Asexuality

[strngrnrth]

Where does the Church stand on asexulas – primary and secondary, partial and absolute, elective and nonelective, romantic and nonromantic, male and female? Where do such persons stand? What are the rights and roles available to asexuals?

 

[joeybaggz]

Where does the Church stand on asexulas – primary and secondary, partial and absolute, elective and nonelective, romantic and nonromantic, male and female? Where do such persons stand? What are the rights and roles available to asexuals?

The physical expresson of human sexuality is to be found only in the sacrament of matrimony. All other physical expression of human sexuality are disordered/sinful. Asexual persons, and I’m assuming you mean people who either don’t engage in sexual activity, or are incapable of it, commit no sin.

All persons are to be treated with the dignity inherent in them insofar as they are created in the image and likeness of God, and are eternally loved by their heavenly father. They have the same rights as all men and women, and the roles they choose are no different than anyone elses.

If your question is whether they have a specific role to play in God’s plan because of their asexuality, I think your question needs to be more specific.

My two cents.

 

[strngrnrth]

I’ve read that marriage is out of the question. What about adoption? Can a romantic asexual have a roommate/romantic partner? Can such a pair raise a child? Foster children? Is elective asexuality (someone with a low but not totally nonexistent physical interest in sex choosing to ignore the few minor impulses that do happen, not as giving something up but to avoid revulsion) acceptable? Is it a form of abstinence even though it is differently motivated?

 

[Dale_M]

I’ve read that marriage is out of the question.

Why would that be? The Church has a small tradition of celibate marriages - they are often referred to as as Josephite marriage (after St. Joseph, who, of course, did not have sex with Mary).

What about adoption?

I think intentionally creating a one parent family would be unfair to the child. Of course, many children are raised by one parent. But it isn’t the ideal.

Can a romantic asexual have a roommate/romantic partner?

It is an interesting question. Yes, the Church has tradition of Josephite marriage, but it also discourages non-marital live-in relationships as being an occasion to sin.

Can such a pair raise a child? Foster children?

A male and female couple? I don’t see why the Church would object to that.

Is elective asexuality (someone with a low but not totally nonexistent physical interest in sex choosing to ignore the few minor impulses that do happen, not as giving something up but to avoid revulsion) acceptable? Is it a form of abstinence even though it is differently motivated?

Those are good questions. It relates to the issue of singlehood as a vocation. I think historically the Church has not encouraged such things, but I am willing to learn from others.

 

[Other_Eric]

The human body is designed by God as sexual in nature. Any mindset or condition that spurns this design is disordered. For all the reasons that would apply to those with same-sex attractions, those with no sexual attractions find themselves in a woeful state of pathology. Their superficial abstinence is, far from being virtuous, in reality, a counterfeit chastity that is a product of a diseased psychology. Such people merit pity, not awe.

 

[Howard_Roark]

There are some good Catholic medical ethics texts that deal specifically with the great variance in human genatalia. In order to marry two people, a priest has to be reasonably sure that they can consumate their marriage.

Modern medical science has given humanity (and the Church) many wonderful advantages here.

Surgical techniques can restore function to sex organs which, in an earlier age, would have rendered a person unable to consummate a marriage and thus unable to licitly be married by the Church.

However, care must be exercised, because as has been observed in recent decades, overzealous surgeons working with, for instance, hermaphroditic patients, can incorrectly “assign” them a gender, leading to psycological problems later in life.

Being simply “uninterested” in sex is not a sin, and the celibate vocation is open to any person, not just religious. However, medicine may be able to treat these conditions if they are the result of hormonal abnormalities. Treating a legitimate mendical condition to restore natural function to the body is an objectively good thing.

Medical science moves very quickly, and it’s always necessary to use caution and good judgement when dealing with new medical technologies whose full moral ramifications are not understood.

Interesting topic. Would be nice if it could be narrowed down a bit.

