Title XV: On the Frigid and Those Rendered Impotent by Sorcery, and on Impotence for Intercourse

Latin source headnote: If, when the husband seeks judicial separation and asserts himself to be impotent, the woman confesses the same thing, with canonical solemnity observed, the marriage is dissolved without distinction. But if the Church is deceived, the first marriage is restored. But if, when the woman acts, the man asserts himself to be potent, unless he is convicted by inspection of the body or another indubitable mode, the woman is not heard. But if the man confesses the same thing or is convicted, the marriage is separated, and license to contract is given to the woman. This the chapter says according to Hostiensis.

From the Brocardicum, Book XIX. You received a woman and had her for some time, for one month or for three, or lastly for a year, and now for the first time you have said that you are of a frigid nature, so that you could not have intercourse with her or with any other woman; and if she who ought to have been your wife affirms the same things which you say, and if it can be proved by a true judgment that it is as you say, you can be separated, yet on this condition: if afterward you take another woman, you are to be adjudged guilty of perjury and, after penance has been performed, you will again be bound to restore the former marriage. But as for her, if she first, after a year or half a year, shall herself have complained to the bishop or to his delegate, saying that you had not known her, and denies that there was any commingling between you, while you affirm the contrary, you are to be believed because you are the head of the woman; for, if she wished to complain, why was she silent so long? For the woman could know quickly and in a short time whether you could have intercourse with her. But if she shall have complained immediately in that new condition, after one month or at the latest after two [months], to the bishop or to his delegate, saying: “I wish to be a mother, I wish to beget sons, and therefore I received a husband, but the man whom I received is of a frigid nature and cannot do those things for which I received him,” if it can be proved by a right judgment, you can be separated, and she, if she wishes, may marry in the Lord.

Latin source headnote: One impotent for union is impotent to contract marriage, whether the impediment is of age or of nature.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Amiens.

We hold it pleasing and acceptable that you consult the Apostolic See concerning those matters which exist as doubtful to you, and your fraternity appears deserving of no small commendation on this account. Indeed, on your part it was intimated to us that a certain woman of your episcopate married a certain man, ignorant that because of the rupture of each groin his genitals had been cut away, and was not known by him; and he, having now become leprous, rendered himself and his property to a house of the infirm. But the woman, having returned to her paternal home, as a young woman desires to marry another man and to be joined by a conjugal covenant. But although the Roman Church has not been accustomed to divide those lawfully joined because of natural frigidity or other spells, nevertheless, if the general custom of the Gallican Church has it that marriages of this kind are dissolved, we will patiently tolerate it if, according to that custom, you grant the same woman the faculty of marrying whom she wishes in the Lord. For just as a boy who cannot render the debt is not fit for marriage, so also those who are impotent are reckoned by no means fit to contract marriages. [Indeed, concerning the canon, etc.; compare chapter 10, On Regular Clerics, III. 31.]

Latin source headnote: A natural impediment to intercourse, irreparable by the art of physicians, impedes marriage.

The same.

From your letters we received that a certain man of sixteen years or more took as wife a certain girl of thirteen years; when he was bound to, and could not, render the debt, the woman contracted so grave an infirmity that she was made altogether useless to the man, and her sexual organ was obstructed in such a way that the man could not commingle with her. We therefore respond that, if the woman contracted that defect from nature and cannot be aided by the work of physicians, grant the man the free faculty of taking another. But if this proceeded from the fault of the man, although it is not safe for it to be granted to him that he take another, nevertheless you will be able to tolerate it under dissimulation, because it is safer to have one woman as wife than to sin with many.

Latin source headnote: One who knowingly contracts with a woman impotent for union is not separated from her.

Lucius III.

We respond to your consultation, by which you consulted us whether women whose genital passage is closed, and who are unable to commingle with males, can contract marriage and, if they have contracted, whether it ought to be rescinded, in this manner: although it appears incredible that anyone would contract marriage with such women, and although we do not have an express canon concerning this kind of matter, nevertheless the sacrosanct Roman Church has been accustomed to judge in similar cases that those whom they cannot have as wives they are to have as sisters. Nevertheless, such women have sometimes been accustomed to be aided by medical skill so that they can suitably render and receive the debt.

Latin source headnote: If impotence for intercourse is established, the marriage is immediately separated; otherwise, the spouses will cohabit for three years. And if with seven relatives as oath-helpers they swear that they gave their effort to carnal union and could not be joined, they are immediately separated. It is commonly summarized thus.

Celestine III.

The praiseworthy—(And below: [Compare chapter 2, While Litigation Is Pending, II. 16.]) Solicitously also at the last, You asked how much time is to be granted to those naturally frigid for an experiment of nuptial union, in which, if they fail, they are separated. But we, although different times are conceded concerning this in the ancient canons as well as the laws, nevertheless, think this in the present consultation: if one naturally frigid cannot use her whom he took as spouse, from the time the marriage was celebrated, if the frigidity cannot be proved beforehand, they are to cohabit for three years according to the legal Authenticum. When this has elapsed, if even then they are unwilling to cohabit, and according to the decree of Gregory the woman, if by a just judgment she can prove concerning the man that he cannot have intercourse with her, let her receive another; but if he takes another, let them be separated. But if both consent to be together, let the man have her, although not as wife, at least as sister. But if both confess that they never knew each other, with seven relatives as oath-helpers, or, if relatives are lacking, with seven reputable neighbors as oath-helpers, let each, touching the sacrosanct Gospels, say by oath that they were never made one flesh through carnal union; and then it appears that the woman can hasten to second nuptials. But if he takes another woman, then let those who had sworn be held guilty of perjury and, after penance has been performed, be compelled to return to the former marriage. [Finally, etc.; compare chapter 1, On Exceptions, II. 25.]

