Is the Church's teaching regarding immpotence infallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**
IMPOTENCE AND STERILITY
Click to expand...
** **Thomas J. O’Donnell, S.J.

ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM**

Canonically, impotence means the inability to perform the marriage act. Note that the question of precisely what the marriage act implies, on the part of the male partner, will be, to a large extent, the subject matter of this article…

These distinctions may seem dry and technical, legalistic and perhaps even too biological; but it must be remembered that the beauty and holiness of Christian marriage is much more than this. But even these prosaic elements are important. To ignore them may seem to give wider range to short term goals, but at the same time ultimately distort and destroy what the holiness and happiness of marriage is meant to be…

Certainly the concept of Christian marriage includes, as essential, the mutual, exclusive and perpetual right to those “acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation or children”. (canon 1081) This, however, is a formula which requires careful understanding. While the act of marital intercourse may be (and indeed usually is) sterile, whether because of the natural rhythm of the woman’s ovulation cycle or even because of some permanent defect (suchas the absence of viable spermatozoa in the male ejaculate or the irreversible occlusion of the female fallopian tubes) nonetheless the act of marital intercourse is *that kind *of *an act *which is proper to human generation, whether or not it is, or even can be, generative…

Finally, on 13 May 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now clearly exercising its doctrinal competence, stated, with the explicit approval of the Roman Pontiff, that the authentic current teaching of the Church is that while impotence is indeed an impediment to marriage, the concept of canonical potency does not necessarily require anything in the ejaculate thathas been produced in the testicles. Asa decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this becomes normative for the whole Church and is of considerable doctrinal authority, although it is, of course, neither infallible nor irreformable…

The Congregation issued the decree in the form of two questions and two answers: 1) Whether impotence, which renders matrimony invalid, consists in the incapacity, antecedent and perpetual, whether absolute or relative, of performing conjugal copula." Answer: “Affirmative”. “2) In view of the above affirmative, whether ejaculation of semen that has been elaborated in the testicles is necessarily required for conjugal copula.” Answer: “Negative” (3).

Finally, then, it is important to review and summarize what the decree obviously means, and what it obviously does not mean…

Does this shed any light?
 
fix said:
**

Does this shed any light?**

Thanks fix! Finally something that at least gives some indication of where it comes from and what level it stands at.

While it doesn’t change my feelings about the issue, at least I have some idea of what force it has.

Peace,
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ncjohn:
Thanks fix! Finally something that at least gives some indication of where it comes from and what level it stands at.

While it doesn’t change my feelings about the issue, at least I have some idea of what force it has.

Peace,
Click to expand...
If one reads this passage:
Finally, on 13 May 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now clearly exercising its doctrinal competence, stated, with the explicit approval of the Roman Pontiff, that the authentic current teaching of the Church is that while impotence is indeed an impediment to marriage, the concept of canonical potency does not necessarily require anything in the ejaculate thathas been produced in the testicles. Asa decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this becomes normative for the whole Church and is of considerable doctrinal authority, although it is, of course, neither infallible nor irreformable.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that impotency as an impediment is not infallible? Or, does it mean how potency is currently defined is not infallible?

It would seem from other things I have read that failure to have an erection, permanently, will always be an impediment.

It is slightly confusing.
 
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 …”
Click to expand...
I am definitely open to correction here but isn’t the Church’s teaching that the impotence must be incurable? In the examples listed above, with the possible exception of the war hero, there is hope of a return to impotence with either a medical, pharmaceutical or physical aid (implant). I know that some paraplegics are able to have sex with help. The woman with psychological barriers would certainly hope for a cure and even an elderly person might respond to medication. If over time, the marriage was unable to ever be consummated, then it could be declared null but as long as the hope exists for the future, I can see a pastoral application here.
 
40.png
BlestOne:
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. marriage.
Click to expand...
Hello Bestone,

DId you know that you can be totally sterile…sterile by choice no less and still be married in the Church!!! :eek: Did you further understand that you can have an vascetomy although the Church states that this is immoral, it still does not nullify your marriage “act” as long as “secretions” are still normal after a vascetomy… Thus sterility by choice is ok. :banghead:

Here is the infro from an EWTN article…
IMPOTENCE AND STERILITY
By Thomas J. O’Donnell, S.J.

…Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued on 13 May 1977 and which Pope Paul VI “approved and ordered to be published”.

The Congregation issued the decree in the form of two questions and two answers: 1) Whether impotence, which renders matrimony invalid, consists in the incapacity, antecedent and perpetual, whether absolute or relative, of performing conjugal copula." Answer: “Affirmative”. “2) In view of the above affirmative, whether ejaculation of semen that has been elaborated in the testicles is necessarily required for conjugal copula.” Answer: “Negative” (3)."

