Impotence

[happymommy]

The only reason “that doesn’t seem right” is because people have lost their way regarding the purpose of sex and marriage.

Our culture tells us that people should be able to have sex any way they like, any time they like, in whatever form or disortion they like, with whomever they like.

God tells us that the only proper use of our sexual faculties (which HE created) is in completed, unaltered marital intercourse.

Those who cannot use their sexual faculties in this way are to refrain from sexual acts. That means single people, homosexual people, people who are impotent, and people who want to space/avoid a prenancy.

We don’t get to decide the right and wrong way to use our sexuality-- God, the Creator does.

You are projecting YOUR ideas about what God wants onto God. It should be the other way around. You should seek to understand how God has established the order of things and seek to live in accordance with it.

God created the sexual faculties for a very specific purpose. His purpose. Those who through illness/injury/deformity are unable to use the sexual faculties are called to live in chastity and their vocation lies elsewhere, not in marriage.

I was just asking a question. I don’t think you needed to be so harsh. I’m not projecting my ideas about what God wants. If something happened to my husband and I could never have sex with him again. I wouldn’t love him any less or feel that our marriage isn’t valid anymore. Because our marriage is based on more than just sex. We are open to life, if God chooses to bless us with more children that would be wonderful, if not, then that is how it is to be for us. But it is not what we base our marriage on.
Again, please calm down in your responses, you won’t “win” anyone over to your side by being unkind!

 

[1ke]

Your comments make much more sense if your sentence on 2352 is true; but I see nothing explicit in the definition in 2352 that states the part of your sentence I have bolded. That comes from your interpretation of the explicit words in 2352. And, if we are agreed that the CCC must be interpreted, then we are just discussing what is the right interpretation, not what the CCC STATES.

No, it does not come down to my interpretation. The footnotes for CCC 2352 direct one to CDF Persona Humana, paragraph 9, which states:

The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For** it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order,** namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.

 

[1ke]

I was just asking a question. I don’t think you needed to be so harsh. I’m not projecting my ideas about what God wants.

I am sorry you perceived my post to be harsh.

I do believe you are projecting human ideas onto God. Perhaps not your ideas specifically, more of the general “you”. The idea that God “wouldn’t” want X, Y, or Z is projecting human motivations onto God. God wants us to be holy. That entails embracing his Law.

If something happened to my husband and I could never have sex with him again. I wouldn’t love him any less or feel that our marriage isn’t valid anymore.

Of course you would still love him. And, of course your marriage would still be valid. No one has said otherwise.

What has been stated is that if a spouse can no longer engage in sexual intercourse, then the couple is called to chastity and not to immoral acts other than intercourse.

Because our marriage is based on more than just sex. We are open to life, if God chooses to bless us with more children that would be wonderful, if not, then that is how it is to be for us. But it is not what we base our marriage on.

Yes, marriage is based on mutual respect and love. But, its purpose is procretation. That is why one must be able to engage in the sexual act in order to validly marry. If one loses that ability later in marriage, that does not impact the validity of the marriage.

Again, please calm down in your responses, you won’t “win” anyone over to your side by being unkind!

I am sorry you perceive my posts that way. Perhaps you are overly sensitive.

My posts are in no way unkind.

 

[happymommy]

Thanks, maybe unkind wasn’t the right word, anyway…

I do believe you are projecting human ideas onto God. Perhaps not your ideas specifically, more of the general “you”. The idea that God “wouldn’t” want X, Y, or Z is projecting human motivations onto God. God wants us to be holy. That entails embracing his Law.

Could you please show scripture to back that God would not one who is disabled to wed. I don’t ever remember reading such a thing. I guess I’m trying to imagine a young man who plans on marrying, but is in an accident and is paralyzed. So his life as he has always known it is changed forever and now he must give up his dream of a family too. Maybe that’s me being “sensitive” again. Could he and his wife not be open to children through adoption and foster parenting?
If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then should a man that marries a women who ends up being barren be able to divorce her and marry someone else in order to have children?

