Why can't the impotent marry?

[tabsie3210]

Here’s the deal - there are any number of good reasons why a couple would have to be married in civil society, even if one or both people are impotent:

1. Adoption - if a couple wants to adopt, most adoption agencies will gladly give a child to a couple that is married, but are more reluctant to give children to single parents living together, because of how easily the two can part.
2. Inheritance - Mary is a widow with a young son. She’s dating John, who is impotant. Mary has a sister, Peg, who is a pot smoker. Mary dies and leaves her son to John. Peg thinks that the boy should be in her care, cleans up for appearances, and fights for the kid in court. Many courts will favor blood relations over someone who’s not related at all. If Mary is married to John, and he adopts the boy before she dies, he stands a better chance of protecting the boy from a corrupt aunt.
3. Inheriitance part 2 - Mary is in love with John, who is impotent because of a medical condition. She and he live together (no sex, obviously) and pays for his medical care. She dies unexpectedly and without a will, and now her pot-smoking sister is fighting for all of Mary’s money. Again, property and cash are more likely to be handed to family members by blood, and I’ve also seen instances where family members have successfully sued for insurance money that went to non-family, arguing that the person receiving the insurance money was using the dead person for her money and tricked her into signing over.

These are all very legitimate reasons to have a legal bind to someone even if he is impotant. I say “he” here because it’s more common for a man to suffer impotence than a woman, but you get the idea.

Given the above statements, is it okay for a woman to marry a man who is impotent in a civil union, outside the Church? Why can’t an impotent man marry someone for those reasons? If two people are in love but cannot consummate the marriage, is it a sin for them to live together, given that they sleep next to each other? What about non-intercourse sexual contact? He might not be able to reach orgasm, but if she can, is it a sin for them to marry by the State and have a relationship that way? After all, a man is allowed to give his wife pleasure even if she achieves an orgasm before or after they have sex as long as his seed ends up “in the right place” during his part of it, so how is this that far of a stretch?

The latter questions, I know, don’t have anything to do with the three outlined examples above, but those three are very particular cases and should be separate from the bottom concerns, so I don’t much mind how anyone answers, just addressing the first three senarios, the last few questions, or both. Thanks much.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Here’s the deal - there are any number of good reasons why a couple would have to be married in civil society, even if one or both people are impotent:

1. Adoption - if a couple wants to adopt, most adoption agencies will gladly give a child to a couple that is married, but are more reluctant to give children to single parents living together, because of how easily the two can part.
2. Inheritance - Mary is a widow with a young son. She’s dating John, who is impotant. Mary has a sister, Peg, who is a pot smoker. Mary dies and leaves her son to John. Peg thinks that the boy should be in her care, cleans up for appearances, and fights for the kid in court. Many courts will favor blood relations over someone who’s not related at all. If Mary is married to John, and he adopts the boy before she dies, he stands a better chance of protecting the boy from a corrupt aunt.
3. Inheriitance part 2 - Mary is in love with John, who is impotent because of a medical condition. She and he live together (no sex, obviously) and pays for his medical care. She dies unexpectedly and without a will, and now her pot-smoking sister is fighting for all of Mary’s money. Again, property and cash are more likely to be handed to family members by blood, and I’ve also seen instances where family members have successfully sued for insurance money that went to non-family, arguing that the person receiving the insurance money was using the dead person for her money and tricked her into signing over.

These are all very legitimate reasons to have a legal bind to someone even if he is impotant. I say “he” here because it’s more common for a man to suffer impotence than a woman, but you get the idea.

Given the above statements, is it okay for a woman to marry a man who is impotent in a civil union, outside the Church? Why can’t an impotent man marry someone for those reasons? If two people are in love but cannot consummate the marriage, is it a sin for them to live together, given that they sleep next to each other? What about non-intercourse sexual contact? He might not be able to reach orgasm, but if she can, is it a sin for them to marry by the State and have a relationship that way? After all, a man is allowed to give his wife pleasure even if she achieves an orgasm before or after they have sex as long as his seed ends up “in the right place” during his part of it, so how is this that far of a stretch?

The latter questions, I know, don’t have anything to do with the three outlined examples above, but those three are very particular cases and should be separate from the bottom concerns, so I don’t much mind how anyone answers, just addressing the first three senarios, the last few questions, or both. Thanks much.

One of the two purposes of Marriage is to pro-create. If a person is incapable of even having a physical relationship, it leaveseven the possibility of this purpose unfulfiled.

Inheriitance can be handled by legal documents, including but not limited to a will.

