A
Andrew_11
Guest
I bring this up due to the immpotence thread I started. Is the Church’s teaching that an impotent person cannot marry infallible? Is it a matter of moral, or discipline?
- Status
C
carol_marie
Guest
A similar question was recently asked… the CC refrences are given, if that helps?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85386
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85386
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Canon law contains two types of rules:
The near universal consensus of theologians and canon lawyers is that the rule about impotence comes from divine law. However, the Magisterium has not declared that the divine origin of the rule about impotence has been taught infallibly.
- rules that come from God’s divine law, which cannot be changed by the Church, and
- rules that come from the Church’s ecclesiastical/disciplinary law, which can be changed by the Church.
The near universal consensus of theologians and canon lawyers is that the rule about impotence comes from divine law. However, the Magisterium has not declared that the divine origin of the rule about impotence has been taught infallibly.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
I was typing up another post, and thought of this concrete example. Under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Protestants are held to divine law, but not to Catholic ecclesiastical law.
Currently, if two Protesants get married in their own church, and one of them suffers from the impediment of impotence, then the Catholic Church does not consider that marriage to be valid, and would grant an annulment in that case.
Currently, if two Protesants get married in their own church, and one of them suffers from the impediment of impotence, then the Catholic Church does not consider that marriage to be valid, and would grant an annulment in that case.
1
1ke
Guest
Impediment derived from divine law cannot be dispensed. Those that are disciplinary can be dispensed. This one cannot be dispensed.
Therefore, I do believe it is taught firmly as an unchangeable aspect of the Sacrament although there has likely been no “ex cathedra” type pronouncement of infallibility.
Therefore, I do believe it is taught firmly as an unchangeable aspect of the Sacrament although there has likely been no “ex cathedra” type pronouncement of infallibility.
C
carol_marie
Guest
I did not know there were two different types. Thank you for posting this.
A
aria13
Guest
Not being Catholic this posting/thread and the other one on parapalegics shocked me TOTALLY! I guess I’m wondering as to where people in the Church draw the line on what the Church controls in their lives? How old are these “laws” that were written? I’m sure most, if not all, were written LONG before modern medicine came along and found “cures” for some of these problems! For goodness sake, some cases of impotency are cured with drugs that can correct imbalances in hormones. There are implants available. And then there’s Viagra! This all seems a bit archaic to me! And rather cruel in this day in age! As if a man isn’t embarrassed enough about his “dysfunction” he also has the church telling him he can’t get married because he can’t function as a husband. Interesting. Does the Church not want to recognize medical advancement? It’s not the year 1100 anymore…or 1400…or even 1900. Grow and go with the times!
N
ncjohn
Guest
I have seen this topic come up a couple times now recently. I have yet to see anyone show this to even have a corresponding section in the CCC, much less anything to claim it as an infallible teaching.
My personal feeling is that this is some remnant of a bygone age that has just never been excised from canon law, although I will freely admit that I cannot prove that, not yet having done the research as to its origins.
I personally find it one of the most disturbing concepts I have run across in all of Catholic teaching however. Aside from the obvious questions it brings up regarding Mary and Joseph in light of Mary’s perpetual virginity, to think that the Church would proclaim that a marriage is invalid because someone can’t get an erection is just mind-boggling to me. When you consider all the possible causes of male or female impotence, from physical causes, injuries, deformities, woundings, etc; then throw in the potential psychological causes such as moletstation or rape; the lack of compassion in “shooting the victim” just makes my head spin.
When you add to that impotence based on normal aging and menopause–and basically tell an entire group of elderly people that they cannot remarry and must finish their lives in loneliness–it makes me wonder what one could possibly be thinking to come up with such a conclusion. I for one am not going to be the one to go tell my 77 year old mother and her 82 year old husband that their marriage is invalid!
Maybe someone has a really good explanation of this that I haven’t seen yet, or more background on where it came from. I would be eager to learn that if this isn’t just something akin to old laws still in our secular “justice” system that no one ever bothered to take care of. Beyond that, I hope no one outside the Church ever asks me about this one, as I would have one heck of a hard time trying to defend it with a straight face.
Peace,
My personal feeling is that this is some remnant of a bygone age that has just never been excised from canon law, although I will freely admit that I cannot prove that, not yet having done the research as to its origins.
I personally find it one of the most disturbing concepts I have run across in all of Catholic teaching however. Aside from the obvious questions it brings up regarding Mary and Joseph in light of Mary’s perpetual virginity, to think that the Church would proclaim that a marriage is invalid because someone can’t get an erection is just mind-boggling to me. When you consider all the possible causes of male or female impotence, from physical causes, injuries, deformities, woundings, etc; then throw in the potential psychological causes such as moletstation or rape; the lack of compassion in “shooting the victim” just makes my head spin.
