Can Impotent Catholics Marry?

[benidict]

Do you really not get it. Are you unaware that Catholics MUST accept ALL Church teachings. Its not that caoindealbhan is impotent that endangers his soul. Its the fact he rejects the Church teaching that is heresy. Also see his other threads. He admits to rejecting many Church teachings.
By the way becoming impotent after you are married is not an issue unless you engage in sexual activities which cannot be open to life. Being impotent prior to marriage, knowing that and if nothing medically can be done to remedy it then the Church will not marry such a person.

Interesting rules, coming from a Group of men who shifted pedophiles around the world, to keep them from being convicted, and covering up alot of crimes. Is THIS the infallible Magestirium? The only one who is infallible is the POPE. and ONLY when he speaks from the chair. You are giving special status to a group of mortal, failable men. some of whom have planted and protected predators in among the flock. And THEY want to teach ME about MORALITY???!! Really?!! WOW!! dont look behind that curtain dorothy, you just may find out the wizard is NOT what he is wanting others to think he is.

 

[dans0622]

In all reality, I wasn’t aware of this teaching. I probably have heard it before, just not thought about it.

My uncle is paralyzed from the waste down, sexual organs included. He served in the Gulf War, although his injury is unrelated. He is currently engaged. As a practicing Catholic, he has every intention of being married in a Catholic church. In effect - he’s impotent. I find it troubling that because of his medical state, that he could be denied the sacrament of marriage and subsequently be declared a heretic if he were to dissent from the teaching of the Church. It is evident that he is in love with his fiance, but because of his sexual impotence - he should be denied the love, companionship, and beauty of marriage. These are times where I find full communion with Rome especially difficult.

God Bless!

Hello LoveOfMan,

There is, of course, a “gray area” here since the typical couple would go to the priest, fill out the typical forms, and answer the usual questions. One such question would regard canonical impediments or, perhaps, be specifically about impotence. A person might be pretty sure that some “parts” aren’t working anymore but if the couple is living chastely, they wouldn’t know for sure. There are also, as mentioned before, many medical treatments available these days. So, there can still be some doubt about the fact of impotence. In that case, the priest would have no right to impede the marriage. If a couple was sure that either one was 100% impotent but decided to keep that information private (perhaps they didn’t even know that impotence was an impediment), they would go ahead with the wedding and no one would have any idea of the issue.

If it is manifestly obvious that a person is incapable of intercourse, the impediment to marriage is not something the Church declared independently. The nature of marriage, which is from God, necessarily includes the ability to have heterosexual intercourse. That’s just the way it is, as one can see in Scripture (the “one flesh” terminology). If the Church were to say that the ability to engage in heterosexual intercourse was not an essential part of marriage, we would have big problems and our understanding of marriage would fall apart.

Prayers for you and your uncle.

Dan

 

[KostyaJMJ]

It is worth noting that impotence is very rarely unable to be treated thanks to modern science so in most cases this isn’t really an issue anymore.

Perhaps that is true with medical impotence, but I’m not so sure if that is the case with canonical impotence. It is possible for a man to be medically potent but still be considered canonically impotent. The whole issue seems rather confusing to me.

 

[thistle]

Interesting rules, coming from a Group of men who shifted pedophiles around the world, to keep them from being convicted, and covering up alot of crimes. Is THIS the infallible Magestirium? The only one who is infallible is the POPE. and ONLY when he speaks from the chair. You are giving special status to a group of mortal, failable men. some of whom have planted and protected predators in among the flock. And THEY want to teach ME about MORALITY???!! Really?!! WOW!! dont look behind that curtain dorothy, you just may find out the wizard is NOT what he is wanting others to think he is.

Are you also stating here publicly that you reject one or more of the Church teachings?

 

[Rock_Happy]

Interesting rules, coming from a Group of men who shifted pedophiles around the world, to keep them from being convicted, and covering up alot of crimes. Is THIS the infallible Magestirium? The only one who is infallible is the POPE. and ONLY when he speaks from the chair. You are giving special status to a group of mortal, failable men. some of whom have planted and protected predators in among the flock. And THEY want to teach ME about MORALITY???!! Really?!! WOW!! dont look behind that curtain dorothy, you just may find out the wizard is NOT what he is wanting others to think he is.

Maybe someone can clarify the political vs the moral leadership role of the Church hierarchy for me. The Church handled that problem just as any large corporation, or political party might have, doing whatever they could to minimize damage to reputation by covering up, and doing whatever they could to minimize legal exposure and expense. No doubt, preserving the good name of the Church is important. But the nagging question is: “Where was the moral leadership?” Were the leaders of the Church setting an example for us to emulate?

 

[Rock_Happy]

I found an interesting article on wikipedia. It states:

Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates “true semen” into the woman’s vagina. (See [1] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment

Basically it means that if the impotence was in existence BEFORE the marriage, and it can’t be cured, or if there is doubt if the impotence is permanent you could get married.

I would consult a canon lawyer.

Clearly, post menopausal women may not marry, in the Catholic Church. Seems rather odd to me.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I found an interesting article on wikipedia. It states:

Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates “true semen” into the woman’s vagina. (See [1] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment

Basically it means that if the impotence was in existence BEFORE the marriage, and it can’t be cured, or if there is doubt if the impotence is permanent you could get married.

I would consult a canon lawyer.

I take it then, that if a male is on medication which prevents erection, and is unable to use ED drugs - say due to low BP, or injections are not an option, that he may not marry. Often, these meds are required for life threatening health conditions, and are taken for life. Or may he marry because theoretically, he could stop the meds and would be able to have vaginal intercourse under that condition?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Clearly, post menopausal women may not marry, in the Catholic Church. Seems rather odd to me.

“sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage”

 

[salusanimarum17]

Maybe someone can clarify the political vs the moral leadership role of the Church hierarchy for me. The Church handled that problem just as any large corporation, or political party might have, doing whatever they could to minimize damage to reputation by covering up, and doing whatever they could to minimize legal exposure and expense. No doubt, preserving the good name of the Church is important. But the nagging question is: “Where was the moral leadership?” Were the leaders of the Church setting an example for us to emulate?

“The Church” handled the problem the like everyone else did, whether corporation, school, family: keep quiet. That is still the way it usually is for sexual abuse of minors, especially in families. Nobody wants it publicly known. People tended to think of the Church (the parish priest) as part of the family. Obviously, it was a bad idea. But, people still make the decision, even to this day, to keep abuse private for various reasons. That is their choice. Moral leadership? Maybe there wasn’t any. Setting an example? No. Following an example. These days, I think it can be said that the Church is setting an example.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I am failing to see the point of differentiating between sterility and impotence. Making babies is impossible under either condition, except in the case of using artificial means for and impotent male. What exactly is meant by an impotent female in the Canon?

 

[OraLabora]

I am failing to see the point of differentiating between sterility and impotence.

Sex is not only about making babies, in Catholic teaching.

 

[benidict]

I am failing to see the point of differentiating between sterility and impotence. Making babies is impossible under either condition, except in the case of using artificial means for and impotent male. What exactly is meant by an impotent female in the Canon?

I could make a funny, but I dont think it would play well with this crowd.

 

[Sparkythedog]

I find it troubling that because of his medical state, that he could be denied the sacrament of marriage and subsequently be declared a heretic if he were to dissent from the teaching of the Church. It is evident that he is in love with his fiance, but because of his sexual impotence - he should be denied the love, companionship, and beauty of marriage. These are times where I find full communion with Rome especially difficult.

I spent the first 18 years of my life in the Catholic Church and everyone that I knew there (priests included) dissented from Catholic teaching in some way. Should they all be considered heretics? I think the church would be a very empty place if they did.

I would be very surprised if the church actually denied your uncle the rite of marriage despite what their canon law says. I would hope that the church understands that, although sex is important (and there are ways for impotent people to be sexually intimate), a marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other and wish to share their lives together. I personally would question the morality of a group that would deny a couple this commitment simply because one of them is disabled. But that’s just me…

Anyways, congratulations to your uncle and his fiance. I wish them the best.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If I were in this position, I would simply get married civilly. The Church, of course, wouldn’t recognize the marriage, but the husband and wife would be living as brother and sister so there is no “fornication.”

So why get married if you are to live as brother and sister? Why not just be friends…?

 

[benidict]

So why get married if you are to live as brother and sister? Why not just be friends…?

Im gonna admit some serious confusion with this and the poster you answered. Some clarification might help me. Thanks in advance.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Im gonna admit some serious confusion with this and the poster you answered. Some clarification might help me. Thanks in advance.

The one flesh union is mentioned in scripture various times.

But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female.

7 This is why a man leaves his father and mother,

8 and the two become one flesh. They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh.

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=48&bible_chapter=10#8

23 And the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh! She is to be called Woman, because she was taken from Man.

24 This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and they become one flesh.

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=1&bible_chapter=2#24

The one flesh union is not just symbolic. It refers to relations between husband and wife.

It’s a different relationship then what siblings have.

 

[benidict]

The one flesh union is mentioned in scripture various times.

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=48&bible_chapter=10#8

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=1&bible_chapter=2#24

The one flesh union is not just symbolic. It refers to relations between husband and wife.

It’s a different relationship then what siblings have.

I understand that. but where does living together as brother and sister come into play, when the two are not related? I may be missing something here. Peace

 

[1ke]

I am failing to see the point of differentiating between sterility and impotence.

They are completely different things.

In marriage you exchange the exclusive right to the marital embrace. You must be able to exchange that right, you must be able to complete the act of intercourse. An impotent person cannot do so. A sterile person can do so.

Making babies is impossible under either condition, except in the case of using artificial means for and impotent male.

The impediment doesn’t have anything to do with procreation.

What exactly is meant by an impotent female in the Canon?

Inability to receive the male.

 

[1ke]

I understand that. but where does living together as brother and sister come into play, when the two are not related? I may be missing something here. Peace

In what is called a “Josephite marriage” the couple voluntarily remains continent for a period of time by mutual consent.

However, the **ability **to consummate must be present AND the couple must take up their marital duty if either party requests it.

Such an arrangement would not be a option in the case of impotence. An impotent person cannot contract marriage at all.

 

[1ke]

I spent the first 18 years of my life in the Catholic Church and everyone that I knew there (priests included) dissented from Catholic teaching in some way. Should they all be considered heretics?

Yes, depending upon the specifics of the situation.

I think the church would be a very empty place if they did.

Yes, the narrow path laid out by Christ does have few that choose it.

I would be very surprised if the church actually denied your uncle the rite of marriage despite what their canon law says.

Wrong.

I would hope that the church understands that, although sex is important (and there are ways for impotent people to be sexually intimate), a marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other and wish to share their lives together.

This is a false understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage. The Church “understands” no such thing, as the only thing the Church can do is proclaim Christ’s truth.

I personally would question the morality of a group that would deny a couple this commitment simply because one of them is disabled.

Marriage is not a right. Impotence is a divine law impediment to marriage. Your personal opinion seems to stem from a lack of understanding as to the nature of the sacrament.