 

[tabsie3210]

Br. Rich -

I do understand and I agree as far as a Catholic marriage goes. What comes readily to mind is the Terri Schiavo fiasco where her estranged husband was successfully able to dehydrate her to death, while her parents were unable to do so because supposedly the marriage bonds were tighter than the parental bonds. Now, if Mr. Schaivo had been divorced from Terri before she was stricken and became profoundly disabled, some lawyers claim that Terri’s parents would have had more leg room and might have been able to keep her alive despite his desperation to have her murdered.

But let’s reverse it - if it had been her parents wanting her dehydrated to death, and her husband fighting for her life, then again, her husband would have more clout. I have to look up the web references again, but I believe there was a similar situation where a wife was able to keep her husband’s feeding tube in place despite his mother’s wishes.

Supposing then, that a man and woman live together but are not sexually active because of impotance. There is no marriage. If mom and dad want to have their daughter’s feeding tube removed, but her boyfriend insists on keeping her alive, who is more likely to be sided with?

In today’s Culture of Death, sympathy will lie with her parents, not her boyfriend. Legal ties, like a marriage, might be the only thing standing between her unjustified death and maintaining her life with dignity.

I spend a lot of time at the website of Wesley J. Smith, a bioethicist and lawyer who speaks out against dehydration, and who writes passionately about Terri’s murder. This is why I asked the other questions - there are many, many reasons that two God-fearing people would want to be together, even if sex isn’t on the list.

I do appreciate the clarification about why a man and woman can’t marry in the Church if one or both are impotent, and I understand completely. I do wonder, though, given the three senarios previously mentioned, and the thoughts that I had about a reverse of Terri’s situation, if the Church would condemn a man and a woman who have a civil marriage and live as husband and wife, but are not able to marry in the Church because of impotence. Like, would they be forbidden to take the Eucharist? Would they be excommunicated? Could they be supported if a medical situation like the above mentioned happened?

The matter of inheritence is also an issue these days, with the number of people in England contesting wills going up by 200% from what it was in the 1990’s. Inheritence isn’t always as secure as it once was. Again, I’m not asking if the Church would change its stance on marriage - it shouldn’t. What I’m asking is, given the situations presented, would the Church condemn a couple who marry in a civil ceremony?

 

[DaveBj]

How about a civil marriage?

1. It would be valid in the eyes of the state, so that would take care of who gets the kid–the adoptive stepfather.
2. It would not be valid in the eyes of the Church, but if the husband is impotent, there’s no sex, so there’s no adultery/fornication/whatever. Furthermore, if the husband is known to be impotent, there’s not even any scandal.

Just a coupla thoughts.

DaveBj

 

[Starwynd]

But I thought getting married wasn’t about procreation. When I say “marriage is for procreation only” they tell me I’m wrong. So if marriage is not for pro-creation only, then these people should be allowed to be married.

But then there are things like an impotent man or infertile man cannot get married because eh cannot have sex.

It’s things like this that only solidifies my belief that marriage is for procreation only and love has nothing to do with it.

 

[larry85704]

You can get married if you are sterile. You must be open to any children that God chooses to bless you with. It is probably easier to marry if you are sterile if you are old.

You know, the concept of impotence and being sterile is a very new thing in the Church. I mean, 100 years ago you didn’t have a clue if you were sterile.

Here is a question. Couple gets married and wants to have a baby. They have sex, lots of sex, no baby. After how many months of trying to they realize they cannot have a baby and stop having sex. After all, they realize the sex they are having will not produce a baby, only pleasure. Obviously, that is silly. The Church teaches they can have all the sex they want as long as they are open to life.

I think it would be sad if a couple didn’t marry just because they couldn’t make a baby.

 

[1ke]

These are all very legitimate reasons to have a legal bind to someone even if he is impotant. I say “he” here because it’s more common for a man to suffer impotence than a woman, but you get the idea.

They are not “legitimate” reasons to marry.

Marriage is a Sacrament, not a legal contract.

Given the above statements, is it okay for a woman to marry a man who is impotent in a civil union, outside the Church?

No. Catholics are bound to follow the marriage laws of the Church. It is a gravely wrong act to marry outside the Church or to marry for such reasons as you state.

Why can’t an impotent man marry someone for those reasons?

Because an impotent man or woman cannot engage in sexual intercourse. And, that is the purpose of marriage in the Kingdom-- procreation. The other ends of marriage are no less good, but are subordinate to the primary end of marriage. One must be capable of engaging in intercourse. Period.

The legal aspects of marriage are not relevant. Marriage is a Sacrament. It has a purpose and an order designed by God. Marriage is not a human institution. Marriage is a divine institution, created by God and sanctified by Christ. Therefore, it is not a right of ours. It is a gift of grace, given by Christ, for a specific purpose.

If two people are in love but cannot consummate the marriage, is it a sin for them to live together, given that they sleep next to each other?

Yes, if they are doing so as “husband and wife”. They would be in an invalid marriage.

If one is the caretaker of the other, there is no sin in that.