When you add to that impotence based on normal aging and menopause–and basically tell an entire group of elderly people that they cannot remarry and must finish their lives in loneliness–it makes me wonder what one could possibly be thinking to come up with such a conclusion. I for one am not going to be the one to go tell my 77 year old mother and her 82 year old husband that their marriage is invalid!
Maybe someone has a really good explanation of this that I haven’t seen yet, or more background on where it came from. I would be eager to learn that if this isn’t just something akin to old laws still in our secular “justice” system that no one ever bothered to take care of. Beyond that, I hope no one outside the Church ever asks me about this one, as I would have one heck of a hard time trying to defend it with a straight face.
Peace,
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
My goodness, what fulminations. I believe my CPU is going to overheat.
When impotence is curable by medical means, as you clearly indicate in your own post, then it is no longer impotence, and it would appear that you are attacking something other than the position of the Church. Remember that the impediment arises from not all impotence, but only that importence which is antecedent and perpetual and established beyond doubt. In fact, the Church would encourage moral means to cure it.
I would be among the first to admit that divine law in regard to marriage could be construed as archaic and ancient. Catholics consider ourselves bound to what we believe God has revealed to us, and we consider that the potential for marital intimacy is intrinsic to marriage as God created it. We do not consider ourselves free to assert otherwise, since by marriage as instituted by God, “the two become one flesh.” Therefore, given a forced choice between some kind of chronological snobbery and fidelity, we will chose the latter.
We should also recognize that the question of impotence is also a highly technical area of Church law and moral theology. Catholic teaching on this topic involves great complexity and some very precise distinctions that have been drawn. Forum postings cannot always convey a proper understanding of the issues due to various factors. Perhaps a closer study on your part will be helpful for you and invite some reasoned reflection on your part prior to any additional pronouncements.
A
Aaron_I
Guest
Grow up yourself. Research before you blow up at us. If there is ANY doubt as to the impotency of a partner, then the Church will let him marry. If a person takes viagra and becomes potent, then he can marry. If however a person is objectively and permanently impotent, he cannot marry.
If impotent people should be able to marry, please explain to me why homosexuals cannot.
A
aria13
Guest
Aaron: First, sir, and I didn’t say “grow up,” I said “Grow”…as in expand. please read more carefully.
As for impotency being corrected with Viagra, good grief, this is a fairly new drug. For how many years have men had to go without the joys of marital relations, just because they couldn’t have an erection! Yes, there is so much more to marriage than sex, but apparently sex and procreation are huge parts of the human race, it’s been going on for a very long, long time! If I’m understanding this correctly, the Catholic Church believes that human sexuality is designed to promote love (unity) and life (procreation.) Whenever the formula is altered or divided, the Church belives that sin enters the equation. Is this correct?
If so, then medical help isn’t acceptable because it isn’t natural. This seems extremely unfair. What if a couple wants to get married and the woman has had a hysterectomy? This makes her able to have relations, but not children. This is a change in the equation…or plan. ncjohn brings up another valid point: what about the cases of older people wanting to get married? There is a good chance there won’t be babies…and possibly impotency. Is their marriage not valid? The whole Church plan has gone right out the window with older people. I think, many laws were written long before modern medicine had some improvements, and also before people lived long enough to consider second marriages.
cameron: Curiousity and a bit of displeasure with what I am discovering about the Catholic Chuch isn’t necessarily a pronouncement. I was shocked to find & read this here and in books on Catholicism. I’m dating a Catholic man and I’m finding it interesting, but also very perplexing. I have been Lutheran all of my life, and I also come from a family of medical professionals. I just find it most interesting that, although the Church has made huge progressions, they are still many years behind in accepting what is available to it’s members. Maybe it’s the American way of thinking: We are more liberal and more progressive, much of the world is not.
And again to Aaron: I wasn’t attacking or blowing up. But I do have a question. How does one prove that he isn’t impotent? Who does he have to prove this to? Himself? His future wife? The Church? And also, how did gay marriage come into this? I didn’t think impotency had anything to do with homosexual marriages, because I don’t think they’re all impotent. You, sir, if you want to find out my stand on gay marriage, need to go and look at another thread.
I’m not going to get into it here. If you want to discuss this further, you can send me a personal message.
