For This Reason...

[LilyM]

this also is not necessarily true. the law is rather more complex than that. It is a possible grounds, depending on other circumstances, but not an absolute bar to a valid marriage (vis Mary and Joseph, for instance).

Mary and Joseph’s marriage wasn’t sacramental nor bound by our laws. It was a pretty unique event in any case, for lots of reasons. I take the point, though, that it’s not an absolute rule.

As for your point, Rev Dr North - our Christian charitable God was the one who commanded Onan to procreate with his brother’s widow, punished him when he chose not to complete the act - and then made the same rule for ALL men whose brothers died childless! Again, I say take it up with Him.

There’s no Christian charity in permitting couples, however much in love they may be, to enter a pseudo-marriage that in fact can’t properly fulfil any of the functions for which marriage was designed.

 

[Moneo]

True, but what if the couple knows of the impotence and still is willing to go through with it? Who’s business is it but theirs and God’s?

Others may correct me if I do not succeed in explaining it clearly here, but …

Marriage is a natural state and right of all men and women. However, Christ elevated this natural reality to the level of a sacrament, in which the man and woman who are married become channels of God’s grace for one another, allowing them to share in God’s divine life and grow in holiness as they participate in His creative activity. So, because Christian marriage is “something more” than a natural marriage, i.e. a sacrament which can help the couple and their children grow closer to God and receive salvation, it is very much the Church’s “business” to whom and how the sacrament is administered. One of the reasons that Christ founded His Church was to safeguard and administer the sacraments.

Now, in the Catholic understanding of the sacrament, it is actually the bride and the groom who are the ministers of the sacrament to one another, not the priest. So, because one of the Church’s functions is to ensure the correct administration of the sacraments which Christ entrusted to her, the Church must first determine that the couple who wishes to enter into marriage are a) free to do so, b) **capable **of doing so and c) actually do so according to the form which the Church has laid down for the administration of the sacrament. A defect in any of these three affects either the validity of the sacrament (in other words, whether or not the sacrament actually took place) or its licitness (whether it took place according to the correct form for its administration).

This is why a priest must ordinarily be present when the couple exchanges their vows: he is the Church’s official witness to the validity and licitness of the sacrament (there are others–the “best man” and “maid of honour”, for example).

This brings us to the sexual act. In the Catholic understanding of human sexuality within marriage, sex is not a “bonus” of marriage, it is a fundamental part the reason that marriage exists at all, for the reasons stated in earlier posts: drawing the couple together and strengthening the bond of love between them, and the transmission of human life. It both creates human life and, ideally, provides the loving and protective environment which the child needs to grow and develop correctly as a person.

So, the problem of impotency is this: however much the impotent party may love his partner in the romantic and emotional sense, he is simply not capable of bringing to completion an act which is a fundamental part of the marriage bond, as well as the right of his spouse.

This is why, if a man knew that he was impotent prior to marrying and concealed this fact from his wife, she would have grounds for an annulment once this fact came to light.

If he were to disclose it to the priest, but not to his wife, the priest would not be able to act as a witness because he would know that it was a farce … a serious defect exists which affects the validity of the sacrament.

If the couple both knew it beforehand and concealed this fact from the priest, the marriage ceremony would likewise be a farce, but the priest would not know it and would be acting in good faith as the Church’s representative in the ceremony. It would appear to be a valid and licit marriage but, in fact, would not be.

Now, this is the part that I would appreciate the help of someone who knows Canon Law well with, because I may not be correct here : if the couple were to take this deceitful course of action with the intention of seeking treatment for the problem of the impotent party afterwards, it would still be an invalid and illicit sacrament. Should the husband at some point in the future overcome his impotency and be able to complete the marital act, for the couple to be considered sacramentally married, they would have to approach the Church and confess their deception. The first “marriage” would then be annulled and the couple would have to exchange vows once more.

I think that’s correct, but again, let’s have one of the Canon Law aficionados/experts clear that up, please! Canon Law was never my principal interest, so I may have missed something along the way …

This is all very hypothetical, of course, and I would hope that no one would undertake such a deceitful course with either the Church or their intended spouse at the start of a marriage.

 

[RevDrNorth]

As for you, Rev Dr North - our Christian charitable God was the one who commanded Onan to procreate with his brother’s widow, punished him when he chose not to complete the act - and then made the same rule for ALL men whose brothers died childless! Now these rules are relaxed quite a lot, but the principle remains - procreation is important.

There’s no Christian charity in permitting couples, however much in love they may be, to enter a pseudo-marriage that in fact can’t properly fulfil any of the functions for which marriage was designed.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you have an incomplete idea of what Godly sexuality is and an incomplete idea of what Godly marriage really is. It misses the mark. I am afraid it comes across in a very fundamentalist (proof texting) way that is far too simplistic.

But as I say when it comes to the CC it is their (your ball field) and you get to make the rules. I suppose that is why this couple came to me and requested marriage (did pre marital counseling and the whole issue). They looked for Christian Charity and compassion. They are a Godly couple who loves Christ. Just don’t forget Him when you hammer home the Old Testament law and prophets to those seeking mercy and compassion (especially since I think you are over reaching on scriptural intent).

