M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The marriage is valid upon vows. See canon 109.1 mentioned above.
Is it okay to only court infertile people b/c you don't want children?
- Status
Infertile people are not barred from marriage in the Church. Permanently *impotent *people, however, are.
S
seekerz
Guest
Give yourself a chance. Let go of what you think you can or can’t do and surrender to God’s will for what a married couple is called to do…I betcha one baby layette that if you do and a child comes along, you’ll fall in love at the first ultrasound.
Life’s joy often comes from the most unlikely sources. In some marriages the child is the bright spot when challenges come, when you feel like walking away, when nothing else in life makes sense…I could go on, but you get the drift. Just open up to whatever gifts God in His wisdom chooses to give.
C
Cpl_Ferro
Guest
L
larry85704
Guest
Sillyest thing I ever heard of. If you want to get married first of, you hopefully never had sex before so you don’t know if you can have sex or not. Second, you are not forced to have sex. duh. Sex does not have to be an issue. You can still get married. What about all the old folks that want to get married. Some old guy might not have had sex in forever. He doesn’t know what will happen. Sort of by God’s design, if he marries an old woman they are not going to have kids.
I’ve been married in the church twice and I am pretty sure I was never asked if I was impotent. In my second marriage, I was sterile, and I told the deacon that. He said no problem, cause we were open to having kids.
If some deacon or priest is gonna ask you about impotence they are perverts. You should get another person to help you and report them to the Bishop.
I’ve been married in the church twice and I am pretty sure I was never asked if I was impotent. In my second marriage, I was sterile, and I told the deacon that. He said no problem, cause we were open to having kids.
If some deacon or priest is gonna ask you about impotence they are perverts. You should get another person to help you and report them to the Bishop.
But it IS the truth. Consummation is what makes the marriage sacramental and indissoluble.
If said old folk is permanently impotent (i.e. cannot be reversed) then he is subject to the same impediment. He can’t get married. If said old folk are sterile, but can still have intercourse, then they are indeed free to marry.
It’s in bad taste yes, but it doesn’t make them perverts. I doubt a Bishop will oust a priest for asking a perfectly valid marriage question, sensitive it may be. BUT, if after the celebration of the marriage, a spouse discovers that the partner is impotent and cannot be cured, then the marriage can be annulled.
J
jfhh
Guest
To be fair to the Church and defend her, my understanding is that as “cold” as the law may seem to the one above, it doesn’t preclude an impotent couple from just being a couple without getting married. They obviously wouldn’t be able to have intercourse since they are impotent so sin wouldn’t be an issue. My understanding is that they can still like any other couple that is not married be affectionate with each other. They would I suppose feel the same way some homosexual couples do in not being “recognized” by society. But, love isn’t about being recognized by other people. Unfortunately, I think many people, including many homosexuals, do not understand that.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Three things:
a) First of all, the marriage is valid when the vows are exchanged, as other posters have shown from canon law.
b) Secondly, a newly married couple is obviously not obligated to consummate the marriage within any set amount of time. It’s not like there’s a limit.
c) And finally, I may misunderstand your question, so forgive me, but… if I understand you properly, then I can say with confidence that most men can know that they can without ever having tried.
First of all, the Church presumes that a person can have sex. Only permanent and irreversible impotence, firmly and undeniably established, actually becomes an impediment.
No one has to prove that they can; everyone assumes that that is simply the case. The impediment only applies in those rare cases when it is irreversible and firmly established. That should answer your second point as well:
If the Church has no reason to think he may be impotent other than his age, then the Church will simply assume that he can and let them get married. You guys are acting as if every couple who wants to get married would have to prove somehow that they can do it; that is in no way the case. This isn’t something the Church "checks out."
Of course he didn’t ask if you were impotent. Why would he? The Church would never presume that to be the case. The default assumption is that a couple are capable, at least sometimes but most likely at any time, of having intercourse.
So of course your priest or deacon didn’t ask about that. Unless permanent and irreversible impotence is firmly established beforehand, the Church simply presumes that you can and doesn’t ask questions.
I don’t know if they’d be perverts, but they certainly would not be acting in accordance with the Church. As I said, that’s not how this impediment works. The Church isn’t in the business of “checking up” on anyone.
But why? Why do you say that?
Such an impediment would not preclude them from being a couple. They could live together in every other way and be perfectly happy together.
And if they ever found that they could have intercourse, then that wouldn’t be an issue, because in that case the Church would not have barred them from marriage to begin with.
So why is it cold?
C
Cpl_Ferro
Guest
Are you telling me a couple could live together and be bodily intimate without a sacrament of marriage?
Cpl Ferro
Cpl Ferro
J
jmcrae
Guest
No. But if they can’t, then they don’t need to be married. I also disagree that they could live together, but they could be close neighbors and visit lots.
C
Cpl_Ferro
Guest
Like I said, cold.No. But if they can’t, then they don’t need to be married. I also disagree that they could live together, but they could be close neighbors and visit lots.
Cpl Ferro
J
jfhh
Guest
Read the canon law commentary link I posted. If one were not physically proximate in courtship, then one may not know.
Can. 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.
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.
And here’s an explanation of absolute vs. relative
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment
Impediments to marriage are classified according to many different criteria.[1]
In regard to their effect on the sacrament,[2] impediments are either diriment, which invalidate an attempted marriage, or prohibitive (or impedient), which make a marriage illicit but valid. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not contain prohibitive impediments as such.
In regard to their origin, impediments are either from divine law, and so cannot be dispensed, or from ecclesiastical law, and so can be dispensed by the competent Church authority. Under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, ecclesiastical impediments only apply to marriages where one or both of the parties is Catholic. Under the prior 1917 Code, ecclesiastical impediments applied to the marriages of non-Catholic Christians as well, unless specifically exempted (…)
Impediments are also classified as follows:
Code:
* public, which can be proved in the external forum, or occult, which cannot be so proved[4];* permanent or temporary, according to the duration of the impediment; and
* (for ecclesiastical impediments) whether they can be dispensed by the local ordinary under ordinary circumstances, or whether their dispensation is reserved to the Pope[5]
List of diriment impediments to marriage
Code:
* Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7] Each national episcopal conference has the authority to set a higher minimum age as a prohibitive impediment. Note that, in general, individual bishops do not have this authority (cf. CIC c. 1075 §2).[8] (...) In England and Wales, this minimum age has been set to be in accordance with civil law (...) In South Africa, and also in Switzerland, this minimum age has been set to be in accordance with civil law.[13] (...) The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has not enacted a higher prohibitive minimum age for marriage.[15]
*** Physical capacity for consummation lacking [16]. While a couple need not be fertile, both parties must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[17] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[18] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”**
* Previous marriage [19]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.
* Disparity of cult [20]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.
* Sacred orders [21]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
* Perpetual vow of chastity [22]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
* Abduction [23]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage. Ecclesiastical, temporary.
* Crimen [24]. One or both of the parties have brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
* Consanguinity [25]. The parties are closely related by blood. Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.
* Affinity [26]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
* Public propriety [27]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
* Adoption [28]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
* Spiritual relationship [29]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite.- Status