Is the Church's teaching regarding immpotence infallible

[Pug]

manualman:

Here’s one for ya’. A couple gets married in the church, but secretly decide to use ABC. After a year, they repent and quit. If I understand it right, they still aren’t sacramentally married since there was a major defect present at the time of the wedding. Are these folks living in sin?

Do you mean a couple who colluded to never, ever have kids? Or do you mean a couple who colluded to postpone kids by means of ABC? The second were married when they got married, AFAIK.

 

[Nonie]

manualman:

Here’s one for ya’. A couple gets married in the church, but secretly decide to use ABC. After a year, they repent and quit. If I understand it right, they still aren’t sacramentally married since there was a major defect present at the time of the wedding. Are these folks living in sin?

I would say no from what I have read of Aquinas. ( But I’m not an expert on this) He mentions that the Church has a three year time period that allows a married couple to show proof (wonder what that could be ?? :whacky: that they (probably he) is not impotent. So I suppose if this teaching of Aquinas is followed the couple would have three years to “consumate” thier marriage.

Although using ABC is a sin…they would still have an issue there. But I don’t know if the sin of using ABC would hinder the “marriage act” from having taken place in the eyes of the Church. Interesting question. Wonder if using birth control would hinder the “official” marriage act? I suppose if there must be secretions present in the male and female and it dosen’t matter if the man has a vascetomy…as long as there is the “act” it would seem that it is A-ok. HUMMMM…anyone have an idea on this one? Can the woman be on birth control even though it is a huge no-no, and still complete the marriage act? It would seem that the answer to that question would be yes since, as the Church has stated, sterility is not an issue here.

Also, it could make a difference if the couple are not both Catholic. I read (maybe on this site)that a nonCatholic spouse can use ABC as long as the Catholic spouse doesn’t use the ABC. This was from an apologist.

Have a great Thanksgiving!
Nonie

 

[vluvski]

A couple who uses ABC from the get-go has not consummated their marriage, so the marriage can be dissolved and does not even need the formality of a decree of nullity.
If they later become open to children, their marriage is consummated by their first non-contracepted act of sex, and the marriage becomes valid at that point.
I do not know when the marriage becomes sacramental, but I would tend to think not until they for-real consummate the marriage.

 

[Pug]

vluvski:

A couple who uses ABC from the get-go has not consummated their marriage, so the marriage can be dissolved and does not even need the formality of a decree of nullity.

Can you give some references for these two statements?

 

[Neithan]

Marriage requires at least the ability to have unitive sex, and no deliberate hindrance of procreation. You don’t actually need to be fertile, just not deliberately hinder it. It’s because of the fundamental Christian concept of forgiveness that the Church allows one who has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy by choice to be married. If the person sincerely repents, then the Church shows her mercy. If a man is permanently impotent, however, then the most basic act which distinguishes a marriage–conjugal relations–is impossible. There is no point for having a marriage at all. A man and a woman who love each other but cannot engage in marital relations due to physical impediments can simply live together ‘as brother and sister’ if they so wish, and this does not exclude them from the other Sacraments.

The thinking of the Church is: if you physically cannot have sex, then there is no Sacrament. Remember that the physical sign of the Sacrament must be present in order for it to be valid. In the case of marriage, this sign is the conjugal union of a man and a woman. If a couple is not deliberately infertile (or if previous acts are sincerely repented) then a truly unitive, conjugal union can take place and the Sacrament is present. This simply cannot happen in the case of permanent impotence. Thomas Aquinas explains the difference from those who vow continence (such as the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph) since theirs is a voluntary act, and the *possibility of *conjugal relations maintains a valid Sacrament. Again, not the case with permanent impotence. Like Nonie said above: you can’t give what you don’t have. Likewise you can’t promise *not *to give what you don’t have anyway!

Also, many Catholics are led to believe that the invalidity of homosexual marriage is simply that it is not able to procreate. That reasoning is a little faulty/incomplete, as we can see on this thread, since an infertile man and woman are also not able to procreate. The invalidity of homosexual marriage again lies primarily with the nature of the Sacrament–the conjugal union of one *male *and one *female. *Homosexual ‘marriage’ is not sacramental because of the lack of the proper physical sign. It is neither procreative nor unitive because it is unnatural (as in, contrary to Natural Law). The unitive aspect doesn’t take place either because there is no natural union. The ‘key’ does not fit the ‘lock,’ because either the ‘key’ or the ‘lock’ is missing

 

[CuriousInIL]

Neithan:

Marriage requires at least the ability to have unitive sex, and no deliberate hindrance of procreation. You don’t actually need to be fertile, just not deliberately hinder it. It’s because of the fundamental Christian concept of forgiveness that the Church allows one who has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy by choice to be married. If the person sincerely repents, then the Church shows her mercy. If a man is permanently impotent, however, then the most basic act which distinguishes a marriage–conjugal relations–is impossible. There is no point for having a marriage at all. A man and a woman who love each other but cannot engage in marital relations due to physical impediments can simply live together ‘as brother and sister’ if they so wish, and this does not exclude them from the other Sacraments.

