Point XII. On the Impediment of Impotence

854. • Impotence for performing the matrimonial offices, or incapacity for carnal intercourse of itself apt for generation, is distinguished in several ways, namely:

1. Certain or doubtful, according as it is or is not manifest.

2. Antecedent or consequent, according as it precedes the matrimony or follows it.

3. Temporary or perpetual, according as it can or cannot be removed by the passage of time or by art.

4. Natural or accidental, according as it arises from an intrinsic defect or from an extrinsic cause, for example, sorcery.

5. Absolute or relative, according as it exists between a man and all women, or between a man and some determinate woman; or conversely.

855. Principles. - I. Antecedent and perpetual impotence, whether absolute or relative, renders matrimony invalid by the natural law. The reason is that the object of the matrimonial contract does not exist, since intercourse is impossible. This is also established from Canon law. - St. Ligorius, no. 1095.

II. Consequent impotence and temporary antecedent impotence do not invalidate matrimony. The reason is that the actual use of matrimony does not pertain to its essence, and it suffices that consummation either was possible at the time of the contract or will be possible in the future.

III. Impotence certainly known renders the use of matrimony illicit, even if only attempted, because where intercourse cannot be completed ¹, the end which renders the union licit is absent.

¹ Where there is question of impotence consequent upon matrimony, according to the principles now commonly received in the schools of physicians or physiologists, the case will be very rare in which conjugal intercourse ought to be forbidden to spouses as though illicit by reason of impotence. For conjugal intercourse must then be called altogether illicit only when, considering its nature in itself, its natural effect, namely, conception or generation, can in no manner whatsoever follow from it. On the contrary, it must be considered licit when generation cannot easily be hoped for but is nevertheless not impossible, and otherwise nothing more can be accomplished by the spouses in those circumstances. But as often as the man still retains the power of emitting seminal substance in some manner, intercourse of this kind, from which generation, although with difficulty, can nevertheless absolutely follow, will scarcely ever be impossible for spouses. For it is now commonly received among physiologists and physicians, as experience has taught, that for conception and the effect of generation it is by no means necessary that the man emit seminal fluid and inject it even into the more interior parts of the female organ; rather, it suffices that fluid of this kind be poured and applied to the external surface of the same organ, or to the mouth or entrance of the vagina, as they say. Thus Vallisnieri, History of the Generation of Man, part 1, chapter 8, no. 7, and part 2, chapter 13; so also the more recent medical dictionaries compiled from the studies of men more celebrated in medical science, one of which appeared at Venice in the year 1834 under the title Classical Dictionary of Internal and External Medicine, and the other likewise at Venice in 1840 under the title Dictionary of Practical Medicine, Surgery, and Pharmacy. The former, under the entry Impotence, volume XVII, page 89, says: Many facts tend to demonstrate that it suffices that the seminal fluid be deposited at the entrance of the woman's sexual parts in order that fertilization occur. Therefore it concludes, ibid., page 101: It would not be lawful to affirm that an individual capable of emitting semen upon the more external genital parts of the woman is absolutely incapable of reproduction. But the latter, likewise says under the entry Impotence, volume 3, page 691: Since several facts tend to demonstrate that it sometimes suffices for semen to be deposited at the entrance of the genital parts in order to fertilize, absolute impotence will not be decided except when, etc. Finally, more recently Louis Fleury says the same in the work entitled Therapeutic and Clinical Treatise on Hydrotherapy, Paris, 1866, page 1025: Fertilization can occur in the absence of all penile intromission, by the mere presence of semen at the orifice of the vagina.

I said, however, where there is question of impotence consequent upon matrimony, namely, when there can be question only of the morality of the act between spouses certainly legitimate. For if there were question of antecedent impotence, the question would already concern the validity of the matrimony, and this must be left to the ecclesiastical judge to resolve.

I said further, if otherwise nothing more can be accomplished by the spouses in those circumstances. For it must not be thought that, because generation remains possible in some manner from that mode of uniting and thus, since the end of the seminal substance is not altogether frustrated, the act cannot be called repugnant to nature, it is therefore lawful for spouses to use matrimonial rights in that most imperfect manner whenever they can unite in a more suitable manner. For although generally they are not bound to employ the greatest diligence so that the effect intended by nature in the conjugal work may follow more certainly, they are nevertheless bound to avoid, insofar as it lies in their power, that mode of the act by reason of which generation not only can be impeded but can be attained only with the greatest difficulty.

Meanwhile, the Confessor will diligently observe that the occasion for employing the foregoing principles of physiological science is not restricted only to those circumstances in which the man is unable to fulfill his part more perfectly than was said there. For it happens perhaps more frequently that, while the man could fulfill his office perfectly, nevertheless the female organs serving this work, or even the present condition of health and constitution, are affected by such discomforts and diseases that they in no way permit intercourse more perfect than the aforesaid. But since these diseases or this condition do not altogether impede the effect intended by nature but still leave generation possible of itself, conjugal intercourse in those circumstances, although less perfect, cannot therefore be forbidden as illicit. The same must also be observed concerning the elderly, to whom theologians permit the use of marriage - see below, no. 908, resolution 4 - provided that they can sufficiently complete the act or do not have an empty hope of completing it. For they can be considered sufficiently capable of the act so long as at least they can fulfill their part in the aforesaid manner.

856. Resolutions. - 1. Eunuchs or castrated men deprived of both testicles are regarded as impotent, but not if they lack only one.

2. In a doubt concerning antecedent impotence, judgment must be made in favor of the validity of the matrimony, and the spouses must be permitted to attempt intercourse. Indeed, three years are granted to them for this by Canon law, notwithstanding a greater probability in favor of perpetual impotence. - St. Ligorius, no. 1103.

3. In a doubt concerning consequent impotence, the spouses are likewise permitted to attempt intercourse until they are certain that it can in no manner be completed. - St. Ligorius, no. 1101. The Confessor, however, ought to proceed cautiously; and if he discovers that impotent spouses are in good faith, it will more frequently be better to abstain from admonition, lest they fall from material sin into formal sin.

4. Impotence must not be confused with sterility; for sterile persons are not impotent for the conjugal act. Hence elderly persons who are able to consummate matrimony contract validly; likewise women who can receive semen even if they do not retain it. - St. Ligorius, no. 1095. - Gousset, no. 791.

5. The Confessor must take the greatest care not to proceed rashly in a matter of such great moment and subject to so many difficulties, or to decide anything by his own authority. Rather, after duly examining the case with all its circumstances, he must refer it to the Ordinary, to whom it will then belong to establish and determine what ought to be done in a matter of this kind. Indeed, as it appears to us, a prudent and discreet Confessor will not question spouses concerning impotence, nor admonish even those whom he believes impotent; nor will he give a final answer to those consulting him concerning this matter unless he has first consulted the Bishop. - Gousset, no. 791.