M
Mikeydell
Guest
My sentiments exactly! Well phrased Falco…bravo!
If two married people discover impotency late in their marriage, but love each other none the less then does that marriage now become invalid?
MD
- Status
If two married people discover impotency late in their marriage, but love each other none the less then does that marriage now become invalid?
MD
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
No. If the couple can consummate, it is a valid marriage. If that changes later in life and the marital embrace is no longer possible due to impotency, if it was a valid marriage to begin with, it is still a valid marriage.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Exactly. The problem isn’t that impotent couples can’t have kids, its that if they are currently and will always be incapable of having sex then it is impossible for them to give their partner the right to have sex when they want it. That is one of the components of marriage, it is a part of the definition of what a marriage is. You give your spouse the right to have sex with you. But you cannot give anyone that right if you both are and always will be incapable of having sex. Sterile people can marry. Its not as if the Church is just trying to breed more Catholics. Its that the very nature of what marriage is necessitates that you be capable of having sexual relations.
1
1ke
Guest
No. Already answered above.
C
curlycool89
Guest
That is correct. Love does not enter into whether a marriage is valid or not.
Thus, even an arranged marriages where the bride and groom meet at their weeding at valid so long as they are freely consenting (not being coerced).
If you mean impotent, then yes, you couldn’t get married.
Procreation is the most important part of a marriage. It is the vocation of married people to be (in a way) co-creators with God. That is the very core of marriage.
This also extends to being life-giving to each other. Let’s clarify that one right now. We’re not going to the extreme and saying that all wives are good for is baby-making. That again would be a valid marriage, but a very poor one. A husband and wife by their bond are suppose to draw each other closer to Christ; in effect a part of the vocation is to help your spouse get to Heaven.
Exactly.
The main requirement for a valid marriage (in terms of procreative ability) is the ability to perform the marriage act (to consummate the marriage). Whether or not there is a result (conception) is not relevant to the validity.
F
Falco
Guest
True, one can have fulfilling relationships without living together, but part of being married is being there for the other 24/7. How does one attend to an asthma attack or vomiting at 3am? Jump in the car and drive over? How do you enjoy late night TV if one has to go home? If he wanders off to bed half way through Letterman, does she then have to go home at once because it is not her house?
Mary and Joseph were married, and lived together without sex. Ever!!! Does this mean their marriage was invalid? Should they have not married? Was Jesus raised in a household that was not ‘kosher’? Should Joseph have lived in the next street and gone home after dinner?
So, if Mary and Joseph, who could have sex and chose not to, had a valid and chaste marriage, why cannot a couple who can’t have sex get married too, and be blessed just like the Holy Family? Whichever way you look at it, there is no marital embrace going on in either scenario. So why is Mary’s marriage valid and the other one not allowed?
If Mary is held up as the arbiter of all things wifely, the model we should all aspire to, then her style of marriage should be allowable as well.
Mary and Joseph were married, and lived together without sex. Ever!!! Does this mean their marriage was invalid? Should they have not married? Was Jesus raised in a household that was not ‘kosher’? Should Joseph have lived in the next street and gone home after dinner?
So, if Mary and Joseph, who could have sex and chose not to, had a valid and chaste marriage, why cannot a couple who can’t have sex get married too, and be blessed just like the Holy Family? Whichever way you look at it, there is no marital embrace going on in either scenario. So why is Mary’s marriage valid and the other one not allowed?
If Mary is held up as the arbiter of all things wifely, the model we should all aspire to, then her style of marriage should be allowable as well.
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
That isn’t true. When my husband was deployed and I fell down the stairs, he couldn’t be here to take care of me. When he got a stomach bug, I wasn’t allowed to fly to where he was to tend to him. He called me when he got word that I was injured, it wasn’t serious enough for him to be able to take emergency leave, but I would have to be half dead for it to be serious enough for emergency leave. Our marriage isn’t invalid because we can’t be there 24/7 for one another.
T
thewanderer
Guest
And a Josephite Marriage is allowed, but because the marital rights are an integral part of the definition of what a marriage is it is just simply impossible for a person who is incapable of handing those rights over to someone else to enter into a relationship which is in part defined by the handing over of said rights.
Also, depending on the circumstances, there is the possibility that two such people would be able to live together chastely and morally, they would just need to be sure that they minimized the problems of scandal and near occasion of sin and that they had sufficient reason to live in such an arrangement to risk leading people into sin. It would need to be something they carefully discern and speak with a good priest about to make sure it is ok for them in their particular situation, but it is not something that is strictly forbidden in every circumstance. (Although you would need, as I said, sufficient reason)
1
1ke
Guest
It is a sad comment on how distorted marriage has become in our culture that so many no longer recognize what it is and what it is for.
