Impotence

[larry85704]

As I posted in another thread, the person that decides what is Catholic and not, is the Bishop. Not you folks. I suspect that the issues surrounding who can and cannot marry are being determined everyday by the Bishops. You folks ever hear of the Bishop granting dispensation? How about annulments?

Don’t complain about how Bishops are not Holy. If they were not Holy it would be the job of Rome to deal with it, not yours. You are a cafeteria Catholic if you don’t follow all the teachings of the Church, so, what are you?

 

[thistle]

As I posted in another thread, the person that decides what is Catholic and not, is the Bishop. Not you folks. I suspect that the issues surrounding who can and cannot marry are being determined everyday by the Bishops. You folks ever hear of the Bishop granting dispensation? How about annulments?

Don’t complain about how Bishops are not Holy. If they were not Holy it would be the job of Rome to deal with it, not yours. You are a cafeteria Catholic if you don’t follow all the teachings of the Church, so, what are you?

You are the one who stated you do not believe the teachings of the Church in your post #57. Read your own comments!

 

[1ke]

As I posted in another thread, the person that decides what is Catholic and not, is the Bishop. Not you folks. I suspect that the issues surrounding who can and cannot marry are being determined everyday by the Bishops. You folks ever hear of the Bishop granting dispensation? How about annulments?

Canon Law itself stipulates what can and cannot be dispensed. A Bishop has only the authority within Canon Law. He may not dipsense that which cannot be dispensed any more than he can confect the Eucharist with a PB&J sandwich. It is not possible.

Impotence cannot be dispensed. Read the canon-- it invalidates marriage by its nature.

Don’t complain about how Bishops are not Holy. If they were not Holy it would be the job of Rome to deal with it, not yours. You are a cafeteria Catholic if you don’t follow all the teachings of the Church, so, what are you?

No one here has complained about a Bishop. And, indeed there are many who try to pick and choose what they follow. The canon law regarding impotence is clear: Those with perpetual antecedent impotence *cannot *marry.

So, do you embrace that teaching, or not?

 

[CuriousInIL]

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.

I haven’t misunderstood anything nor do I reject anything, except your attempt to twist my posts. (I am curious as to what you think it is that I am rejecting.)
Let’s recall where this started. You stated:

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.

It was your statement that “2352 makes it clear…” That was your statement, not mine. And you said “2352 makes it clear…” not 2352 taken with the full body of Church teaching and with reference to the material cited in the footnotes…etc.

So, I think where we are is where we were: 2352 does not make it clear that it applies “outside of sexual intercourse.” Rather, one needs to interpret it that way.

 

[larry85704]

Sometimes I am very dense, seems more lately as I get older. What is impotence? At least as defined by the Church?

Reason I asked is that a dictionary I used to look it up indicated one of the definitions was sterile. I’ll assume the definition the Church uses does not define impotence to mean sterile.

Where do you go to get the Churches definition of words anyway?

 

[Seatuck]

Sometimes I am very dense, seems more lately as I get older. What is impotence? At least as defined by the Church?

Reason I asked is that a dictionary I used to look it up indicated one of the definitions was sterile. I’ll assume the definition the Church uses does not define impotence to mean sterile.

Where do you go to get the Churches definition of words anyway?

This isn’t about a church definition. The majority of the world considers impotence to be the inability to perform intercourse or the inability to achieve or maintain an erection.

 

[larry85704]

I suggest to read the definition of impotence. While you are correct in your statement about erections, sterile is also a definition of impotence.

So, if the majority of the world thinks impotence is a man with no hair on this head said man cannot marry? I cannot believe a Church for all nations would allow what everybody thinks to determine what it says is ok and not ok.

You may want to consider that the meaning of words changes as a function of time and location. When the Church wrote an impotent man cannot marry were they using the sterile definition or the erectile definition?

 

[Sinner1]

Larry brings up an interesting point. If you follow the Church’s teaching of no sex before marriage, (and no masturbation), how does one know they are impotent?

 

[Seatuck]

I suggest to read the definition of impotence. While you are correct in your statement about erections, sterile is also a definition of impotence.

So, if the majority of the world thinks impotence is a man with no hair on this head said man cannot marry? I cannot believe a Church for all nations would allow what everybody thinks to determine what it says is ok and not ok.

You may want to consider that the meaning of words changes as a function of time and location. When the Church wrote an impotent man cannot marry were they using the sterile definition or the erectile definition?

I’ve done 3 searches and the primary definition that comes up is “erectile dysfunction”.In my world as a registered nurse that is what the definition is. That is what people mean in this thread. That is what the language of the church means. There is no creative invention of the word. Impotent as in sterile is an older more obscure term.

Impotence is the impediment not sterility .

Canon 1084.1 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.
Canon 1084.2 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.
Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, **sterility **neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

 

[Seatuck]

Larry brings up an interesting point. If you follow the Church’s teaching of no sex before marriage, (and no masturbation), how does one know they are impotent?

