Scenario: No reproductive organs

[Epistemes]

Hello,

If a person does not have reproductive organs for whatever reason (e.g., born without them, war, preventative surgery, etc.) – is that person still allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

 

[porthos11]

Hello,

If a person does not have reproductive organs for whatever reason (e.g., born without them, war, preventative surgery, etc.) – is that person still allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

The person must be able to perform sexual intercourse in order to validly marry. Permanent and incurable impotence is an impediment to marriage.

 

[Seatuck]

Hello,

If a person does not have reproductive organs for whatever reason (e.g., born without them, war, preventative surgery, etc.) – is that person still allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

Most likely not but perhaps under some circumstance that I know nothing about a dispensation could be granted . Also it depends upon which organs we are talking about.

Marriage is a Sacrament. It has a particular definition. Most strongly is the creation and support of children or at least the attempt to do so and to be open to it. If we are unable to perform the marriage act then we are unable to be married.

In the case of a man he must have the obvious exterior and funtioning genitals. In the case of a woman she must have the appropriate anatomy to enable the marital act to take place.

Canon Law tells us-

Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
​

Canon 1084.2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

Sterility itself is not an imediment.

Canon Law says

Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

 

[Starwynd]

Marriage is for procreation only. So therefore if you have no sexual organs or are incapable of having sex, you shouldn’t get married, period. We must all be open to the gift of life.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Ok, how about my situation. I had a hysterectomy in 2003. Would that mean that I couldn’t get married? Not that I expect to, but it still stands that I am able to have sex, but cannot have anymore children.

 

[Joannm]

Ok, how about my situation. I had a hysterectomy in 2003. Would that mean that I couldn’t get married? Not that I expect to, but it still stands that I am able to have sex, but cannot have anymore children.

You would be allowed to be married.

 

[porthos11]

Ok, how about my situation. I had a hysterectomy in 2003. Would that mean that I couldn’t get married? Not that I expect to, but it still stands that I am able to have sex, but cannot have anymore children.

You are not barred. You can have sexual intercourse, and are therefore eligible for marriage. The impediment lies in permanent impotence, not sterility.

 

[porthos11]

Marriage is for procreation only. So therefore if you have no sexual organs or are incapable of having sex, you shouldn’t get married, period. We must all be open to the gift of life.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but marriage is a sacrament, and therefore is NOT for procreation ONLY. It is also for the emotional good of the spouses, an increase in sanctifying grace, and ultimately, for their salvation, and the salvation of the children.

Sterile couples (such as those advanced in age) but who can still consummate the marriage are indeed allowed to get married.

 

[DaveBj]

Hello,

If a person does not have reproductive organs for whatever reason (e.g., born without them, war, preventative surgery, etc.) – is that person still allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

The respondants have said “no,” and given the reasons. OP, I’d like to take your question a step farther. Given a man, who’s lost his …parts… to a war injury, and a woman who is normal. They get acquainted and would like to live together, because each person’s individual abilities complement what the other has. 1) They can’t get married, for the reasons given above. 2) If they live together, they’re causing scandal, because everyone will assume that they’re “doing it.”

Sometimes when Catholics are married, but have nullity issues, they are told that they can continue to live together, but as brother and sister (= no sex). Is that option open to my hypothetical couple?

DaveBj

 

[kage_ar]

Marriage is for procreation only. .

That is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hello,

If a person does not have reproductive organs for whatever reason (e.g., born without them, war, preventative surgery, etc.) – is that person still allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

As long as the person is able to have normal sexual intercourse.

 

[crazyage3]

what about being open to adoption? that should be an option!

 

[Catholic90]

Marriage is for procreation only. So therefore if you have no sexual organs or are incapable of having sex, you shouldn’t get married, period. We must all be open to the gift of life.

While we must be OPEN to the gift of life, nowhere in Catholic teaching does it state marriage is for procreation only. That is a fallacy.

One must be capable of having sex, but one need not be fertile to get married! In fact, someone missing certain “parts” can get married.

 

[Starwynd]

Nowhere is it directly said, but of course all the rules pretty much insinuate that it is. Any stray though is considered a mortal sin of lust. Masturbation is considered a mortal sin. When married people are not allowed to pleasure each other because all action must end inside her and anything else is considered a mortal sin. Even the use of birth control is frowned upon because it has been defined as an abortifaicen(sp?)t which kills the child and therefore must never be used. Everything except to finish up inside her is considered a mortal sin… All of these kinds of actions have the intent of impregnating the woman otherwise there wouldn’t be such strict rules on sex. Therefore, the only reason to define any of these acts that way are for impregnating the woman and nothing else. NFP is not birth control and has no way of preventing pregnancy what so ever. Therefore that is the real teaching on sex that sex must be only done within a marriage and can only be to impregnante the woman… I’m just stating it plainly.