 

[Cordelil]

Where does the Church stand on asexulas – primary and secondary, partial and absolute, elective and nonelective, romantic and nonromantic, male and female? Where do such persons stand? What are the rights and roles available to asexuals?

You bring up a good issue. I was married once and that ended in divorce. My current thinking is that I am an asexual male. So, I am curious on where the Church stands on this. Is it appropriate or not? I have read enough to know their stance on hetero and homosexuals but am clueless about those like me.

John

 

[thistle]

Those who know better may correct me but my understanding is that for a marriage to be valid it MUST be consummated. That is why an impotent man (assuming no medical help can work) cannot get married in a Catholic Church.
Likewise if the Church would be told in advance that a couple have no intention of consummating the marriage I would think such a marriage would not be allowed to take place in a Catholic Church.

 

[JimG]

Those who know better may correct me but my understanding is that for a marriage to be valid it MUST be consummated. That is why an impotent man (assuming no medical help can work) cannot get married in a Catholic Church.
Likewise if the Church would be told in advance that a couple have no intention of consummating the marriage I would think such a marriage would not be allowed to take place in a Catholic Church.

No, a marriage is valid when the vows are exchanged. Consummation ratifies the marriage.

 

[thistle]

No, a marriage is valid when the vows are exchanged. Consummation ratifies the marriage.

If consummation does not take place the marriage can be annulled. This means by virtue of non-consummation the marriage was not valid. A valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

Impotence prevents a man getting married in the Catholic Church because the marriage cannot be consummated.

 

[PaulDupre]

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

• Matt 19:12

God love you,
Paul

 

[CentralFLJames]

If consummation does not take place the marriage can be annulled. This means by virtue of non-consummation the marriage was not valid. A valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

Impotence prevents a man getting married in the Catholic Church because the marriage cannot be consummated.

This is an area that never made a lot of logical sense to me. Age usually renders women infertile as the approach age 50ish. Age also has a bearing on various levels of reproductive dysfunction in men (and women too). It seems at face value that it is an inconsistent position to disallow men from marrying due to impotence but permit a woman who could not conceive. What if the man was virile but was sterile? I personally don’t ever recollect anyone asking this question as a precondition to marriage during pre-cana preparations. Further does anyone have personal knowledge of ANY marriage being disallowed by The Church for impotence? And who is to say that the woman MUST report her husband for failure to consummate the union? I bet ther are less than 100 cases per year of this worldwide.

But the most troubling issue here to me is what about the very real condition for widowed senior citizens to remarry who can never have a realistic expectation of being fertile and may be willing to ignore impotency in exchange for the marriage bond. Are these people expected to remain alone for the rest of their lives after a certain age or if they “can not perform” with an expectation of producing children?

James

 

[PaulDupre]

If consummation does not take place the marriage can be annulled. This means by virtue of non-consummation the marriage was not valid. A valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

Impotence prevents a man getting married in the Catholic Church because the marriage cannot be consummated.

This is not Catholic Doctrine. I heard of one diocese in South America where an impotent man was barred from marriage, but this was an aberration and not normal Catholic procedure.

It is true that someone seeking an annulment is more likely to get it if the marriage has never been consummated. But that does not mean that the inability to consummate bars one from marriage.

Paul

 

[exoflare]

Where does the Church stand on asexulas – primary and secondary, partial and absolute, elective and nonelective, romantic and nonromantic, male and female? Where do such persons stand? What are the rights and roles available to asexuals?

They have the same rights as everyone else. What exactly are you talking about?

 

[Dale_M]

This is not Catholic Doctrine. I heard of one diocese in South America where an impotent man was barred from marriage, but this was an aberration and not normal Catholic procedure.

It is true that someone seeking an annulment is more likely to get it if the marriage has never been consummated. But that does not mean that the inability to consummate bars one from marriage.

Actually Canon Law 1084.1 states: “antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.”

