No Church Wedding For Impotent Man

[Deb]

I went for training last week at the Tribunal office to be a liaison between the office and people who are seeking an annulment. I was really surprised when impotence was stated as a grounds and that if one or both parties were aware of this prior to the marriage, the marriage was invalid.
Someone asked about two people who were past the age of being able to consummate the marriage who wanted to get married and they said no, the marriage is not valid if you can't consummate it.

Raphael, your response was great. Marriage is all about the natural law.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1569432' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:00 AM']That's not entirely accurate. Grave scandal can also be an impediment to Communion, and cohabitating is a scandalous thing.[/quote]

So... what you're saying is that it [i]may[/i] cause scandal because people [i]may[/i] erroneously believe that the paraplegic man is having sex with a woman who is not his wife. But if he actually could have sex with her, he would make her his wife. But since he can't, they can't marry.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1569455' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:27 AM']So... what you're saying is that it [i]may[/i] cause scandal because people [i]may[/i] erroneously believe that the paraplegic man is having sex with a woman who is not his wife. But if he actually could have sex with her, he would make her his wife. But since he can't, they can't marry.[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1569455' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:27 AM']So... what you're saying is that it [i]may[/i] cause scandal because people [i]may[/i] erroneously believe that the paraplegic man is having sex with a woman who is not his wife. But if he actually could have sex with her, he would make her his wife. But since he can't, they can't marry.[/quote]
I was just making a general statement, not one specific to this situation.

[scardella]

Hrm... I might be mangling this, but from my foggy memory from my Christian Marriage class...

The marriage is not "complete" until it is consummated. The vows stated in public are the public witness for what happens in the bedroom later. That is why sexual intercourse consummates the marriage and it is called the "marriage act."

Please correct me if I've remembered wrong. It's been six years since then.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='scardella' post='1569475' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:10 AM']Hrm... I might be mangling this, but from my foggy memory from my Christian Marriage class...

The marriage is not "complete" until it is consummated. The vows stated in public are the public witness for what happens in the bedroom later. That is why sexual intercourse consummates the marriage and it is called the "marriage act."

Please correct me if I've remembered wrong. It's been six years since then.[/quote]
You're correct. The logical application is that if you can't consummate it, it never happens.

[StColette]

[quote name='scardella' post='1569475' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:10 AM']Hrm... I might be mangling this, but from my foggy memory from my Christian Marriage class...

The marriage is not "complete" until it is consummated. The vows stated in public are the public witness for what happens in the bedroom later. That is why sexual intercourse consummates the marriage and it is called the "marriage act."

Please correct me if I've remembered wrong. It's been six years since then.[/quote]

You're right.

[Greyhawk]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1569274' date='Jun 11 2008, 11:41 PM']hmm...haven't heard that...can you source?[/quote]
Well, I did a little digging, and I couldn't find anything that explicitly states it in Canon law. The closest I came was Canon 1040 and following. I also talked to my local Franciscan priest, and he didn't think impotence prohibits men from being ordained. However, he said under the old Code of Canon Law (I assume the previous one?) that men needed to be "physically intact" since they're a sacramental representation of Christ as a male. Thus, one interpretation of that stipulation might have prohibited men because of impotence.

Another reason I have heard behind this line of thinking (although I'm not sure where exactly to look to substantiate this notion), is the man needs to freely give up the option of marriage. An impotent man could not physically consummate a marriage, and thus could not be married anyway. Consequently, he has nothing to freely give up. To put it another way, (correct me if I'm wrong, but..) since celibacy is a chosen aspect of the priesthood, an impotent man (in some cases) is automatically celibate, and therefore doesn't really make a choice in the vocation.

[StColette]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1569327' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:12 AM']And besides, why does the church want to pry into this man's sexual capabilities? If this couple came to the bishop and asked to be married, did the bishop ask them if they could have sex? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?[/quote]

I don't believe the Bishop was prying, the article makes it seem as if the young man actually told the Bishop of the problem. Ever couple that wants to be married in the Church must first go through something called Pre-Cana, it's a marriage preparation class or classes. The priest discusses with the couple all sorts of things, and I would imagine that the issue of sex and children would come up. It's not an invasion of privacy because the Church is making sure that this marriage will fulfill both the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. The Church requires the marriage prep in order to make sure this couple is ready to marriage and aware of the possible challenges that it will face. The Church is trying to make sure that another marriage doesn't end in divorce because the couple was either not suited for one another or that some undiscussed issue that the couple did not address before the marriage caused seperation and ultimately divorce. The Church takes the Sacrament of Matrimony very seriously, and rightly so.

[StColette]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1569317' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:05 AM']I'm in full support of its decisions, but seriously, there is a point where you can go a tad too far....[/quote]

The Church is in no way going too far to protect the Sacrament of Marriage.

[StColette]

[quote name='prose' post='1569346' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:30 AM']Can somebody please explain to me why the Church has approved marriages for couples that are non-sexual. Like... hmmm ... lemme think of one... A non-sexual couple....
Um Mary and Joseph????

And there are other instances where the Church has approved marriages that are not sexual in nature.[/quote]

I'm guessing that the couple must still have the ability to have sex. It might be a non-sexual marriage, but I believe they would still have to be capable of the sexual act for even such a marriage to take place.

[prose]

[quote name='scardella' post='1569475' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:10 AM']Hrm... I might be mangling this, but from my foggy memory from my Christian Marriage class...