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks, maybe unkind wasn’t the right word, anyway…

I do believe you are projecting human ideas onto God. Perhaps not your ideas specifically, more of the general “you”. The idea that God “wouldn’t” want X, Y, or Z is projecting human motivations onto God. God wants us to be holy. That entails embracing his Law.

Could you please show scripture to back that God would not one who is disabled to wed. I don’t ever remember reading such a thing. I guess I’m trying to imagine a young man who plans on marrying, but is in an accident and is paralyzed. So his life as he has always known it is changed forever and now he must give up his dream of a family too. Maybe that’s me being “sensitive” again. Could he and his wife not be open to children through adoption and foster parenting?
If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then should a man that marries a women who ends up being barren be able to divorce her and marry someone else in order to have children?

Why does she need to show scripture? We have the fullness of the faith including scripture , tradition and the magesterium.

Impotence is an impediment for marriage. Infertility is not.

Can. 1084 ß1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

ß2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

ß3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

From the Catechism-

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.”[92] The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.[93] “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”[94] The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”[95]

and also-

[97] and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.[98]

You cannot become one flesh and even attempt to be fruitful and multiply if you cannot perform the conjugal act.

See the Catechism section on Marriage

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/matri.html

 

[tassitus]

I am sorry you perceived my post to be harsh.

1ke-
Having been on the receiving end of some of your responses, I also find you can come off as a bit harsh. I have never been accused of being “purposely obtuse” before, and I will tell you your responses have served to keep me from posting. Oh, I draft a response, but then delete it, as I don’t care to be misunderstood again. Perhaps I am simply being “overly sensitive”, in your opinion.

What has been stated is that if a spouse can no longer engage in sexual intercourse, then the couple is called to chastity and not to immoral acts other than intercourse.

All Christians are called to chastity. All of us. And every couple, and single person for that matter, should avoid immoral acts - we are all in agreement with this here.

. . . one must be able to engage in the sexual act in order to validly marry. If one loses that ability later in marriage, that does not impact the validity of the marriage.

But this, as you know, is not the question.

Imagine, if you will, the couple who are just coming to the realization that the husband may now be impotent. Is it permanent? Can it be treated with drugs or surgery? Try as they may, and they do try, the husband cannot maintain an erection.

Are they now NEVER to try again?

If that is the answer the Church gives us, I accept it as readily and completely as I accept ALL that the Church gives us. Believe me, I do.

But do you not see that not all of us may see things as crystal clear as you do? Do we need to be quoted paragraphs from the Catechism on lust and masturbation, as we look for the right answer on this?

My posts are in no way unkind.

While I do not know you, I recognize your screen name and equate it generally with good, solid, Catholic thinking - I have no specific posts in mind, but that is my general impression of you. I am hoping to keep that impression. But I ask that you give some thought to the idea you might be reading more into people’s questions, and responses, than is really there.

Peace all.

 

[kaws]

Can. 1084 ß1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

Is this saying that if someone already in a valid marriage who becomes unable to complete the sexual act the marriage becomes invalid?

I think it has been established that is not the case but it would seem to be what this particular line is stating

 

[1ke]

Is this saying that if someone already in a valid marriage who becomes unable to complete the sexual act the marriage becomes invalid?

No. It is not saying that.

*Antecedent *means before the marriage.

 

[Seatuck]

Is this saying that if someone already in a valid marriage who becomes unable to complete the sexual act the marriage becomes invalid?

I think it has been established that is not the case but it would seem to be what this particular line is stating

No it doesn’t say that. It is talking about at the time of attempting the Sacrament.

 

[1ke]

1ke-
Having been on the receiving end of some of your responses, I also find you can come off as a bit harsh. I have never been accused of being “purposely obtuse” before, and I will tell you your responses have served to keep me from posting.

I am sorry. This was not directed specifically at you. It seems many here want the terms “marital act” and “conjugal relations” and “sexual intercourse” to mean something they do not.

Some are being downright Clintonian-- I did not have sexual relations with that woman-- in the reverse.

All Christians are called to chastity. All of us. And every couple, and single person for that matter, should avoid immoral acts - we are all in agreement with this here.

Yes, that is correct. In their particular state, a couple who cannot engage in full sexual intercourse is called to refrain from genital sexual expression.

