Can a permantly impotent person marry?

[JimG]

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.

It is a diriment impediment because marriage is ordered to marital relations. Complete and permanent and antecedent inability to engage in marital relations means one can not give marital consent. No marriage vows can be exchanged.

But the fact that marital consent is given and that one is capable of it does not mean that its exercise is mandatory.

(Note that one could not licitly withhold marital relations unless freely consented to by both parties, since by virtue of exchanging marriage vows, each spouse consents to marital relations with the other.)

 

[TheMc]

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.

Good point!

 

[Mudgely]

It is a diriment impediment because marriage is ordered to marital relations. Complete and permanent and antecedent inability to engage in marital relations means one can not give marital consent. No marriage vows can be exchanged.

But the fact that marital consent is given and that one is capable of it does not mean that its exercise is mandatory.

(Note that one could not licitly withhold marital relations unless freely consented to by both parties, since by virtue of exchanging marriage vows, each spouse consents to marital relations with the other.)

… but there is nothing in the marriage vows which state this obligation.

 

[Mudgely]

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.

There is no definition of marriage in Nature. “Natural Law” is neither natural, nor is it law. All meaning is created in the mind of man, and “Natural Law” is a purely human construct and invention.

 

[TheMc]

There is no definition of marriage in Nature. “Natural Law” is neither natural, nor is it law. All meaning is created in the mind of man, and “Natural Law” is a purely human construct and invention.

So you find nothing intrinsically wrong with murder?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It is a diriment impediment because marriage is ordered to marital relations. Complete and permanent and antecedent inability to engage in marital relations means one can not give marital consent. No marriage vows can be exchanged.

But the fact that marital consent is given and that one is capable of it does not mean that its exercise is mandatory.

(Note that one could not licitly withhold marital relations unless freely consented to by both parties, since by virtue of exchanging marriage vows, each spouse consents to marital relations with the other.)

I see that argument as perverse and it makes me want to agree with those posters who say that impotence is an unfair impediment. It may seem very unfair to say to a person you cannot marry because you are impotent. It exacerbates the unfairness to say those who are not impotent may marry but you do not have to have sexual intercourse.

 

[JimG]

I see that argument as perverse and it makes me want to agree with those posters who say that impotence is an unfair impediment. It may seem very unfair to say to a person you cannot marry because you are impotent. It exacerbates the unfairness to say those who are not impotent may marry but you do not have to have sexual intercourse.

Fairness or unfairness has nothing to do with it.

I’m just guessing here but I think the number of people who are capable of marital intercourse but marry with a decision to permanently refrain from sexual consummation is vanishingly small.

The problem is usually the converse: those who marry and wish to consummate the relationship while withholding their fertility.

I argued in a previous post that there was no evidence of impotence invalidating the marriage of Joseph and Mary. But if consummation were a requirement, their marriage would indeed be invalid.

 

[Brendan]

It exacerbates the unfairness to say** those who are not impotent may marry but you do not have to have sexual intercourse**.

When two non impotent persons marry, but choose not to have intercourse, the marriage is incomplete and non binging UNTIL they have intercourse.

That consumates the Sacrament.

Without it, it is similar to one going to confession but the priest withholding absolution.

The person still went to confession, but the goal of confession (the Sacrment itself) did not happen.

Does that clarify what happens when the Sacrament is not consumated.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Fairness or unfairness has nothing to do with it.

Well, yes, I do accept the Church’s teaching. You can, though, surely see this from the point of someone who may be impotent: those who can have sex cannot marry; those who can have sex can marry but they do not have to have sex. I still maintain we are required to consummate marriage. I am not saying it has to be some sort of special event: all it is is the first sexual intercourse between a married couple. It renders their marriage indissoluble if it is sacramental. And, of course a couple who do not have sex may have grounds for an annulment as it may demonstrate one of them at least is opposed to children.

I’m just guessing here but I think the number of people who are capable of marital intercourse but marry with a decision to permanently refrain from sexual consummation is vanishingly small.

Of course, that can only be a guess.

I argued in a previous post that there was no evidence of impotence invalidating the marriage of Joseph and Mary. But if consummation were a requirement, their marriage would indeed be invalid.