Rev North

 

[Moneo]

Ahhhh but there is a difference between God making it important and forbidding marriage between a couple if there is impotency. If the CC forbids this marriage then that this a man made doctrine as opposed to biblical. A couple can be quite intimate (without going into details) without the actual act of copulation).

I am glad someone provided a quote though because I would have never believed that the CC would forbid marriage to a couple who had an impotent partner. Simply amazing.

If this is enforced I may be seeing more couples coming to me for marriage who are or were Catholics. Already married one where both were non practicing Catholics who loved God but were upset at the way the Church treated them.

Rev North {who is not impotent BUT is saddened by the lack of Christian charity in that doctrine but respectful of the fact that it IS your ball field and you get to make the rules}

Not to put too fine a point on it Reverend, but I believe you misunderstand. The Church does not forbid a couple in which one of the parties is impotent from marrying. It says that they are incapable of contracting a valid, sacramental marriage because they cannot fulfill one of the conditions necessary for the reception of the sacrament, i.e., the conjugal act. There’s no point in forbidding something that cannot happen anyway.

In other words, the Church does not say “we will not allow you to have the sacrament”, she says “it’s impossible for you to receive the sacrament in this situation.” A couple in this situation can go through with the ceremony, but no sacramental action will occur because the conditions which God established for it are not present.

Kind of like making a “milkshake” with tomatoes and olive oil … it may taste good, but it ain’t a milkshake.

 

[CB_Catholic]

True, but what if the couple knows of the impotence and still is willing to go through with it? Who’s business is it but theirs and God’s?

I may be wrong here, but isn’t the inability to consummate a marriage a legal impediment to marriage in most states? If a marriage is not consummated, it is grounds for a legal annulment by most states, isn’t it? If so, your argument against the Church is kind of pointless, because the Church does not recognize a marriage that is not in accordance with the law (in most cases, I believe there might be some exception, but not in the area of consummation). That would have to be true in the Protestant churches as well-they have to follow the law also.

 

[mozart-250]

Just a personal comment here.

I am a survivor of prostate cancer surgery. Prostate cancer surgery may or may not leave you impotent. It did not in my case, but it did in my fathers case. The surgery however will leave you unable to reproduce.

You mean to tell me that survivors of prostate cancer surgery (like my father and myself) that may be left impotent by that surgery (like my father) are unable to get married in the Catholic denomination.

If so…I am so…so…glad that God did not say that and that Catholicism is not my denomination.

 

[happygal]

The sort of love a couple share when one is impotent can be easily found outside of a marriage relationship. Marriage demands something more.

And to put it bluntly it wasn’t the Church’s idea to make procreation important. God’s first words to humans were about being fruitful and multiplying, so take it up with Him if you think we’re wrong

Lily

God’s first words to Humans were about being fruitful and multiplying, yes correct. Therefore no man are born impotent, however for any case he is to suffer impotence due to some reason and uncurable then it is not God whom deny the sacrament to him, it is the church who deny him for it. Becoz God will never forbid and deny his children in anything. This is one of the doctrine which i find so very strange and contradicting against God’s love and gracious teaching…But anyway although i aim a Catholic, but i will pray to God for his mercy upon these group of poor Catholic man!!!

 

[awedbyhim]

Singingbeauty,
My husband and I were married in the church last august … we are both unable to conceive , we were told we needed to be open to a miracle if God so desired … We were . So the bells rang . Take heart , and keep asking questions , you teach yourself AND the rest of us … Debbie:thumbsup:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Becoz God will never forbid and deny his children in anything

Really? How can such a ‘god’ as that be a God of justice? Are you saying that ‘nothing’ is forbidden? Nothing denied? Nothing in Scripture or tradition is compatible with the view of some kindly God who has ‘no problem’ if His children divorce, engage in adultery, perform unnatural sexual acts, or cannot even perform the marital act at all, etc., provided they say 'but we LOVE each other–therefore, it must be right and good".

I beg to differ. Let me tell you, as a mother, if I engaged in that type of ‘never forbidding or denying MY children’ in behaviors that were based on lies, could never ‘work’, or were harmful and hurtful, they might be ‘glad’ that I was complicit in all their wrong actions, but I would hardly be a loving parent, for in the end, they would wind up with irreparable harm to themselves, body and soul, and I would bear part of that blame.

Remember, in Ezekiel, we are told that if a person sins, and we do not try to tell him he is doing wrong, WE will likewise be held responsible for his sin and his fate.

This very peculiar view of a God who just wants everybody to ‘have fun’ provided they ‘love each other’ does not ‘match’ the God of Ezekiel.

The first view is that of human beings today, their ‘manmade’ view of God as love that never found anything it wouldn’t ‘permit’; the second is that of Scripture and Tradition–the actual words of God Himself, not some ‘man made’ idea.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Just a personal comment here.

