If a man or woman cannot have children are they able to marry?

[benjammin]

First of all, I’m not talking about people who find out they are infertile after marriage, but what if you found out before you are married. Are you able to marry if you know you can’t have children? I’ve always wondered this since marriage is intended to be for marriage and i’ve never known what the answer is.

 

[thewanderer]

First of all, I’m not talking about people who find out they are infertile after marriage, but what if you found out before you are married. Are you able to marry if you know you can’t have children? I’ve always wondered this since marriage is intended to be for marriage and i’ve never known what the answer is.

Yes, they are still allowed to marry. Infertility is not an impediment to marriage.

 

[Equites_Christi]

They may marry, as long as they are able to have sex in a way which under normal circumstances could lead to conception. Even among fertile people, not every instance of sex leads to conception. The important thing is that the spouses have sex in the naturally ordered way (the man finishes inside of the wife).

 

[Shelley11]

I have to confess, when I got married I wasn’t totally sure as I was over the normal age for having a first child and this question crossed my mind. We decided to let nature take it’s course one way or the other and accept whatever happened or God gave us. Sadly, nothing. Also we’re now over the age for regular adoption and given health and financial circumstances wouldn’t consider adoption or fostering now.

However, I’m re-engaged in the pro-life movement and suggested to my husband yesterday that this could be part of our joint commitment to “family” if he’s interested in taking an active role (not sure he is, though). When I thought about it there are lots of ways a couple can make a difference to the lives of children, possibly even saving lives, even if it’s only by sponsoring or another form of financial contribution. Even simply being the best Godparents, aunts and uncles etc they can be is a way of coming together as a couple to make a difference to the wider family.

My other concern I had when I married is some Catholics believe sex shouldn’t be part of the marriage if children are no longer a possibility. I’m not entirely sure I know what the official teaching is on this. However, I would dispute that idea entirely as healthy and pure sexual contact is not only important for procreation, but also for intimacy and emotional bonding between the couple.

I remember when I was a teenager, word got out that one of our teachers and her husband no longer slept together as she had reached menopause so sex was no longer appropriate. To me, that degrades sex, turning it into something totally functional, clinical and potentially devoid of love. Of course, it was purely gossip and may have been entirely unfounded. If it was true, there could have been a myriad of reasons why they made that decision.

Still, I believe some people do hold that opinion and so long as both parties consent to it, then I guess it’s their decision. Where both are happy and content with sexual abstinence at any stage in the marriage, it should never be forced or considered an obligation. Intimacy and closeness can be maintained lots of other ways.

Talking about not being able to have children, a member of my family was told he was infertile. He and his wife spent a fortune on the best doctors they could find in this country and abroad, and every conceivable (no pun intended!) treatment for years, but nothing came of it. Sadly, his wife died and, completely out of character for him, he had a brief relationship with another woman while he was still going through the grieving process. The result of that one time is he now has a beautiful and perfect little daughter.

My point is, as far as saying a marriage isn’t valid if the couple can’t have children, you never know what’s going to happen in life. Miracles occur every day and the Bible contains at least two (that I know of) incidences of women having children when it was thought impossible. Medical procedures are improving all the time (some less ethical than others, mind) and there’s always an alternative way of being a family.

Love is always dynamic, productive and alive, whatever form it takes.

 

[Lucky7]

If that were true, then couples over childbearing years couldn’t get married…which we know is not true.

And then there is Abraham and Sarah.

 

[Shelley11]

Indeed. I don’t know why some people believe that.

I was thinking of Abraham and Sara and also St Elizabeth, Our Lady’s cousin/kinswoman.

There’s nothing like living in hope but not dependence!

 

[fpt]

First of all, I’m not talking about people who find out they are infertile after marriage, but what if you found out before you are married. Are you able to marry if you know you can’t have children? I’ve always wondered this since marriage is intended to be for marriage and i’ve never known what the answer is.

Of course, no problem. It is not a catholic issue, per se.

It is only an issue, if the person does not say to t**he other future spouse, before the marriage: It is a lie that can be a cause of nullity (see canon 1084§ 3): the dolosive error **of the quality of the person in link with the sterility.