I do aplogize if I offended someone, that was not my intention. But I believe in progress, and as good and strong as the Church is, it seems to lack in some areas. I taught in a Catholic school system, loved it, but had many questions for the sisters and priests. No wonder there are so many stories about “feeling guilty” amongst members. I mean that in a very light hearted way; not meant to offend anyone. Remember, I love a Catholic man, and I’m probably going to have a Catholic son-in-law, whom I love also. It’s just very hard to understand the control and beliefs at times.
God’s blessings
As for impotency being corrected with Viagra, good grief, this is a fairly new drug. For how many years have men had to go without the joys of marital relations, just because they couldn’t have an erection! Yes, there is so much more to marriage than sex, but apparently sex and procreation are huge parts of the human race, it’s been going on for a very long, long time! If I’m understanding this correctly, the Catholic Church believes that human sexuality is designed to promote love (unity) and life (procreation.) Whenever the formula is altered or divided, the Church belives that sin enters the equation. Is this correct?
If so, then medical help isn’t acceptable because it isn’t natural. This seems extremely unfair. What if a couple wants to get married and the woman has had a hysterectomy? This makes her able to have relations, but not children. This is a change in the equation…or plan. ncjohn brings up another valid point: what about the cases of older people wanting to get married? There is a good chance there won’t be babies…and possibly impotency. Is their marriage not valid? The whole Church plan has gone right out the window with older people. I think, many laws were written long before modern medicine had some improvements, and also before people lived long enough to consider second marriages.
cameron: Curiousity and a bit of displeasure with what I am discovering about the Catholic Chuch isn’t necessarily a pronouncement. I was shocked to find & read this here and in books on Catholicism. I’m dating a Catholic man and I’m finding it interesting, but also very perplexing. I have been Lutheran all of my life, and I also come from a family of medical professionals. I just find it most interesting that, although the Church has made huge progressions, they are still many years behind in accepting what is available to it’s members. Maybe it’s the American way of thinking: We are more liberal and more progressive, much of the world is not.
And again to Aaron: I wasn’t attacking or blowing up. But I do have a question. How does one prove that he isn’t impotent? Who does he have to prove this to? Himself? His future wife? The Church? And also, how did gay marriage come into this? I didn’t think impotency had anything to do with homosexual marriages, because I don’t think they’re all impotent. You, sir, if you want to find out my stand on gay marriage, need to go and look at another thread.
I’m not going to get into it here. If you want to discuss this further, you can send me a personal message.I do aplogize if I offended someone, that was not my intention. But I believe in progress, and as good and strong as the Church is, it seems to lack in some areas. I taught in a Catholic school system, loved it, but had many questions for the sisters and priests. No wonder there are so many stories about “feeling guilty” amongst members. I mean that in a very light hearted way; not meant to offend anyone. Remember, I love a Catholic man, and I’m probably going to have a Catholic son-in-law, whom I love also. It’s just very hard to understand the control and beliefs at times.
God’s blessings
P
puzzleannie
Guest
these “laws that are written” are as old as creation itself, and are part of the created order, that is the definition of natural law, and it is natural law that determines the nature of the bond between man and woman, and the nature of marriage, the self-gifting of one man and one woman to each other for the purpose of forming a bond of union so strong it last until death and supports the children that are welcomed into the union, its other purpose being procreation. The means of procreation is also part of natural law.
J
JimG
Guest
Just to clarify:
The impediment relates to inability to have marital relations which exists prior to the marriage and is permanent and perpetual.
–Impotence which is medically curable is not an impediment.
–Impotence which is temporary is not an impediment.
–Infertility is not an impediment.
–Having had a hysterectomy is not an impediment. (It affects fertility, not the ability to consummate the marriage.)
–Impotence which arises during the marriage is not an impediment. (Impediments only apply to the ability to enter into a marriage.)
–voluntarily and mutually abstaining from marital relations is not an impediment.
The impediment relates to inability to have marital relations which exists prior to the marriage and is permanent and perpetual.
–Impotence which is medically curable is not an impediment.
–Impotence which is temporary is not an impediment.
–Infertility is not an impediment.
–Having had a hysterectomy is not an impediment. (It affects fertility, not the ability to consummate the marriage.)
–Impotence which arises during the marriage is not an impediment. (Impediments only apply to the ability to enter into a marriage.)
–voluntarily and mutually abstaining from marital relations is not an impediment.
D
Dorothy
Guest
Jim, that was an excellent post that clarified very well.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Aria13, you told Aaron to “read more carefully.” To you I say (smiling), read more. You do not have a good grasp on the essentials.
“If I’m understanding this correctly, the Catholic Church believes that human sexuality is designed to promote love (unity) and life (procreation.) Whenever the formula is altered or divided, the Church belives that sin enters the equation. Is this correct?”