Imagine, if you will, the couple who are just coming to the realization that the husband may now be impotent. Is it permanent? Can it be treated with drugs or surgery? Try as they may, and they do try, the husband cannot maintain an erection.

Are they now NEVER to try again?

No one has said they must never try to engage in intercourse again. No one has said they cannot seek treatment or use of drugs that may help.

There is no sin in attempting intercourse and being unable to. Whether that is from premature ejaculation or the inability to maintain an erection.

But this also was not the question. The question was whether a person who **cannot **have intercourse must refrain. We don’t know the OP’s situation… perhaps prostate cancer, perhaps something else that leads him to know this is not temporary or intermittent, but permanent.

Others are injecting that someone in this situation can “please” (a.k.a. bring to orgasm) their spouse* in another way*. THAT is not the same thing as trying to engage in intecourse and being unable to. That is deliberately doing something else besides intercourse.

But do you not see that not all of us may see things as crystal clear as you do? Do we need to be quoted paragraphs from the Catechism on lust and masturbation, as we look for the right answer on this?

Yes, it is necessary when people persist in insisting that a couple **can set out **to achieve orgasm with no intent to have intercourse (not set out to have intercourse and get part way there only to discover they cannot finish… no sin there).

While I do not know you, I recognize your screen name and equate it generally with good, solid, Catholic thinking - I have no specific posts in mind, but that is my general impression of you. I am hoping to keep that impression. But I ask that you give some thought to the idea you might be reading more into people’s questions, and responses, than is really there.

Peace all.

Of course some are sincerely striving to know the Truth and do God’s will. I think the OP is definitely in that category.

I think others have set out to do verbal gymnastics in order to avoid the Church’s teaching.

 

[kaws]

No it doesn’t say that. It is talking about at the time of attempting the Sacrament.

Thanks for the clarification. If this this is meant as an antecedant then does it really apply to the situation as presented by the OP where consummation has already taken place?

Yes, that is correct. In their particular state, a couple who cannot engage in full sexual intercourse is called to refrain from genital sexual expression.

No one has said they must never try to engage in intercourse again. No one has said they cannot seek treatment or use of drugs that may help.

There is no sin in attempting intercourse and being unable to. Whether that is from premature ejaculation or the inability to maintain an erection.

But this also was not the question. The question was whether a person who **cannot **have intercourse must refrain. We don’t know the OP’s situation… perhaps prostate cancer, perhaps something else that leads him to know this is not temporary or intermittent, but permanent.

Others are injecting that someone in this situation can “please” (a.k.a. bring to orgasm) their spouse* in another way*. THAT is not the same thing as trying to engage in intecourse and being unable to. That is deliberately doing something else besides intercourse.

Yes, it is necessary when people persist in insisting that a couple **can set out **to achieve orgasm with no intent to have intercourse (not set out to have intercourse and get part way there only to discover they cannot finish… no sin there).

What if the intent of both is to have intercourse (and mot manual or oral genital stimulation designed to bring about orgasm), but are unable to and the problem is such that it is unlikely to get all the way there and more likely that even if they intend to set out to have intercourse there is a highly likelihood that they will not be able to finish?

Despite accusations to the contrary I’m not trying to play “verbal gymnastics” but I don’t find the reasons here very clear.

 

[CuriousInIL]

No, it does not come down to my interpretation. The footnotes for CCC 2352 direct one to CDF Persona Humana, paragraph 9, which states:

The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For** it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order,** namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.

Are you trying to say that the footnotes–notes on the sentences after the explicit definition, not notes on the definition–somehow alter or redefine the term??? That is quite a stretch and, in my book, just another type of personal interpretation. And all that quite aside from the lack of any clarity in the noted material regarding any change or redefinition.

 

[1ke]

Are you trying to say that the footnotes–notes on the sentences after the explicit definition, not notes on the definition–somehow alter or redefine the term??? That is quite a stretch and, in my book, just another type of personal interpretation. And all that quite aside from the lack of any clarity in the noted material regarding any change or redefinition.

You misunderstand both the Catechism and the purpose of its footnotes.