What about non-intercourse sexual contact? He might not be able to reach orgasm, but if she can, is it a sin for them to marry by the State and have a relationship that way?

Yes, it is a sin.

All sexual intimacy between spouses is ordered to, and must result in, intercourse. What you suggest is masterbation, and it is gravely disordered, a misuse of the sexual faculties, and a sin against the Sixth Commandment.

After all, a man is allowed to give his wife pleasure even if she achieves an orgasm before or after they have sex as long as his seed ends up “in the right place” during his part of it, so how is this that far of a stretch?

It is not at all analagous to foreplay ending in intercourse.

The latter questions, I know, don’t have anything to do with the three outlined examples above, but those three are very particular cases and should be separate from the bottom concerns, so I don’t much mind how anyone answers, just addressing the first three senarios, the last few questions, or both. Thanks much.

Tabsie,

You are under the impression that we have a *right *to marry and that the “right” extends to achieving our own earthly purposes such as who we leave our earthly possessions to, obtaining sexula pleasure, etc.

We do not have a right to marry.

We are *called *to marriage, a vocation in Christ, and it is for a specific purpose-- God’s purpose. The marriage covenant is created through the exchange of vows and the one-flesh union of the spouses in intercourse. It is a Sacrament, created this way by God for his purposes. Not ours.

 

[1ke]

Legal ties, like a marriage, might be the only thing standing between her unjustified death and maintaining her life with dignity.

We all die, Tabsie.

You are constructing the fantastical legal scenarios and trying to say “marriage” would protect someone in these situations. A binding legal contract would also do the same. Signed power of attorney. A signed will. A legal adoption.

Again, marriage is NOT a legal contract. It is a Sacrament. It’s purpose is not to obtain insurance, give power of attorney, secure property rights, or anything else. It’s purpose is Sacramental. Its purpose is to bear witness to Christ.

It doesn’t matter how many scenarios you put up, the answer remains the same. They are NOT a valid reason to marry.

The Church presents us with vows. We must be able to respond to those vows in the affirmative (valid consent). An impotent person is not capable of sexual union, therefore he/she is not capable of consenting to intercourse and children.

if the Church would condemn a man and a woman who have a civil marriage and live as husband and wife, but are not able to marry in the Church because of impotence. Like, would they be forbidden to take the Eucharist? Would they be excommunicated? Could they be supported if a medical situation like the above mentioned happened?

All people who violate the Law of the Church face the same consequences.

The matter of inheritence is also an issue these days, with the number of people in England contesting wills going up by 200% from what it was in the 1990’s. Inheritence isn’t always as secure as it once was. Again, I’m not asking if the Church would change its stance on marriage - it shouldn’t. What I’m asking is, given the situations presented, would the Church condemn a couple who marry in a civil ceremony?

And, again, not one of these things matters because none of them is the purpose of marriage or a valid reason to marry.

The Church must proclaim the TRUTH about marriage and its purpose and must work against all these other “reasons” people think they should marry. Because, ultimately, marriage is a Sacrament. And, the dignity of the Sacrament, it’s purpose, and it’s meaning must be proclaimed.

 

[1ke]

But I thought getting married wasn’t about procreation. When I say “marriage is for procreation only” they tell me I’m wrong. So if marriage is not for pro-creation only, then these people should be allowed to be married.

The **primary **end of marriage is procreation. And, one **must **be capable of completing the marital act.

There are other ends of marriage. So it is not accurate to say that marriage is for procreation only. The other ends of marriage are subordinate to, but not separate from, its primary end-- which is procreation.

But then there are things like an impotent man or infertile man cannot get married because eh cannot have sex.

On your other thread I have twice corrected your notion that an infertile person cannot marry.

Please stop saying this, as it is not true.

 

[Starwynd]

I’m sorry but everybody else says no.

So I am a little bit confused here and would like to see an official source on what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I’m sorry but everybody else says no.

So I am a little bit confused here and would like to see an official source on what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.

Impotence and infertility are not the same thing.

As far as Catholic teaching, here are some of the applicable Canon Laws regarding marriage:

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

CHAPTER III: INDIVIDUAL DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS
Canon 1083.1 A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year.

Canon 1083.2 The Episcopal Conference may establish a higher age for the lawful celebration of marriage.

**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.

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

Canon 1096.1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

Canon 1096.2 This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

Canon 1097.1 Error about a person renders a marriage invalid.

Canon 1097.2 Error about a quality of the person, even though it be the reason for the contract, does not render a marriage invalid unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

Canon 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich -

I do understand and I agree as far as a Catholic marriage goes. What comes readily to mind is the Terri Schiavo fiasco where her estranged husband was successfully able to dehydrate her to death, while her parents were unable to do so because supposedly the marriage bonds were tighter than the parental bonds. Now, if Mr. Schaivo had been divorced from Terri before she was stricken and became profoundly disabled, some lawyers claim that Terri’s parents would have had more leg room and might have been able to keep her alive despite his desperation to have her murdered.

