Post-menopausal sex, is it accepatable?

[Hellisreal]

You don’t have to wait, Jim. You can marry a postmenopausal woman now!

 

[Ahimsa]

I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the impotent are not allowed to be married…

“Impotence” must be clearly, and graphically, defined.

 

[goofyjim]

I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the impotent are not allowed to be married…

And doom them to a life of singleness when they could still have an agreeable wife by their side? This is hwere a wonderful couple might have medical reasons they can’t have sex but are still able to provide a loving adoptive home for a child who might otherwise not get one.

 

[PauloFreire2]

I take a Clintonesque position on this topic: yes, post-menopausal sex is acceptable, as long as you don’t enjoy it.

Prosecutor: Did you have post-menopausal sex?

Clinton: Yes.

Prosecutor: Did you have an orgasm?

Clinton: Yes, but I didn’t enjoy it.

 

[Hellisreal]

And doom them to a life of singleness when they could still have an agreeable wife by their side? This is hwere a wonderful couple might have medical reasons they can’t have sex but are still able to provide a loving adoptive home for a child who might otherwise not get one.

I dont know for sure! I think I read it somewhere in a case where a marriage was annulled because the man knew he was and the bride did not know.

But, it was said in the explaination that in any event that if he had told her there could be no marriage in the Church.

That was years ago I read it in a newsletter type thing. I have no idea if its accurate, that is why I said “I think”

I better check this out.

 

[Hellisreal]

Oh, I see Ahimsa knew this too.

Yes, it looks like that is the case I guess.

 

[drafdog]

Not exactly true. Mary and Joseph were considered to be validly married by the church and the church teaches that they never had sex.

Not exactly true. Remember that Joseph and Mary were not Catholic, they were Jews. As non-Catholics they do not come under the code of Canon law. I was speaking about the Church and Canon law, not about anyone outside of that envelope.
The point of my post was that under Canon law consummation of the marriage is an integral part of the sacramentality, procreation is not.

Matthew

 

[drafdog]

The bolded section is not entirely correct. There is an important consideration. If both the peospective husband and prospective wife willingly agree before the marriage to be celebate within the marriage, then the marriage can be considered sacramental. There are certain important restrictions on this. For example it cannot be a marriage of convenience and the celebacy must be for the kingdom of God. However, this is not the normal situation.

The sacramental requirement is that you agree to joyfully accept children from God. Also the fact is that non-consummation is grounds for an annullment. The concept of pre-marital agreements does not arise.

Matthew

 

[mercygate]

And doom them to a life of singleness when they could still have an agreeable wife by their side? This is hwere a wonderful couple might have medical reasons they can’t have sex but are still able to provide a loving adoptive home for a child who might otherwise not get one.

Yes: antecedent, permanent impotence is an impediment to marriage. There is a lot of wiggle room on the declaration of permanence.

Is that fair? Marriage is not merely an arrangement for the sake of companionship. Christopher West put it very well in a little illustration in his book Good News about Sex and Marrige: Marriage is like chocolate chip cookies. You can make cookies – even good cookies – without chocolate chips, but you can’t make chocolate chip cookies.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Christopher West put it very well in a little illustration in his book Good News about Sex and Marrige: Marriage is like chocolate chip cookies. You can make cookies – even good cookies – without chocolate chips, but you can’t make chocolate chip cookies.

I did not remember that part, but that is so true. Thanks for posting that, I am going to have to remember that.

 

[goofyjim]

I did not remember that part, but that is so true. Thanks for posting that, I am going to have to remember that.

So if an older couple gets married agreing not have sex per mutual agreement it is a sin? I couldn’t accept that.

 

[fix]

So if an older couple gets married agreing not have sex per mutual agreement it is a sin? I couldn’t accept that.

I believe there is such a thing as a Josephite marriage. That is one where the couple are able to have sex, but agree not to. The difference is they can do it, but choose not too.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

So if an older couple gets married agreing not have sex per mutual agreement it is a sin? I couldn’t accept that.

Jim,

The Church teaches that in order for a marriage to be sacramental in the Catholic Church it must be consumated. It can be valid without the consumation, but not sacramental.

From www.jimmyakin.org

So, I was left wondering… since Mary and Joseph did not share in the marrital act, is their marriage valid?

Yes. A valid marriage comes into existence upon the valid exchange of matrimonial consent between two parties that are free to marry each other and not otherwise impeded.

If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble
Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph’s marriage to be valid.

Could a couple get married today, always abstain from the marrital act, and still have a valid marriage?

Yes. This is known in Church history. It is referred to as “Josephite marriage” after St. Joseph. With a billion Catholics in the world, there are likely a number of such couples out there right now.

 

[calchiquita]

The bolded section is not entirely correct. There is an important consideration. If both the peospective husband and prospective wife willingly agree before the marriage to be celebate within the marriage, then the marriage can be considered sacramental. There are certain important restrictions on this. For example it cannot be a marriage of convenience and the celebacy must be for the kingdom of God. However, this is not the normal situation.

What is the source for this?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

"rpp:

The bolded section is not entirely correct. There is an important consideration. If both the peospective husband and prospective wife willingly agree before the marriage to be celebate within the marriage, then the marriage can be considered sacramental. There are certain important restrictions on this. For example it cannot be a marriage of convenience and the celebacy must be for the kingdom of God. However, this is not the normal situation.

What is the source for this?

I was wondering that as well, please RPP, see my post earlier to goofyjim.

 

[rpp]

I was wondering that as well, please RPP, see my post earlier to goofyjim.

I am no canon lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!

Seriously…

I did get this from a canon lawyer who advises the Tribunal in my diocese. The occassion was when I submitted my paperwork to get an annulment a few months ago. (Yes, I am recently divorced, fallout from my conversion to the Catholic Church from atheism.)

In addition to my case, I also asked him about a female friend of mine whose husband hid his psychological impotance from her. As he exlained it to me, her marriage may be ruled as null not because he was impotant, but because he hid the impotance from her.

Thinking of Mary and Joseph, I then asked him about couples who decide ahead of time to remain celebate during part or all of their marriage. He said such a marriage could be considered sacramental, but could also be easily declared null. He said it was a gray area.

He did say that a person cannot, without good reason, consistantly deny the marital embrace of their spouse. So such resolutions to remain celebate must always be by mutual agreement.

He gave me some references in canon law, but hey, I am a computer geek, not a scholar. I did not write them down. I have no clue how to even look up stuff in canon law. Even on the internet.