Impotency and marriage

[Ghosty]

Are you sure that impotence blocks one from having sinful thoughts? Also, if only one person is importent, can’t he or she do things which will arouse the other one even into orgasm?

Catholics are ALWAYS allowed to live together as brother and sister; there is nothing inherently sinful in doing so even for young, virile people. Impotence merely strips away the most likely deal-breaker. Yes, the couple could do as you say, but then such activity is sinful even for a married couple when done outside of intercourse, and they are allowed to live together even when they aren’t having sex. The same is true of sinful thoughts, though I think it’s debatable whether or not the desire to have sex with someone in wedlock is a sinful thought. Just because the people physically can’t get married doesn’t necessarily mean that their natural desires for marriage and the marital act are sinful. It’s a very, very different circumstance from thinking about someone who you have no intention of marrying. It’s also a question of how much one dwells on the issue.

 

[Ghosty]

What are they supposed to do, get married by a judge? They could still have a great life together, taking care of each other and perhaps providing some financial stability (two can live cheaper than one).

This would be permissable, yes. The marriage wouldn’t be recognized by the Church, but then it wouldn’t anyway due to impotency. If a legal marriage allowed them to avoid scandal, then there would be nothing wrong with it. In cases where legal but non-sacramental marriages are engaged in, the Church simply states that the couple must live as brother and sister until the marriage is “normalized”. Since they would be doing this anyway, I see nothing wrong with it. They could let their bishop know what was going on and in all likelyhood it would be permitted, I’d imagine. They could also avoid scandal simply by letting those who know them that they don’t have sex, if that isn’t too embarrasing. Most people would accept that coming from an 80 year old couple.

 

[tuopaolo]

Listener:

What are they supposed to do, get married by a judge?

No that would be a sin.

If there is such a thing as a Josephite Marriage, why on earth wouldn’t a couple such as this qualify for one?

Even in the case of Josephite marriages, there is still an exchange of consent which involves exchanging the right to marital congress with each other. If one is unable to give marital congress, one can hardly be able to give someone the right to marital congress. Josephite marriages are what they are not because the right to marital congress is not mutually exchanged but rather because the right is not exercised.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think a Judge Marriage would be a sin, it just wouldn’t be a marriage in the eyes of the Church. The sin would be in acting like a married couple (which they are incapable of doing anyway) while only married by a Judge. I could be wrong on this, but I don’t see anything inherently sinful in a Justice of the Peace wedding.

 

[Viki59]

So you’re saying we should give back our adopted children and go our separate ways?
Don’t think so.
Our marriage was recently convalidated by our priest, and he had no questions about impotence, though my husband’s disability is obvious. So maybe our marriage is invalid. Will ask Our Lord when I get to heaven.

 

[pointvicente]

Its been almost 10 years and no answer was attempted for this last post. It’s a valid question that deserves an answer. I am certain there is a proper response but I haven’t found it yet but I will try. My response is this: I don’t believe anyone is saying give back your adopted children. As faithful Catholics we are called to believe in Christ and his Church because they are one. When we ask questions and do not get answers this does not mean the Church is an oppressor. It simply means either the Church has not yet provided an answer or that we haven’t been able to receive the proper answer from the Church. I think the canon law intends to preserve the capable spouse’s privilege of having a consummated marriage. Getting a civil divorce and annulment may sound absurd and down right cruel. But if we are choosing to follow Christ and his Church sometimes we need to have faith and show love in a way that others will never understand. In this case the Church is saying by all means take care of the one you love as brother and sister as you already have shown. This would have been the recognition from day one had the priest properly understood cannon law. But he choose to put his will above the providence of Christ and his Church. Other questions by people opposed to the Church would be what about the civil rights of financial benefit to the children and spouse in the case. To that I would say the civil legal system and ability to have a living trust/will should suffice.