Can a permantly impotent person marry?

[Marybeloved]

I find the whole topic nutty and twisted though.

If you have a medical condition that leaves you impotent you can not have a canonical marriage.

BUT if you end up with a medical condition that leaves you impotent after marriage, you have a valid marriage…

It’s all that mental gymnastics, hoop jumping and cognitive dissonance that leaves me going…

It really isn’t that complicated, Marie.

You cannot legitimately make marriage vows while permanently impotent because you can’t promise what marriage requires you to promise. If you make the vows legitimately (without any impediment, like impotence, incest or any other) and the marriage is valid, it’s valid! Nothing can happen afterward to invalidate what has already been validly done, so impotence after a validly contracted marriage is just like any other accident, such as your suffering from permanent parallysis, going into a coma etc- Accidents that are a difficult but legitimate part of life- They cannot invalidate in retrospect or by reverse what has already been validly done- It’s done!

It’s things like this that fuel the fire people have about Catholicism being nutty

I think genuine lack of knowledge of Catholic faith and teaching and prejudice whether innocent or deliberate, and a prevailing culture that has the mirror-opposite value system (if I can put it that way) are what “fuel the fire” they have against us, our faith and our Church.

JMO. I know people will disagree and even try to explain the other side. I guess that is something that the Lord Himself will have to explain to me cause it comes across as really dopey to me… Just being honest.

No problem .

 

[Wardog]

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?

Go to the primary source documents and avoid the confusing posts; this is cut and pasted from Humanae Vitae: I recommend reading it several times closely, as it contains things that may surprise people, including those who claim to know everything about the Church teachings.

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

 

[adrift]

I find the whole topic nutty and twisted though.

If you have a medical condition that leaves you impotent you can not have a canonical marriage.

BUT if you end up with a medical condition that leaves you impotent after marriage, you have a valid marriage…

What do you expect? That the marriage will be not be a marriage retroactively?

Of course it would remain a marriage but he would not be able to marry again if he was permanently impotent.

 

[Wardog]

What do you expect? That the marriage will be not be a marriage retroactively?

.

That is exactly what an annullment does; it retroactively declares a marriage to be unsacramental.

 

[Marybeloved]

Go to the primary source documents and avoid the confusing posts; this is cut and pasted from Humanae Vitae: I recommend reading it several times closely, as it contains things that may surprise people, including those who claim to know everything about the Church teachings.

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

With all due respect my friend, your quotation says nothing of impotence but of sterility which, as has already been explained earlier on this thread, cannot invalidate a properly contracted marriage. Perhaps you meant to quote a different section?

 

[vsedriver]

That is exactly what an annullment does; it retroactively declares a marriage to be unsacramental.

that is incorrect. An annulment does not retroactively declare a marriage to be unsacramental. It declares that there was never a marriage in the first place. You can not ‘undo’ a marriage in the Catholic Church you can only have the Church declare that there either is or isn’t a marriage.

Catholics are allowed one sacramental marriage as long as their spouse is living.

 

[Marybeloved]

That is exactly what an annullment does; it retroactively declares a marriage to be unsacramental.

My friend, I’m afraid that simply isn’t true, even in civil law. Annullments say that no marriage was ever validly or legally contracted, despite the couple’s belief (at the time) that it was. Even in law, annulments have the implication of totally voiding any marital obligations, unlike divorce where you’ll have to divide property etc due to the recognition of rights flowing from a valid marriage though civilly dissolved.

Of course, they are done afterwards- If the couple knew the marriage was invalid would they proceed with it anyway? The invalidity must logically be discovered sometime after the ceremony.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No, but because internet users don’t have to see the people they are talking to face to face with body langauge, many times basic manners are forgotten. Also, when talking to someone face to face I’ve noticed that virtually no one talks the way they do on the internet.

You keep repeating this particular point; however, I think this thread has been conducted in an extremely well mannered way. You also appear to keep avoiding the point that what is being said is not personal opinion but the teaching of the Church.

 

[Rascalking]

Yes

Whatever you say. Word of wisdom though-I recommend keeping that opinion to yourself. If you tell a couple that’s been married for over 40 years that it’s not valid, it might get you a black eye!

 

[Rascalking]

You keep repeating this particular point; however, I think this thread has been conducted in an extremely well mannered way. You also appear to keep avoiding the point that what is being said is not personal opinion but the teaching of the Church.

I’m not avoiding it, I just think it’s wrong. Somehow though, I’ll be able to still sleep at night.

Cheers.

 

[Warrior1979]

You and me both Marie. We’re a lonely island today!