Latin source headnote: Because of a woman’s constriction, if it appears that, apart from a divine miracle, she cannot be rendered capable without bodily danger, the marriage is separated; nevertheless, it is restored if it afterward appears that the Church was deceived.

Innocent III, to the Bishop of Auxerre.

We received the letters of your fraternity containing that the woman O. married a certain man in lawful wedlock; she lived with him for many years, but could not be known carnally by him. But although you had been instructed concerning this through your archpriest, nevertheless, wishing to have fuller certainty concerning this, you summoned to your presence certain provident and honorable matrons of her parish, strictly enjoining upon them under peril of their souls that they prudently inspect the woman herself and diligently inquire whether she was suitable for virile embraces; and they at last steadfastly asserted to you upon their faith that the same woman could never be a mother or spouse, as one whose natural sexual organ was lacking. Whence you solemnized a separation between her and that man, inducing the same woman to transfer herself to some religious house, being about to observe perpetual continence, and granted the man license to take a wife in the name of the Lord, because he desired to become a father. But it happened afterward that the same woman found someone who removed that bodily obstruction and, casting away the continence which she promised, after she had had [intercourse with] another man, additionally married G., bearer of the present letters, on whose behalf you humbly supplicated that we deal mercifully with them. Therefore, although you expressed to us only incompletely how the said woman promised that she would observe continence—whether, namely, by a simple word or a solemn vow, whether she passed to religion, as she promised, or remained in her house contrary to her promise, and how she caused that obstruction to be removed, whether, namely, by the art of a physician, intercourse with a man, or any other mode—nevertheless, perceptively considering that the impediment was not perpetual which, apart from a divine miracle, could be removed by human work without bodily danger, we know that the sentence of separation was rendered through an error, although a probable one, since it is manifest from the subsequent fact that she was knowable by him whose like commingles with her, and therefore we say that marriage existed between the woman herself and the first man. Wherefore we adjudge that there is no marriage between her and the aforesaid G., and we command them to be separated from each other. And if the aforesaid woman passed to religion, as she asserts that she promised, let the first man, who did not know her, remain with her with whom he afterward contracted by authority of the Church; otherwise, let the same man, after dismissing her whom he afterward brought in, be bound to return to her with whom he first contracted, unless that woman bound herself by a vow to observe continence, so that by this she is understood to have fornicated with the aforesaid G., or unless she commingled with another man in a fornicatory manner, so that the first man, under pretext of the fornication which [she] committed, wishes to decline her consortium. For if she promised only by a simple word that she would observe continence and afterward married the aforementioned G. in the sight of the Church, for as long as this article was doubtful, it ought not to be presumed that she fornicated with him; but from now on she ought not in any way to remain with him. But through these things you should know that the following question is resolved: whether she who is so constricted that she can carnally commingle with no one unless through an incision or in some other way violence is brought upon her—not only slight violence but perhaps so grave that peril of death is feared from it—ought to be declared suitable for contracting marriage. Likewise, whether she who is so constricted for the man whom she married that she can never be deflowered by him, if she is separated from him by the judgment of the Church and marries another [man] for whom she is not constricted and through frequent use of the second man is rendered suitable even for the first, ought to return to him with whom she first entered the conjugal covenant. But concerning such matters judgment is not easily to be given, since the final judgment depends upon the future. You therefore, according to that which is distinguished above, are to cause what we have decreed to be firmly observed through ecclesiastical censure, with appeal set aside. [Given at Ferentino, on the fifth day before the Nones of July, in the ninth year. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: If a wife says that the husband with whom she cohabited for three years does not have the potency for intercourse, when they swear this with seven relatives as oath-helpers, the marriage is separated. This the chapter says by adhering to the words of the letter.

Honorius III.

Your letters exhibited to us contained that, when the matrimonial case which is pending between the woman M. and A. her husband, of the diocese of Arras, had been committed to you by Pope Innocent, our predecessor of good memory, the said M. proposed before you that, although already eight years earlier she had been joined matrimonially to the said A. and had cohabited with him for a long time, nevertheless, although she was capable of intercourse with a man, she had never been known by him, but still remained intact because her aforesaid husband did not have the potency for intercourse; wherefore she sought that a separation be solemnized between them. But the aforesaid A. nevertheless confessed that he had never known her, although she had exhibited herself ready and prepared for his service, but nevertheless asserted that he had the potency to know other women. But you, lest perhaps they confess this in fraud, caused the said woman to be inspected by matrons of good reputation, trustworthy and experienced in the nuptial work, who furnished testimony that she still remained a virgin. Afterward, through the priest from whose parish the aforesaid man came, you caused it to be diligently inquired whether the man himself had known any woman, and through the inquiry itself it could not be established to you that any woman had been carnally known by him. But while the woman insistently sought judicial separation and said that she wished to be a mother and to beget sons, and while the man proposed that he was prepared to stand by the counsel and will of the Church, you enjoined upon them that they humbly receive and do penance for the things committed, and thus perhaps it would please God, who was the institutor and author of marriage, that they consummate the work of marriage. After several terms granted to them by you for cohabiting with one another, returning to your presence, with consonant voice they said that they could not commingle carnally. On account of this, with their consent you considered that a case of this kind should be left to apostolic judgment. Therefore, again through apostolic writings we order you that, if it is so and it is established to you that the aforesaid man and woman lived together for a continuous three years within the aforesaid years, and they affirm by oath with seven relatives as oath-helpers that they could not commingle carnally, you pronounce a sentence of separation between them.