Impotence

[Albert15]

It’s simple, you may hug, caress, kiss but no mutual masturbation.

For a couple that has apparently been married for a long time and most likely sexually active for most or all of that time, I wouldn’t say that this situation is simple.

Giving advice and living it out are two very different things, which people on this forum, myself included, would do well to keep in mind more often.

 

[Phemie]

For a couple that has apparently been married for a long time and most likely sexually active for most or all of that time, I wouldn’t say that this situation is simple.

Giving advice and living it out are two very different things, which people on this forum, myself included, would do well to keep in mind more often.

No, it’s not simple – and it’s not easy. But it is the law of God.

 

[1ke]

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.

Anything less than the marital act is masterbation, which is already listed clearly as a sin against the Sixth Commandment.

The only proper use of our sexual faculties is within marital intercourse. Those incapable of intercourse may not bring each other or themselves to orgasm another way.

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.

There is no problem. The Church is clear. One can easily read the Catechism, Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, or numerous other Church documents.

The only problem lies with people not wanting to accept the Church’s clear teaching.

 

[tassitus]

There is no problem. The Church is clear. One can easily read the Catechism, Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, or numerous other Church documents.

The only problem lies with people not wanting to accept the Church’s clear teaching.

1ke -
Please review the previous posts - I believe everyone contributing so far is intent on keeping to the Church’s teaching. The problem I, for one, am having is in not finding the clear teaching on this matter. I am not saying it isn’t there, it’s just that I haven’t found it yet, particularly Church teaching to back up this statement: "If during the marriage the husband becomes permanently and untreatably impotent then the couple must abstain."

Saying the Church is “clear” and it’s “in the Church documents” is not as helpful as you might think. So far, I’ve found nothing directly on point in the Catechism, in Humanae Vitae, and nothing in Canon Law to verify that statement. Can you be more specific with a source?

If not, might it be that the Church has not directly addressed the specific matter, yet?

 

[Phemie]

1ke -
Please review the previous posts - I believe everyone contributing so far is intent on keeping to the Church’s teaching. The problem I, for one, am having is in not finding the clear teaching on this matter. I am not saying it isn’t there, it’s just that I haven’t found it yet, particularly Church teaching to back up this statement: "If during the marriage the husband becomes permanently and untreatably impotent then the couple must abstain."

Saying the Church is “clear” and it’s “in the Church documents” is not as helpful as you might think. So far, I’ve found nothing directly on point in the Catechism, in Humanae Vitae, and nothing in Canon Law to verify that statement. Can you be more specific with a source?

If not, might it be that the Church has not directly addressed the specific matter, yet?

How much more specific can it get than “if it ends in orgasm it must be penis in vagina”?

 

[tassitus]

How much more specific can it get than “if it ends in orgasm it must be penis in vagina”?

Sorry, but I asked for a specific Catholic source, not a specific description of any sort.

 

[Nickelous]

Hello Folks
In a previous posting I mentioned that i was basing my understanding of Church teaching on marital relations upon the writings of authors such as Germaine Grisez,Ronald L. Conte Jr. and the like.Somone asked me to identify these writers.
Germaine Grisez is a professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s University Emmetsburg MD.I believe he at one time also some connection with Steubenville.
Ronald Conte is a Roman Catholic lay theologian having graduated from Boston College.
I must say that I agree with what they have to say about marital relations and marriage.I guess I simply wanted to have a few questions answered first,before picking up the cross as they say .In marriage I read somewhere that it is a partnership of three.Others also have to be considered.We also need to view all things through the lense of our faith.Which is a priority with my wife and I in our marriage.
You all have been most helpful and considerate.
God Bless you and please offer a prayer for us.
Nickelous

 

[thistle]

As I anticipated, I agree - time to hit the books.
This is a fairly well known impediment to marriage - but after years of valid marriage? Seems like quite the leap…

Again, I would not be so quick to apply these to the postnuptial (is this a word?) marriage.

I will take note to hit the books on this one some time in the near future - we’re snowed in today, which doesn’t happen too often in the Pacific Northwest.
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.
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.

Until we do, peace all.

CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

 

[1ke]

1ke -
Please review the previous posts - I believe everyone contributing so far is intent on keeping to the Church’s teaching. The problem I, for one, am having is in not finding the clear teaching on this matter.

I think people are being purposely obtuse in this matter.

I am not saying it isn’t there, it’s just that I haven’t found it yet, particularly Church teaching to back up this statement: "If during the marriage the husband becomes permanently and untreatably impotent then the couple must abstain."

You’re kidding me.

You know the Church teaches masterbation is a sin. Genital stimulation to climax without intercourse is masterbation.

Saying the Church is “clear” and it’s “in the Church documents” is not as helpful as you might think. So far, I’ve found nothing directly on point in the Catechism, in Humanae Vitae, and nothing in Canon Law to verify that statement. Can you be more specific with a source?

