Can a permantly impotent person marry?

[JimG]

Perhaps the general sexual laxness of the present age makes this more difficult to understand. Viewing the matter from say, a 1950’s, perspective, one would have said, ‘the purpose of marriage is to have sex, and if you are incapable of having sex, there is no marriage.’

It is perhaps more an indication of how much we’ve lost sight of this aspect of natural law, that now one might respond, “well what’s sex got to do with marriage?!” But sex always has to do with marriage, and always has, not just in the 1950’s.

Since sexual intercourse is the sole method of consummating a marriage, it makes no sense to pronounce vows which cannot be fulfilled.

A couple might choose, for some good reason, never to consummate their marriage; the marriage remains valid. But if they took vows which were incapable of consummation from the outset, then the vows are meaningless.

 

[Warrior1979]

Perhaps the general sexual laxness of the present age makes this more difficult to understand.

Not everyone frames their argument in this context. I have always framed it in the context that children have a God-given right to be raised by a mother and father. By implication, impotent people are FORBIDDEN from raising a child in such a situation.

 

[JimG]

Not everyone frames their argument in this context. I have always framed it in the context that children have a God-given right to be raised by a mother and father. By implication, impotent people are FORBIDDEN from raising a child in such a situation.

But an impotent couple could adopt, as has been pointed out. The child would have a mother and a father. But the parents would not have a marriage, since they vow their bodies to each other but cannot give them. No, the impediment has nothing to do with children. It has to do with the ability to consummate the vows, at the time the vows are made.

 

[Phemie]

I can find no such requirement. The spouses are entitled to conjugal rights, but they can choose not to exercise them.

Do you have a reference stating something to the contrary?

I think Matthew misspoke. The church requires the **ability to consummate, **not **consummation **in order for the marriage to be valid. It is require consummation for an indissoluble marriage.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I can find no such requirement. The spouses are entitled to conjugal rights, but they can choose not to exercise them.

Do you have a reference stating something to the contrary?

Indissolubility is an essential element of marriage (cf. Can. 1056). Indissolubility is brought about by consummation (cf. Can. 1061; CCC #1627, #2366 ff.).

I think Matthew misspoke. The church requires the **ability to consummate, **not **consummation **in order for the marriage to be valid. It is require consummation for an indissoluble marriage.

I said the same thing. The ability to consummate is required for validity. Actual consummation is not required for validity. Only antecedents to marriage or matters at the time of marriage can result in invalidity. Anything after marriage cannot invalidate a marriage. Failure to consummate is after marriage so cannot invalidate. Consummation is required to render the marriage indissoluble. Indissolubility is one of the essential elements of marriage.

 

[Phemie]

Indissolubility is an essential element of marriage (cf. Can. 1056). Indissolubility is brought about by consummation (cf. Can. 1061; CCC #1627, #2366 ff.).

I said the same thing. The ability to consummate is required for validity. Actual consummation is not required for validity. Only antecedents to marriage or matters at the time of marriage can result in invalidity. Anything after marriage cannot invalidate a marriage. Failure to consummate is after marriage so cannot invalidate. Consummation is required to render the marriage indissoluble. Indissolubility is one of the essential elements of marriage.

What you said that was queried was that the Church required that the marriage be consummated. It doesn’t since Josephite marriages are allowed.

 

[Rascalking]

You should take your own advice and loose the attitude my friend.- I’m not complaining about people who say they disagree with the church on this or any other matter, but people who mock the catholic view as if it’s totally baseless even after it has been explained why the catholic church sees it that way. It may differ from your own view, but it’s valid nonetheless and you can disagree amicably.

I’m not mocking anything, thank you. I also don’t insult people by saying how I’ve explained things “simply” and they don’t understand it.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

What you said that was queried was that the Church required that the marriage be consummated. It doesn’t since Josephite marriages are allowed.

I’m not sure it’s appropriate to prove a point with an exception. As I understand them, Josephite marriages require the permission of the Church. They are an exception rather than the norm for most marriages. I cannot see how the Church teaches that indissolubility is an essential element of marriage and that to make a marriage indissoluble it must be consummated and they make consummation optional.

 

[Marybeloved]

I don’t believe Rascalking is mocking the Catholic view, I think the answers given for the rules don’t make it any clearer to him. And, of course, he’s not the only one. The teachings are contradictory and difficult to understand. The most clear thing about these particular teachings is the fact that they are Church teachings, not that there are reasonable explanations for the teachings. It’s almost like, “because I said so”. A lot of teachings are a matter of faith and trust to accept, especially when the teachings hurt people, and this is one of those teachings because all the way around, people get caught in the middle of what seems like red tape. And I just don’t think people expect people to go through all that in order to be in communion with the Church.