 

[porthos11]

Nowhere is it directly said, but of course all the rules pretty much insinuate that it is. Any stray though is considered a mortal sin of lust. Masturbation is considered a mortal sin. When married people are not allowed to pleasure each other because all action must end inside her and anything else is considered a mortal sin. Even the use of birth control is frowned upon because it has been defined as an abortifaicen(sp?)t which kills the child and therefore must never be used. Everything except to finish up inside her is considered a mortal sin… All of these kinds of actions have the intent of impregnating the woman otherwise there wouldn’t be such strict rules on sex. Therefore, the only reason to define any of these acts that way are for impregnating the woman and nothing else. NFP is not birth control and has no way of preventing pregnancy what so ever. Therefore that is the real teaching on sex that sex must be only done within a marriage and can only be to impregnante the woman… I’m just stating it plainly.

That’s not the same as saying that marriage is only for procreation. The proper logic is that sex is for marriage only, and that every sex act must be open to life. But marriage is much, much more than mere procreation.

 

[porthos11]

what about being open to adoption? that should be an option!

That’s beside the point. Marriage requires that the couple have sexual intercourse for it to be consummated. It does not matter whether or not the couple is infertile. Adoption is always an option, but they must have completed at least once an act of intercourse. That’s the point of the canon.

Therefore, if someone has no reproductive organs and is therefore permanently incapable of performing intercourse, he or she cannot get married. Period. If one or both are sterile and incapable of having children, but otherwise able to have intercourse, there is no problem, and they can get married.

 

[kage_ar]

When married people are not allowed to pleasure each other because all action must end inside her and anything else is considered a mortal sin.

Someone has greatly misinformed you about the “rules” regarding marital sex. Please, read the Theology of the Body, read Christopher West’s work (Theology of the Body for Beginniers is a good place to start).

Another good book for you to read would be Popcak’s “Holy Sex”.

These are the basic rules:

Two people in a valid marriage, no other people may be involved.

No porn.

No contraception.

The husband must intend to finish the act inside of his wife’s vagina.

Aside from those 4 basic rules, anything that both are comfortable with goes.

Please, educate yourself!!

 

[Newbie2]

Nowhere is it directly said, but of course all the rules pretty much insinuate that it is. Any stray though is considered a mortal sin of lust. Masturbation is considered a mortal sin. When married people are not allowed to pleasure each other because all action must end inside her and anything else is considered a mortal sin. Even the use of birth control is frowned upon because it has been defined as an abortifaicen(sp?)t which kills the child and therefore must never be used. Everything except to finish up inside her is considered a mortal sin… All of these kinds of actions have the intent of impregnating the woman otherwise there wouldn’t be such strict rules on sex. Therefore, the only reason to define any of these acts that way are for impregnating the woman and nothing else. NFP is not birth control and has no way of preventing pregnancy what so ever. Therefore that is the real teaching on sex that sex must be only done within a marriage and can only be to impregnante the woman… I’m just stating it plainly.

Perhaps in your opinon. Catholic moral theologians would almost unanimously disagree.

I think you’re lumping all birth control into the abortifacent catagory, which all of it isn’t. Condoms, for example, are birth control measures which are not abortifacent.

Then why does it work as such?

 

[Debra_C]

Nowhere is it directly said, but of course all the rules pretty much insinuate that it is. Any stray though is considered a mortal sin of lust. Masturbation is considered a mortal sin. When married people are not allowed to pleasure each other because all action must end inside her and anything else is considered a mortal sin. Even the use of birth control is frowned upon because it has been defined as an abortifaicen(sp?)t which kills the child and therefore must never be used. Everything except to finish up inside her is considered a mortal sin… All of these kinds of actions have the intent of impregnating the woman otherwise there wouldn’t be such strict rules on sex. Therefore, the only reason to define any of these acts that way are for impregnating the woman and nothing else. NFP is not birth control and has no way of preventing pregnancy what so ever. Therefore that is the real teaching on sex that sex must be only done within a marriage and can only be to impregnante the woman… I’m just stating it plainly.

Actually, the banning of specific sex acts within marriage is basically a matter of theological opinion. It is widely taught and shared by many, but is not definitive Church teaching. That masturbation is a sin is not a matter of opinion, however, as it is a selfish act of self gratification which excludes the spouse. It would also be sinful to treat your spouse as a mere object of sexual gratification (this is again a selfish act, not the giving of oneself to the spouse), or to use non vaginal sex to avoid the possibility of pregnancy (this is not open to life). But, it is not sinful, according to the CCC, to continue having relations when the couple knows for a fact that they cannot possibly conceive, such as when she is pregnant, has had a hysterectomy, is past the age of menopause, etc. So official Church teaching is certainly NOT that marriage is for procreation only, and trying to characterize the sacrament of marriage merely within the context of sexual relations is inappropriate at best.