OK, here’s a deacon. I hope I connected the posters and the snippets correctly, and offer some thoughts on them as illustrative of some parts of this thread so far.
I think this was covered in another thread a couple of months ago.
These postings have reflected a tension between the two natural ends of marriage mentioned in Vatican II and canon 1055: “§1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, which is ordered by its nature toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.”
SMHW: If a man has all of his organs but cannot obtain an erection the church teaches that impotence is indeed an impediment to marriage and therefore cannot get married.
With some clarifications. This is true of male and also female impotence.
It must be a condition that exists prior to the marriage (antecedent) and that is* perpetual** (cannot be cured by moral means). *
Morover, in the case of doubt, the marriage cannot be impeded. This is important. The doubt could be about when the condition came to be (was it before or after the exchange of marital consent) and is it truly perpetual, or permanently incurable by moral and licit means. See the whole of canon 1084 below. The Church is loathe to impede the natural right to marry mentioned in canon 1058. (In looking at a proposed marriage with a possible problem, one of my questions as a canonist would be, how would you know until . . .? Who’s going to check?)
- If the couple do discover that the impotence, which is antecedent, is perpetual after the exchange of marital consent, they are not obliged to seek a declaration of nullity or the papal dispensation from a non consummated marriage. *They can continue to live together as man and wife. The marriage would still enjoy the presumption of validity. The Church is not going to disturb them.
SMHW: All I am saying is if a person is impotent (needs viagra) but [is] not sterile how can the church declare them unfit to get married.
As others have indicated, sterility by itself neither impedes marriage nor gives rise to a cause of nullity, and it is different from impotence. If impotence can be remedied by such a means, it would not be considered perpetual and thus not invalidating. The use of medication would not be considered illicit or immoral means of resolving the problem.
she_he: What is being stated about Marriage not being Valid Unless consummated brings up a case here that Absolutely should be Considered.
SMHW: And once is all it takes for the marriage to be considered valid.
The law does not require that the marriage be consummated in order for validity. *Only the capacity for consummation is required for validity. *A marriage that is legal according to Church law but not consummated is called a “ratum” or ratified marriage. Canon 1061: “§1. A valid marriage between baptized persons is called ratified only if it has not been consummated;” (Also see canon 1141.) So a non consummated marriage can be valid. Though Joseph and Mary were under the “old dispensation,” such a marriage would be considered valid even today.
However, the law does presume that consummation has occurred once the couple has taken up marital living together.
Phelan: I was also taught that a man couldn’t get married in the Catholic church if he is impotent. I was surprised to hear it is still a church law.”
Again, antecedence and perpetuity as above must be added into the discussion.
The prohibition is considered to originate in divine law, in the way in which God created marriage itself (“be fruitful and multiply. . .”). Church law merely puts it in writing. There was never any thought giving to making a change in Church law, since it cannot contradict divine law as the Church understands it in Revelation (Sacred Scripture).
Again, it must be beyond reasonable doubt, antecedent and perpetual.
The whole of canon 1084: “§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage. §2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, either by reason of a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, a marriage is neither to be impeded nor is it to be declared null as long as the doubt exists. §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for the prescription of can. 1098.”
God bless.
Deacon John M. Cameron JCL