Yes, that’s correct.
“If so, then medical help isn’t acceptable because it isn’t natural.”
If you’re referring to in vitro fertilization, then you are correct. But not if you’re referring to impotence!
To put it a tad crassly, the Church requires that procreation happen only by “putting tab A into slot B.” Anything that interferes with that is not allowed.
So the Church will approve of almost anything that helps “tab A” do the job, and will allow the use of “the pill” to medically regulate cycles, if that is what is needed to make “slot B” fertile. We’re pro-life!
I do think it’s sad that someone irrevocably impotent can’t marry. I think it only happens rarely, though.
And I hope you can see that the Church is being consistent by requiring this. I. e. marriage must be open to new life. If it is not, even in this kind of case where it’s (obviously) not deliberate, it is not a true marraige.
As a recent convert to Catholicism, I think I know where you’re coming from. “What ever happened to marital bliss? I don’t want the Church in my bedroom!”
Well, I did my homework, as it were, and I’ve discovered that I LOVE the Catholic ideal of marriage. I highly recommend Christopher West’s book, the Good News about Love and Marriage (if memory serves). (You can buy it here and help support the forums.)
I like your user name; I’m an opera fan.
“If I’m understanding this correctly, the Catholic Church believes that human sexuality is designed to promote love (unity) and life (procreation.) Whenever the formula is altered or divided, the Church belives that sin enters the equation. Is this correct?”
Yes, that’s correct.
“If so, then medical help isn’t acceptable because it isn’t natural.”
If you’re referring to in vitro fertilization, then you are correct. But not if you’re referring to impotence!
To put it a tad crassly, the Church requires that procreation happen only by “putting tab A into slot B.” Anything that interferes with that is not allowed.
So the Church will approve of almost anything that helps “tab A” do the job, and will allow the use of “the pill” to medically regulate cycles, if that is what is needed to make “slot B” fertile. We’re pro-life!
I do think it’s sad that someone irrevocably impotent can’t marry. I think it only happens rarely, though.
And I hope you can see that the Church is being consistent by requiring this. I. e. marriage must be open to new life. If it is not, even in this kind of case where it’s (obviously) not deliberate, it is not a true marraige.
As a recent convert to Catholicism, I think I know where you’re coming from. “What ever happened to marital bliss? I don’t want the Church in my bedroom!”
Well, I did my homework, as it were, and I’ve discovered that I LOVE the Catholic ideal of marriage. I highly recommend Christopher West’s book, the Good News about Love and Marriage (if memory serves). (You can buy it here and help support the forums.)
I like your user name; I’m an opera fan.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Ah, but that’s the problem here: it isn’t being consistent. We are addressing strictly the ability of “tab A” to insert into “slot B” or “slot B’s” ability to accept that insertion (frigidity).
Specifically excluded from this is discussion of infertility, which is specifically NOT a requirement for the marriage to be valid. So the requirement that the marriage be open to new life is not completely true. A *marital act * must be so open even in the absence of an ability for conception to occur, but there is no requirement for that ability to conceive to exist.
In the end this is strictly about being able to achieve an erection for long enough to complete the marital act at least one time. If you can’t do that for whatever reason then the marriage isn’t valid.
What that means is that a war hero who is “damaged” by stepping on a land mine, or someone who was in a car wreck and left paralized and unable to function, or a woman who was raped and is psychologically unable to participate, or a senior past childbearing age who can no longer achieve an erection are all consigned to live out their lives in loneliness. I guess we just ignore that “it is not good for man to live alone” part of the Bible and skip straight to the part where God says “thou shalt be able to …” Peace,
B
BlestOne
Guest
I think some of you are forgetting that God blessed Abram ans Sarai with a child in their old age(he was over 100 and she was in her 90’s). God requires us to be OPEN to the possibility not that is be medically a sure thing. I recently had a couple of friends that were 54 and 55 get married. They got into this discussion with our priest during marriage prep. She is not Catholic and thought it was ridiculous that she should even be required to be “open” to the idea of having a child considering her age. In the end when she sought my advice on the subject, I asked if she believed that miracles happened and would she be open to the idea that God would perform any miracle in her life(of any sort). I think she understood that it is more important to be open to God working in our lives than worrying about whether this is a moot point because of her age. I just recently got married as well. I am 42 and I would absolutely love it if God blessed me with another child, but I don’t see it as a sure thing. Miracles do happen, just as medical advances do, in fact there are some medical advances that can be considered miracles in themselves.