I believe that to be a separate matter and do not wish to digress in that direction. Mary and Joseph would have been bound by the Jewish marriage laws of the day. I do not know what those were.

 

[JimG]

Well, yes, I do accept the Church’s teaching. You can, though, surely see this from the point of someone who may be impotent: those who can have sex cannot marry; those who can have sex can marry but they do not have to have sex. I still maintain we are required to consummate marriage. I am not saying it has to be some sort of special event: all it is is the first sexual intercourse between a married couple. It renders their marriage indissoluble if it is sacramental. And, of course a couple who do not have sex may have grounds for an annulment as it may demonstrate one of them at least is opposed to children.

Of course, that can only be a guess.

I believe that to be a separate matter and do not wish to digress in that direction. Mary and Joseph would have been bound by the Jewish marriage laws of the day. I do not know what those were.

I don’t think that the mere fact of non-consummation would be ground for a declaration of nullity, since the marriage is valid when the vows are exchanged. A declaration of nullity might rest, however, on evidence of lack of full consent, or lack of intention to permanence, fidelity, and openness to life.

(PS: I think that non-consummation might be a reason, under special circumstances, for a dissolution of the marriage, but not for a declaration of nullity.)

 

[JimG]

There is no definition of marriage in Nature. “Natural Law” is neither natural, nor is it law. All meaning is created in the mind of man, and “Natural Law” is a purely human construct and invention.

Natural Law seems to have a lot of skeptics, but it merely rests on the idea that things have a purpose.

Take this passage, for example, from an article in Touchstone Magazine:

“The first objection is that it is rubbish to talk about natural purposes, because we merely imagine them; the purposes of things aren’t natural; they are merely in the eye of the beholder. But is this true? Take the lungs, for example. When we say that their purpose is to oxygenate the blood, are we just making that up? Of course not. The purpose of oxygenation isn’t in the eye of the beholder; it’s in the design of the lungs themselves. There is no reason for us to have lungs apart from it.”

See: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f#ixzz1cZFLGadA

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think that the mere fact of non-consummation would be ground for a declaration of nullity, since the marriage is valid when the vows are exchanged. A declaration of nullity might rest, however, on evidence of lack of full consent, or lack of intention to permanence, fidelity, and openness to life.

A non consumated marriage does not recieve a declaration of nullity, but rather the marriage is dissoluable, meaning that the marriage occurs, but it is in a state where the marriage can be dispensed. One or both parties may leave the marriage licitly.

The two have not given themselves completely to each other, and thus the marriage bond is incomplete.

Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

Canon 1061.2 If the spouses have lived together after the celebration of their marriage, consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

It is only marriages that have been ratified and consumated that cannot be dissolved ( Canon 1141)

Canon 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

Canon 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

Of interesting note is that the lowest level of justfification is needed to dissolve the marriage. Canonicall the levels of justification are ‘Just’, Serious and Grave.

A ‘Just’ reason is for any reason that can be viewed as promoting the general good.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

When two non impotent persons marry, but choose not to have intercourse, the marriage is incomplete and non binging UNTIL they have intercourse.

That consumates the Sacrament.

Without it, it is similar to one going to confession but the priest withholding absolution.

The person still went to confession, but the goal of confession (the Sacrment itself) did not happen.

Does that clarify what happens when the Sacrament is not consumated.

Yes, I understand that. Unfortunately, you have taken a single sentence out of the context of a discussion.

 

[Warrior1979]

I wouldn’t start putting words into God’s mouth.

I don’t. My conscience, ill formed as it may be, cannot put aside aside issues that can cause the innocent to suffer for no reason.

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.

God is ultimately the judge, and is well aware of my inborn aversion to anything that may have adverse effects on the innocent. The aversion is not likely to go away anytime soon, as that opens the door to throwing away my humanity.

 

[dans0622]

I see that argument as perverse and it makes me want to agree with those posters who say that impotence is an unfair impediment. It may seem very unfair to say to a person you cannot marry because you are impotent. It exacerbates the unfairness to say those who are not impotent may marry but you do not have to have sexual intercourse.

