Asexuality

[thistle]

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

Actually if you look at Canon 1084 in my earlier post impotence applies to both male and female.

 

[thistle]

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.

For example, a paraplegic would not be allowed to marry in the Church as that is a known and permanent inability to engage in marital relations.

 

[CentralFLJames]

For example, a paraplegic would not be allowed to marry in the Church as that is a known and permanent inability to engage in marital relations.

This is getting far afield of the original OP but this is just snowballing into some rather disturbing logical errors to me. I just can’t find a unifying philosophy, principal or even a rational morality here. The Church seems to be inconsistent here in its focus. Is the focus childbearing or is it in giving the other partner pleasure? If the prior then why is there no age restriction or fertility requirement and why does it permit recreational sex within marriage with NO chance of procreation?

This seems at face value to be contrary to Christian values of compassion and mercy and the fundamental God given right of single individuals (of any adult age and fertility) in good standing with The Church to bond as man and wife with free choice if they love each other and are committed to each other.

Here is a vignette:
One of a young and vibrant couple who was engaged to be married becomes terminally ill by accident or by disease and thereby unable to perform their marital obligations. Such by circumstances could not marry in The Church to bind their love to their betrothed - even if life expectancy was short? This means that a person with a flaming love for another and who trusts in God and just wants to live out what short time of life they have remaining as “man and wife” can not participate in the blessings of the marital sacraments. There are implications for inheritance, life insurance and other things as well that may already be bound up in the engagement (purchased a house together in anticipation etc.).

None of this applies to me personally nor to anyone I know but the concept just does not seem natural nor compassionate to me. I hope this is just “doctrine” and not “dogma” because it sure seems to me that its very poorly conceived and is in need of re-consideration. At least there needs to be provisions for a dispensation with the presiding bishop if both couples know the specific circumstances and are genuinely in love and committed to each other. Physical handicap should not be grounds to prevent marriage anymore so than somone having a less than perfect personality or below average attraction as long as both parties are amenable to it.

James

 

[JimG]

Here is a vignette:
One of a young and vibrant couple who was engaged to be married becomes terminally ill by accident or by disease and thereby unable to perform their marital obligations. Such by circumstances could not marry in The Church to bind their love to their betrothed - even if life expectancy was short? This means that a person with a flaming love for another and who trusts in God and just wants to live out what short time of life they have remaining as “man and wife” can not participate in the blessings of the marital sacraments. There are implications for inheritance, life insurance and other things as well that may already be bound up in the engagement (purchased a house together in anticipation etc.).

None of this applies to me personally nor to anyone I know but the concept just does not seem natural nor compassionate to me. I hope this is just “doctrine” and not “dogma” because it sure seems to me that its very poorly conceived and is in need of re-consideration. At least there needs to be provisions for a dispensation with the presiding bishop if both couples know the specific circumstances and are genuinely in love and committed to each other. Physical handicap should not be grounds to prevent marriage anymore so than somone having a less than perfect personality or below average attraction as long as both parties are amenable to it.

James

The vignette does not make clear whether permanent and irreversible impotence is involved; or whether one or both are simply too sick to engage in marital relations. Illness other than permanent irreversible impotence would not make the marriage impossible, since they would still have the potential capacity for marital relations, even if the marriage turned out not to be consummated.

The sacrament of matrimony is called “marital” precisely because it involves the potential for marital relations.

To use another sacrament as an example: A saint who was wholly sanctified and without even venial sin could not validly receive absolution in the sacrament of Penance, because there is no “matter” for the sacrament. No sins, no absolution.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The vignette does not make clear whether permanent and irreversible impotence is involved; or whether one or both are simply too sick to engage in marital relations. Illness other than permanent irreversible impotence would not make the marriage impossible, since they would still have the potential capacity for marital relations, even if the marriage turned out not to be consummated.

The sacrament of matrimony is called “marital” precisely because it involves the potential for marital relations.

To use another sacrament as an example: A saint who was wholly sanctified and without even venial sin could not validly receive absolution in the sacrament of Penance, because there is no “matter” for the sacrament. No sins, no absolution.

Interesting demonstrative illustration with the sacrament of reconciliation.

