Marriage question concerning impotency / infertility

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sugabee43 said:
If impotent due to a physical deformity, it’s not his fault he can’t have children. Likewise, if a woman physically cannot have intercourse (that would be very rare, by the way), that doesn’t preclude her from every marrying sacramentally.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually it does preclude their ability to marry. It’s an impediment that cannot be dispensed.

Permanent, antecedent impotence whether absolute or relative.

It is the inability to engage in intercourse that creates the imediment, not an inability to have children (sterility)
Sugabee43 said:
both parties know this before the marriage and are okay with it, and they did not “make” themselves impotent/barren on purpose with no confession and penance afterward, why couldn’t they be married?
Click to expand...
Because the inability to have intercourse is an impediment to valid marriage. It’s not dispensable.
 
Gosh, that seems rather harsh. If they love each other and agree to live in a chaste state, like the BVM and St. Joseph, why would marriage not be allowed?
 
Because even if they agree to live in continence the one capable of sexual activity still has the right to change his/her mind and request sex. The other person cannot oblige.
 
Last edited:
So by this standard, the Holy Family would never have been allowed to be married…interesting. For the record, I have absolutely no ‘skin in the game’.
 
Why do you think they would not have been allowed to marry? They opted to have a continent relationship, there is no indication that they couldn’t have consummated the marriage had they wished to do so.

You could be allowed to marry even if you decided to have a Josephite (non-consummated) marriage. St. Theresa’s parents were in one until their priest advised them to consummate it. The Church is clear, though, that if one changes his/her mind and the other one has to acquit the marriage debt.
 
Oh, okay; I see what you mean now.

I still think it’s harsh, though.
 
Mary and Joseph had the ability to exercise their right to the marital debt, however they chose not to.

The marital debt, sexual intercourse, is right a right in marriage. Not only that, you’ve given up the right to intercourse with any other. You’ve promised fidelity in perpetuity. Read Augustine on the subject— refusing the marriage debt can lead the other to sin. You must be ABLE to engage in intercourse if your spouse desires it as this is a promise you made in your exchange of consent. You cannot validly consent to something you are not able to do.

Marriage is something specific. Companionship, etc, is part of marriage but not the purpose of marriage. You have to be able to carry out the purposes of marriage for it to be a marriage.
 
Last edited:
I understand. It’s obviously only my opinion, but it is sad to me that someone, through no fault of their own, would be unable to marry even if they felt called to that vocation. I suppose if someone didn’t know they were infertile and yet became married could still stay married if it didn’t matter to their spouse. That’s what seems wrong to me.
 
Sugabee43 said:
would be unable to marry even if they felt called to that vocation
Click to expand...
God doesn’t call us to a vocation we are not able to enter into. It would not be an authentic call to the marriage vocation. We can deceive ourselves, feelings can also be deceptive.
 
Last edited:
Why would you think that either the Blessed Mother or St Joseph were impotent?
 
BlackFriar said:
I live in a jurisdiction that does not ask (or at least didn’t in my younger days) such unnecessarily invasive questions
Click to expand...
“Are you capable of marital intercourse? Do you intend to engage in it, in your marriage? Are you open to the possibility of children proceeding from this marriage?”

That’s “unnecessarily invasive”? Heck… that sounds like the very nature of what makes marriage ‘marriage’ and not just ‘a close platonic relationship’… 😉
 
Yes. But even a permanently impotent person, due to a physical deformity or anomaly, is unable to have sex due to no fault of their own. What about paraplegics who cannot have what we would call normal intercourse? They are unable to be married?
 
God does not call us to a vocation if it is impossible. If someone is impotent, then they are not called to marriage.

If someone becomes impotent after marriage (for instance from disease/surgery/accident), they are still married because the marriage was valid at the wedding.

Just as a person who is completely insane or in a coma and cannot give consent is unable to marry, so is one who is impotent.

Sometimes we forget that marriage is not just the next step in a romantic story, marriage has a purpose.
 
Sugabee43 said:
Yes. But even a permanently impotent person, due to a physical deformity or anomaly, is unable to have sex due to no fault of their own
Click to expand...
I think you are hung up on “through no fault of their own.” There are lots of things prohibiting us from doing something through no fault of our own. Mental illness prevents someone from becoming a priest, and possibly from marriage as well. I’m a woman and I won’t be a priest, through no fault of my own.

Every kid is told they can be whatever they want to be, that simply isn’t true. Some don’t have the athletic ability or the intellectual ability or the money or the talent. Little Johnny is likely not going to be an NFL star, an astronaut, or President.

Sacraments are gifts from God, they are signs instituted by Christ that give grace. We receive the sacraments through the Church. Some sacraments are for all, others are for the mission of the Church. Ordination and Matrimony serve the mission of the Church.

Marriage is something specific. Sin and the modern secular notion of romance, love, marriage, and “rights” obscure the truth about marriage. That is the source of your feelings on this matter. The truth about marriage has been skewed, therefore you have absorbed the ideas of what secular society says about marriage. You have to weed that out to get back to what the Church teaches about marriage (the truth) and what God intended marriage to be.
Sugabee43 said:
What about paraplegics who cannot have what we would call normal intercourse?
Click to expand...
Please define what you mean by “normal intercourse”. Can they have intercourse or not?
Sugabee43 said:
They are unable to be married?
Click to expand...
If they cannot complete the marital act, no they can’t.
 
It would be good to read the entire thread to gain context before wading in green.

I would think twice before refusing to marry an elderly couple purely on such grounds. To gain the legal rights that any life long committed couple would desire they would likely marry civilly anyway if refused. It appears a wise practise in my country not to open this can of worms by forcing couples to consider and answer this question actively themselves by means of an explicit questionairre. The issue is then at the entire discretion of the minister. I never raised the topic myself unless there were reasons other than simply age to question the relationship.

Good to give the benefit of the doubt in such scenarios…especially if they are likely to marry civilly if refused. May as well have the Church’s blessing if refusal makes no difference. The unlikely possible negatives that may flow from this appear minimal.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Sacraments are gifts from God, they are signs instituted by Christ that give grace. We receive the sacraments through the Church. Some sacraments are for all, others are for the mission of the Church. Ordination and Matrimony serve the mission of the Church.

Marriage is something specific. Sin and the modern secular notion of romance, love, marriage, and “rights” obscure the truth about marriage. That is the source of your feelings on this matter. The truth about marriage has been skewed, therefore you have absorbed the ideas of what secular society says about marriage. You have to weed that out to get back to what the Church teaches about marriage (the truth) and what God intended marriage to be.
Click to expand...
This is the heart of the matter isnt it. What is the purpose of marriage? I disagree with your excessively religious view that it is primarily missionary and sacramental. It should be those things but are they primary even if intimately part of the package?

And it is sacramental only for some Catholics (you will note that disparity of cult is now routinely accepted so their marriages are not sacramental). However such is not the primary purpose of committed life long cohabitation of man and woman from what I can see. Nor is the primary purpose simply to go forth and successfully multiply. Being a helpmate and not being alone was also written into the original operating instructions I believe.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
However such is not the primary purpose of committed life long cohabitation of man and woman from what I can see. Nor is the primary purpose simply to go forth and successfully multiply. Being a helpmate and not being alone was also written into the original operating instructions I believe.
Click to expand...
The threefold purposes of marriage cannot be separated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top