Hello Matthew,

Perhaps by necessity, a legal discussion of marriage tends to revolve around contractual language. Canon law uses the word “contract” much more than “covenant” when describing marriage. So, comparing the marital contract to any other contract might help you see this distinction as necessary instead of unfair. In order to sell a car to your brother, you must be in possession of the car. If, however, the minute after you sign over the car, your garage blows up and destroys your new car, your brother might say “Keep this car and I’ll keep my money.” The contract was valid and binding yet, for a reason, the parties to the contract decided not to “consummate” the deal. When people legitimately consent to the marital contract, we presume that they have the “goods” and have exchanged them. The contract is valid and binding even before consummation.

You have probably heard of the adage “you can’t give what you don’t have” (nemo dat quod non habet). So, if you don’t own a car, you can’t exchange it in a contract."Consummation"of the deal is not even an issue since it is impossible to make a deal in the first place. Similarly, if you can’t give yourself in a marital (conjugal) act, you can’t enter the marital contract.

This makes sense to me… but lots of things make sense to me and not many other people. I’ve found that out here on these forums. Anyway, I hope it helps.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

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.

Christ’s mother disagrees.

Hello Warrior1979,

Well, when you have the Lord, on one hand, saying “man must not separate” a married couple and then St. Paul says “let him depart…I do not consider the believer bound” (sorry, not sure if that’s an accurate quote from 1 Cor. 7), precise distinctions have to be made so that both these statements can be reflected in practice.

If an impotent man and/or woman want to raise children as parents, fine. They still aren’t a married couple. God has prohibited it, as acknowledged in the words of the Lord regarding eunuchs.

Christ’s mother was in a marital relationship that could have been conjugal.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I don’t think that the mere fact of non-consummation would be ground for a declaration of nullity, since the marriage is valid when the vows are exchanged. A declaration of nullity might rest, however, on evidence of lack of full consent, or lack of intention to permanence, fidelity, and openness to life.

(PS: I think that non-consummation might be a reason, under special circumstances, for a dissolution of the marriage, but not for a declaration of nullity.)

I know that non-consummation is not grounds for a declaration of nullity. I have never said that non-consummation is grounds to petition for a declaration of nullity. The point I was making is that if the marriage is not consummated it might be evidence that consent was invalid because one of the spouses was not open to life.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hello Matthew,

Perhaps by necessity, a legal discussion of marriage tends to revolve around contractual language. Canon law uses the word “contract” much more than “covenant” when describing marriage. So, comparing the marital contract to any other contract might help you see this distinction as necessary instead of unfair. In order to sell a car to your brother, you must be in possession of the car. If, however, the minute after you sign over the car, your garage blows up and destroys your new car, your brother might say “Keep this car and I’ll keep my money.” The contract was valid and binding yet, for a reason, the parties to the contract decided not to “consummate” the deal. When people legitimately consent to the marital contract, we presume that they have the “goods” and have exchanged them. The contract is valid and binding even before consummation.

You have probably heard of the adage “you can’t give what you don’t have” (nemo dat quod non habet). So, if you don’t own a car, you can’t exchange it in a contract."Consummation"of the deal is not even an issue since it is impossible to make a deal in the first place. Similarly, if you can’t give yourself in a marital (conjugal) act, you can’t enter the marital contract.

This makes sense to me… but lots of things make sense to me and not many other people. I’ve found that out here on these forums. Anyway, I hope it helps.

Dan

I now wish that I had not used the terms “fair” and “unfair” as a number of posters have paid too much attention to them. I was attempting to point out how what some other posters have been saying may seem unfair to some people, especially those who are impotent.

I mostly understand what you said. However, if what is being said is correct then I do find it very difficult to comprehend. I can understand why impotence is an impediment to marriage. I know the Church teaches if you cannot have sex you cannot get married and I accept why. Then why also teach that you can marry and then not consummate it. If it is so important that you must be able to have sex that if you are unable you cannot marry but if you can have sex you can marry but do not have to have sex.

 

[Mudgely]

So you find nothing intrinsically wrong with murder?

That question is a non sequitur… or is your belief that murder and non-procreative marital relations are morally equivalent?

 

[jps23430]

That question is a non sequitur.

5 points for the vocabulary word of the day