 

[exoflare]

Indeed. I don’t know why some people believe that.

I think that some people confuse infertility with impotence, which actually is an impediment. But yeah it surprises me too how they don’t immediately recall Abraham and Sara.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have to confess, when I got married I wasn’t totally sure as I was over the normal age for having a first child and this question crossed my mind. We decided to let nature take it’s course one way or the other and accept whatever happened or God gave us. Sadly, nothing. Also we’re now over the age for regular adoption and given health and financial circumstances wouldn’t consider adoption or fostering now.

However, I’m re-engaged in the pro-life movement and suggested to my husband yesterday that this could be part of our joint commitment to “family” if he’s interested in taking an active role (not sure he is, though). When I thought about it there are lots of ways a couple can make a difference to the lives of children, possibly even saving lives, even if it’s only by sponsoring or another form of financial contribution. Even simply being the best Godparents, aunts and uncles etc they can be is a way of coming together as a couple to make a difference to the wider family.

My other concern I had when I married is some Catholics believe sex shouldn’t be part of the marriage if children are no longer a possibility. I’m not entirely sure I know what the official teaching is on this. However, I would dispute that idea entirely as healthy and pure sexual contact is not only important for procreation, but also for intimacy and emotional bonding between the couple.

I remember when I was a teenager, word got out that one of our teachers and her husband no longer slept together as she had reached menopause so sex was no longer appropriate. To me, that degrades sex, turning it into something totally functional, clinical and potentially devoid of love. Of course, it was purely gossip and may have been entirely unfounded. If it was true, there could have been a myriad of reasons why they made that decision.

Still, I believe some people do hold that opinion and so long as both parties consent to it, then I guess it’s their decision. Where both are happy and content with sexual abstinence at any stage in the marriage, it should never be forced or considered an obligation. Intimacy and closeness can be maintained lots of other ways.

Talking about not being able to have children, a member of my family was told he was infertile. He and his wife spent a fortune on the best doctors they could find in this country and abroad, and every conceivable (no pun intended!) treatment for years, but nothing came of it. Sadly, his wife died and, completely out of character for him, he had a brief relationship with another woman while he was still going through the grieving process. The result of that one time is he now has a beautiful and perfect little daughter.

My point is, as far as saying a marriage isn’t valid if the couple can’t have children, you never know what’s going to happen in life. Miracles occur every day and the Bible contains at least two (that I know of) incidences of women having children when it was thought impossible. Medical procedures are improving all the time (some less ethical than others, mind) and there’s always an alternative way of being a family.

Love is always dynamic, productive and alive, whatever form it takes.

First off, let’s clarify that if sex were only for procreation, that would NOT be “turning it into something totally functional, clinical and potentially devoid of love”. Procreation is meant not to be a way to pop out babies as if we were domesticated animals, but the first step towards a lifetime of parenthood of being possessing mortal souls and made in the image and likeness of God. This is one of the reasons it is so utterly tragic when children are conceived by two people who aren’t married and especially by two people who can never marry.

Also, let’s be careful with “Love is always dynamic, productive and alive, whatever form it takes.” Yes, this is true, as long as you are talking about love untainted by other motives, but let us remember that many people throw a great many behaviors under the blanket of “love” that do not entirely deserve the name…not because the love doesn’t deserve the name, but because other things undeserving are smuggled in with it. There is a lot times when sin and imprudence are rationalized by the driving force of “love”, and a lot of resulting heartache that comes from those sentimental blanket statements.

 

[benjammin]

They may marry, as long as they are able to have sex in a way which under normal circumstances could lead to conception. Even among fertile people, not every instance of sex leads to conception. The important thing is that the spouses have sex in the naturally ordered way (the man finishes inside of the wife).

So then if you are unable to have sex you can’t get married? What if you were a veteran who got his bottom half blown off. I’m sure there are other disorders as well, but you can’t get married if you can’t have sex? It makes sense, but thinking about it is making me feel a little wierd

 

[1ke]

So then if you are unable to have sex you can’t get married?

