Can a permantly impotent person marry?

[Matthew_Holford]

Two EWTN priests on national television? I didn’t misunderstand. They went through the differences (infertility vs inability) and they said that a Bishop can allow it.

Then I can only conclude these two priests made an error. It is good that they explained the difference between infertility (sterility) and inability (impotence) as they are different but often confused. The Church only grants dispensations from laws that the Church itself has made. If the Canon Law is based on divine natural law the Church cannot grant dispensations, it says it cannot grant dispensations, and it does not grant dispensations from divine natural law. It is the same as the case of ordaining women. The Magisterium teaches this is a divine law, so the Church cannot change it. Antecedent and perpetual impotence is a divine natural law impediment to marriage ergo the Church cannot dispense from this impediment.

 

[karebear92]

I think the analogies are a little lopsided. You’re comparing something that prohibits a person from performing a job to something that doesn’t. A couple could could have a Josephite marriage, never have sex, adopt children, and live happy lives. This clearly demonstrates that sex is not necessary for a marriage…except that marriage, by definition, includes the capability of having sex.

If you want to make a true comparison, it would be like NASA requiring that a person be able to juggle at least three bowling pins at one time. It’s not necessary for the job, but it it would be required by definition.

Sorry, I thought I put this in there. The only physical problem I would have is if I were literally away from a base and medical supplies for weeks and if I were stuck in space for months longer than expected. All I need is medical supplies. Other than that I can run, jump, lift, climb, and see just as well as any other person. You couldn’t tell that I had medical problems unless I were completely naked. Physically I can do everything anybody else can, but they must prepare for the technicalities and therefore prohibit me or other people for no reason other than a technicality. For example, you have to be within 62 and 75 inches to be an astronaut. Can someone who is 5’1" or 6’4" really not perform the duties that someone an inch taller or shorter can? That is beside the point, however.

I, for whatever reason, cannot be in the military or NASA no matter how well I can perform the task. Fortunately I have the financial resources to be able to afford college and have absolutely no desire to be an Astronaut, so it didn’t really matter. But still, someone decided that, despite my ability to perform a job under every circumstance that has been encountered thus far, I was not enough to do the job. Not because they don’t want me to be an astronaut or in the military but because there may be a time when I cannot perform the duties needed.

Much like having sex in marriage, as in marriage there is a marital debt in which one partner must be willing to have sexual relations if reasonably requested by the partner. An impotent person cannot do that, which means that the partner could not change their mind, which is not allowing a crucial characteristic of a Josephite marriage.

 

[Sufjon]

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…

:ehh:

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

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.

Yes, good points. It is just this sort of litigious approach to spirituality that started me on my path back to my original faith after 20 years of trying to feel like a catholic. I am still trying to understand the whole thing, but what you said speaks for what I feel. There is little chance that I’ll ever return, but my wife is still n that church, so I am still trying to better understand it.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Phemie]

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

No, it declares a marriage to be invalid. It could be perfectly valid and unsacramental.

But validity rests on things before and at the time of the vows, not things that happen after.

 

[Marie5890]

Yes, good points. It is just this sort of litigious approach to spirituality that started me on my path back to my original faith after 20 years of trying to feel like a catholic. I am still trying to understand the whole thing, but what you said speaks for what I feel. There is little chance that I’ll ever return, but my wife is still n that church, so I am still trying to better understand it.

Your friend
Sufjon

I can fully understand why you think and feel this way.
It’s completely understandable.
Sometimes I honestly go
“This is the Lord’s idea of authentic discipleship?” and I ask that without malice.

What, does He send holy angels to spy on married couples to see if they are “doing it?”

When people (Catholics and non-Catholics) hear things like this I can well understand why many walk away or laugh. Or why they are so very skeptical. If not down right cynical.

Sure, Im no theologian nor am I a canonical lawyer. But in the everyday real world, things like this are just bizarre and creepy in my view.

Ah well. I’ve been clear about what I think and how I feel. I’ll let the Lord Himself judge my soul. He knows my honesty and my desire for authentic justice. I’m ok with that.

WIth that, better I just leave this topic. It’s clear that it’s on the “gerbil exercise wheel” of spinning and going nowhere.

God Bless to all.

 

[TheMc]

Sometimes I honestly go “This is the Lord’s idea of authentic discipleship?” and I ask that without malice.

Why don’t you ask Him? He is the one who guides the church. It’s His church.

 

[Warrior1979]

Two EWTN priests on national television? I didn’t misunderstand. They went through the differences (infertility vs inability) and they said that a Bishop can allow it.

I personally disagree with this particular impediment, but what the poster noted is correct. Impotence is a diriment impediment, and cannot be dispensed. These impediments are covered in “Specific Diriment Impediments” in the Canon Law.

 

[Rascalking]

I personally disagree with this particular impediment, but what the poster noted is correct. Impotence is a diriment impediment, and cannot be dispensed. These impediments are covered in “Specific Diriment Impediments” in the Canon Law.

Whenever I see your screen name, I think of a wrestler that preformed when I was a kid, “The Ultimate Warrior”.

 

[Warrior1979]

Whenever I see your screen name, I think of a wrestler that preformed when I was a kid, “The Ultimate Warrior”.

Well, I am a martial artist, and we’re about the same height, but he’s got plenty of weight on me since I’ve never done steriods.

 

[Usige]

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…

The key here is that antecedent (i.e. before marriage) impotence prevents you from fulfilling the marriage contract at the time of marriage. If one becomes impotent after the fact that has no impact on the reality at the time of the marriage. The sacramental reality does not change after the fact, it does not invalidate what was already valid. That is why when marriages are investigated for invalidity, the focus is not your consent right now, but the reality when the sacrament was celebrated. A valid marriage is valid forever regardless of how things change later.