Finally, then, it is important to review and summarize what the decree obviously means, and what it obviously does not mean.

The decree means that it is the current teaching of the Church that the doubly vasectomized male is capable of a marriage act provided erection, penetration, and the ejaculation of secretions from the prostate, seminal vesicles and various other glands is possible; that the grossly normal ejaculate is sufficient to fulfil the canonical concept of “true semen” and to achieve that kind of an act which otherwise would be generative, even though in this case the ejaculate is sterile and contains nothing elaborated in the testicles…"

Good luck with this one,
Nonie
 
40.png
ncjohn:
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.” 😦
Click to expand...
Is this assumption on your part, or do you know if this has happened?

Normally, it would be right and proper for a pastor to confront a couple ‘living in sin’ because they were placing themselves in a severe occasion of sin and causing scandal. As I noted, neither applies here.

We tend to oversimplify things sometimes and forget the larger principles behind certain ‘rules.’ Same thing with a rape victim and the PILL. She can use it to supress ovulation IF a blood test confirms she hasn’t ovulated in the past few days… Seems wrong, but makes sense when you go to the principles instead of the rules.
 
40.png
manualman:
Is this assumption on your part, or do you know if this has happened?

Normally, it would be right and proper for a pastor to confront a couple ‘living in sin’ because they were placing themselves in a severe occasion of sin and causing scandal. As I noted, neither applies here.

We tend to oversimplify things sometimes and forget the larger principles behind certain ‘rules.’ Same thing with a rape victim and the PILL. She can use it to supress ovulation IF a blood test confirms she hasn’t ovulated in the past few days… Seems wrong, but makes sense when you go to the principles instead of the rules.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that this has happened. As I understand it, the Church does not recognize the non-sacramental marriage so as I understand it the couple is still considered to be “living in sin.”

Peace,
 
Here is a link to the “forbidden Marriage” Film promo.
filmakers.com/indivs/ForbiddenWedding.htm

Anybody else think this subject is being avoided by the Church because it can indirectly be linked to homosexual unions? :confused: ) When looking this up on the net many pro-homosexual union sites point to the above “forbidden Marriage” film.

Another thought,
Wonder how many Paralyzed Veterans of America are Catholic?
And I wonder further how many of them know this about their Church?
:hmmm:
Interesting
 
Anyone know where in scripture the canon reflects it’s assertion that the hopelessly impotent cannot marry? Is this an old testament issue? Or Is this from Aquinas alone?
Nonie :confused:
 
One of the interesting points about this discussion is how it relates to the contraception discussions. Whenever someone who must avoid pregnancy is told to abstain periodically (or longer), there is a certain subset of Catholics who get very upset that abstaining is to cut off the unitive aspect of marriage and to focus solely on the procreative. They often assert that a marriage should not avoid the unitive act for long periods of time. Some of this same subset has also been vocal on this topic of impotence in marriage. Such a marriage would be one without any instances of the unitive act. Is the Chuch not being totally consistent to say that you have to have BOTH to have a sacramental marriage?
 
40.png
kmktexas:
One of the interesting points about this discussion is how it relates to the contraception discussions. Whenever someone who must avoid pregnancy is told to abstain periodically (or longer), there is a certain subset of Catholics who get very upset that abstaining is to cut off the unitive aspect of marriage and to focus solely on the procreative. They often assert that a marriage should not avoid the unitive act for long periods of time. Some of this same subset has also been vocal on this topic of impotence in marriage. Such a marriage would be one without any instances of the unitive act. Is the Chuch not being totally consistent to say that you have to have BOTH to have a sacramental marriage?
Click to expand...
Hello,
I Think you are overlooking the HUGE INCONSISTENCIES here that the Church has put forth.
If marriage is to give ones self COMPLETELY to another, then why is it ok to be sterile by choice? Humm…looks like someone is holding back some genetic material to me! Here is the quote from EWTN I posted before :bigyikes: “…it is the current teaching of the Church that the doubly vasectomized male is capable of a marriage act provided erection, penetration, and the ejaculation of secretions from the prostate, seminal vesicles and various other glands is possible; that the grossly normal ejaculate is sufficient to fulfil the canonical concept of “true semen” and to achieve that kind of an act which otherwise would be generative, even though in this case the ejaculate is sterile and contains nothing elaborated in the testicles…”
:bigyikes:
Nonie
 