The only way of knowing for sure would be if there was a medical diagnosis of some kind. Although many men kind of have an inkling since occaisonal erections are a normal part of a man’s health.

Remember that as long as there is some hope the marriage can occur.Can. 1084.2 It would only be in hindsight such as if the couple sought divorce that the issue would come up and be considered as evidence of nullity.

Canon 1084.2 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.

 

[Sinner1]

The only way of knowing for sure would be if there was a medical diagnosis of some kind. Although many men kind of have an inkling since occaisonal erections are a normal part of a man’s health.

One can have occasional erections and still be considered impotent.

So what could happen is a faithful Catholic man will go his whole pre-marital life without having sex or masturbating. But then after falling in love and getting engaged, he goes to the doctor to find out that he is actually impotent. He will then have to call off the wedding.

 

[Seatuck]

One can have occasional erections and still be considered impotent.

So what could happen is a faithful Catholic man will go his whole pre-marital life without having sex or masturbating. But then after falling in love and getting engaged, he goes to the doctor to find out that he is actually impotent. He will then have to call off the wedding.

As long as there is hope that the marital act could occur the couple may marry. If not then yes they should call off the wedding. There are medical interventions that could be attempted.

 

[thistle]

One can have occasional erections and still be considered impotent.

So what could happen is a faithful Catholic man will go his whole pre-marital life without having sex or masturbating. But then after falling in love and getting engaged, he goes to the doctor to find out that he is actually impotent. He will then have to call off the wedding.

If there is known permanent untreatable impotency prior to marriage then there can be no wedding.

 

[larry85704]

What I am getting out of this is that impotence is a cause for annulment. Assuming the couple getting married is content with their sex life, whatever it is, they would get married and stay married. Maybe never have sexual intercourse. But, they would get married in the Church, if they didn’t say anything at the time, or didn’t know. I think you can argue that since the act of intercourse never takes place the marriage is not valid. So, it then follows that the couple is living in sin. Oops.

Another, equally valid perspective is that the couple gets married, cannot have sexual intercourse and takes the attitude that they are married, they just haven’t consummated the marriage yet. For them to have the attitude that they are waiting on God to permit them to consummate their marriage seems ok to me.

Back when I got married no one said how long I had to consummate the marriage before it wasn’t a valid marriage. As far as engaging in sexual activity when you are impotent, if you want to, fine. Again, you can take the attitude that you are doing your part to consummate your marriage and waiting on God to do His part.

Another interesting thought is what is you have kids and you are impotent? As long as you define impotence as having an erectile dysfunction and not being sterile I suppose it could happen.

 

[thistle]

What I am getting out of this is that impotence is a cause for annulment. Assuming the couple getting married is content with their sex life, whatever it is, they would get married and stay married. Maybe never have sexual intercourse. But, they would get married in the Church, if they didn’t say anything at the time, or didn’t know. I think you can argue that since the act of intercourse never takes place the marriage is not valid. So, it then follows that the couple is living in sin. Oops.

Another, equally valid perspective is that the couple gets married, cannot have sexual intercourse and takes the attitude that they are married, they just haven’t consummated the marriage yet. For them to have the attitude that they are waiting on God to permit them to consummate their marriage seems ok to me.

Back when I got married no one said how long I had to consummate the marriage before it wasn’t a valid marriage. As far as engaging in sexual activity when you are impotent, if you want to, fine. Again, you can take the attitude that you are doing your part to consummate your marriage and waiting on God to do His part.

Another interesting thought is what is you have kids and you are impotent? As long as you define impotence as having an erectile dysfunction and not being sterile I suppose it could happen.

If the impotence was not known prior to the marriage then the marriage could not be annulled but dissolved.

As for consummation of the marriage that is done only through sexual intercourse, i.e. man has to climax inside his wife. Nothing else consummates the marriage.

I’m intrigued to know how a couple could have biological children if the man has permanent untreatable impotence. Please explain.

 

[Nickelous]

The man was not impotent at the time of marriage 50 years ago but he is now.

 

[1ke]

The man was not impotent at the time of marriage 50 years ago but he is now.

The man may seek medical treatment/assistance for his situation. There is much that doctors can do to assist an older man who is having this issue.

If he is not able to have sexual intercourse, the couple cannot engage in “other” genital activities instead.

 

[larry85704]

Haven’t you ever hear of women getting pregnant through heavy petting? If a man cannot ejaculate then he is sterile. The Church has different rules concerning being sterile. Being sterile is not an impediment to marriage.

I am pretty sure a man that cannot have an erection can ejaculate. Maybe I am being really stupid here, and actually believing all the trash I learned about sex, but I thought you can get pregnant when sperm is on or around a woman’s vagina. I am sorry if I am being too clinical here. I think it was the natural family planning folks that told me you can get pregnant without penetration.