But let’s reverse it - if it had been her parents wanting her dehydrated to death, and her husband fighting for her life, then again, her husband would have more clout. I have to look up the web references again, but I believe there was a similar situation where a wife was able to keep her husband’s feeding tube in place despite his mother’s wishes.

Supposing then, that a man and woman live together but are not sexually active because of impotance. There is no marriage. If mom and dad want to have their daughter’s feeding tube removed, but her boyfriend insists on keeping her alive, who is more likely to be sided with?

In today’s Culture of Death, sympathy will lie with her parents, not her boyfriend. Legal ties, like a marriage, might be the only thing standing between her unjustified death and maintaining her life with dignity.

I spend a lot of time at the website of Wesley J. Smith, a bioethicist and lawyer who speaks out against dehydration, and who writes passionately about Terri’s murder. This is why I asked the other questions - there are many, many reasons that two God-fearing people would want to be together, even if sex isn’t on the list.

I do appreciate the clarification about why a man and woman can’t marry in the Church if one or both are impotent, and I understand completely. I do wonder, though, given the three senarios previously mentioned, and the thoughts that I had about a reverse of Terri’s situation, if the Church would condemn a man and a woman who have a civil marriage and live as husband and wife, but are not able to marry in the Church because of impotence. Like, would they be forbidden to take the Eucharist? Would they be excommunicated? Could they be supported if a medical situation like the above mentioned happened?

The matter of inheritence is also an issue these days, with the number of people in England contesting wills going up by 200% from what it was in the 1990’s. Inheritence isn’t always as secure as it once was. Again, I’m not asking if the Church would change its stance on marriage - it shouldn’t. What I’m asking is, given the situations presented, would the Church condemn a couple who marry in a civil ceremony?

The other part of my answer however addresses this issue. It is whoever it is that is listed in the legal medical directives document that has control of an incapacated persons health care decisions. If Terri had this important document and either designated her parents or required both her parent(s) and her husband to agree, then her husband could not have murdered her like he did.

 

[Starwynd]

Thank you Robert. However, what does invalidate mean? Does it mean they cannot get married? Or that they can still get married but have no legal rights to things?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Thank you Robert. However, what does invalidate mean? Does it mean they cannot get married? Or that they can still get married but have no legal rights to things?

Well, I’m not a Canon lawyer, I often stay at Holiday Inn Express.

Anyway, I think that from a legal standpoint, if something is “invalidated” it means that the contract is no longer valid (nullified). Therefore, in the case of marriage, I would say that it means they can’t get married, because the contract would not be valid.

 

[Starwynd]

So impotent people can not get married. I’m sorry, but this only reinforces my belief that marriage is for pro-creation only and love has absolutely nothing to do with it. Otherwise, why not validate a marriage for someone who’s impotent or infertile? It makes absolutely no sense to not validate this kind of a marriage unless a marriage is for procreation only and love has nothing to do with it.

 

[Eucharisted]

Question: How would you know whether or not you’r impotent before marriage?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Question: How would you know whether or not you’r impotent before marriage?

Well, assuming you have been chaste, that is a good question. I guess that is the reason for Canon Law 1084.2.

 

[1ke]

I’m sorry but everybody else says no.

So I am a little bit confused here and would like to see an official source on what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.

I haven’t seen anyone on this thread or your thread state that infertility is an impediment to marriage. Here are the relevant canons from Canon Law:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§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.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage

 

[1ke]

So impotent people can not get married.

Correct.

I’m sorry, but this only reinforces my belief that marriage is for pro-creation only and love has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Are you a Catholic?

The Church does not teach that procreation is the SOLE purpose of marriage. It teaches that procreation is the **primary **end of marriage. From the Catechism:

1601 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses **and **the procreation and education of offspring

Otherwise, why not validate a marriage for someone who’s impotent or infertile?

It is not procreation alone.

It is not the good of the spouses alone.

It is both, inseparable. The ability to engage in intercourse (procreative) cannot be separated from the good of the spouses (unitive).

It makes absolutely no sense to not validate this kind of a marriage unless a marriage is for procreation only and love has nothing to do with it.

It’s not either/or. It’s both/and. The two cannot be separated. The ability to procreate and the good of the spouses (what some people would call “love”) must both be present.

 

[1ke]

Question: How would you know whether or not you’r impotent before marriage?

Some would know, such as those with a physical deformity or injury to the genitals. One who is paralyzed, etc.

Some would not know, and that is why Canon Law is specific regarding cases where it is uncertain:

§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.
If it becomes certain, the marriage is null.