40.png
Nonie:
Hello,
I Think you are overlooking the HUGE INCONSISTENCIES here that the Church has put forth.
If marriage is to give ones self COMPLETELY to another, then why is it ok to be sterile by choice? Humm…looks like someone is holding back some genetic material to me! Here is the quote from EWTN I posted before :bigyikes: “…it is the current teaching of the Church that the doubly vasectomized male is capable of a marriage act provided erection, penetration, and the ejaculation of secretions from the prostate, seminal vesicles and various other glands is possible; that the grossly normal ejaculate is sufficient to fulfil the canonical concept of “true semen” and to achieve that kind of an act which otherwise would be generative, even though in this case the ejaculate is sterile and contains nothing elaborated in the testicles…”
:bigyikes:
Nonie
Click to expand...
Thats just so ridiculous. What difference do secretions make, it just a bodily fluid. I don’t think they are what make sex a unitive act. I truly don’t understand any of this thinking, a Catholic man can sterilize himself knowing its a mortal sin, but a man who is impotent through no fault of his own cannot marry.
 
Vasectomy is a mortal sin, so defining it as okay is being a bit inaccurate. That said, there’s no reason to hold someone accountable for a past sin after it has been sincerely confessed.
 
Aaron I.:
Vasectomy is a mortal sin, so defining it as okay is being a bit inaccurate. That said, there’s no reason to hold someone accountable for a past sin after it has been sincerely confessed.
Click to expand...
How would the priest know?
 
40.png
Andrew_11:
Thats just so ridiculous. What difference do secretions make, it just a bodily fluid. I don’t think they are what make sex a unitive act. I truly don’t understand any of this thinking, a Catholic man can sterilize himself knowing its a mortal sin, but a man who is impotent through no fault of his own cannot marry.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I thought too. 👍
Here is the entire document.
ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

Thanks for getting this discussion going again.
Nonie
 
Aaron I.:
Vasectomy is a mortal sin, so defining it as okay is being a bit inaccurate. That said, there’s no reason to hold someone accountable for a past sin after it has been sincerely confessed.
Click to expand...
Hi Aaron,
The Church says it is a big No No to have a vasectomy. :nope: …then they say that if a man has a vasectomy he is still able to participate in the marriage act :yup: What’s that about?

Here is the info:

on 13 May 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, …the authentic current teaching of the Church is that while impotence is indeed an impediment to marriage, the concept of canonical potency does not necessarily require anything in the ejaculate that has been produced in the testicles. As a decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this becomes normative for the whole Church and is of considerable doctrinal authority, although it is, of course, neither infallible nor irreformable.

decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued on 13 May 1977 and which Pope Paul VI “approved and ordered to be published”.

The Congregation issued the decree in the form of two questions and two answers: 1) Whether impotence, which renders matrimony invalid, consists in the incapacity, antecedent and perpetual, whether absolute or relative, of performing conjugal copula." Answer: “Affirmative”. “2) In view of the above affirmative, whether ejaculation of semen that has been elaborated in the testicles is necessarily required for conjugal copula.” Answer: “Negative” (3).

This “negative” means that that a man can be “rewired” and that is A-ok.
This is wild stuff!
Nonie
 
<<The Church says it is a big No No to have a vasectomy. …then they say that if a man has a vasectomy he is still able to participate in the marriage act What’s that about? >>

To deliberately make oneself sterile is definitely a no no. However, if a person who has had one sincerely repents of their decision (and God alone knows that), then it is not a sin to have relations with one’s spouse.
 
So exactly what SIN would they be living in?

Not adultery - neither are married.
Not fornication - There’s no sex involved.

Theologians seem to be able to coin a term for every action determined to be a sin.

But I can’t recall ever hearing one that fits this case.

I still say they are living a natural marriage. Just like the couple who THINKS they are sacramentally married, but in reality have a defect that prevented them from having a sacramental marriage. No sin in either case though.

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?
 
Dorothy said:
<<The Church says it is a big No No to have a vasectomy. …then they say that if a man has a vasectomy he is still able to participate in the marriage act What’s that about? >>

To deliberately make oneself sterile is definitely a no no. However, if a person who has had one sincerely repents of their decision (and God alone knows that), then it is not a sin to have relations with one’s spouse.
Click to expand...

Hi Dorthy,
Well what I was trying to point out is that if you have a vasectomy you are no longer giving yourself fully in the “Marriage Act.” Just as the Church says a person who is impotent doesn’t give themselves fully in the marriage act. This too I believe to be flawed logic because they are giving themselves fully in the act. Can’t give what you do not have. This is all they have, it is given fully.

Also, if a divorced person who cannot get an annulment is sinning by marrying another and thus is committing adultery. How is this vasectomy situation different? Every time you have sex, the action that you took (the vasectomy) affects the action you are taking while having sex (possible procreation). So it would seem that you are committing the same sin.

Anyway, thanks for replying to my post! Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

:bounce: :rotfl: :bounce: :rotfl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top