Insofar as marriage is concerned I would have imagined that the focus would be on the sincerity of the betrothed couple’s heart and souls rather than on the rigidity and strengths of the male’s penile abilities. I learn something new everyday here. I can use this factoid as a means to defuse the feminist who all claim that Catholicism favors men since it sure seems that somone thinks that the church needs to insure that we men can hold up our side of the bargain and keep the women happy.

In retrospect King Henry VIII should have been advised by the clergy to claim temporary impotence to get annulments rather than force a divorce proceeding and a papal showdown. That might have spared The Church from losing the entire Anglican branch over one man’s inability to impregnate his wife. Sigh… how much of history sways in the balance of how a man carries himself…

James

 

[rwoehmke]

For example, a paraplegic would not be allowed to marry in the Church as that is a known and permanent inability to engage in marital relations.

Not so. A paraplegic male who still has his organ can purchase a device that without surgery can give him enough of an erection to penetrate. Obviously the partner would have to be very cooperative. in my opinion the good bishop not being aware of such devices was wrong if that was his only reason. It apparently only has to work once. Penetration occurs. Marriage is consummated. It is a stretch, but it would seem to satisfy the canon. Ejaculation would be quite another matter, but apparently that is not what the law requires.

 

[thistle]

Not so. A paraplegic male who still has his organ can purchase a device that without surgery can give him enough of an erection to penetrate. Obviously the partner would have to be very cooperative. in my opinion the good bishop not being aware of such devices was wrong if that was his only reason. It apparently only has to work once. Penetration occurs. Marriage is consummated. It is a stretch, but it would seem to satisfy the canon. Ejaculation would be quite another matter, but apparently that is not what the law requires.

Interesting. I would have thought that consummation means the completion of the marital act. Penetration without ejaculation does not fulfill that. However, if you can provide me the source documentation on this I will stand corrected.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Interesting. I would have thought that consummation means the completion of the marital act. Penetration without ejaculation does not fulfill that. However, if you can provide me the source documentation on this I will stand corrected.

The commentaries and authorities are pretty much of the same mind on canon 1084, that ejaculation is required to complete the conjugal act. See the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 13 May 1977 for elaboration.

 

[thistle]

The commentaries and authorities are pretty much of the same mind on canon 1084, that ejaculation is required to complete the conjugal act. See the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 13 May 1977 for elaboration.

Thanks Cameron. I went to the Vatican website - CDF but can only find that document in Latin. Can you refer me to an English version?

 

[JimG]

In retrospect King Henry VIII should have been advised by the clergy to claim temporary impotence to get annulments rather than force a divorce proceeding and a papal showdown. That might have spared The Church from losing the entire Anglican branch over one man’s inability to impregnate his wife. Sigh… how much of history sways in the balance of how a man carries himself…

James

But temporary impotence is neither an impediment to marriage nor a basis for annullment.

Plus, as far as I know, Henry had no problems impregnating his wives. The problem was, they were not producing male heirs. He kept thinking that a new wife would solve that, not knowing that it is the father which determines the sex of the offspring, not the mother. So it was his problem, not theirs–causing several wives to lose their heads for no good reason.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Thanks Cameron. I went to the Vatican website - CDF but can only find that document in Latin. Can you refer me to an English version?

I did not realize that it was at the Vatican site. I am not aware that English translations are available on the internet. There may an English translation as an appendix to Invalid Marriage, by Lawrence G. Wrenn, Canon Law Society of America, 1998. One would have to check though.

However, I do believe the topic of that document is treated in summary in ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

 

[thistle]

I did not realize that it was at the Vatican site. I am not aware that English translations are available on the internet. There may an English translation as an appendix to Invalid Marriage, by Lawrence G. Wrenn, Canon Law Society of America, 1998. One would have to check though.

However, I do believe the topic of that document is treated in summary in ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

Very informative.

It is clear that impotence is a bar to a valid marriage.

It is also clear that consummation requires both penetration and ejaculation but its just that the ejaculate does not require fluids from the testicles (e.g. in the case of someone who has had a vasectomy where the ejaculate fluid comes from other glands).