The Catechism is a summary of the Church’s teaching. It is **not **designed to contain an exhaustive explanation of each and every teaching. It is not to be taken in isolation apart from the full body of Church teaching.

It contains footnotes in its summary paragraphs to guide people to the larger body of Church documents. In this case, it guides you to the CDF’s document Persona Humana which presents the full teaching on this matter.

In other cases it references Canon Law, the documents of Trent, Vatican II, books of the Bible, etc.

The Catechism is an excellent reference and synthesis of Church teaching. It is not an exhaustive, all-encompassing document.

One must also go to the source documents which come from the Magesterium.

In this case the document Persona Humana treats the topic fully. The Catechism quotes this document in part, although not in its entirity.

I have pointed you to the Church document that explains this more fully. If you choose to continue to reject that teaching, there is little left to discuss.

 

[1ke]

What if the intent of both is to have intercourse (and mot manual or oral genital stimulation designed to bring about orgasm), but are unable to and the problem is such that it is unlikely to get all the way there and more likely that even if they intend to set out to have intercourse there is a highly likelihood that they will not be able to finish?

Then that is something to discuss with their confessor.

Knowing ahead of time that they will not be able to complete-- and having no serious indication that the condition has changed-- they would likely be in spiritually dangerous territory.

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks for the clarification. If this this is meant as an antecedant then does it really apply to the situation as presented by the OP where consummation has already taken place?

It really doesn’t directly relate to the OP.What it does is set the stage for us knowing that the church has a moral teaching on what type of sexual behavior can occur in marriage. The marital act must be ordered toward intercourse as has been mentioned several times in our direction . Now if a couple knows that intercourse is absolutely , defintely not going to happen they should not really be trying . If there is a hope then they may.
I believe a couple in this situation ought to get a little spiritual direction and moral guidance from a holy priest.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for the clarification. If this this is meant as an antecedant then does it really apply to the situation as presented by the OP where consummation has already taken place?

It really doesn’t directly relate to the OP.

No, people have gone off on tangents.

The OP’s issue is not validity. It is what is allowable, morally, regarding sex acts.

 

[larry85704]

Does anybody believe Mary and Joseph had special rules in their lives because of Jesus? Specifically, that they could do something sinful for most people that was not sinful to them? I believe they had no special rules.

I also believe Mary was always a Virgin.

Therefore, Mary and Joseph entered into a marriage, knowing from the start they would never have sex. According to the rules of the Church today they would not have been married in the Catholic Church, based on their unwillingness to be open to children.

I guess some of you don’t see a problem with that.

When it comes to sex and our faith, I think the Holy Family is probably the best example of family life. Sex was a part of their life together, they just chose not to have intercourse.

I think the Church needs to understand that people get married because they love one another. That love needs to be the only thing that matters. Where in the Catechism does it say a couple cannot marry if they don’t love each other? Does anybody get my point?

The idea that you can marry and be celibate is not accepted in Tucson. If you have a priest that knows his stuff he will probably discuss that with you.

But, this thread isn’t about that. It is about a couple who had a good sex life and can no longer have regular sex. One would assume they still sleep together, they still hold hands, kiss, you know, all the intimate stuff married people do. If they are to be celibate, they shouldn’t do anything that would arouse them. That would lead to sin. There is a legal term for that, has to due with depriving a spouse of the sexual services of their mate. While it isn’t criminal, you do lose a bunch of money if you are the cause of the depriving. Is the Church open to another scandal here?

I think most people would agree that the reason people get married is that they love each other, not that they want to get pregnant. I cannot agree with the teachings of the Church because to do so would cast sin over the Holy Family. I refuse to do that.

All that being said, if you are normal, and of child bearing age, you should be open to having children when you get married. You can get married in the Church if you are sterile. What is important is that you are open to any children that God chooses to bless your union with. If you are impotent that is really no different than being sterile. Remember, all things are possible with God, you may not be impotent forever. What I find sad is that by never trying you are not open to God maybe making a miracle.

 

[1ke]

Does anybody believe Mary and Joseph had special rules in their lives because of Jesus? Specifically, that they could do something sinful for most people that was not sinful to them? I believe they had no special rules.

I also believe Mary was always a Virgin.