If you look out over the water, that’s me in the raft heading your way…I’m coming to join you, and I have some beer and popcorn to boot!

I’ve made my feelings about this topic known in the past. My concept of marriage has always been that it’s primary purpose is to raise children, not about bedroom aerobics.

God Bless my adopted children.

 

[Rascalking]

If you look out over the water, that’s me in the raft heading your way…I’m coming to join you, and I have some beer and popcorn to boot!

I’ve made my feelings about this topic known in the past. My concept of marriage has always been that it’s primary purpose is to raise children, not about bedroom aerobics.

God Bless my adopted children.

I am one of those adopted children (though not yours! ) so I have a dog in the fight here. I honestly don’t know why my parents never had biological kids-it’s not my buisness, nor anyone elses, but if anyone-to there face, tried to tell them some rubbish like their marriage wasn’t valid, I’d be forced to act quite ungentlemanly. Then I’d feel sorry for the jerk who said that.

Warrior-I’ll throw you that beer and some popcorn! My treat!

 

[JimG]

This subject seems to pop up routinely, but I suspect that in practice it is pretty rare for a prospective marriage to be denied due to the impediment of impotence.

To be an impediment to marriage, impotence must be antecedent and permanent. That is, it must be a permanent and irreversible incurable condition in place prior to marriage—a condition which permanently and irreversibly prevents a person from engaging in marital intercourse.

In exchanging marriage vows, a couple agrees each with the other to give the exclusive right to marital intercourse to the other person.

A person cannot promise what he cannot deliver.

Today there are lots of medical treatments for impotence. Most instances of impotence are temporary or medically treatable. Such cases would not be an impediment to marriage.

And impotence which occurs after marriage obviously cannot affect the validity of marriage vows retroactively. If a person was capable of marital relations at the time of making the vows, the vows are valid, the promise was valid; the person was capable of the marital act when making the vows.

This impediment has solely to do with the ability to complete marital relations. It has nothing to do with the ability to have children, or with whether or not one wishes to adopt.

It has only to do with the ability to consummate the marital act which one promises to another person exclusively in making the marital vows.

It goes to the nature of marriage.

 

[Rascalking]

A person cannot promise what he cannot deliver.
.

Tell that to the Philadelphia Phillies this year.

:: sigh :: It’s been a rough few weeks, sorry.

 

[JimG]

Tell that to the Philadelphia Phillies this year.

:: sigh :: It’s been a rough few weeks, sorry.

I don’t follow baseball much, but surely in baseball no condition is permanent!

 

[Rascalking]

I don’t follow baseball much,

You don’t follow baseball much? Now THAT is a mortal sin!

Get thee to confession!

 

[JimG]

You don’t follow baseball much? Now THAT is a mortal sin!

Get thee to confession!

At least venial. It is after all, the national game. George Will would no doubt consider it mortal.

 

[vsedriver]

I am one of those adopted children (though not yours! ) so I have a dog in the fight here. I honestly don’t know why my parents never had biological kids-it’s not my buisness, nor anyone elses, but if anyone-to there face, tried to tell them some rubbish like their marriage wasn’t valid, I’d be forced to act quite ungentlemanly. Then I’d feel sorry for the jerk who said that.

Warrior-I’ll throw you that beer and some popcorn! My treat!

I don’t see the dog in the fight here.

Why would you think that what the Church teaches about what is and isn’t a valid marriage is going to somehow have people knocking on your parent’s door to declare their marriage invalid?

My niece and nephew are adopted. They are my niece and nephew. I don’t think of them as my adopted niece and adopted nephew. As to why their parents couldn’t have biological children, that is none of my business. If my BIL and his wife were married in the Church why would I question the validity of their marriage? And I don’t bother to question the validity of a non-Catholic’s marriage because I don’t hold non-Catholics to a Catholic standard.

Now if a Catholic on the street walks up to me and announces that he was permanently impotent before he got married in the Catholic Church, I could then tell him that he wasn’t validly married in the Church. But he’d have to bring the subject up first.

 

[SMHW]

Is male impotence that cannot be fixed by medical intervention very common? I would tend to think with modern medicine, pills, surgery, ect, there would be very few instances where this was the case. I’m not a doctor though.

I’m not doctor either.

But I’m guessing --so long as the man actually has his genitals-- that modern medicine could help him.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I’m not doctor either.

But I’m guessing --so long as the man actually has his genitals-- that modern medicine could help him.

There are also procedures that can make a functional penis. As to what effect those procedures have on canonical impotence I am not sure. The technology is new and I doubt the topic ever pops up so I doubt there is a teaching on the matter. In real life medicine has just about done away with impotence.