Can Impotent Catholics Marry?

[coco2]

When taking classes several years ago, I found out for the first time that YES, in order to be married in the church, you have to have intercourse. As a matter of fact, until the marriage is consummated after the ceremony, there is no marriage. I still think if you are OPEN
(even if you are paralyzed) to having children, you should be able to marry.

Question for the guys: If you aren’t supposed to be having sexual relations before you are married, how do you even know if you are impotent? I could never understand this.

 

[dans0622]

When taking classes several years ago, I found out for the first time that YES, in order to be married in the church, you have to have intercourse. As a matter of fact, until the marriage is consummated after the ceremony, there is no marriage. I still think if you are OPEN
(even if you are paralyzed) to having children, you should be able to marry.

Question for the guys: If you aren’t supposed to be having sexual relations before you are married, how do you even know if you are impotent? I could never understand this.

Hello coco2,

Unfortunately, you were apparently misled. It’s not that a couple must have intercourse in order to be truly married: once a couple says their vows, they are married. That is why they are able to have intercourse with a clear conscience. Consummation completes the marriage and gives it another “layer” of indissolubility but it does not make marriage. Consent makes marriage. The requirement is that a couple is to be able to have intercourse. In other words, in order to be able to marry, a couple must be able to be married.

As you note, there can tend to be some doubt if a couple is virtuous. In that case, the marriage must always be allowed.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Question for the guys: If you aren’t supposed to be having sexual relations before you are married, how do you even know if you are impotent? I could never understand this.

Well ED is treatable through modern urology. I suppose it would come down to if you knew you had a condition that made finishing the sex act impossible.

In most cases though you wouldn’t know until you gave it a try.

I am curious how this is handled during marriage prep classes, "will you be able to maintain an erection, penetrate your fiancee’s vagina, orgasm, and ejaculate “verum semen?” Can’t imagine it comes up very often.

 

[Sparkythedog]

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.

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.

I am aware that marriage is not a right in the Catholic Church. The point in my reply to LoveOfMan was that the people in charge will often bend the rules and I’m willing to bet that his uncle will be allowed to get married when the time comes. I’m drawing this conclusion because (right or wrong) I’ve seen this kind of rule bending in the church before.

 

[Rock_Happy]

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.

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

Inability to receive the male.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. So, all males who have a penis may marry, whether impotent or not, as long is there is no medical condition contraindicating prosthetic implant surgery to create erectile functionality. Would that be a fair statement?

 

[Seatuck]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. So, all males who have a penis may marry, whether impotent or not, as long is there is no medical condition contraindicating prosthetic implant surgery to create erectile functionality. Would that be a fair statement?

As long as there is hope for the marital act to take place the marriage may proceed.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. So, all males who have a penis may marry, whether impotent or not, as long is there is no medical condition contraindicating prosthetic implant surgery to create erectile functionality. Would that be a fair statement?

Not exactly. The man has to be able to complete the act in a way per se apt for generation. They have to be able to ejaculate.

Up until recently a double vasectomized man would have been considered impotent because he did not emit verum semen in his ejaculate. Now the standard has changed and any ejaculate at all is considered enough to establish potency and is considered verum semen.

ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

ts.mu.edu/content/16/16.4/16.4.2.pdf

I am not aware of anything that says that having to use reconstructive surgery, prosthetic implants, or other devices would make a man impotent. Perhaps someone can else can answer that question?

It is also possible to be impotent relative to only one person. For example if penetration is impossible with one woman but is in general achievable.

So no, it is more than simply having a penis.

I am glad I don’t have to deal with any of this in my line of work.

 

[Corki]

Because he cannot reproduce and he is married, his soul is in danger? Really? I have heard some really half baked judgments on CAF, and some pretty hard core cruelty. but this one takes the cake. Amazing! There are no depths to the harshness of some people in dealing with their fellow Catholics. Incredible…

I may be speaking out of turn but I think the endangement comes from pubically stating dissent, in word and deed, from a teaching of the Church. Lots of people are in marriages that cannot produce children. There’s nothing sinful in that.

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

Not at all true. I am post-menopausal and in no way am I impotent. I am already married but if I were single, I would be allowed to marry in the Church.

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?

It has nothing to do with “making babies” - that’s sterility. Potency (or impotence) It has to do with completing the marriage act. Sealing the Sacrament. A valid, Sacramental, consumated marriage cannot be dissolved.

An impotent female would be a woman who cannot engage in vaginal sexual relations.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Not exactly. The man has to be able to complete the act in a way per se apt for generation. They have to be able to ejaculate.

Up until recently a double vasectomized man would have been considered impotent because he did not emit verum semen in his ejaculate. Now the standard has changed and any ejaculate at all is considered enough to establish potency and is considered verum semen.

ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

ts.mu.edu/content/16/16.4/16.4.2.pdf

I am not aware of anything that says that having to use reconstructive surgery, prosthetic implants, or other devices would make a man impotent. Perhaps someone can else can answer that question?

It is also possible to be impotent relative to only one person. For example if penetration is impossible with one woman but is in general achievable.

So no, it is more than simply having a penis.

I am glad I don’t have to deal with any of this in my line of work.

I am in medicine, and therefore I am familiar with some of the ED treatments. There are drugs which may be taken orally, but are sometimes ineffective and also cannot be taken with some other drugs (which unfortunately sometimes cause male impotence). There are inject-able drugs which are very effective. There are mechanical means, such as vacuum devices, and inflatable implants. If a man has a penis, the odds are very high that one of these options will give him an erection, if he is currently impotent. So, erectile disorder is not a barrier to marriage, as I understand this thread.