I am a survivor of prostate cancer surgery. Prostate cancer surgery may or may not leave you impotent. It did not in my case, but it did in my fathers case. The surgery however will leave you unable to reproduce.

You mean to tell me that survivors of prostate cancer surgery (like my father and myself) that may be left impotent by that surgery (like my father) are unable to get married in the Catholic denomination.

If so…I am so…so…glad that God did not say that and that Catholicism is not my denomination.

No, RedSoxFan, marriage is not prevented by sterility or infertility or impotence.

I am sorry, but those who think otherwise are talking through their hats (Wow! I finally got to use that old cliche!).

Some very famous lay personalities have adopted many children. Some infertile couples (for whatever reason) have committed their marriage to great lay ministries like Opus Dei and religious Third Orders.

The Church is aware medicine and science can change conditions. And she has always believed that God in His mercy may change a physical condition.

To think that baby-producing is what Catholicism is all about and that those who cannot through no intention of their own are not permitted to partake in the sacrament of marriage is plain hooey.

Robert (Go Anaheim Angels!)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear Robert: The majority of your post is correct. But impotence IS a barrier if it exists PRIOR to the marriage. Certainly, a validly married couple who experience after marriage an event which causes one or both partners to be impotent is still a validly married couple, because they were capable at the time of marriage of honoring the marital covenant. It is what happens at the TIME OF THE MARRIAGE that is the main factor in its validity–what happens afterwards is part of that “for better or for worse” vow.

 

[REESE_HOWELL]

This is what I have heard. I could be wrong which is why I posted this. But I do know that I have been told that if a person is either impotent or infertile they are not allowed to be married within the church.

My mom and dad were married in the church even though my dad did not become catholic for over 50 years and they were told by doctor they could never have children her blood type o+ his o- I have 4 brothers and 4 sisters

 

[mozart-250]

Dear Robert: The majority of your post is correct. But impotence IS a barrier if it exists PRIOR to the marriage. Certainly, a validly married couple who experience after marriage an event which causes one or both partners to be impotent is still a validly married couple, because they were capable at the time of marriage of honoring the marital covenant. It is what happens at the TIME OF THE MARRIAGE that is the main factor in its validity–what happens afterwards is part of that “for better or for worse” vow.

That is a BIG issue for prostate cancer survivors, of which I am one.

 

[siouxbhoney]

You know, if my husband was impotent, it would make me sad, , but it would not change my desire to spend every day with him, wake up next to him in the morning, go through all of our life changes with him, and do all of that OTHER stuff that marraige is about. I think it is okay. People in that situation might even consider adoption. Just because someone is medically unable to have sex does not mean that they might not make a great parent to an adopted child, therefore bringing children into the marraige.

 

[LilyM]

You know, if my husband was impotent, it would make me sad, , but it would not change my desire to spend every day with him, wake up next to him in the morning, go through all of our life changes with him, and do all of that OTHER stuff that marraige is about. I think it is okay. People in that situation might even consider adoption. Just because someone is medically unable to have sex does not mean that they might not make a great parent to an adopted child, therefore bringing children into the marraige.

And if I wanted to marry my own brother, or five men at once, I’d want all those same things too, regardless of who told me I was wrong.

It wouldn’t make it any more right for me to marry him, or them, neither does it necessarily make it right for someone whose impotence renders them unable to contract a sacramental marriage to marry either.

 

[Singinbeauty]

And if I wanted to marry my own brother, or five men at once, I’d want all those same things too, regardless of who told me I was wrong.

That’s a little uncalled for Lily. How can you compare impotence and the willingness to work around it if you love the person to marrying your own brother or multiple men at once? You have a habit a being a bit harsh my dear. I appreciate what she is saying. I feel the same. Though I couldn’t consumate the marriage by sex doesn’t change the fact that I would want to spend the rest of my life with that man and give a good home to those children unfortunate enough to not have parents.

It wouldn’t make it any more right for me to marry him, or them, neither does it necessarily make it right for someone whose impotence renders them unable to contract a sacramental marriage to marry either.

So men or women who are impotent are unlovable? They don’t deserve the same right as you because you can have sex?

 

[RedSoxFan]

No, RedSoxFan, marriage is not prevented by sterility or infertility or impotence.

I am sorry, but those who think otherwise are talking through their hats (Wow! I finally got to use that old cliche!).

Some very famous lay personalities have adopted many children. Some infertile couples (for whatever reason) have committed their marriage to great lay ministries like Opus Dei and religious Third Orders.

The Church is aware medicine and science can change conditions. And she has always believed that God in His mercy may change a physical condition.

To think that baby-producing is what Catholicism is all about and that those who cannot through no intention of their own are not permitted to partake in the sacrament of marriage is plain hooey.

Robert (Go Anaheim Angels!)

How did I get into this thread? I never posted. At least I don’t think I did. LOL! Anyways GO SOX!!! (I thought it was L.A. Angels now. Perhaps that was just last week. Two weeks ago it was California Angels…)