would suggest a lead-up to the act itself. In fact, I believe I quite enjoy that kind of closeness. It is intimate enough for me, to be honest. (Let us perhaps leave questions of the “naturalness” or “disorderedness” of such conditions for another thread, if that’s possible, and let us stick to the topic at hand.)

However, I do believe that I am a (heterosexual) “romantic asexual”. I have very (classically) romantic tendencies (some would even call them “hopeless romantic” tendencies) and I would love to find that “right person” with whom to spend my life.

I therefore am wondering if it is possible for an asexual to get married within the Catholic Church. To another asexual? Even to a sexual person, ifthey are truly and genuinely willing to commit to abstention for the asexual’s sake? Or, if they marry, would it be up to the asexual, even if they do not particularly “like” sex, to satisfy the other partner, whether they be sexual or asexual, both on account of children and for other reasons such as emotional support and the promotion of fidelity?

I have heard before that something like “Josephite” (“sexless”?) marriages can be conducted, though, aren’t thsoe simply for the purpose of increasing one’s spiritual strength by refraining from sex? …though I suppose, in my case, especially if asexuality is a kind of natural “calling” to me, I should be using it to further God’s kingdom regardless. But, again, what of the other partner, especially if he is a sexual (non-asexual) person?

I am also wondering if an asexual person should eve consider getting married, since he/she may, in fct, be called to the single life, given his/her “natural”(?) condition?

And, then, as a bit of an aside of the “children” issue. I also am not, to be very frank, a big fan of children, not because I think they’re objectively bad or anything. I just don’t think I’ve the temperament. I tend to be very reserved/introverted and I don’t take to energy/running around/etc. that well. This is not to say that this couldn’t change. I am justr wondering also if this aspect added to my asexuality is not calling me away from marriage. (In fact, I wasn’t quite sure whether to post this in this forum or in the Vocations one for this reason!)

So, where does all this leave me?

Is there any official teaching on this? What do folks think?

Gratias.

 

[Mamanurse]

I am under the impression that you need to consummate the marriage to make it valid. If your intentions are to never be intimate and therefore never be open to children, I’m not sure if marriage would be your calling. I am interested to hear others thoughts on this.

 

[1ke]

I am under the impression that you need to consummate the marriage to make it valid.

Exchange of consent makes a valid marriage.

Consummation makes the marriage (between the baptized) indissoluble.

 

[1990Domer]

You would have to consummate your marriage. Otherwise, it is considered invalid.

 

[1ke]

Two people can enter marriage and refrain from the marital act by mutual consent. This should not be undertaken without spiritual direction.

If either party changes their mind and desires to take up conjugal relations, the other party must do so.

Exchange of conjugal relations is intrinsic to marriage. One cannot deny that right to one’s spouse permanently.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

OK, two different perspectives…

Could you guys elaborate on your positions?

At the very least, it sounds like the marriage must be consummated in order to make it unbrekable, which is obviously pretty important… So, if unconsummated, to me, it would seem that it is not a marriage as it can be broken and a marriage can never be broken except under very particular circumstances… It seems a matter really of semantics in any case…

 

[1ke]

You would have to consummate your marriage. Otherwise, it is considered invalid.

This is not accurate.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Two people can enter marriage and refrain from the marital act by mutual consent. This should not be undertaken without spiritual direction.

If either party changes their mind and desires to take up conjugal relations, the other party must do so.

Exchange of conjugal relations is intrinsic to marriage. One cannot deny that right to one’s spouse permanently.

What if the two spouses mutually consent to a permanent abstention, and very genuinely (theoretically) do so? And, the, again, what of openness to life?

 

[1ke]

So, if unconsummated, to me, it would seem that it is not a marriage

Not at all. It is valid. 100% valid.

It could be dissolved by the Pope if one of the parties petitions.

It seems a matter really of semantics in any case…

Not at all.

A valid marriage is a real marriage.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

This is not accurate.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

The last canon here is interesting. I am wondering, then, if the other spouse, if he is a sexual person, suddenly wishes to consummate and the asexual person does not wish it, could not they agree to part ways and have the marriage either dissolved (or annulled?). Granted, some might consider the asexual’s decision a bit selfish, but, again, theoretically…

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Not at all. It is valid. 100% valid.

It could be dissolved by the Pope if one of the parties petitions.

Not at all.

A valid marriage is a real marriage.

Ugh, but the idea of having the Pope get involved in something like this seems…a bit…extreme. Gotta admit, kinda wish that’d be on a more local level, though I suppose not many cases like this come up…as asexuals make up, from what I’ve heard, anywhere from about 1%-5% of the entire population…

 

[1ke]

What if the two spouses mutually consent to a permanent abstention, and very genuinely (theoretically) do so?

Then that is what they do. If neither requests the other take up conjugal relations, then they live in continence.

And, the, again, what of openness to life?

There is no requirement to have children. If one engages in the marital act, one may not contracept. Spouses are free to abstain by mutual consent, periodically or permanently.

That said, I would not hold my breath for a spouse who wants to enter into marriage and refrain from sex their entire life. It is rare, and would need to be based on a mutual call to a higher spiritual purpose, not because you don’t like the idea of sex or have no attraction. My advice to someone in that situation would be to go to the doctor and have their endocrine system checked out.