Correct. Antecedent, perpetual impotence is an impediment to marriage.

What if you were a veteran who got his bottom half blown off.

If the result is permanent impotence, then one is not a candidate for marriage.

I’m sure there are other disorders as well, but you can’t get married if you can’t have sex?

That is correct.

It makes sense, but thinking about it is making me feel a little wierd

I don’t know why you would find this weird.

 

[cmscms]

When a woman and a man come together as a married couple, it the most intimate act which is representative (for lack of a better word) of what God did for his church. It is meant to be an expression of love. Now, Jesus died so we can have life. And sex creates a new life. Not everyone follows Jesus and not every intimate encounter ends up in a pregnacy. God does not hold that against the couple as long as they don’t use any artificial means to stop the pregnacy since that would be interferring with God’s will.

So, if someon already knows they can’t have kids (which I find a bit odd because if you have never been married and are a practicing Catholic, you would not know before marriage if you can have kids unless there are extreme medical reasons) but marry, if they can not have kids but remain true to God’s teachings, it is a sign of accepting God’s will.

And, if they really want kids, the option of adopting exists

CM

 

[ValPal]

First of all, I’m not talking about people who find out they are infertile after marriage, but what if you found out before you are married. Are you able to marry if you know you can’t have children? I’ve always wondered this since marriage is intended to be for marriage and i’ve never known what the answer is.

Being sterile is not an impediment to marriage. Being impotent (not being able to have conjugal relations) prior to marriage is.

Also, don’t confuse not being able to have children with sterility. Ultimately, my wife and I didn’t have children naturally, likely due to age issues, but we adopted several.

 

[TEPO]

Being sterile is not an impediment to marriage. Being impotent (not being able to have conjugal relations) prior to marriage is.

…so what if someone just figures that after they get married they’ll just go to the doc and get some Viagra…?

After all, why would he bother getting it before marriage knowing it might lead him into sin?

-Know what I mean…?

 

[TEPO]

Correct. Antecedent, perpetual impotence is an impediment to marriage.

Is that in the CCC?

(I think it’s just part of canon law, which means its a ‘legal’ way for priests to nullify a marriage, that is if they must.)

 

[TrueLight]

…so what if someone just figures that after they get married they’ll just go to the doc and get some Viagra…?

Excellent question!

After all, why would he bother getting it before marriage knowing it might lead him into sin?

Not to mention the discomfort it would cause with no way of release.

 

[1ke]

Is that in the CCC?

No. Why should it be?

(I think it’s just part of canon law, which means its a ‘legal’ way for priests to nullify a marriage, that is if they must.)

Yes, it is found in the canons regarding marriage.

No that is not what it means.

It is a divine law impediment, it cannot be dispensed.

 

[TEPO]

No that is not what it means.

It is a divine law impediment, it cannot be dispensed.

Now that doesn’t make perfect sense because it’s also a divine law impediment to divorce one’s husband because of a physical defect -especially if they truly love each other. That would be unsupportive, unloving and uncharitable. In fact, I’d go as far as calling it ‘animalistic’ and contrary to Eternal Law which is truth.

 

[EasterJoy]

Now that doesn’t make perfect sense because it’s also a divine law impediment to divorce one’s husband because of a physical defect -especially if they truly love each other. That would be unsupportive, unloving and uncharitable. In fact, I’d go as far as calling it ‘animalistic’ and contrary to Eternal Law which is truth.

If you’re talking about perpetual physical impotence to consumate marriage being a true impediment to marriage, you would be entirely wrong to call it any such thing. If a man is incapable of consumating a marriage, that man cannot be a husband. That is not uncharitable, because it is the truth. If he is “supportive, loving, and charitable” towards the woman he had hoped to make a wife, he would never hold her to a marriage that could never be consumated! Look at the canon again (italics and boldface mine, obviously):

**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.

In other words, this is not some legal hoophole invented by a ecclesiastical bureaucrat–which is what you seem to be implying! It is instead legal recognition of the truth that the ability to engage in intercourse is intrinsic to the very meaning of marriage. It was the will of Providence to make us animals, too, and not just spiritual beings, so it should come as no surprise that the states of life ordained by God will reflect such biological realities. You may as well say that it is “animalistic” that marriage only lasts for for life, and not for eternity. You could *say *it, but you would betray a misunderstanding of the true nature of marriage if you did.