It’s already been provided to you.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

2366** it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life**

An impotent person cannot engage in the marriage act. And, 2352 makes it clear that purposely stimulating the genitals outside of sexual intercourse of the spouses is gravely immoral.

CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2351 also speaks directly to this. Sexual pleasure must always be unitive and procreative-- that means intercourse.

I don’t know what more you need regarding clear teaching other than sexual intimacy of spouses must always be unitive and procreative and masterbation cannot be substituted for intercourse.

If not, might it be that the Church has not directly addressed the specific matter, yet?

The Church doesn’t have to list every possible permutation and combination of situations when she has already clearly taught the moral norms-- no masterbation, all sexual intercourse must be unitive and procreative.

 

[Paul1961]

"Sexual pleasure must always be unitive and procreative-- that means intercourse. "

This brings up a question. It reminds me of law books and IRS instructions. Why choose more complicated words and sentence structure than is needed? Since these sames item s are debated again and again. Why doesn’t the Vatican simply clarify these areas. i.e. Tab P must be inserted a minimum of 2cm into slot V at the moment of ejaculation.

I can only surmise that they want to be vague and let each interpret for themselves.

Do all citizens have a right to bears arms or only those part of a well regulated militia?

From the 10 Commandments.
Is it thou shalt not kill or is it thou shalt not murder? Then comes up what is murder? Because we certainly believed “an eye for an eye”.

When clarity is possible, why is it not forthcoming?

 

[1ke]

I can only surmise that they want to be vague and let each interpret for themselves.

No. This is not it at all. It is only very recently that people refuse to understand the plain words of Church teaching. For 2000 years this was not so.

For example, the sin of Onan has always been properly understood as contraception and Church teaching confirms this. It is only people who want to contracept who say that the sin of Onan is not contraception.

So, intercourse doesn’t really mean intercourse and masterbation doesn’t really mean masterbation only when people want to engate in acts that are not intercourse and are masterbation.

Hmmm… I see a pattern.

When clarity is possible, why is it not forthcoming?

When teaching is clear, why do people insist it is not?

 

[Mattapoisett64]

When teaching is clear, why do people insist it is not?

Maybe because some on this thread see a significant moral and pastoral difference between a newlywed “yuppie couple” placing material possessions above openness to children, vs. the premise of the OP, which was, say, an elderly couple after maybe 50 years of marriage who desire to find some comfort in each other’s arms. This thread has informed them that they are (supposedly) in sin for even thinking about sex with each other (the accusation of “lustful thoughts”). It appears that some would feel much more morally comfortable if the old folks just moved into separate rooms, the lonely celibacy of old age.

The most positive thing *Castii Connubii *has to say about marital intimacy is that it is acceptable for the “relief of concupiscence.” After 50 years of marriage, that’s not the issue, and to hold otherwise is a grave insult to the sacramentality of a life-long faithfully lived marriage.

 

[kaws]

Procreative means open to life and not necessarily producing children.
What would be off limits? Any sexual act which does not result in the husband completing the marital act inside his wife.
Lustful thoughts about your spouse are sinful.

I suppose it is possible to have lustful thoughts about one’s spouse if the thoughts are objectifying them sexually, but are any and all thoughts about sexual intimacy with one’s spouse lustful and sinful? I didn’t think so. So thinking about God’s gift of sexuality and the consummation of marriage vows with one’s spouse is wrong? Is it wrong to enjoy sex? to be aroused?

I understand about the necessity to be open to life, but I don’t see the example presented by the OP as not being open to life. The impotence is not intentionally trying to deliberately remove the procreative aspect.

 

[CuriousInIL]

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.

And, 2352 makes it clear that purposely stimulating the genitals outside of sexual intercourse of the spouses is gravely immoral.

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.

 

[larry85704]

If the Church taught the world was flat would you believe it?

Consider Mary and Joseph, the Church states they never had sex. The Church teaches Mary never sinned. Seems to me the Church cannot teach that it is sinful to marry and never have sex. If they did they would be implying Mary sinned. At least in my way of thinking, Mary and Joseph would have sinned if they were able to have kids and chose not to, or their marriage would not have been valid.

I think the Church is being misunderstood here. You can get married in the Church with the full knowledge that you will never have children. You cannot get married in the Church if it is assumed that you are able to have kids and choose not to.

Why don’t all you people look at sex between two people, married for a long time, as a blessing that God gives them. They gave all of us a blessing by staying married for a long time.

Aren’t there stories in the Bible about a couple that was childless for years? In their old age they had sex. They had a baby!

What about the idea that as an old person, I try and have sex with my wife. If it is God’s will the old body will spring to life and the old lady will get a present. If no spring, I’ll satisfy my wife and she will satisfy me to the best of our ability. She will still get a present.

The Church really needs to purge their teachings on sex. Sex is one thing that people need to discover by themselves.