I applaud the Church for having rules. I really believe rules are very necessary. Much of the wrong in society today is from people breaking the rules.

To be perfectly legalistic about it, all the rules the Church has are guidelines to help us live a good life. If is possible to kill, or murder if you prefer that term, without committing a sin. We are not rejecting the Church by questioning a rule, or even by not following it.

To me, the picture of a couple with children that can no longer have sex avoiding anything that might cause them to want to be intimate is sinful. As I see it, a married couple always has the right to each other’s bodies. As long as the use of the spouses body is acceptable to the spouse, unitive or procreative, I believe that there is plenty of Church teachings that say it is permissible, even mandated.

As I am older, I have experienced times when ejaculation didn’t happen. Wasn’t anything I did to cause it, it just didn’t. Now, since the activities and intent was to ejaculate there is no sin, obviously. I think this is a general truth, if two married people decide to have sex and cannot “finish”, it is not sinful as long as they do everything reasonable to have a normal sexual experience.

As far as seeing a doctor to find out some medical fact, I do not believe the Church requires you to seek out the advice of a doctor to determine if you sin or not.

Remember, to sin there must be intent.

 

[1ke]

I am pretty sure a man that cannot have an erection can ejaculate. Maybe I am being really stupid here, and actually believing all the trash I learned about sex, but I thought you can get pregnant when sperm is on or around a woman’s vagina. I am sorry if I am being too clinical here. I think it was the natural family planning folks that told me you can get pregnant without penetration.

The man has to be capable of penetration.

“Petting” is not intercourse, it is masterbation if taken to climax with no intercourse.

To me, the picture of a couple with children that can no longer have sex avoiding anything that might cause them to want to be intimate is sinful. As I see it, a married couple always has the right to each other’s bodies.

The marital right is to intercourse, not to orgasms.

As long as the use of the spouses body is acceptable to the spouse, unitive or procreative, I believe that there is plenty of Church teachings that say it is permissible, even mandated.

It must be unitive **AND **procreative. Church teaching is clear that both these elements MUST be present. There is NO Church teaching that states sexual expression in marriage may be unitive OR procreative.

As I am older, I have experienced times when ejaculation didn’t happen. Wasn’t anything I did to cause it, it just didn’t. Now, since the activities and intent was to ejaculate there is no sin, obviously. I think this is a general truth, if two married people decide to have sex and cannot “finish”, it is not sinful as long as they do everything reasonable to have a normal sexual experience.

It is not immoral to attempt sexual intercourse and be incapable of finishing. It IS immoral to substitute other genital stimulation FOR intercourse.

As far as seeing a doctor to find out some medical fact, I do not believe the Church requires you to seek out the advice of a doctor to determine if you sin or not.

The advice to see a doctor was not about sin and you know it.

It is always good advice to see a doctor about a medical problem.

Remember, to sin there must be intent.

And when one knows what the Church teaches and violates that teaching, there definitely is intent.

 

[larry85704]

It is interested how things can get twisted when the perspective isn’t right.

First off, the church says it is ok to have sex when it is not possible to conceive. Doesn’t it? After all, with things like natural family planning it is possible to have sex only when your likelihood of conception is highest. To my knowledge, the Church does not teach that you are only to have sex when you are likely to conceive. It is also ok to have sex when you are too old to have a baby.

Now the Church does teach that you have to be open to having a baby anytime you have sex. What is being said here is that sex must be unitive AND procreative. As long as procreative means open to life, then I got no problem with that. Do you see the difference? If you assume the only time it is ok to have sex is when you are reasonably sure you will finish in your wife and have a good chance of having a baby then you have gone too far. You would be stating that you cannot have sex after menopause.

I agree wholeheartedly that a Catholic couple should have the intent of finishing any sexual encounter with intercourse. I can think of so many things that can happen where a sexual encounter does not end in intercourse that to say that it is sinful is just silly. Consider this, man and wife are being affectionate. Woman gets aroused, wants sex. Man says no, not now. Later. Do you think there is a sin there? Stuff like that happens every day, it is a normal part of life. But, the woman did want sex, there was mutual sexual arousal and it did not finish, at least at that time, with intercourse. Would you call that masturbation and do you think it is sinful? I am pretty sure the Church does not.

And yep, I think that if husband and wife become affectionate with no intent of intercourse, ever, that is a sin. I think they can become affectionate with no intention of having intercourse as much as they want and it isn’t sinful as long as they feel they are meeting their obligation to have intercourse.

I am all for seeing doctors. What I was trying to point out was this.

Suppose you go to a doctor and he tells you you are impotent. You are not required to base your future moral decisions on what he said. I think the Church realizes that doctors simply aren’t that smart. It is the idea that the doctor told me I was impotent, but it turns out I am not. We all know that happens sometimes. As Catholics, at some point we must allow God to have a say. Maybe it is His choice that you not be impotent anymore.