Now… someone just added in the requirement to ejaculate, where previous posts state that sterility is not an issue. Men who have had vasectomies still ejaculate. Men who have had prostrate surgery, and some other procedures sometimes suffer from retrograde ejaculation. Is a man who is otherwise fertile, and who has erectile response then unable to marry because his ejaculate does not leave the end of his penis?

 

[coco2]

Hello coco2,

Unfortunately, you were apparently misled. It’s not that a couple must have intercourse in order to be truly married: once a couple says their vows, they are married. That is why they are able to have intercourse with a clear conscience. Consummation completes the marriage and gives it another “layer” of indissolubility but it does not make marriage. Consent makes marriage. The requirement is that a couple is to be able to have intercourse. In other words, in order to be able to marry, a couple must be able to be married.

As you note, there can tend to be some doubt if a couple is virtuous. In that case, the marriage must always be allowed.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

Dan,

Thanks. Your response prompted me to look this up and I stand corrected.

The Church can dissolve a marriage that isn’t consummated, but cannot dissolve one that has been consummated. This seems to me, then that if the marriage isn’t consummated, it isn’t necessarily valid.

 

[Warrior1979]

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

I have no idea what the Church’s position is on civil marriage where at least one party is impotent.

I’m simply using a similar line of reasoning that the Church uses for civil divorce. While the Church doesn’t recognize divorce it as dissolving the marriage, they do recognize it may be necessary for certain legal reasons. I’d argue that the same can be said of civil marriage, since civilly married couples can receive certain legal benefits.

 

[TrueLight]

No, they cannot.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Seriously?

What if the woman has already hit menopause. She can’t get married?

 

[Rock_Happy]

Seriously?

What if the woman has already hit menopause. She can’t get married?

There appears to be a distinction between impotence and fertility. Sexual union need not have the possibility of being procreative in order for a marriage to be valid. But it must be mechanically possible to have sex.

 

[1ke]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

What if the woman has already hit menopause. She can’t get married?

*Sterility *is not an impediment, as #3 in the canons I quoted clearly state.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage,

 

[benidict]

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.

Ok. gotcha. I appreciate the info. So it would be like the marriage of Joseph and Mary then? That makes more sense. Thanks.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

Thanks. Your response prompted me to look this up and I stand corrected.

The Church can dissolve a marriage that isn’t consummated, but cannot dissolve one that has been consummated. This seems to me, then that if the marriage isn’t consummated, it isn’t necessarily valid.

Hello again,

I can see where you are coming from. The terminology is important, even if it is confusing and can lead to differing conclusions. The Church states that only the consent of the couple is what brings a (valid) marriage into existence. Once any couple expresses marital consent in a proper, public form, the marriage is presumed to be valid. It can’t get any more valid than it is at the moment of the “I do’s.”

If, however, they do not consummate the marriage, it is possible to have the marriage dissolved. This is where the notion of consummation “completing” the marriage comes in. Note that the marriage is “dissolved.” Only if you think you are dealing with a *valid *marriage would you have it “dissolved.” If a marriage is obviously invalid, for whatever reason, it is inappropriate to dissolve it, since it is clear that there is nothing to dissolve.

These are technical/legal distinctions but they are not meaningless.

Thanks again for your time.
Dan

 

[gelsbern]

Hello coco2,

Unfortunately, you were apparently misled. It’s not that a couple must have intercourse in order to be truly married: once a couple says their vows, they are married. That is why they are able to have intercourse with a clear conscience. Consummation completes the marriage and gives it another “layer” of indissolubility but it does not make marriage. Consent makes marriage. The requirement is that a couple is to be able to have intercourse. In other words, in order to be able to marry, a couple must be able to be married.

As you note, there can tend to be some doubt if a couple is virtuous. In that case, the marriage must always be allowed.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

Actually I believe you are mistaken, a marriage can be annulled easily if there has been no consummation.

 

[Debora123]

Because he cannot reproduce and he is married, his soul is in danger? Really? I have heard some really half baked judgments on CAF, and some pretty hard core cruelty. but this one takes the cake. Amazing! There are no depths to the harshness of some people in dealing with their fellow Catholics. Incredible…

Agreed 100% Benidict.

 

[BiscuitCrusader]

Sometimes I really do wonder about the humanity of some Christians. We are meant to LOVE each other in any form, be it as brother and sister, parent and child, man and wife, this is the message of Jesus! Love! Forgiveness! You can’t say someone’s soul is in danger because they can’t have sex! Otherwise the entirety of the priesthood is in tremendous peril! We must support those arround us, not judge them. If we think they are wrong, then we should give reasons for it in a kind, loving and just way and ask ourselves, ALWAYS, what would Jesus do?

 

[Corki]

Sometimes I really do wonder about the humanity of some Christians. We are meant to LOVE each other in any form, be it as brother and sister, parent and child, man and wife, this is the message of Jesus! Love! Forgiveness! **You can’t say someone’s soul is in danger because they can’t have sex! **Otherwise the entirety of the priesthood is in tremendous peril! We must support those arround us, not judge them. If we think they are wrong, then we should give reasons for it in a kind, loving and just way and ask ourselves, ALWAYS, what would Jesus do?

No one said that. Please read the thread. What was said was that having sex outside of the context of the marital embrace was sinful and that a person who willfully engaged in such activity was putting his/her soul in danger. It’s not judging to point out that an action may put a person’s soul in danger.