The thinking of the Church is: if you physically cannot have sex, then there is no Sacrament. Remember that the physical sign of the Sacrament must be present in order for it to be valid. In the case of marriage, this sign is the conjugal union of a man and a woman. If a couple is not deliberately infertile (or if previous acts are sincerely repented) then a truly unitive, conjugal union can take place and the Sacrament is present. This simply cannot happen in the case of permanent impotence. Thomas Aquinas explains the difference from those who vow continence (such as the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph) since theirs is a voluntary act, and the *possibility of *conjugal relations maintains a valid Sacrament. Again, not the case with permanent impotence. Like Nonie said above: you can’t give what you don’t have. Likewise you can’t promise *not *to give what you don’t have anyway!

Also, many Catholics are led to believe that the invalidity of homosexual marriage is simply that it is not able to procreate. That reasoning is a little faulty/incomplete, as we can see on this thread, since an infertile man and woman are also not able to procreate. The invalidity of homosexual marriage again lies primarily with the nature of the Sacrament–the conjugal union of one *male *and one *female. *Homosexual ‘marriage’ is not sacramental because of the lack of the proper physical sign. It is neither procreative nor unitive because it is unnatural (as in, contrary to Natural Law). The unitive aspect doesn’t take place either because there is no natural union. The ‘key’ does not fit the ‘lock,’ because either the ‘key’ or the ‘lock’ is missing

What does the bolded phrase mean? What is unitive sex? Is there non-unitive (dis-unitive, un-unitive?) sex and, if so, what does that mean?

 

[Dorothy]

<<What does the bolded phrase mean? What is unitive sex? Is there non-unitive (dis-unitive, un-unitive?) sex and, if so, what does that mean?>>

Unitive sex means that the couple may be infertile, but they can still give themselves to one another in the marital embrace. They can be united in the marital embrace.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Dorothy:

Unitive sex means that the couple may be infertile, but they can still give themselves to one another in the marital embrace. They can be united in the marital embrace.

That still leaves me wondering if there is some sort of sex other than unitive sex.

 

[Dorothy]

CuriousInIL:

That still leaves me wondering if there is some sort of sex other than unitive sex.

I would think that rape, and/or sex with just lust as the objective would be in that category.

 

[Neithan]

Exactly. Lust/rape/fornication/masturbation/prostitution/pornography/homosexuality/incest/adultery and of course, impotence or frigidity, are all among the barriers to unitive sex.

Unitive sex is between a married husband and wife in a loving conjugal embrace which is not deliberately infertile contrary to nature (i.e. for any other reason than the woman’s natural cycle).

As for infallibility, I think that impotence as an impediment to marriage is an infallible doctrine, but as fix already mentioned, how potency is specifically defined may be subject to reform.

Also, if a couple fully intends on contracepting at the time that their marriage is blessed/witnessed by the Church then no Sacrament can take place. This would be grounds for annullment. If they both repent of this, and intend on following Church teaching during the course of their marriage then the Sacrament will take place with each act of unitive sex thereafter. The marriage will be ‘consummated’ in the first conjugal union which is not deliberately infertile, even if this is several years after the actual marriage ceremony. This is because the marriage ceremony itself is not the Sacrament–marital union is–but the ceremony prepares for the Sacrament, blesses the couple so that it can take place between them. The “you may now kiss the Bride” is actually the ‘opening act’ of consummation which will presumably be completed sometime over the next couple of days…but sometimes it takes a lot longer as noted above.

I do think that any couple who have been blessed by the Church in a formal marriage ceremony would need an annullment, even if no Sacrament has taken place. Annullments actually should only be granted–technically–if no Sacrament has taken place.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Dorothy:

I would think that rape, and/or sex with just lust as the objective would be in that category.

That seems reasonable, but doesn’t help at all in defining unitive sex as it was used in the following:

Marriage requires at least the ability to have unitive sex, and no deliberate hindrance of procreation.

Obviously, all couples would have the ability to have sex that was not rape or pure lust.

 

[Neithan]

CuriousInIL:

Obviously, all couples would have the ability to have sex that was not rape or pure lust

Not if the man is impotent!

 

[CuriousInIL]

Neithan:

Not if the man is impotent!

True. In the context of the discussion, I suppose I should have said that all potent couples would have the ability…

The underlying question is, In the following quote,

Marriage requires at least the ability to have unitive sex, and no deliberate hindrance of procreation.

What is the meaning of unitive? Or does the sentence stand the same without unitive?

 

[mercygate]

CuriousInIL:

True. In the context of the discussion, I suppose I should have said that all potent couples would have the ability…

The underlying question is, In the following quote, What is the meaning of unitive? Or does the sentence stand the same without unitive?

