Can a permantly impotent person marry?

[Margie9]

First,
The vows DO validate (complete) the marriage, not consummation. That is an extremely popular misunderstanding.

Second,
Haven’t any of you kids ever heard of a “Josephite marriage”? So named because of the purity of Mary and Joseph.

It is legitimate and acceptable for a VALIDLY married couple to choose to refrain from sexual relations for the purpose of spiritually benefiting them both.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First,
The vows DO validate (complete) the marriage, not consummation. That is an extremely popular misunderstanding.

Second,
Haven’t any of you kids ever heard of a “Josephite marriage”? So named because of the purity of Mary and Joseph.

It is legitimate and acceptable for a VALIDLY married couple to choose to refrain from sexual relations for the purpose of spiritually benefiting them both.

Then I’m with those who are asking, why the heck can’t an impotent person marry? Seems to relate to something that has nothing to do with whether the marriage is valid or not.

 

[karebear92]

First,
The vows DO validate (complete) the marriage, not consummation. That is an extremely popular misunderstanding.

Second,
Haven’t any of you kids ever heard of a “Josephite marriage”? So named because of the purity of Mary and Joseph.

It is legitimate and acceptable for a VALIDLY married couple to choose to refrain from sexual relations for the purpose of spiritually benefiting them both.

It is true that the vows validate the marriage. I noticed my error in my comment. You know more about this than me, and it is always good to learn, so I will ask.

Relating to impotence: does the marital act make the vows valid (in a sense) or is it that in the vows one must be willing to perform the marital act if reasonably requested by the partner? I think it is the latter, which will answer RebeccaJ’s question. Actually, I guess it is both. The marital act does validate the marital vows as it consummates the marriage, but the reason an impotent cannot mary is the latter statement. Right?

 

[Marybeloved]

Then I’m with those who are asking, why the heck can’t an impotent person marry? Seems to relate to something that has nothing to do with whether the marriage is valid or not.

Because refraining from sex by the couple must be a choice.

An impotent person cannot give themselves away physically (at least not completely) to their partner, just like a physically impaired person may be incapable of playing basketball or soccer. Someone can be in the team and not play, but can play if called upon to by the coach- It’s absurd to make a team of people who could not get into the field and play if circumstances warranted it.

 

[vera_dicere]

Clearly I disagree with some posters, and they with me. That’s fine, I still think it’s amazingly unfair and downright cruel to the importent person. Just my opinion.

And what of the person they marry? People can live without sex, of course, but in a marriage, to not be able to be physically intimate with the person they’ve dedicated their life too? How long can someone tolerate that? Say that non-impotent person gets sick of not being able to have sex? They can get divorced, and are entitled to an annullment, especially if they did not know that their spouse was impotent in the first place. I think its a far sight crueller to the non-impotent person marrying without knowledge of the other’s impotence. IF the non-impotent person is aware of teh non-impotence, they’ll likely be judged harshly if they don’t marry the impotent person.

There are plenty of people who can’t, by nature or nuture get married, people with SSA can’t marry someone of the same sex, you can’t marry a five year old, you can’t marry a dog.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Because refraining from sex by the couple must be a choice.

The choice for a woman to marry a man, who is known to be impotent and has not kept the fact hidden, would be making a choice to be married and refraining from sex, no?

 

[karebear92]

The choice for a woman to marry a man, who is known to be impotent and has not kept the fact hidden, would be making a choice to be married and refraining from sex, no?

Yes, but the partner must always be able to change their mind if it is a reasonable request, a permanently impotent man would not allow that option.

 

[Marybeloved]

The choice for a woman to marry a man, who is known to be impotent and has not kept the fact hidden, would be making a choice to be married and refraining from sex, no?

I edited my previous post to include an answer to this which I anticipated a bit late.

She (woman in your example) may chose to do so now, but it cannot be presumed permanent- Remember, marriage is a permanent self gift (in intention) of yourself in your body. If your spouse wanted to quit the abstinence some five years down the road, how would you fulfill your conjugal duty to them?

Besides, the woman may exercise choice in that example, but the man certainly cannot- He simply has no choice in the matter and you cannot freely give something you don’t have to begin with!

 

[Marybeloved]

I find this curious

Awesome! Even though the poor impotent person has no control over their situation, they get punished? So amazing.

Go ahead. Get married. Adopt. It’s a beautiful thing.

They’re getting a choice taken away from them because of nothing they did. It’s a punishment for something they have no control over. It’s grossly unfair.

Clearly I disagree with some posters, and they with me. That’s fine, I still think it’s amazingly unfair and downright cruel to the importent person. Just my opinion.

There’s a certain “rights” mentality in the West that pervades into areas where it really does not belong- The word no longer means recognizing and defending the dignity of each human being, but has come rather to mean giving everyone what they want. Life is more than getting everything you want, and not getting what you want is not necessarily a punishment.

