Marriage can be denied if it cannot be consumated

[TacosRocket]

So apparently if, for whatever reason, you can’t have sex then you can’t get married. People who are unable to have children are allowed to marry though.

I thought God’s rules were in place to get us safe from harm.

What sort of harm would a non sexual marriage have? What if both people are in wheel chairs? If children aren’t the issue then I do not see what point there is to this rule. Apparently the bad part is that they “cannot consummate the marriage and therefore the marriage is invalid” how does that even make sense?

I guess before ceremonies were invented sex would have been the defining act that made somebody married, since there were no priests or anything, maybe it has something to do with that? Is sex what makes somebody married instead of a ritual or the signing of a paper?

 

[chevalier]

When you’re infertile, you can still attempt. When you’re impotent, you can’t even attempt. It probably wouldn’t be different if you simply physically lost the relevant parts instead of losing power in them, although I haven’t really heard of a canon case involving that.

For the record, you can marry if it’s known for a fact you won’t consummate, e.g. because you’ll die in 2 minutes from now anyway. But you can’t marry if you’re impotent. Or the other party is. If there’s doubt, the marriage can proceed. But not if it’s doubtless.

 

[foundmyfaith]

I wish there was a way for a couple who are incapable of sexual activity to be able to have a close and loving sacramental marriage. It seems like they suffer so much already, and a husband/wife relationship may be a real comfort to them.

 

[RoseMary131]

Here are two links that might explain more on the subject.

fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/impotence-marriage/

ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

 

[bzkoss236]

I wish there was a way for a couple who are incapable of sexual activity to be able to have a close and loving sacramental marriage. It seems like they suffer so much already, and a husband/wife relationship may be a real comfort to them.

If they can’t have sex, then what makes the relationship any different from a dating relationship, or a close friendship?

My question is would it be sinful for a permanently impotent Catholic to marry by the state for the benefits?

 

[davyvfr]

When you’re infertile, you can still attempt. When you’re impotent, you can’t even attempt. It probably wouldn’t be different if you simply physically lost the relevant parts instead of losing power in them, although I haven’t really heard of a canon case involving that.

For the record, you can marry if it’s known for a fact you won’t consummate, e.g. because you’ll die in 2 minutes from now anyway. But you can’t marry if you’re impotent. Or the other party is. If there’s doubt, the marriage can proceed. But not if it’s doubtless.

What if you have erectile dysfunction and get married? (lets say you find out after getting married)

 

[foundmyfaith]

If they can’t have sex, then what makes the relationship any different from a dating relationship, or a close friendship?

My question is would it be sinful for a permanently impotent Catholic to marry by the state for the benefits?

There are other ways to be close to a person without having sex. They would be able to sleep together and not be alone. They could have a person they could depend on no matter what happened based on their faith and sacramental marriage. I am sure this issue has come up before, and I am not in their shoes so I can’t really tell you what other benefits they would derive.

 

[TacosRocket]

It just doesn’t seem necessary for things to be so uptight. God’s rules were put in place to protect us from bad consequences, so what possible bad consequences could a sexless marriage really have? There are plenty of other things they can do to feel close to one another. And they wouldn’t have to go to sleep alone every night.

That’s why I was thinking maybe the sex itself is the marriage more than the ceremony, because that’s all humans did for a while before they came up with rituals and such.

I want to understand.

 

[Gorgias]

It just doesn’t seem necessary for things to be so uptight. God’s rules were put in place to protect us from bad consequences, so what possible bad consequences could a sexless marriage really have?

Hmm… well, for one, it would further dilute the understanding of marriage. Can you imagine any constituencies who would like to be able to make the claim, “well, we can’t consummate a marriage in the ‘traditional’ way, and if you can’t, either, but you can still get married, then why can’t we get married, too?”

 

[Michael57]

So apparently if, for whatever reason, you can’t have sex then you can’t get married. People who are unable to have children are allowed to marry though.

