I’m interested to understand this more clearly. If a man (or woman) had an operation to be sterilised, and their spouse died, and they wanted to remarry, would they be able to?
From the posts above, it appears that the inability to have sexual intercourse is an impediment, but the infertility is not, even though produced artificially. Is this true?
This one needs some explaining. Let’s start with the vocabulary.
For the situation to be an impediment to marriage, the impotence must be antecedent and perpetual.
Antecedent: the condition exists before the marriage. If the condition “occurs” anytime after the marriage has been consummated, it does not affect the validity of the marriage.
Perpetual: means that the impotence is “complete” and it is impossible for the marital act to occur–now or in the future. This is different from “happens sometimes” or even “happens most of the time”
Absolute: means that the man is completely incapable of the act, regardless of the circumstances.
Relative: the man cannot perform the act with a particular woman (ie the wife), but biologically speaking, it’s still possible.
Yes, sterility itself is not an impediment to marriage. Whether this is natural, or done by an operation, in itself it is not an impediment.
But at the same time, the fact that the couple must be open to the possibility of children is a requirement for a valid marriage, means that an operation to cause sterility calls into question that openness. It does not very strictly speaking make the marriage impossible or invalid. To put it another way, it’s not the operation but the intention which might make marriage impossible. Does that make sense?