An impotent person is prevented by nature (not the Church), from entering a permanent “institution” which requires those who enter it to give a gift that the person cannot give. He’s not prevented from enjoying life, love and (sinless) companionship and the warmth of community- Humans are more than sex and/or romance and can be very happy w/out them- just ask the many single chaste Catholics who are obedient to the faith !

 

[Sufjon]

First,
The vows DO validate (complete) the marriage, not consummation. That is an extremely popular misunderstanding.

Second,
Haven’t any of you kids ever heard of a “Josephite marriage”? So named because of the purity of Mary and Joseph.

It is legitimate and acceptable for a VALIDLY married couple to choose to refrain from sexual relations for the purpose of spiritually benefiting them both.

Thanks you Margie9! If this is the case, then my question is answered and I have no further questions.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[dingodile]

However, a marriage can be declared null if not consumated.

Can be, or must be?

 

[Rence]

Clearly I disagree with some posters, and they with me. That’s fine, I still think it’s amazingly unfair and downright cruel to the importent person. Just my opinion.

Well, I think it’s unfair too. Especially since sterile people are allowed to marry because “anything is possible with God”. Because who is to say that God can’t fix this too? If God wanted an impotent couple to complete the marital embrace, they would be able to. So if a married man is denied a valid marriage because his medications make him unable to complete the marital embrace, or because he had an accident that rendered him unable, aren’t we putting ourselves in the position of God by determining that the couple will not be able to do so? The teaching doesn’t give God the opportunity to be God and work His Will in our lives.

Also, impotence doesn’t necessarily mean sterile. Artificial insemination (even with one’s own husband) is against the Church’s rules. IMOHO that’s not fair (nor does it make sense to me) at all… but that’s the way it is.

But IMOHO it’s also unfair that a married couple who wants children, who for whatever reason after the marriage finds themselves not able to complete the marital embrace, is still considered to be in a valid marriage (and therefore not able to divorce and remarry in order to have children) because impotency after the marriage is not considered a reason for annullment (unless there was dishonesty involved in the disclosure of that impotency before they married), even if it’s “given” that the couple will never complete the marital embrace again.

 

[Rence]

An impotent person is prevented by nature (not the Church), from entering a permanent “institution” which requires those who enter it to give a gift that the person cannot give.

Actually, that’s not entirely the case. An impotent person is prevented by the Church from entering a Sacramental marriage, which is again, instituted by the Church, not by “nature”. However, one can be civily married in almost any other society or culture, as long as it’s mutually agreed upon. Nature doesn’t have anything to do with these commitments.

He’s not prevented from enjoying life, love and (sinless) companionship and the warmth of community- Humans are more than sex and/or romance and can be very happy w/out them- !

That’s how I feel about it too. And since there is no sin involved in platonic relationships, these folks should just live together. They can enjoy life, love and sinless companionshop in this way as well. They don’t really need to get married to have this. They can get married civilly to enjoy the legal benefits. But I don’t see the sin in it because they’re not in a sinful relationship.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

This is fascinating. I’ve been reading this thread and I have some questions. Let me start with a hypothetical question that’s actually a reality for some people. What if two people who are fully capable of having sex should get married and then after having sex fully, often and with all due diligence and vigor in accordance with the mandates that I’m reading about here, find that they are unable to have children? Are they to have the marriage annulled, or should they become celibate and adopt children?

Being unable to have children, even though anatomically and physiological being able to have intravaginal sexual intercourse, is not a canonical grounds for declaring a marriage to be null.

A couple unable to conceive a child are still licitly able to have sex.

The choice of adopting children is left to the individual couple.

If the answer is the latter, how is that different than a couple who are celibate and adopt children because they can’t have sex?

Catholic canon law prescribes that if a person, man or woman, is impotent and the fact is known before marriage and that it is permanent then he or she may not marry.

How about a couple who are married and celibate because they are raising the Son of God?

What is this question supposed to be asking?

I am totally serious. This is a straightforward question and I would very much appreciate a logical well-reasoned answer rather than getting slapped with a warning for asking an honest question (Eric). God won’t punish you for letting me ask things in earnest. If there are good answers to things they will bear themselves out and you have nothing to worry about.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Catholics cannot marry if impotent. The fact that the person is impotent must be known before the marriage. If it becomes known after the marriage, that is not a grounds for annulment. The impotence must also be permanent; that means it cannot be treated by medicine or surgery. If it is absolute, that is the person is always impotent, they cannot marry. If it is relative, that is they are impotent with a particular person, then they cannot marry that person.

It is a requirement of Catholic canon law that a husband and wife must be able to have sexual intercourse. Both spouses have a right to the conjugal act.