I’m not mocking anything, thank you. I also don’t insult people by saying how I’ve explained things “simply” and they don’t understand it.

First, I have no idea where you get that I was referring to Rascalking? It was he who jumped on my comment and offered “advice” based on his assumptions that I was talking to people who had not accepted catholic teaching as explained - He was of course wrong and my last comment was directed at that.

Second, you don’t have to completely understand someone’s view to disagree with respect- I was complaining about a certain attitude that appeared to me to not express disagreement but mockery as if Catholic teaching on marriage was pulled out of a magician’s hat. If you notice my post (that Rascalking attempted to"set me straight" about) I was trying to show that this is a valid thing in most societies.

Third, Yes the explanations were simple, sorry if that bothers you. Simple enough to allow you to appreciate another’s view point even without completely grasping it and allowing you to respect it while disagreeing with it- That’s what I’ve been doing with the other view points- I don’t think they make total sense, I disagree with them, but I don’t mock them- And I didn’t say they don’t understand, I said they didn’t want to/were unwilling- A just conclusion when after all these pages of back and forth discussions, snide little comments were still passed as though we had not been conversing at all!

 

[adrift]

I And, of course, he’s not the only one. The teachings are contradictory and difficult to understand. The most clear thing about these particular teachings is the fact that they are Church teachings, not that there are reasonable explanations for the teachings. It’s almost like, “because I said so”. A lot of teachings are a matter of faith and trust to accept, especially when the teachings hurt people, and this is one of those teachings because all the way around, people get caught in the middle of what seems like red tape. And I just don’t think people expect people to go through all that in order to be in communion with the Church.

I don’t see a contradiction in any Church teaching. The Church gives reasonable explantions and it is not difficult to understand them.

The difficulty I see with some is that they don’t like the answer so it becomes difficult, contrdictory and hard to understand.

 

[Warrior1979]

But an impotent couple could adopt, as has been pointed out. The child would have a mother and a father. But the parents would not have a marriage, since they vow their bodies to each other but cannot give them. No, the impediment has nothing to do with children. It has to do with the ability to consummate the vows, at the time the vows are made.

The man and woman could also not live together, since they are not married.

 

[Warrior1979]

I cannot see how the Church teaches that indissolubility is an essential element of marriage and that to make a marriage indissoluble it must be consummated and they make consummation optional.

I’m not following how indissolubility is an “essential” element of marriage since consummation is not required for the validity of marriage. Futhermore, non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved.

The indissolubility aspect is only applicable in very specific circumstances, that being a marriage between validly baptized Christians in a valid and consummated marriage. Until those specific conditions are met, it is not an essential element.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I’m not following how indissolubility is an “essential” element of marriage …

That’s what the canon says.

… since consummation is not required for the validity of marriage.

I did not say consummation was required for the validity of a marriage. On the contrary I was very careful to say that it was not. Validity of a marriage is based upon the antecedents and the marriage itself. Facts after the marriage do not determine its validity. Consummation occurs after marriage

Futhermore, non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved.

Yes, they can be disolved but this step is never taken lightly. It is done in favour of the faith, not simply because the marriage is non-sacramental.

The indissolubility aspect is only applicable in very specific circumstances, that being a marriage between validly baptized Christians in a valid and consummated marriage. Until those specific conditions are met, it is not an essential element.

Most non-sacramental marriages are good and natural and will meet the aspects of marriage that the Church considers essential.

 

[Warrior1979]

That’s what the canon says.

Where does it state in Canon Law that consummation MUST take place?

Facts after the marriage do not determine its validity. Consummation occurs after marriage

The issue of indissolubility coincides with consummation, simply because the Church has linked it in that manner. If the couple choose not to consummate their marriage, or they simply have no desire to do so, then their marriage can potentially be dissolved. Indissolubility cannot, therefore, by definition, be an essential element of their marriage. They could certainly believe that it is indissoluble, but by definition it wouldn’t be.

 

[SonCatcher]

Where does it state in Canon Law that consummation MUST take place?

Actually, the canon is that once consummated the marriage is completely indissoluble. The Holy See reserves the ability to dissolve a non-consummated, sacramental marriage if one of the couple suddenly discerns a call to religious life or the priesthood (I don’t get this one, either).

