Marriage question concerning impotency / infertility

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
acanonlawyer said:
§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.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.
This is what seems to happen in practise in many dioceses around the world.
The question is often not explicitly asked before marriage unless there is good reason to do so - the passage of years alone not being one of those reasons.
 
Yes, in many US dioceses this is so as I have already stated. There was no need to prove that as I already agreed.

However the Catholic Church is not one and the same as the USA.
Try searching on other English speaking countries…I would be interested in your findings.
 
K
“BlackFriar said:
While FrDavid96 and many national dioceses take a strong theoretic position on the impossibility of marriage re permanent antecedent impotency I do not believe the Church as a whole does so in practise…especially with the elderly.

The question is not on the papers in either explicit or subtle form in many parts of the world from my experience.

I have never heard of a priest denying remarriage to an elderly man on these grounds. We tend to give such the benefit of the doubt and it would be considered poor form to raise the topic without some reason other than simply advanced years.
Click to expand...
  1. What exactly is the “Church as a whole in practice”?
  2. What is a “national diocese”?
  3. How exactly would one hear the intimate details of what is discussed between a priest and an older couple seeking to marry? It doesn’t happen much in the first place, and certainly isn’t discussed publicly in the second place.
  4. What incredibly unusual involvement do you have that allows you to be knowledgeable about premarital questionnaires “in many parts of the world in [your] experience”?
 
Last edited:
OldCAFMember said:
What exactly is the “Church as a whole in practice”?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I didn’t say such a thing.
OldCAFMember said:
What is a “national diocese”?
Click to expand...
A diocese belonging to a national conference of bishops obviously.
This may help: Episcopal conference - Wikipedia
OldCAFMember said:
How exactly would one hear the intimate details of what is discussed between a priest and an older couple seeking to marry? It doesn’t happen much in the first place, and certainly isn’t discussed publicly in the second place.
Click to expand...
Being a priest oneself perhaps?
OldCAFMember said:
What incredibly unusual involvement do you have that allows you to be knowledgeable about premarital questionnaires “in many parts of the world in [your] experience”?
Click to expand...
I live in a jurisdiction that does not ask (or at least didn’t in my younger days) such unnecessarily invasive questions by default. One exception is enough to call into question an alleged universal, in my experience.

The mildly sarcastic tone in your contribution means I wont be pursuing relief of your (Four Cardinal like) “confusions” with you as they don’t appear in good faith.
I have answered as a sign of my own good faith regardless.
God bless.
 
Last edited:
The prenuptial investigation must be conducted by the priest. The format that investigation takes can vary. Your priest may have simply discussed it with you and completed the paperwork himself. In some places the couple fills out a form, in other places the priest fills it out after asking pertinent questions.

And 32 years is a long time. It is likely you don’t remember the details. I know we did ours 13 years ago, but I can’t tell you the details.
 
In my diocese they are not given a questionaire to fill out but the person meeting with them has a form to fill out and all the questions are on it.
 
Well if they are considered incapable of a sexual act then can a civil marriage and physical intimacy be called adultery ☺️
 
Same here. I don’t remember any questionnaire unless it was a form with basic info like name, address, were you baptized, what religion are you.
It didn’t get into anything sexual. We talked verbally to the priest and confirmed we intended to have children and raise them Catholic.

And we also did an Engaged Encounter.
 
I personally found this article quite unconvincing and the theological arguments superficial and light-weight theologically.

For example, the author argues that if this Canon Law was not in existence a young couple would not be allowed to abandon their marriage if they discovered the husband was impotent. However he does not seem to realise an unconsummated marriage can be dissolved and does not necessarily require an annulment (based on this canon).

He denies marriage to a returning veteran who has lost his manhood because any attempt at sex would be a sin because it cannot be completed in the usual manner. I find that notion legalistic and at odds with a theology where sin is not identified with the body but with the will.

He asks why would anyone need to get married if they are unable to have sex. I find that question naive.

A quick internet search finds that the author is a layman with a theology degree. He is also a Catholic convert. To be honest it showed even before I researched his background.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
He denies marriage to a returning veteran who has lost his manhood
Click to expand...
By “lost his manhood” here do you mean that sexual intercourse is not possible (implying impotence I presume) but that another form of sexual encounter is possible?

If sexual intercourse is not possible, does Canon law permit marriage?
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the linked article above.
According to the author not.

My point was not the canon law but his argument for justifying it.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
He denies marriage to a returning veteran who has lost his manhood because any attempt at sex would be a sin because it cannot be completed in the usual manner.
Click to expand...
Ok. I would have thought the question to be answered by that author is why two persons could not resolve to have a sexless marriage in light of the impotence of one of them. My understanding is the Canon law says they may not marry. Certainly practical consequences arise if/when the non-injured party comes to regret the decision.
 
If the marriage has not been consummated what is the problem with dissolution?
The canon seems unnecessary to allow this release. Yet the author says this is what it is for.
I don’t think so.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
A quick internet search finds that the author is a layman with a theology degree. He is also a Catholic convert.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. I am finding it tiresome myself.
The best theology discussions to me always seem to come from experienced priests who have been around long enough and talked to enough Catholics to see and understand the actual human issues that come up in people’s lives.
 
It seems with the state of medical science today, that the vast majority of cases of impotence could get some medical help allowing the act to be completed far enough to qualify for marriage.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It seems with the state of medical science today, that the vast majority of cases of impotence could get some medical help allowing the act to be completed far enough to qualify for marriage.
Click to expand...
I was thinking this myself, at least for the man. I would think the only reason would be loss/mutilation of the organ due to disease or accident.

When we had our marriage convalidated, we were asked “the question”. But the priest said it was a formality, and if there was doubt he gave the couple the benefit of the doubt. Many elderly couples who marry have no desire to resume sexual activity. As long as there is a possibility, however remote, the priest said that he does not deny the couple the ability to marry.

That would seem to me to be a charitable way of meeting the spirit and letter of the law. Fortunately not all priests are strict legalists like many here on CAF.
 
I agree, it makes sense to me to give the benefit of the doubt, especially since there seem to have been cases where the Church, or at least a particular parish, frowned on an elderly couple living together even where they said no sex would be involved for age/ health related reasons.

I would think in a case where the Church absolutely refuses to marry the couple, there would then be nothing wrong with them getting civilly married and/or living together without sex, since they made the honest effort to be married in the Church and were refused for reasons that did not relate to one of them having a prior marriage to someone else.
 
Indeed, and of course if the couple cannot unite physically, they certainly may do so spiritually.

After all the Church encourages the divorced and remarried to make a spiritual communion instead of receiving the Eucharist.

Surely an elderly married couple could also make a spiritual, rather than physical, union in a similar manner.
 
A strict legalist worth his salt would strictly abide by the terms of canon 1084.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top