Another point I wish to make is that Catholics believe that marriage is a sacrament and a vocation. Protestant churches do not consider marriage either a sacrament or a vocation. During a Catholic wedding the couple makes a covenant with God and each other to live as a married couple, which includes sex, children etc… How can one enter such a covenant if they are not able to complete the marriage act? That would make such a covenant invalid. That is why we have such rules. Marriage is the total giving of ourselves to another person for the rest of our lives. Howcan you do this if you can’t complete the marriage act? You can’t, I am sorry for people that can’t and it is sad but the truth is, why would you enter into a marriage if you yourself could not give yourself totally to someone else? I tend to see that as selfish…denying your partner an important unitive aspect of marriage.
Another point I wish to make is that Catholics believe that marriage is a sacrament and a vocation. Protestant churches do not consider marriage either a sacrament or a vocation. During a Catholic wedding the couple makes a covenant with God and each other to live as a married couple, which includes sex, children etc… How can one enter such a covenant if they are not able to complete the marriage act? That would make such a covenant invalid. That is why we have such rules. Marriage is the total giving of ourselves to another person for the rest of our lives. Howcan you do this if you can’t complete the marriage act? You can’t, I am sorry for people that can’t and it is sad but the truth is, why would you enter into a marriage if you yourself could not give yourself totally to someone else? I tend to see that as selfish…denying your partner an important unitive aspect of marriage.
M
manualman
Guest
Seems like a molehill rather than a mountain to me.
OK, so you have a guy that is incurably impotent. No medical hope for him (hypothetically). He falls in love and wants to get married. He gets a legal marriage license and has a ‘blessing service’ at his parish.
According to the church, it appears he can’t have a sacramental marriage. But consider the other implications. Your typical unmarried young man is morally prohibited from living with a young woman. Why? Because it would be an occasion of sin and because it would cause scandal. Not so here. That doesn’t apply. Seems to me he can simply live out a NATURAL marriage and will need to simply rely on God’s grace to provide him and his wife with the grace necessary to have a permanent loving relationaship.
I know of no reason why the two could not be members in good standing at their parish, they are guilty of nothing, so could receive communion without sacriledge.
God sometimes puts burdens on people. We don’t know why. But simply being unable to receive a sacramental marriage is by no means the same as being sentenced to a life without love or companionship! My hypothetical guy gets to wake up beside his beloved every morning.
Unless I’m missing something…
OK, so you have a guy that is incurably impotent. No medical hope for him (hypothetically). He falls in love and wants to get married. He gets a legal marriage license and has a ‘blessing service’ at his parish.
According to the church, it appears he can’t have a sacramental marriage. But consider the other implications. Your typical unmarried young man is morally prohibited from living with a young woman. Why? Because it would be an occasion of sin and because it would cause scandal. Not so here. That doesn’t apply. Seems to me he can simply live out a NATURAL marriage and will need to simply rely on God’s grace to provide him and his wife with the grace necessary to have a permanent loving relationaship.
I know of no reason why the two could not be members in good standing at their parish, they are guilty of nothing, so could receive communion without sacriledge.
God sometimes puts burdens on people. We don’t know why. But simply being unable to receive a sacramental marriage is by no means the same as being sentenced to a life without love or companionship! My hypothetical guy gets to wake up beside his beloved every morning.
Unless I’m missing something…
D
Dorothy
Guest
Manualman,
<<God sometimes puts burdens on people. We don’t know why. But simply being unable to receive a sacramental marriage is by no means the same as being sentenced to a life without love or companionship! My hypothetical guy gets to wake up beside his beloved every morning.
Unless I’m missing something…>>
How about the young lady…she may think such an arrangement can work, but being in such a situation would be an enormous occasion of sin for her. It makes no sense at all to expect that it would not be.
It sounds harsh, but when God allows burdens he also gives the grace to carry it if the person is receptive.
<<God sometimes puts burdens on people. We don’t know why. But simply being unable to receive a sacramental marriage is by no means the same as being sentenced to a life without love or companionship! My hypothetical guy gets to wake up beside his beloved every morning.
Unless I’m missing something…>>
How about the young lady…she may think such an arrangement can work, but being in such a situation would be an enormous occasion of sin for her. It makes no sense at all to expect that it would not be.
It sounds harsh, but when God allows burdens he also gives the grace to carry it if the person is receptive.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Well, I don’t know about your priest or your parish, but the one in our parish would refuse them communion based on their not being “validly married” in the Church, and thus no different than any other couple who is just living together. I’ve never looked closely enough to see if he can back up his position, but I tend to believe he can.
Ironically, this “hypothethical” man would be treated the same as if he was living in adultery or fornication, but with none of the “benefits.”
- Status