Therefore, Mary and Joseph entered into a marriage, knowing from the start they would never have sex. According to the rules of the Church today they would not have been married in the Catholic Church, based on their unwillingness to be open to children.

This is

(a) untrue (a Josephite marriage is valid, but not indissoluable… see Canon Law)

and

(b) irrelevant (their marriage was a natural marriage, since they were Jews and the New Covenant and Sacraments had not yet been instituted)

I think the Church needs to understand that people get married because they love one another. That love needs to be the only thing that matters. Where in the Catechism does it say a couple cannot marry if they don’t love each other? Does anybody get my point?

The Church doesn’t “need” to understand anything.

It is WE who need to understand what the Church teaches and why. Mutual affection of the spouses is subordinate to the primary end of marriage.

But, this thread isn’t about that. It is about a couple who had a good sex life and can no longer have regular sex. One would assume they still sleep together, they still hold hands, kiss, you know, all the intimate stuff married people do. If they are to be celibate, they shouldn’t do anything that would arouse them. That would lead to sin. There is a legal term for that, has to due with depriving a spouse of the sexual services of their mate. While it isn’t criminal, you do lose a bunch of money if you are the cause of the depriving. Is the Church open to another scandal here?

What the heck are you talking about? You aren’t making any sense at all.

I think most people would agree that the reason people get married is that they love each other, not that they want to get pregnant. I cannot agree with the teachings of the Church because to do so would cast sin over the Holy Family. I refuse to do that.

So, you are right and the Church is wrong? Hmmm… that is itself a heresy.

 

[tassitus]

. . .Sex was a part of their life together, they just chose not to have intercourse.
. . .The idea that you can marry and be celibate is not accepted in Tucson.
. . .There is a legal term for that, has to due with depriving a spouse of the sexual services of their mate. While it isn’t criminal, you do lose a bunch of money if you are the cause of the depriving. Is the Church open to another scandal here?
. . .I cannot agree with the teachings of the Church because to do so would cast sin over the Holy Family. I refuse to do that.

These statements are, frankly, on the bizarre side.

 

[thistle]

Does anybody believe Mary and Joseph had special rules in their lives because of Jesus? Specifically, that they could do something sinful for most people that was not sinful to them? I believe they had no special rules.

I also believe Mary was always a Virgin.

Therefore, Mary and Joseph entered into a marriage, knowing from the start they would never have sex. According to the rules of the Church today they would not have been married in the Catholic Church, based on their unwillingness to be open to children.

I guess some of you don’t see a problem with that.

When it comes to sex and our faith, I think the Holy Family is probably the best example of family life. Sex was a part of their life together, they just chose not to have intercourse.

I think the Church needs to understand that people get married because they love one another. That love needs to be the only thing that matters. Where in the Catechism does it say a couple cannot marry if they don’t love each other? Does anybody get my point?

The idea that you can marry and be celibate is not accepted in Tucson. If you have a priest that knows his stuff he will probably discuss that with you.

But, this thread isn’t about that. It is about a couple who had a good sex life and can no longer have regular sex. One would assume they still sleep together, they still hold hands, kiss, you know, all the intimate stuff married people do. If they are to be celibate, they shouldn’t do anything that would arouse them. That would lead to sin. There is a legal term for that, has to due with depriving a spouse of the sexual services of their mate. While it isn’t criminal, you do lose a bunch of money if you are the cause of the depriving. Is the Church open to another scandal here?

I think most people would agree that the reason people get married is that they love each other, not that they want to get pregnant. **I cannot agree with the teachings of the Church because to do so would cast sin over the Holy Family. I refuse to do that. **

All that being said, if you are normal, and of child bearing age, you should be open to having children when you get married. You can get married in the Church if you are sterile. What is important is that you are open to any children that God chooses to bless your union with. If you are impotent that is really no different than being sterile. Remember, all things are possible with God, you may not be impotent forever. What I find sad is that by never trying you are not open to God maybe making a miracle.

If you cannot accept the teachings of the Church on anything that’s heresy.
Also as has been pointed out to you you have a complete lack of understanding about the marriage of Mary and Joseph making your comments/opinion based on a false premise.