Wrong.

Here’s the FAQ about Catholic marriage at USCCB: LINK

 

[RoseMary131]

Wrong.

Here’s the FAQ about Catholic marriage at USCCB: LINK

Scanning the article, I don’t see where you are pointing out a correction to the OP’s statement. Can you copy/paste the paragraph you are referring.

 

[Robyn_p]

It just doesn’t seem necessary for things to be so uptight. God’s rules were put in place to protect us from bad consequences, so what possible bad consequences could a sexless marriage really have? There are plenty of other things they can do to feel close to one another. And they wouldn’t have to go to sleep alone every night.

That’s why I was thinking maybe the sex itself is the marriage more than the ceremony, because that’s all humans did for a while before they came up with rituals and such.

I want to understand.

You are absolutely right, all of God’s laws are for our own good, and the impotency restriction on marriage is no exception.

The way I see it. what this law does is preserve the purpose and uniqueness of the marriage bond, which is the total self-giving union of one man and one woman for the procreation and raising of children. It’s a unique and special vocation that not everyone is called or privileged to. And it’s uniqueness has to be protected. We can’t change marriage to be whatever we want it to be. This is a dangerous slope to start sliding down.

If we changed marriage and allowed it to be basically a glorified friendship, that would quickly undermine the whole institution. Why can’t I marry my brother then? I’m not going to actually do anything with him, but he’s my best friend. Or further, why can’t I marry my sister, or my dog? I’m not going to consummate so it shouldn’t matter right? I know that’s an extreme example, but do you see the slippery slope? Marriage has always been a unique institution, the one from which society is built. That truth has to be protected.

The difference between impotent and infertile couples is two fold. One, they can still fulfill one of the purposes of marriage, the union of one man and woman. And their act is still ordered towards the creation of a child, even if one doesn’t result. The uniqueness of marriage is still preserved. It’s still a complete self-giving relationship ordered towards the begetting of children. That’s not the case with an impotent couple unfortunately.

Also, one more point. You said maybe the sex in itself is the marriage and not the ritual. That’s not quite right, otherwise Jesus and St. Paul and the rest of the scriptures wouldn’t condemn fornication, which is just sex outside of the marriage bond. Sex is actually the outward sign of the total self-giving commitment the man and woman have made to each other. So it’s both, the ceremony and the consummation itself that make a valid sacramental marriage. Not either/or.

I know, at first glance it seems harsh. I’ve struggled to understand this myself. But really it starts to makes sense if you start to see marriage as the Church does.

Anyways, hope that helped a little. It is a hard saying, but then again, so were most of Jesus’ own teachings.

 

[Didascalia]

Marriage is much more than sexual union. Love is the predetermining factor in a successful marriage. You can have a sexual relationship with anybody and have children by that relationship, assuming a fertile hetero union ] but that relationship may never yield a love. Abraham loved his wife Sarah but could have no children with her, [initially] so he had a sexual relationship and child by a woman who was not his love Hagar. All of Abrahams sexual desire went towards Hagar. All of his love to his wife, Sarah. One could never argue that Abraham and Saras marriage was “invalid” at anytime because it was fruitless!

 

[Michael57]

Scanning the article, I don’t see where you are pointing out a correction to the OP’s statement. Can you copy/paste the paragraph you are referring.

Sorry, I was distracted a bit by something ringing and just forgot.

What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

From another page in the same website on marriage:

To be sure, spouses who are not granted the gift of children can have a married life that is filled with love and meaning. As Pope John Paul II said to these couples in a 1982 homily, “You are no less loved by God; your love for each other is com
plete and fruitful when it is open to others, to the needs of the apostolate, to the needs of
the poor, to the needs of orphans, to the needs of the world.”

The OP seems to be mixing up several different ideas (valid vs. invalid, fertile vs. infertile, etc) and is stating something as a given fact that simply is not at all.