The marriage is not "complete" until it is consummated. The vows stated in public are the public witness for what happens in the bedroom later. That is why sexual intercourse consummates the marriage and it is called the "marriage act."

Please correct me if I've remembered wrong. It's been six years since then.[/quote]


[quote name='Raphael' post='1569479' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:12 AM']You're correct. The logical application is that if you can't consummate it, it never happens.[/quote]

Well then, using this line of thinking, Mary was never married to Joseph because they never had sex.

Clearly, there is at least one exception to the rule.

[kujo]

This just s[i]u[/i]cks. I'm sorry. It just s[i]u[/i]cks!

[StColette]

[quote name='prose' post='1569589' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:10 PM']Well then, using this line of thinking, Mary was never married to Joseph because they never had sex.[/quote]

That's actually debated in Theology, I believe. If they were actually formally married or just remained betrothed, which is quite different than our engagements. The betrothal back then required a bill of divorce of some type from a Rabbi, I believe, in order for it to be nullified. I believe a formal marriage in the Jewish tradition during that period of time began with a betrothal and became a marriage when the two became one.

[scardella]

Oh, and I seem to recall that non-consummated marriages can be dissolved even if valid, which would add practical application to the view that a non-consummated marriage is "incomplete". It might only be able to be dissolved by the Pope.

Edited June 12, 2008 by scardella

[prose]

[quote name='StColette' post='1569602' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:21 AM']That's actually debated in Theology, I believe. If they were actually formally married or just remained betrothed, which is quite different than our engagements. The betrothal back then required a bill of divorce of some type from a Rabbi, I believe, in order for it to be nullified. I believe a formal marriage in the Jewish tradition during that period of time began with a betrothal and became a marriage when the two became one.[/quote]

That is really interesting!!

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='prose' post='1569589' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:10 AM']Well then, using this line of thinking, Mary was never married to Joseph because they never had sex.

Clearly, there is at least one exception to the rule.[/quote]

I believe the line of thinking would be that while they never consumated the marriage, they were still able too.

To quote the Jimmy Akin's article from my earlier post:

[quote][b]Impotence is the inability to perform the marital act. Perpetual and incurable impotence is an impediment to marriage because marriage involves exchanging the right to conjugal relations.[/b] Giving valid matrimonial consent means binding oneself to pay the marriage debt if the other party reasonably requests it.

Therefore, if you don't have the ability to pay the marriage debt then you cannot truthfully promise to render it to another. Consueqently, you cannot give another the right to conjugal relations with you, and thus you cannot exchange valid matrimonial consent.

[b]It is possible, however, to exchange the right to conjugal relations even if neither party plans to exercise that right.[/b] To parties can plan never to have conjugal relations and yet exchange the right to do so should one or the other (or both) change their minds.

[b]If Mary and Joseph entered marriage planning on not having conjugal relations then they still granted each other a right even though neither intended to use it.[/b]

On the other hand, it may be the case that they planned on having conjugal relations but the intervention of the Holy Spirit in conceiving Jesus before they came together caused them to change their plans.[/quote]

Emphasis mine.

Here's also a link to the original article, entitled "Mary's Marriage" - [url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/07/marys_marriage.html"]http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fide...s_marriage.html[/url]



[quote name='scardella' post='1569619' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:46 AM']Oh, and I seem to recall that non-consummated marriages can be dissolved even if valid, which would add practical application to the view that a non-consummated marriage is "incomplete". It might only be able to be dissolved by the Pope.[/quote]

I believe that is called the Petrine privilege. An unconsummated Sacramental marriage could be dissolved by the Pope I think.

Edited June 12, 2008 by CatholicCid

[CatherineM]

Non-consummated marriages aren't valid. That's the point of annulment. We get it confused with divorce which is the severance of a valid marriage. An annulment is the church's determination that a valid "bond" never took place. That's what I used to do is work for the Defender of the Bond, kind of like the Prosecutor or Devil's Advocate in the Tribunal. We start with the assumption that the marriage is valid, and can not be dissolved. The parties have to prove that by some incapacity, such as impotence or immaturity, or by some deficit of formation, such as a Catholic not being married before a priest, that the marriage never "took."

Raphael-the picture in my head when I was talking about co-habitating without sex was my 85 year old mother who lives with a man. They have lived together almost since my father died 22 years ago, but he is incapable of sex due to his heart medication. I so enjoyed her discussion of the situation by the way. They haven't married because it would mess up her retirement income. I agree with you about the scandal. Even though I know they aren't doing stuff, I have been very scandalized by it.

When we went for our Pre-Cana counseling, the priest asked my husband if he was impotent. His illness is well known, as is that one of the side affects of the medication can be impotence. I'm not sure our pastor believed him at the time, but the number of pregnancies and miscarriages we've suffered has put those questions to rest.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1569634' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:00 PM']Non-consummated marriages aren't valid.[/quote]
Just to prevent confusion, wouldn't it read better as "Marriages that cannot be consummated aren't valid"

[prose]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1569350' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:38 AM']What about St. Therese's parents? They were advised, by their spiritual director, to live as brother and sister for many years, to increase their devotion to God. Eventually, he told them to make it a physical relationship, and so Therese and her sisters were born.[/quote]

I think you got this mistaken a bit, from this source, she and her husband decided to be chaste until a bishop suggested to them otherwise. It was only 10 months of non-sexual marriage.

[url="http://www.sttherese.com/Parents.html"]http://www.sttherese.com/Parents.html[/url]