I think most men would have some idea that they were impotent prior to marrying (but they might not know they are infertile.)Wait, can’t people who are impotent never marry or is it the case that if the male didn’t disclose this before the marriage that it’s seen as ground for annulment? Would seem very weird to me if a man who is impotant is denied to get married.
This explanation doesn’t work for me. I’ve even looked up the ‘Catholic Answers’ about this. And I was dumbfounded really. A person which has tied his tubes get’s to marry because there is a chance life would come from intercourse. (how unlikely it may be)I think most men would have some idea that they were impotent prior to marrying (but they might not know they are infertile.)
In the case where a man actually was impotent but did not realize it, it could be a while before it was determined to be permanent and uncorrectable.
In the case where a man (or woman) was infertile but did not know it, then the infertility would not factor into the validity of the marriage.
God is the author of our sexual faculties. They are not ours to do with as we please, but only as God allows.Why should it matter what kind of sex you have if you’ve has a vasectomy already?
No, that is not why. The person can marry because they can have intercourse.A person which has tied his tubes get’s to marry because there is a chance life would come from intercourse. (how unlikely it may be)
They cannot exchange an exclusive and perpetual right to something they do not possess.A person who wasn’t at any fault, resulting in impotence can’t marry.
Celibate means unmarried. The word you are looking for is continent.So why is it okay for couples who marry to remain celibate (and thus without intercourse) their whole lives, but it isn’t allowed if they remain celibate because one of the two can’t perform intercourse.
Keep studying. The current culture has done much to damage and obscure the meaning of marriage, making it difficult for people to understand right teaching.I’m deadset against this, this is the only time I severely severely disagree with the church.
Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage when there is no deception about it because it “by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life”.Yes, but as I asked before, why be needed to perform the act if it won’t ever resullt in this fruit?
If I read Canon 1055
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to 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.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
So either the good of the spouses is as much a fruit of marriage as children are, or children are needed. But since children aren’t needed to contract a marriage, isn’t the good of the spouses needed? If yes, then this fruit, the good of the spouses, is a needed fruit…
I just don’t see how something ordered also to procreation can be so, if intercourse may remain without result. I don’t see why it changes anything that sterility is hard to diagnose. There is surely always hope and openness towards these fruits, but in the case that sterility is for life, why is this a valid marriage? I don’t see why it is the mere act of sexuality, which would points towards nothing.
In the aticle “Why the Church cannot marry the impotent”, Trent Horn makes the following note to a passage:
" Infertility is not an impediment in and of itself, but it can be an impediment if it is known prior to the marriage and is not disclosed. This is what paragraph three refers to when it references canon 1098."
So in that case, if this is correct, sterility is an impediment, which would make sense to me.
I’m struggling with this a little also. It’s not that I disagree with it, in many ways it makes sense. I have some questions or scenarios going through my head. In one instance there is a young couple who have done all the right things. Completely chaste before marriage and have every intention of submitting to God’s will in their marriage. After they are married they attempt to consummate the marriage but for some reason she is unable to go through with it. They get medical help and find that due to some valid medical reason she will never be able to consummate the marriage (I have no idea what this medical reason may be…just go with me). Since they love each other, love God, they stay together as all other aspects of the marriage are satisfactory. Is this not a valid marriage? Are they allowed to stay together?Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage when there is no deception about it because it “by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life”.
CIC Canon LawCHAPTER III.
SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS
Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
§2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.
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, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.
Gaudium et Spes 48 (Vatican II)
For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes.(1) All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.(2)
There is no known impotence at the time of celebration of either of these two cases. They both would be valid, but once there is no doubt about perpetual impotence, may be declared null. If neither asked for conjugal relations and it was uncertain if there was any impotence, then there would always be uncertainty and it would remain valid. There is a canon about “both parties become certain of its nullity” which seems to mean that if they both became certain that there was impotence, it would be invalid rather than putative, but per Can 1060 it requires proof.I’m struggling with this a little also. It’s not that I disagree with it, in many ways it makes sense. I have some questions or scenarios going through my head. In one instance there is a young couple who have done all the right things. Completely chaste before marriage and have every intention of submitting to God’s will in their marriage. After they are married they attempt to consummate the marriage but for some reason she is unable to go through with it. They get medical help and find that due to some valid medical reason she will never be able to consummate the marriage (I have no idea what this medical reason may be…just go with me). Since they love each other, love God, they stay together as all other aspects of the marriage are satisfactory. Is this not a valid marriage? Are they allowed to stay together?
On the other end of the spectrum is older folks, maybe widowed or divorced and they want to spend their golden years with someone special. Say the man has been single for several (or more) years but is a good Catholic and isn’t giving in to temptation, either alone or with a partner. He meets a good Catholic lady, they marry, and he finds he is unable to consummate the marriage. Medical intervention doesn’t help. What happens in cases such as these?
Also it is valid upon ratification but becomes indissoluble after consummation when it is a sacramental marriage.Jesus said, “the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined let no man put asunder.”
How can an impotent man become one flesh?
In this day and age, there are modern ways to overcome this problem if a man is naturally impotent. Nature can be helped to do what it should do. So see a doctor and ask him what to do. There are multiple choices where “the two shall become one flesh.” Once the marriage is consumated, it is a valid marriage.
Problem solved.
That’s right…as far as I know.Also it is valid upon ratification but becomes indissoluble after consummation when it is a sacramental marriage.
Which, however, does not have to be exercised (consummated) for validity.1ke explains the matter succinctly in post #2:
“In marital consent, one exchanges the right to sexual intercourse. One cannot exchange that right when one does not possess the ability to engage in intercourse.”
Marriage involves an exchange of conjugal rights—a right to engage in procreative sexual intercourse with the spouse. One cannot confer a right to another which one is not capable of giving.
Also, see this article and this one, which discuss the matter of conjugal rights specifically with respect to same sex “marriage.”
Our society has so much forgotten the idea of conjugal rights because it thinks everyone should have what is essentially a conjugal right to engage in sex with everyone else. But is the exchange of conjugal rights which is essential to marriage. And if one has no conjugal rights to give, there can be no exchange.
Yes, you are right. The possibility of an exchange of conjugal rights through procreative sexual intercourse must be present, but need not ever be exercised, if that is the mutual consent of the parties. The marriage remains valid.Which, however, does not have to be exercised (consummated) for validity.
Because the sexual act is the consummation of marriage. There can be no marriage without sex. The sacrament isn’t completed until they have sex.…since the spouses are to be open to procreation?
Can. 1084 §3
Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.
Why doesn’t sterilityprohibit the marriage as well?
Thank you
No, the marriage is perfectly valid upon the exchange of consent. This is Catholic teaching.Because the sexual act is the consummation of marriage. There can be no marriage without sex. The sacrament isn’t completed until they have sex.
The exchange of consent isn’t enough to complete a marriage. Consummation is necessary. That is why an unconsummated marriage can be annulled. If there is no consummation, it doesn’t matter if consent was given.No, the marriage is perfectly valid upon the exchange of consent. This is Catholic teaching.