How would one know if he was impotent, if he had not sinned before marriage?
It would seem the Church would hardly condone one particular activity that could prove his ability to, well, uhhh…
Caveat emptor, I suppose. “But Father I was only making sure I was prepared for marriage.”
They accept evidence from memories of someone’s past sins, why not. Don’t know about medical examinations, but some of those could be morally licit. At any rate, they wouldn’t do things like send you to a brothel for a check-up.
most adolescent males experience night dreams and involuntary erections and therefore have first hand knowledge of their bodily function without performing a sinful action
Yeah, temptations are everywhere and people generally know if they ever get stimulated or not. I doubt erection is enough to exclude impotency. I suppose ejaculation would be required here. It generally happens to men who are not sexually active, so they tend to know.
In many case you would certainly know-- congenital deformity, paralysis, serious injury that has mutliated the genital orgns, an injury to the testicles or cancer that required their removal for example.
There are cases where it might not be known beforehand, most likely in the case of a female, but in many cases it would.
There are marriages in periculo mortis. Sometimes subsequent death is absolutely certain. It makes no difference whatsoever if the person is impotent or not since there won’t be any consummation. Death row convicts can marry before execution. And so on and so forth. So people who got a bulled in the lungs can marry but people whose whole body below the waist has got shattered by debris can’t?
They would not be able to do so. To my knowledge, impotence is not an impediment which can be dipsensed because consummation is required to contract the marriage validly.
There are valid marriages without consummation. The only case where Catholics actually do have divorce, apart from Pauline privilege or Petrine privilege. The Pope can dissolve valid and sacramental but unconsummated marriages. It’s not legalised polygamy. In a way, the marriage is treated as if it hadn’t existed, so this is more like a real annulment, as opposed to the declaration of nullity which is normally referred to as “annulment” (and this way of calling it makes people think that divorce is allowed under a different name, contributing to the “Catholic divorce” myth).
Marriage is more than a contract.
But if the contract is invalid, there’s no marriage. You must be conscious, consenting, informed and able to deliver.
You would never start off a marriage to live as “brother and sister.” When you get married, you intend to consumate the marriage with the marital act and be open to fertility.
Chastity-sworn lay saints have married like that to avoid scandal. Political alliances were concluded that way in middle ages. Even now, there are such marriages for people who are considered to be on high levels of spiritual development. As they obviously won’t consummate (although they can be dispensed from the vow of chastity by the Pope if not bishop), what difference does impotence make? Perhaps it’s enough that they could be dispensed, I don’t know. Another thing is that they don’t intend children and the Canon Law says you have to be open to children to marry validly. So I don’t know on what basis such marriages are granted but they are.
So a “brother and sister marriage” must be preceded by a consummate marriage??? There aren’t any circumstances that allow just a “brother and sister marriage”??? Thanks and God Bless.
There have been and are such circumstances. Don’t know any specifics, though. Perhaps a Google search on “josephite marriage” or “chaste marriage” or whatever such could help.
Supposedly there was one marriage like that. Back about 2000 years ago.
Do you suppose the marriage of Joseph and Mary would have held up under annulment hearings? They never consummated their marriage.
Consummation has no effect on validity. Couples are allowed to abstain if both parties agree.