I would go so far to say that one who sniffs at the fundamental nature of marriage as being “animalistic” comes periliously close to insulting Providence. This idea that physical facts surrounding a state in life will sometimes stand in the way of how some might *wish *the world could be is “unsupportive, unloving and uncharitable” is also very misguided. It is not only how the entire push for marriages between homosexuals got started, but also wrongly insults those who seek a decree of nullity after a discovery of antecedent impotence. There is nothing uncharitable about entering a marriage with the expectation of sharing sexual intercourse with one’s spouse. That expectation is entirely in keeping with the very nature of marriage, and is in no way selfish or “animalistic”.

OTOH, as far as I know, the Church does not bar a spouse from holding out hope. If she wants to wait around in the hope that her husband’s impotence is not in fact perpetual, I know of no reason she would not have that right. She would be wise to formally inform someone in the Church about this difficulty, since consumation is presumed unless established otherwise, but as far as I know she has the option of sticking it out and hoping that the difficulty does not in fact turn out to be perpetual. That is something for her to discern with pastoral guidance, however.

 

[TEPO]

If you’re talking about perpetual physical impotence to consumate marriage being a true impediment to marriage, you would be entirely wrong to call it any such thing. If a man is incapable of consumating a marriage, that man cannot be a husband. That is not uncharitable, because it is the truth. If he is “supportive, loving, and charitable” towards the woman he had hoped to make a wife, he would never hold her to a marriage that could never be consumated! Look at the canon again (italics and boldface mine, obviously):

**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.

In other words, this is not some legal hoophole invented by a ecclesiastical bureaucrat–which is what you seem to be implying! It is instead legal recognition of the truth that the ability to engage in intercourse is intrinsic to the very meaning of marriage. It was the will of Providence to make us animals, too, and not just spiritual beings, so it should come as no surprise that the states of life ordained by God will reflect such biological realities. You may as well say that it is “animalistic” that marriage only lasts for for life, and not for eternity. You could *say *it, but you would betray a misunderstanding of the true nature of marriage if you did.

I would go so far to say that one who sniffs at the fundamental nature of marriage as being “animalistic” comes periliously close to insulting Providence. This idea that physical facts surrounding a state in life will sometimes stand in the way of how some might *wish *the world could be is “unsupportive, unloving and uncharitable” is also very misguided. It is not only how the entire push for marriages between homosexuals got started, but also wrongly insults those who seek a decree of nullity after a discovery of antecedent impotence. There is nothing uncharitable about entering a marriage with the expectation of sharing sexual intercourse with one’s spouse. That expectation is entirely in keeping with the very nature of marriage, and is in no way selfish or “animalistic”.

OTOH, as far as I know, the Church does not bar a spouse from holding out hope. If she wants to wait around in the hope that her husband’s impotence is not in fact perpetual, I know of no reason she would not have that right. She would be wise to formally inform someone in the Church about this difficulty, since consumation is presumed unless established otherwise, but as far as I know she has the option of sticking it out and hoping that the difficulty does not in fact turn out to be perpetual. That is something for her to discern with pastoral guidance, however.

Three things:

1.) If Perpetually impotent men, whether absolute or relative, TRULY must not marry according to Gods Truth as you’ve claimed, then all 23 churches (with their own varying canons) must all be in uniform agreement that this is an absolute Truth… So are they?

2.). If it is an absolute Truth, that impotent men must not marry, then it should be in the Catechism. The Catechism is a trustworthy source for learning all the teachings, doctrines and Absolute Truths of Gods Holy Church.

3.). Just because something is listed in canon law, does not mean it is an absolute Truth… The canons are subject to change -they have and will always change. Things can and will be omitted all together. Canon law is not eternal.

In conclusion, the canon law that allows for the nullification of marriage may only be a tradition “lower case -t-”… In which case, it’s changeable and is not an absolute truth.