 

[Michael57]

Marriage is much more than sexual union. Love is the predetermining factor in a successful marriage. You can have a sexual relationship with anybody and have children by that relationship, assuming a fertile hetero union ] but that relationship may never yield a love. Abraham loved his wife Sarah but could have no children with her, [initially] so he had a sexual relationship and child by a woman who was not his love Hagar. All of Abrahams sexual desire went towards Hagar. All of his love to his wife, Sarah. One could never argue that Abraham and Saras marriage was “invalid” at anytime because it was fruitless!

Abraham and Sarah’s marriage bore fruit, or else we have a very different Bible.

Remember Isaac? Isaac son of Abraham and Sarah?

 

[Didascalia]

Abraham and Sarah’s marriage bore fruit, or else we have a very different Bible.

Remember Isaac? Isaac son of Abraham and Sarah?

Please read posts more carefully in the future! I put the word **[initially] ** in brackets after the statement, predicting that someone would make a snide comment and not add a jot to the debate at hand!

 

[EasterJoy]

Marriage is much more than sexual union. Love is the predetermining factor in a successful marriage. You can have a sexual relationship with anybody and have children by that relationship, assuming a fertile hetero union ] but that relationship may never yield a love. Abraham loved his wife Sarah but could have no children with her, [initially] so he had a sexual relationship and child by a woman who was not his love Hagar. All of Abrahams sexual desire went towards Hagar. All of his love to his wife, Sarah. One could never argue that Abraham and Saras marriage was “invalid” at anytime because it was fruitless!

Of course Abraham and Sarah’s marriage was not invalid by reason of antecedent impotence on the part of one of them…that is how Isaac was conceived!

Marriage is much more than a sexual union, but it is by its very nature it is a sexual union, and specifically a heterosexual union between persons capable of engaging in the marital act, because by its nature marriage is ordered towards an openness to procreation. And no, a Christian absolutely and positively may not, without hazarding their eternal soul, “have a sexual relationship with anybody”!

Italics mine:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative,* nullifies marriage by its very nature*.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

**§3. **Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

(Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.)

And what is this talk about a sexual union not “yielding” a love? You talk as if marital love were lightning that strikes, and not an act where true mutual fidelity follows true mutual consent. If you do what you say you promise you will do in your marriage vows, that is love. If it weren’t an act of will rather than an accident of emotion, then it would be foolish to the point of cruelty to ask anyone to promise to do it! So how, pray tell, can someone give informed consent to marry, be true to their vows, and yet fail to “love” while they are doing what they promised? It is impossible!!

 

[EasterJoy]

Please read posts more carefully in the future! I put the word **[initially] ** in brackets after the statement, predicting that someone would make a snide comment and not add a jot to the debate at hand!

You do not understand. Infertility and impotence are not the same thing.

 

[EasterJoy]

*"(Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?"

“Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

“I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband(wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.”*

If love is not an act of will, how can anyone force anyone else to make such a perilous oath before God and the Church, holding the right to marry hostage if it is not done and denying the right to try marriage again if the vows are made validly and both parties still live? It would be the height of cruelty. Yet if someone does not have the capacity, the couple is not held to the vows. Part of that capacity is the capacity to give to each other via the marital act, regardless of whether or not God grants children as a result of that act.

Do you see? Each spouse gives to the other and to God, which by the nature of marriage includes (but is not limited to) giving to each other in the marital act…their marriage is something they may accomplish by an act of will, provided the capacity is there. Producing children by virtue of that act, OTOH, is a gift from God that flows from the mutual gift of the spouses to each other and to God. Provided the couple acts in good faith according to their state in life, it is up to God whether or not they have children. It is no mark against their fidelity if they do not.

 

[Michael57]

Please read posts more carefully in the future! I put the word **[initially] ** in brackets after the statement, predicting that someone would make a snide comment and not add a jot to the debate at hand!

How careless of me, I apologize.

My eyes aren’t what they used to be.