It is not a requirement of Catholic canon law that the spouses must be able to have children. They must be able to have intravaginal sexual intercourse. They must not with hold the conjugal right. They must not use any form of pre-, peri-, or post-coital contraception. However, if either spouse is unable to conceive a child that does not create an impediment to marriage and it does not give grounds for declaring a marriage null.

 

[Rence]

It is a requirement of Catholic canon law that a husband and wife must be able to have sexual intercourse. Both spouses have a right to the conjugal act.

If that’s true before the marriage, I don’t really get why it’s not true after the marriage…

 

[adrift]

Actually, that’s not entirely the case. An impotent person is prevented by the Church from entering a Sacramental marriage, which is again, instituted by the Church, not by “nature”.

Sacraments were instituted by Jesus. An impotant person is not able to do what is necessary to make the sacrament indisovable.

However, one can be civily married in almost any other society or culture, as long as it’s mutually agreed upon. Nature doesn’t have anything to do with these commitments.

Yet such would still be able to be dissovled.

That’s how I feel about it too. And since there is no sin involved in platonic relationships, these folks should just live together. They can enjoy life, love and sinless companionshop in this way as well. They don’t really need to get married to have this. They can get married civilly to enjoy the legal benefits. But I don’t see the sin in it because they’re not in a sinful relationship.

Because most likely they would be assumed to be living in “sin” the sin would be of scandal.

 

[Marybeloved]

Actually, that’s not entirely the case. An impotent person is prevented by the Church from entering a Sacramental marriage, which is again, instituted by the Church, not by “nature”. However, one can be civily married in almost any other society or culture, as long as it’s mutually agreed upon. Nature doesn’t have anything to do with these commitments.

Rence, we believe that the sacramental marriage and the Catholic teaching on the meaning and purpose of marriage is based on God’s original order of man’s being/nature. Our Lord says in teaching the true law of marriage that Moses permitted divorce for the people’s sinfulness “but it was not so from the beginning”. So the church didn’t just invent marriage as you suppose, and the Christian sacramental marriage is based on God’s original design for marriage and the natural law. That’s where the whole understanding comes from.

It’s not the Church that stops the permanently impotent from marriage like a bouncer at a fancy club who prevents the “uncool” from getting in. The nature of marriage cannot allow it! Marriage can’t be separated from the intention to fully give yourself to your spouse in life and sex- And Our understanding of sex is that it is a special unique way of giving your self to another in a permanent fashion- That’s why all non-marital, contracepted, same-sex, or other unnatural sex like bestiality, masturbation etc- is wrong- always! It turns a human into an instrument of utility or pleasure to another, rather than the infinitely valuable being they are by virtue of God’s infinite love of them- Sex done properly sees the other as one worthy of my irrevocable gift of myself. A person that is impaired in this sense (sex) cannot give themselves physically in that complete sense that happens in sex- yet this gifting represents the whole nature of marriage!

That’s how I feel about it too. And since there is no sin involved in platonic relationships, these folks should just live together. They can enjoy life, love and sinless companionshop in this way as well. They don’t really need to get married to have this. They can get married civilly to enjoy the legal benefits. But I don’t see the sin in it because they’re not in a sinful relationship.

I don’t know about this, so I can’t answer but merely offer speculation. I suppose that one can marry civilly for other purposes. But if they were Catholic, they must live like brother and sister, or under the law of chastity that applies to single persons- So all those things (sexual) that do not involve intercourse but are nevertheless sinful for non-married people must be avoided and repented when done.

 

[Rence]

Because most likely they would be assumed to be living in “sin” the sin would be of scandal.

I’m always assumed to be living in sin because I’m single. It’s not always practical (or necessary) to base our life choices on what other people think…

 

[1ke]

I don’t know about anyone else but the above analogy was never really helpful to me in understanding or even accepting teachings. In one case (the person being told s/he can’t marry because they can’t complete the marital act) the person is being told they aren’t allowed to get married, dictated by Church rules and laws. In the other case (men cannot give birth), no one has to tell a man he can’t give birth because he isn’t physiologically able to do so. There’s a difference between being told one isn’t allowed to do something, and actually really not able to do something because it’s not possible.

No they are not being “told” and it is not a “rule”. It is a divine law impediment. The only reason it is not as self evident as a man’s inability to give birth is because of the distorted and heretical understanding of marriage afloat in our society. It has so skewed people’s understanding of marriage that we get threads like these regularly. How could it not be self-evident that a person who lacks the ability to exchange the right to marital intercourse cannot enter into a covenant where they must do so?

 

[Marie5890]

Catholic canon law prescribes that if a person, man or woman, is impotent and the fact is known before marriage and that it is permanent then he or she may not marry.

Real question here. What makes a female impotent? What would make her incapable of vaginal penetration?