It was invoked recently by an Italian bishop who refused to allow a paraplegic man to get married.
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080609/lf_afp/italyreligionchristianoffbeat_080609060423

Canon Law 1084.2 goes on to say:“if the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.”

I wonder if, given current or future techniques of medicine whether any impotence can be said to be permanent. But apparently Bishop Chiarinelli didn’t have such concern.

 

[thistle]

This is not Catholic Doctrine. I heard of one diocese in South America where an impotent man was barred from marriage, but this was an aberration and not normal Catholic procedure.

It is true that someone seeking an annulment is more likely to get it if the marriage has never been consummated. But that does not mean that the inability to consummate bars one from marriage.

Paul

That is not correct. An infertile man marry in the Church but not an impotent one.

Can. 1084 §1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, **by its very nature invalidates marriage. **
§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

§3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

 

[bugz2007]

There’s a difference between physical inability to participate in the marital embrace (impotence) and simply choosing not to participate once married. The trouble with impotence is that it would prevent a couple from ever participating in that embrace, and with knowledge of such a barrier, they could not be open to life. However, in the case of choosing not to participate (either in the case of a Josephite marriage or even during the cycles of NFP), in abstaining, they also acknowledge their ability to participate in that embrace if they choose, and acknowledge that if they were to do so, they would happily accept children if they were blessed with them as a result. Failure to consummate would not automatically invalidate a marriage, as long as the intentions were honorable. Seems to me that using such an argument when seeking an annulment would be an abuse of the system.

Also, asexual does not equal impotent. One is a choice, while the other is an inability. I would hope that if an asexual person were to enter into a marriage, they would have discussed such with their future spouse and the decision to abstain would be an honorable, mutual decision. If so, I can not imagine that there would be anything wrong with such.

 

[JimG]

A few clarifications:

Pre-existing and permanent impotence is an impediment to contracting a valid marriage.

Temporary impotence of whatever sort is not an impediment.
Impotence which can be cured is not an impediment.

Infertility is not an impediment to contracting a valid marriage.

A marriage becomes valid upon the exchange of vows.

Consummation seals the marriage and makes it permanent and indissoluble. It is a consummation of an already valid marriage.

An unconsummated marriage could under certain circumstances, be dissolved; but it was a valid marriage.

Some references:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=189716&highlight=marriage+consummation

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/sacraments/index.html

 

[CentralFLJames]

I hate to be a rebel rouser here but this entire area bothers me.

So can anyone explain the rationale of why impotence of only the male renders the marriage voidable/nullable while infertility by either or both does not?

I am trying to get to the core principal here. What is the church being concerned about here? It it being able to procreate or is it centered on being able to please the other partner? This latter thing does not seem to be symetrically fair - what about frigidity in the female or lack of desire? What about couples marrying with full knowledge that the male in impotent but they intended to adopt children and waive the apparent church mandated necessity for at least one having an orgasm?

And just how is a “good Catholic” male supposed to know if he is impotent or not before marriage if he is keeping himself chaste and not thinking illicit thoughts and does not have the experience to know that random erections are often normal but not necessarily so in men - especially in the morning?

James

 

[JimG]

So can anyone explain the rationale of why impotence of only the male renders the marriage voidable/nullable while infertility by either or both does not?

Others may be able to answer this more definitively, but I’ll give it a shot.

I’m guessing that permanent and irreversible impotence is rather rare. There are so many drugs and medical procedures available that any bout of impotence is not likely to be both permanent and irreversible. So I think that the ability to consummate the marriage is assumed unless the converse is definitely known.

Since the marriage vows essentially give the parties rights to each other’s bodies for the purpose of marital relations, permanent and irreversible inability to engage in marital relations would render the vows void.

One can engage in marital relations in a natural manner without the act being fertile; There is never any guarantee of fertility; that’s why we say that children are a gift, not a right.

Some people have higher sex drives than others. A valid marriage can be contracted even between persons with very low sex drives. But the marriage has to be at least potentially capable of being consummated in order for the marriage vows to be validly spoken.