 

[Marybeloved]

I fail to understand this attitude of “Oh this is legalistic spirituality, this is Catholic nonsense,God is spying on married people!” etc etc. Honestly it shows one thing: If you’ve already made up your mind you will refuse to understand even when simple things are explained to you. If you don’t want to, you just don’t want to .

Every religion and cultural society that values and performs marriages as an important part of its practice, must have guidelines for how this is done and for whom and when, based on its understanding of marriage.

In college, we had to learn about different laws of marriages recognized in my country

• The civil marriages which include both non-religious and christian marriages,
• African customary marriage
• Islamic marriage
• Hindu marriage

Impotence was a significant impediment in ALL of these groups because they required consummation of the marriage! In fact most went further than the Catholic church and made impotence occurring after marriage a ground for divorce!:shrug:Even in Jewish practice you’ll find that type of annullment based on impotence. This is simply because marriage is very very important in human society, and you’ll find it treated in the guidance systems of most societies- These systems of guidance tend to be faith, culture or law.

In the Catholic faith, it’s importance is obviously Huge! It’s a sacrament! At par with Holy orders (Priesthood, Bishopric)! It’s what God instituted right after creation and the basis of human society- Why wouldn’t the Church be careful to teach and follow the divine law on it? -Unless the church believed with much of the secular society that it’s just a piece of paper, of course she would.

This is not about “Do Angels spy on people” Honestly after all the explanations that have been offered, this comment is rather silly. Why should they do that? The only instances when “not doing it” would be sinful is if one spouse unjustly refuses another, or if both refuse to do it for selfish reasons- And then it’ll be a sin like any other! Who comes up to you and demands you cop up to all the sins you’ve committed? It’s up to you to repent and make up with your spouse and your God in good time.

 

[Rascalking]

I fail to understand this attitude of “Oh this is legalistic spirituality, this is Catholic nonsense,God is spying on married people!” etc etc. Honestly it shows one thing: If you’ve already made up your mind you will refuse to understand even when simple things are explained to you. If you don’t want to, you just don’t want to .
.

The exact same thing can be said about your point of view…I fail to see how someone CAN NOT see this as legalistic and nonsense! Honestly, it shows one thing: YOU’VE made up your mind, and refuse to understand when simple things are explained to you (comments like that won’t make you friends, so lose the attitude.. You’ve already made up your mind, and an edict from the Pope probably wouldn’t change it.

 

[Marybeloved]

The exact same thing can be said about your point of view…I fail to see how someone CAN NOT see this as legalistic and nonsense! Honestly, it shows one thing: YOU’VE made up your mind, and refuse to understand when simple things are explained to you (comments like that won’t make you friends, so lose the attitude.. You’ve already made up your mind, and an edict from the Pope probably wouldn’t change it.

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.

 

[adrift]

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

I almost missed this. An annulment does not retroactively declare a marriage to be “unscramental”. An annulment means that no marriage took place. Marriage cannot be undone - what God had joined together, let no man separate. Luke 10:9

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The exact same thing can be said about your point of view…I fail to see how someone CAN NOT see this as legalistic and nonsense! Honestly, it shows one thing: YOU’VE made up your mind, and refuse to understand when simple things are explained to you (comments like that won’t make you friends, so lose the attitude.. You’ve already made up your mind, and an edict from the Pope probably wouldn’t change it.

Rascalking, what is your religious affiliation? It says ‘Catholic Mormon’. What is a 'Catholic Mormon?

 

[Warrior1979]

Impotence was a significant impediment in ALL of these groups because they required consummation of the marriage!

I don’t know about those groups, but I do know the Catholic Church DOES NOT require consummation for the validity of a marriage. The Church only requires THE ABILITY to consummate a marriage for the validity of a marriage. There are differences between the two canonically, in that one can be dissolved and the other cannot, but both are considered valid.

In the Catholic faith, it’s importance is obviously Huge! It’s a sacrament! At par with Holy orders (Priesthood, Bishopric)!

Not quite. Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul, whereas marriage does not. Marriage also terminates at death.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I don’t know about those groups, but I do know the Catholic Church DOES NOT require consummation for the validity of a marriage. The Church only requires THE ABILITY to consummate a marriage for the validity of a marriage. There are differences between the two canonically, in that one can be dissolved and the other cannot, but both are considered valid.

Not quite. Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul, whereas marriage does not. Marriage also terminates at death.

I agree with your exact points. However, what Marybeloved said at face value is true. When a couple marry it is a ratified marry and potentially dissolvible. Once consummated the marriage is ratified and consummated and cannot be dissolved. Of course, failure to consummate the marriage does not make it invalid. Nothing after the marriage can make it invalid. The lack of the ability to consummate creates and impediment which would render (an attempted) marriage invalid. The Church does, though, require marriage to be consummated.

 

[RJNEGRON]

I once read a story about a woman who tried desperately to conceive children naturally. She tried everything but nothing worked, she suffered miscarriages. Through no fault of her own, she could not have natural children and was devastated because she wanted that so much. Eventually she did adopt children and she said that she realised that those were the children she was meant to have - her sufferings had not been a punishment, but a blessing because they had lead her to her true path.

We can’t have everything in life. Sometimes doors have to be closed so that we can find the right one. Not everyone is destined for marriage.

Emily you show much wisdom! We often think we know what is best for our lives but God knows better and often has to close a door. We may see it as unfair or punishment but once we accept it and move on we find that He has something better!!! God Bless you!! Bob

 

[Warrior1979]

The Church does, though, require marriage to be consummated.

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?

 

[Rence]

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 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.