 

[1ke]

have the marriage either dissolved (or annulled?).

Dissolution of the bond and a decree of nullity are not the same thing.

You could not validly enter marriage predicated on the condition of no sex, nor with the intent to petition for dissolution if the other spouse requests sex.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Then that is what they do. If neither requests the other take up conjugal relations, then they live in continence.

There is no requirement to have children. If one engages in the marital act, one may not contracept. Spouses are free to abstain by mutual consent, periodically or permanently.

That said, I would not hold my breath for a spouse who wants to enter into marriage and refrain from sex their entire life. It is rare, and would need to be based on a mutual call to a higher spiritual purpose, not because you don’t like the idea of sex or have no attraction. My advice to someone in that situation would be to go to the doctor and have their endocrine system checked out.

Aaaand, here we go with the natural vs. not issue, as if all asexuals need to be “cured” even if they have no desire to be… I knew that would take about 5 minutes… Look up "asexuality’ and learn about our inclinations (or lack thereof). Delve into our “world” just a little and you’ll understand that most if not all of us have no desire to desire and thus no desire to be “cured”. We consider it, rightly or wrongly (and this is indeed still a matter I myself have been still pondering) a matter of personal preference. We don’t consider sex objectively “bad”. We just don’t happen to enjoy it or even the thought of it. Most of us consider it a “difference”. Sure, asexuality is rare, but that, arguably, doesn’t make it necessarily “bad” just because of this. People disliking chocolate are rare, but we don’t consider this a “bad” thing (at least not objectively). But, again, if we could, let us try to remain on the primary topic at hand.

Isn’t sex supposed to give the participants “pleasure” along with producing children? If one partner has no pleasure in it, why would they be required to participate in it, especially if the other partner has agreed to abstain on the first partner’s behalf?

And, yes, I realize this is unusual certainly for a sexual person to be able to commit as I suggest and, sure, it would have to be given serious, SERIOUS consideration beforehand, I would agree.

 

[1ke]

Aaaand, here we go with the natural vs. not issue, as if all asexuals need to be “cured” even if they have no desire to be…

There you go again with the word “all” and attributing to me something I did not say. If one has not had one’s endocrine system checked, then how does one know that there is not a physical issue that can be corrected? Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn’t.

But, yes, men and women are made to reproduce sexually.

not all of us have no desire to desire and thus no desire to be “cured”. We consider it, rightly or wrongly (and this is indeed still a matter I myself have been still pondering) a matter of personal preference.

Which doesn’t mean that there is nothing wrong, objectively speaking.

I said is would suggest getting a physical. I didn’t says anyone would be obliged to act on that suggestion.

Isn’t sex supposed to give the participants “pleasure” along with producing children? If one partner has no pleasure in it, why would they be required to participate in it,

Because it is integral to marriage. In marriage one pledges fidelity and perpetuity in the exchange of consent. One cannot extract a promise of fidelity and deny the conjugal act permanently. It can lead the other to sin through masturbation or adultery because they have also pledged perpetuity, they cannot seek sexual intimacy elsewhere.

Read Augustine on the matter.

especially if the other partner has agreed to abstain on the first partner’s behalf?

Only so long as they mutually agree to abstain. One cannot predicate consent on requiring continence absolutely.

 

[Anglewannabe]

I therefore am wondering if it is possible for an asexual to get married within the Catholic Church. To another asexual? Even to a sexual person, ifthey are truly and genuinely willing to commit to abstention for the asexual’s sake? .

No sane sexual person would agree to marry an asexual person and agree to no sex ever. I seriously doubt that would happen.

Personally, I have to wonder what your gender and age are. Women don’t hit their sexual peak until their 30s. Never in my younger days did I understand sexual temptation. It is not until I was mid 30s that I realized you it can be a struggle at times to remain pure. Perhaps when you are older you will see it differently

Angie

 

[Kelfa28]

No sane sexual person would agree to marry an asexual person and agree to no sex ever. I seriously doubt that would happen.

Angie

I completely agree.

It’s not realistic.

You don’t physically have to have children in order to have a valid marriage. However, one should enter the Sacrament of Marriage with the intent of starting a family.

Marriage is the foundation for families. That is it’s purpose.

 

[GEddie]

Unless you find a male asexual, I’d say marriage would be the wrong path. Remember, if he changed his mind, you’d be required to acquiesce.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MT1926]

I would just say tread carefully and be open and honest with whomever you decide to form a relationship with. Sexual intimacy is the strongest bond between a husband and wife. The sexual bond is the only gift you can give your spouse that he cannot get from anyone else. The lack of sexual intimacy can be devastating to a marriage. There is actually another thread about this currently.

God bless

 

[spedteacherita]

What if the two spouses mutually consent to a permanent abstention, and very genuinely (theoretically) do so? And, the, again, what of openness to life?

Why not? If you want children but do not want to be intimately and physically together in the act of sex there are so many children who need good homes either to be fostered or adopted. So many options out there for that.

Blessings,

Rita