M
MarshallJackson
Guest
I think the whole problem here is people misunderstand the teaching due to the bluntness of answers on the subject.
If you simply tell me “Yeah if someone is impotent they CANNOT marry” it sounds blunt, intimidating, and a little offensive, and frankly as a newcomer to the Catholic faith, yes, I can see how it can easily scare someone away from the church when they don’t understand.
If you say something with a bit more sensitivity, or maybe explain a little bit with the realization that there are newcomers to this belief and how it works, by adding something like “It is just part of marriage that one partner has the right to have sexual relations with the other”, it is a lot easier to accept and understand. For me at least.
I love my girlfriend, and our love is the reason I want to marry her. We are going to be together because we love each other. And we started our relationship before I even started pursuing my faith in the Catholic Church, and I am by no means saying that I regret the Holy Spirit starting the fire inside of me to pursue my faith.
What I am saying is that I personally believe in marriage being between two people who truly love each other. That is what it will always be to me, no matter what anyone says (Maybe for some people they don’t need love. Good for them I guess, but that doesn’t work for me.) And yes, I believe sex is the embrace of love between husband and wife, and it should be able to be had. And procreation is important in further expanding the love between the two, while being able to share a new love with an entire family.
All this time, our faith in God can be shared and built initially between the husband and wife, and eventually shared with the kids as well. Our faith in, and love for God can also be increased by the understanding that he is the source of that love that we all have for each other.
I don’t support the liberal movements that are going on these days, and I don’t think that it’s right that everyone thinks that they can split from the church teaching/standings on things. But I don’t think that what I think on the subject is too much of a liberal way of believing. It complies with this church teaching, as I don’t believe people can be married without being able to have the marital embrace, but it adds that I believe love can be (and is for me) what brings two people together for marriage.
Our God is a relational God, is he not? I believe he smiles when he sees a man and a woman who truly love each other coming together in Holy Matrimony.
If you simply tell me “Yeah if someone is impotent they CANNOT marry” it sounds blunt, intimidating, and a little offensive, and frankly as a newcomer to the Catholic faith, yes, I can see how it can easily scare someone away from the church when they don’t understand.
If you say something with a bit more sensitivity, or maybe explain a little bit with the realization that there are newcomers to this belief and how it works, by adding something like “It is just part of marriage that one partner has the right to have sexual relations with the other”, it is a lot easier to accept and understand. For me at least.
I love my girlfriend, and our love is the reason I want to marry her. We are going to be together because we love each other. And we started our relationship before I even started pursuing my faith in the Catholic Church, and I am by no means saying that I regret the Holy Spirit starting the fire inside of me to pursue my faith.
What I am saying is that I personally believe in marriage being between two people who truly love each other. That is what it will always be to me, no matter what anyone says (Maybe for some people they don’t need love. Good for them I guess, but that doesn’t work for me.) And yes, I believe sex is the embrace of love between husband and wife, and it should be able to be had. And procreation is important in further expanding the love between the two, while being able to share a new love with an entire family.
All this time, our faith in God can be shared and built initially between the husband and wife, and eventually shared with the kids as well. Our faith in, and love for God can also be increased by the understanding that he is the source of that love that we all have for each other.
I don’t support the liberal movements that are going on these days, and I don’t think that it’s right that everyone thinks that they can split from the church teaching/standings on things. But I don’t think that what I think on the subject is too much of a liberal way of believing. It complies with this church teaching, as I don’t believe people can be married without being able to have the marital embrace, but it adds that I believe love can be (and is for me) what brings two people together for marriage.
Our God is a relational God, is he not? I believe he smiles when he sees a man and a woman who truly love each other coming together in Holy Matrimony.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Of course the ideal marriage will involve romantic love. No one has said otherwise. Romantic love is not strictly necessary for marriage, but it is a part of the ideal state of marriage. The ability to have relations, however, is actually a necessary component for a marriage to be contracted. I don’t understand why you seem so defensive about marrying for love. Marrying someone whom you love romantically is the ideal for a Catholic marriage, the fact that those with a permanent and antecedent impotency are incapable of contracting marriage does not change that.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
I would just like to say, not to be a wet blanket, but love being the primary motivator of marriage is a very recent idea. In Christian understand, probably for the better part of 19 centuries, marriage formed the initial bond necessary for the family unit - the motivation was to form a stable, basic building block of society. Now in virtue of it being a specifically Christian marriage the relationship would be necessarily loving - perhaps not in a sense of the burst of passion you feel for a first love, but nonetheless respect (and yes, eros as well for a phase of the relationship). The marriage is formed and then goes on to produce children and starts to revolve around the family unit.
Nowhere is any presence of initial love a necessary condition. That is not to say it cannot be and love should develop in every marriage. However, marriage is not solely for the sake of love. The Hollywood Romance culture seems to have seeped even into the Catholic Church.
