I’d agree with the above. Seeing as how you would not be stopping after “foreplay” just to avoid getting pregnant, I don’t think there is any problem with it.I’m not an expert here so someone please correct me if I am wrong…
I would imagine that as long as the intent of the married couple is not to deliberately alter the sexual act and if they would intend to complete any sexual act in a properly ordered function if biology would cooperate, I don’t think there would be a problem with a married couple sharing sexual intimacy even if the man has problems with impotence.
Nickelous, can you link us to any of these comments? We might like to review them, as well.. . . However when I read comments by people such as Germaine Grisez,Ronald l.Conte ,Christopher West etc.they argue the contrary. . .
Yes, please link what you can. At least the names of the works they came from. I’ve never heard of the people you mentioned (except for West). I plan to begin reading and studying Catholic sexual ethics once I find the time and I have been collecting the works of JPII, West, and others who write on this topic in the meantime. Info on any other good materials you have would be appreciated.Nickelous, can you link us to any of these comments? We might like to review them, as well.
The Church has nothing against the use of viagara but that’s not what the thread is about. Unless I have misunderstood then its about permanent impotence (i.e. cannot be medically treated) after a couple have been married.I’d agree with the above. Seeing as how you would not be stopping after “foreplay” just to avoid getting pregnant, I don’t think there is any problem with it.
Also, there are medications available to help with impotence problems, making intercourse possible. I don’t think the Church has any problems with the use of these medications.
Not that I doubt you or this statement, but might you please link us to a Catholic source verifying this?. . .If during the marriage the husband becomes permanently and untreatably impotent then the couple must abstain.
I don’t think you are going to find an online source. You are going to have to crack open some books.Not that I doubt you or this statement, but might you please link us to a Catholic source verifying this?
That’s what I’m trying to say but you have put it much more eloquently than I did.I don’t think you are going to find an online source. You are going to have to crack open some books.
Intent is the key. As long as there is some hope that intercourse may occur the couple may proceed. If there is a missing male organ well then that would be hopeless. I think the couple would know if there was hope or not.
Since marriage cannot occur when there is absolute assurance of impotency I think it’s fair to apply canon law and take the step to sexual activity within marriage if there is absolute evidence of impotency.See Canon Law.
Canon 1084.1 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that “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.”
However, Canon 1084.2 adds that “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.”
Course I’m not a Canon Law expert and only play one online sometimes.
CCC 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”Not that I doubt you or this statement, but might you please link us to a Catholic source verifying this?
Marital acts must be both unitive and procreative.At what point / what actions would be too much and sinful behavior between two spouses who are unable to complete the sex act?
Is deep kissing too much? Petting?
Aren’t unitive aspects important too?
I can see the argument that a couple who would never be able to consummate a marriage would not be able to enter a valid marriage…
but I thought marriage as a sacrament was for better or worse til death do us part…
If one person is in a permanent coma or becomes permanently physically incapacitated doesn’t the Church still consider them to be married? They wouldn’t be free to date without committing adultery, right?
I’m having trouble understanding this…
Well okay but in the scenario presented by the OP he stated that the couple were elderly, hence I’m assuming post-menopausal. The Church does not forbid married couples from making love once they reach a certain age because procreation is no longer possible…Marital acts must be both unitive and procreative.
As for the bolded part yes they are still married and no the spouse who is healthy cannot date anyone else.
Procreative means open to life and not necessarily producing children.Well okay but in the scenario presented by the OP he stated that the couple were elderly, hence I’m assuming post-menopausal. The Church does not forbid married couples from making love once they reach a certain age because procreation is no longer possible…
If the couple were deliberately trying to alter the sex act to prevent the procreative aspects… but that doesn’t seem to be the case here…
What actions of affection toward each other would be acceptable? What would be off limits? Would having thoughts about sexual intimacy with one’s own spouse become sinful?
As I anticipated, I agree - time to hit the books.I don’t think you are going to find an online source. You are going to have to crack open some books.
This is a fairly well known impediment to marriage - but after years of valid marriage? Seems like quite the leap…Since marriage cannot occur when there is absolute assurance of impotency I think it’s fair to apply canon law and take the step to sexual activity within marriage if there is absolute evidence of impotency.
Again, I would not be so quick to apply these to the postnuptial (is this a word?) marriage.Canon 1084.1 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that “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.”
However, Canon 1084.2 adds that “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.”
Yes, I agree with this. But it seems to not apply here - we are talking about something less than the “marriage act” in the case of an impotent husband.CCC 2366 . . .So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."
Ah. Therein lies my only problem: how can we turn that “most likely be” to “most definitively be”, and that “considered sinful” to "objectively “sinful”? The answers are out there, we just need to dig them up.. . .Consequently, any other sexual act would ***most likely be considered sinful ***and such couples would have to abstain.