 

[thistle]

If the Church taught the world was flat would you believe it?

Consider Mary and Joseph, the Church states they never had sex. The Church teaches Mary never sinned. Seems to me the Church cannot teach that it is sinful to marry and never have sex. If they did they would be implying Mary sinned. At least in my way of thinking, Mary and Joseph would have sinned if they were able to have kids and chose not to, or their marriage would not have been valid.

I think the Church is being misunderstood here. You can get married in the Church with the full knowledge that you will never have children. You cannot get married in the Church if it is assumed that you are able to have kids and choose not to.

Why don’t all you people look at sex between two people, married for a long time, as a blessing that God gives them. They gave all of us a blessing by staying married for a long time.

Aren’t there stories in the Bible about a couple that was childless for years? In their old age they had sex. They had a baby!

What about the idea that as an old person, I try and have sex with my wife. If it is God’s will the old body will spring to life and the old lady will get a present. If no spring, I’ll satisfy my wife and she will satisfy me to the best of our ability. She will still get a present.

The Church really needs to purge their teachings on sex. Sex is one thing that people need to discover by themselves.

That’s heresy!

 

[happymommy]

I have a question. What about people who have spinal injuries and are in wheel chairs. Maybe they are paralyzed at the waist. Are they not allowed to ever get married because they would not be able to have that type of relationship with their spouse? That doesn’t seem right. I understand about being open to life within your marriage. But I don’t think God wants those who can’t have sex to live their lives alone.

 

[kaws]

I have a question. What about people who have spinal injuries and are in wheel chairs. Maybe they are paralyzed at the waist. Are they not allowed to ever get married because they would not be able to have that type of relationship with their spouse? That doesn’t seem right. I understand about being open to life within your marriage. But I don’t think God wants those who can’t have sex to live their lives alone.

I agree it doesn’t seem fair to me, but if I remember right from my moral theology class back in high school (which granted has been a while ago now and my memory is not the best ) I’m pretty sure that for a marriage to be granted it has to be physically possible to be consummated.

The question of what about someone who has been married validly already (and the marriage has been consummated) but becomes paralyzed seems more tricky. I don’t think it would end the marriage and (despite others who would accuse of twisting teachings for their own purposes - I’m not in this boat) I still don’t think the parts of canon law are crystal clear that they would be required to abstain. I certainly would be reluctant to accuse them of being in mortal sin for merely thinking about physical intimacy with their spouse.

 

[1ke]

I have a question. What about people who have spinal injuries and are in wheel chairs. Maybe they are paralyzed at the waist. Are they not allowed to ever get married because they would not be able to have that type of relationship with their spouse? That doesn’t seem right.

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.

I understand about being open to life within your marriage. But I don’t think God wants those who can’t have sex to live their lives alone.

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.

 

[1ke]

If the Church taught the world was flat would you believe it?

This is an irrelevant question as the flatness or roundness of Earth does not pertain to faith or morals.

Consider Mary and Joseph, the Church states they never had sex. The Church teaches Mary never sinned. Seems to me the Church cannot teach that it is sinful to marry and never have sex.

You are very confused. The Church does not teach that a marriage must be consummated. The Church teaches that each party must have the **ability **to consummate the marriage. If they choose, by **mutual **consent, not to consummate that is fine.

However, the marriage debt is an **absolute **right of marriage, therefore both parties must be capable of sexual intercourse and must begin the conjugal life if their spouse requests it.

If they did they would be implying Mary sinned. At least in my way of thinking, Mary and Joseph would have sinned if they were able to have kids and chose not to, or their marriage would not have been valid.

Your way of thinking is quite confused and incorrect.

I think the Church is being misunderstood here. You can get married in the Church with the full knowledge that you will never have children. You cannot get married in the Church if it is assumed that you are able to have kids and choose not to.

This is not quite accurate. Infertility is not an impediment to marriage. Impotence is. Regarding having children or not, you certainly can be validly married and choose not to have children for a just reason. You cannot have a permanent intention against children at the time of the marriage. There is a difference.

Why don’t all you people look at sex between two people, married for a long time, as a blessing that God gives them. They gave all of us a blessing by staying married for a long time.

No one has stated that sex between a married couple is anything other than a blessing.

The question presented is about a couple who cannot engage in sex.

Aren’t there stories in the Bible about a couple that was childless for years? In their old age they had sex. They had a baby!

Yes, and that indicates they had sexual intercourse. This thread is about a person who **cannot **have sexual intercourse.

What about the idea that as an old person, I try and have sex with my wife. If it is God’s will the old body will spring to life and the old lady will get a present. If no spring, I’ll satisfy my wife and she will satisfy me to the best of our ability. She will still get a present.

That is against the law of God. It is not sexual intercourse, it is masterbation. That is what we have been stating for 38 posts now. I don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand.

The Church really needs to purge their teachings on sex. Sex is one thing that people need to discover by themselves.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.