 

[dans0622]

…The issue of indissolubility coincides with consummation, simply because the Church has linked it in that manner. If the couple choose not to consummate their marriage, or they simply have no desire to do so, then their marriage can potentially be dissolved. Indissolubility cannot, therefore, by definition, be an essential element of their marriage. They could certainly believe that it is indissoluble, but by definition it wouldn’t be.

Hello,

Indissolubility is an essential property of marriage and is present from the moment of valid consent. There is often a distinction made, however, between intrinsic and extrinsic indissolubility. Only consummated, sacramental marriages are extrinsically indissoluble. Every marriage is intrinsically indissoluble.

To the wider audience, I wonder how many of those who say impotence doesn’t matter would say a previous marriage bond doesn’t matter. Is the will of a man and woman to marry all that matters? Doesn’t what they are capable of doing or what might prevent them from simply willing a(nother) marriage into existence also matter?

A relationship that can never be conjugal is not a marital relationship.

Dan

 

[Warrior1979]

Hello,

Indissolubility is an essential property of marriage and is present from the moment of valid consent. There is often a distinction made, however, between intrinsic and extrinsic indissolubility. Only consummated, sacramental marriages are extrinsically indissoluble. Every marriage is intrinsically indissoluble.

I have to admit…I don’t think I’ll ever be able to understand all the word games and redefinitions that exist in Catholicism. For example, “ordered to procreation” doesn’t have to be procreative, “intrinsically indissoluble” includes marriages that can be dissolved, etc.

To the wider audience, I wonder how many of those who say impotence doesn’t matter would say a previous marriage bond doesn’t matter. Is the will of a man and woman to marry all that matters? Doesn’t what they are capable of doing or what might prevent them from simply willing a(nother) marriage into existence also matter?

If an impotent man and/or woman wish to raise children as mother and father, I seriously doubt God would prohibit such a situation. That’s the crux of the issue. Period.

A relationship that can never be conjugal is not a marital relationship.

Christ’s mother disagrees.

 

[TheMc]

If an impotent man and/or woman wish to raise children as mother and father,** I seriously doubt God would prohibit such a situation.** That’s the crux of the issue. Period.

I wouldn’t start putting words into God’s mouth. If you think he’s wrong, maybe you should take that up with God, because they only reason it’s in canon law is because he guided the church to do so. Don’t fight it, take it up with him.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Where does it state in Canon Law that consummation MUST take place?

The issue of indissolubility coincides with consummation, simply because the Church has linked it in that manner. If the couple choose not to consummate their marriage, or they simply have no desire to do so, then their marriage can potentially be dissolved. Indissolubility cannot, therefore, by definition, be an essential element of their marriage. They could certainly believe that it is indissoluble, but by definition it wouldn’t be.

Let us, then, look at this issue from another perspective. If the Church does not require consummation then why does She teach that impotence is a diriment impediment to marriage. Note first that it is a diriment impediment and secondly that it is a divine natural law impediment. Why would the Church teach that a person who cannot perform the conjugal act cannot marry and then teach that those who can perform the conjugal act may marry but do not have to perform the conjugal act? I think the importance of consummation is also seen in the fact that an unconsummated marriage, even a sacramental one, can be dissolved.

 

[JimG]

I have to admit…I don’t think I’ll ever be able to understand all the word games and redefinitions that exist in Catholicism. For example, “ordered to procreation” doesn’t have to be procreative, “intrinsically indissoluble” includes marriages that can be dissolved, etc.

If an impotent man and/or woman wish to raise children as mother and father, I seriously doubt God would prohibit such a situation. That’s the crux of the issue. Period.

A relationship that can never be conjugal is not a marital relationship.

This is getting rather far afield. Are you implying that St. Joseph was impotent and thus that an impediment existed to his marriage to Mary? There is absolutely no evidence whatever of that being the case.

Being permanently and antecedently incapable of marital relations is a far different thing than electing not to engage in marital relations.

And yes, any two people might wish to raise children. But unless they are married, it would be an injustice to the children.

An infertile couple would be perfectly justified in adopting chidren. An infertile couple could validly marry because they are still capable of marital relations, which is of the essence of marriage. There could be numerous fertility problems or even sexual dysfunction problems within a marriage; those do not affect validity.

We are talking only about a permanent inability to engage in marital relations existing at the time the vows were taken, and which would render the vows meaningless. A couple in which one or both persons were incapable of marital relations could not validly marry, because they could not exchange marital consent.

Consider: If the ability to engage in true marital relations were not of the essence of marriage, then there is really no objection to homosexual marriage.

Marriage is not just something that is whatever we want it to be. It is ordered by nature to marital relations between a man and a woman.