The word “unitive” has to say because the “natural human act of intercourse,” which effects both the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act, can be nothing other than “tab A in slot B.”

 

[Neithan]

CuriousInIL:

What is the meaning of unitive? Or does the sentence stand the same without unitive?

We’ve established the meaning of the word. I added the qualifier ‘unitive’ to the phrase you quote because that is the sort of sexual union which is proper to a marriage. Simply saying ‘the ability to have sex’ does not specifically conjure the entire concept of the context for this argument.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Neithan:

We’ve established the meaning of the word. I added the qualifier ‘unitive’ to the phrase you quote because that is the sort of sexual union which is proper to a marriage. Simply saying ‘the ability to have sex’ does not convey the entire concept of the context for this argument.

Sorry if I missed it, but I don’t see that the menaing has been established, in which case it is either or both of 1) anything other than rape or pure lust and 2) tab A in slot B. And, in either event, I do not see how unitive would then add anything, which is why I think it must be something more.

 

[Neithan]

How about this definition:

Unitive implies a natural (‘tab A’ in ‘slot B’), loving, mutually concentual sexual embrace between a faithfully, legitimately married couple which is free of lust and not deliberately infertile (i.e. for any other reason than the woman’s natural cycle), in which completes ‘conjugal copulation’ as defined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Does that work?

The dual unitive/procreative purposes of sacramental sex are actually not really ‘dual’, since the two cannot be separated. You cannot have unitive sex if you are deliberately hindering the procreative faculty, and making use of said procreative faculties outside of the marital embrace (e.g. in vitro fertilization) is also not unitive and therefore not sacramental.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Neithan:

How about this definition:

Unitive implies a natural (‘tab A’ in ‘slot B’), loving, mutually concentual sexual embrace between a faithfully, legitimately married couple which is free of lust and not deliberately infertile (i.e. for any other reason than the woman’s natural cycle), in which consists the ‘capacity to perform conjugal copula’ as defined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Does that work?

The dual unitive/procreative purposes of sacramental sex are actually not really ‘dual’, since the two cannot be separated. You cannot have unitive sex if you are deliberately hindering the procreative faculty, and making use of said procreative faculties outside of the marital embrace (e.g. in vitro fertilization) is also not unitive and therefore not sacramental.

Yes, it helps a lot. I now need to think about the past responses with that in mind.

Two follow-up questions/comments. First, it has always seemed to me that it is a bit strange to talk about “unitive procreative sex” if the lack of the procreative portion means that it is not unitive. In other words, there realy then is only one test, is it unitive (as you defined it) and thus, as you note it is not dual. Second, is there a corollary to the bolded language, i.e., aside from rape or pure lust, is it possible to have procreative sex that is not unitive or are rape and lust the only two possible exceptions.

 

[Neithan]

CuriousInIL:

Two follow-up questions/comments. First, it has always seemed to me that it is a bit strange to talk about “unitive procreative sex” if the lack of the procreative portion means that it is not unitive. In other words, there realy then is only one test, is it unitive (as you defined it) and thus, as you note it is not dual.

You’re right, there really only is one test. I think that both ‘unitive’ and ‘procreative’ are still used as two different qualities to describe essentially the same thing because they explicitly convey the two primary aspects for the purpose of sacramental sex: the loving union of husband and wife, and the procreation of children. Since the latter is not an absolute necessity, however (since infertile couples may be married), it can be confusing.

The reason the stress on the procreative part of sex is still mentioned (‘unitive-procreative’ instead of just ‘unitive’) is because this specific language in describing the marital embrace is somewhat recent, dating back roughly since the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI in 1968. The stress is that procreation can not be deliberately obstructed by unnatural means. Pope Paul VI was arguing that the ‘unitive’ aspect can not exist if the ‘procreative’ aspect is no longer seen as properly belonging to it. It is an argument against artificial contraception, since this forcibly divorces the procreative quality from sex and voids the unitive quality as a result. This did lead, however unintentionally, to most Catholics understanding *dual *inseparable purposes of sacramental sex rather than a *single *purpose with two inseparable aspects or qualities. Subtle misunderstanding but can lead to further confusion as this thread exemplifies.

The inseparable unitive-procreative qualities of human sexuality are more aptly collapsed into a single definition of the single ‘sacramental’ nature and purpose of the conjugal union. So it would in fact have been better if I’d phrased my above sentence thusly:

Marriage requires at least the* ability* to have sacramental sex*.*

That is more precise. The definition of sacramental in this case is identical to my definition of unitive above.

CuriousInIL:

Second, is there a corollary to the bolded language, i.e., aside from rape or pure lust, is it possible to have procreative sex that is not unitive or are rape and lust the only two possible exceptions.

Rape, lust, fornication, incest, prostitution and adultery all come to mind as potentially procreative but not unitive (and therefore not sacramental) sex.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Very interesting and very informative. I really need to think about all that for a bit, but at first blush makes much sense.