Edit: I didn’t look at Thewanderer’s post above before posting this post but I completely agree.
Nowhere is any presence of initial love a necessary condition. That is not to say it cannot be and love should develop in every marriage. However, marriage is not solely for the sake of love. The Hollywood Romance culture seems to have seeped even into the Catholic Church.
Edit: I didn’t look at Thewanderer’s post above before posting this post but I completely agree.
M
MarshallJackson
Guest
It is just the vibe I’ve kind of felt throughout this thread. People asking “What about living together for mutual love and companionship?” and responses saying things like “That is not what Matrimony is for”… They may not have been able to get married because of impotency, and that is fine because that is the official standing on what makes a marriage invalid. But I think it’s a little far to say that mutual love, support, and companionship are altogether not what marriage is for. Because there are those of us that fully believe that these ALSO (meaning along with the ability to perform sexual acts) play important parts in a successful marriage.
It could just be that I took it wrong, and it is very likely that I just overreacted. I apologize if I come across as overly defensive. I think my final statement and bottom line is that I don’t disagree with the church’s standing on the subject, and I think that’s an end note we can all agree on lol.
I want to leave it at that so that I don’t get in the way of anyone else who has different/more important questions on the subject.
Thank you all for your time and your patience with my posts.
God bless
om
I think the point of the bluntness is that it is not the Church who prevents someone who is impotent from marrying. The Church is simply relaying what is true due to natural law. God is the author of natural law.
It can seem harsh that an institution like marriage is subject to laws just as real as the laws of physics.
Yes. It can sound insensitive. And love is definitely the ideal in marriage.
I think the point of the bluntness is that it is not the Church who prevents someone who is impotent from marrying. The Church is simply relaying what is true due to natural law. God is the author of natural law.
It can seem harsh that an institution like marriage is subject to laws just as real as the laws of physics.
J
JimG
Guest
There are many cures for impotency. I expect that this is a rather rare reason for the inability of a couple to marry. The impediment applies only in cases where impotence is permanent, completely incurable, and present before the marriage.
As has been noted by previous posters, an essential aspect to marriage is that the man and wife offer themselves completely to each other, including the aspect of marital relations. One cannot promise what one can never give. It is not even that they must engage in marital relations, but they must be capable of doing so.
For a positive outlook on Christian marriage, read the “Exhortation Before Marriage,” that in the 1962 rite and previously, was read to the couple just before the wedding vows were exchanged. It can be found here, under the 2nd heading.
As has been noted by previous posters, an essential aspect to marriage is that the man and wife offer themselves completely to each other, including the aspect of marital relations. One cannot promise what one can never give. It is not even that they must engage in marital relations, but they must be capable of doing so.
For a positive outlook on Christian marriage, read the “Exhortation Before Marriage,” that in the 1962 rite and previously, was read to the couple just before the wedding vows were exchanged. It can be found here, under the 2nd heading.
E
Elizium23
Guest
There is a profound misunderstanding of Matrimony today, which MorEphrem explained quite well in his post above. This misunderstanding is what lead many to believe that cohabitation is just as good. A marriage is not merely the way in which husband and wife cohabitate legally. It is not merely a way for the two to satisfy their lust. It is also not merely a way to make as many babies as possible and it is not merely a way to create a stable family structure for children to be raised. It is all of these things and more. Matrimony transcends mere human needs with a holy vocation. It is part and parcel of humankind’s universal call to holiness (read chapter VLumen Gentium). Those who are called to marriage are required to sanctify their spouses, not just love them. They must raise their children with care and tenderness, but they must also bless them and educate them spiritually. Marriage is a need for the good of the Kingdom. If we didn’t need children then we’d all have vocations to celibacy. Matrimony must therefore be ordered to procreation, and this distinction of “ordered” is the crux of why impotence is different from sterility. A sterile couple is capable of “acting” and “looking” procreative, while an impotent couple is incapable of this.
I’m sorry if I implied that that all was not a part of Matrimony. I can see where my statement would lead you to think that and I apologize. But I also wonder who you meant by “they”, because if it is me then I resent the speculation on my private life…
M
MarshallJackson
Guest
It’s okay. I understand what you were saying more clearly now, and I apologize for my overreaction before.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking in terms of who “they” is. I think I was referring to a figurative example of two people not being able to be married because of impotency.
I haven’t made any speculations that I am aware of. I am sorry if I somehow gave that impression in any way.
R
RedSparklyShoes
Guest
What about the people who have no idea they are infertile? A man or woman who is chaste before marriage and no symptoms of any issues, how would they have any idea they are infertile until they start having intercourse and eventually figuring that out?
1
1ke
Guest
- Status