Appendix — On the Marriage of Sterilized Persons

I. A threefold question can be proposed:

1. whether sterilization renders one impotent for conjugal intercourse and for marriage;

2. supposing impotence, whether it is perpetual or, on the contrary, whether potency for intercourse can be restored;

3. whether the use of marriage is licit for sterilized persons.

II. Whether sterilization constitutes impotence. We judge that the answer must be different for the woman and for the man.

A. In the woman, sterilization does not constitute true impotence for the matrimonial act or carnal intercourse, nor consequently for marriage itself; but induces only infertility or incapacity to generate. For sterilization in the woman results from deprivation of the ovaries or their perfect atrophy, or from an impediment by which the ovum is prevented from descending into the uterus. But this does not impede the matrimonial act or carnal intercourse, because the ovum is not an essential element of intercourse of itself apt for generation, but only of generation. Thus the Holy Office has resolved, at least practically; and the matter is easily understood: sterilization does not prevent the woman from receiving true semen in the vagina from the penetrating man and retaining it there. Therefore, nothing is lacking for the completion of intercourse itself in a woman who lacks ovaries or ova, or does not provide them.¹

¹ Nevertheless, a woman who suffers from sterility is bound, from natural honesty, to disclose it before marriage to an ignorant prospective spouse, lest the latter be deceived. And the same holds for a sterile or doubtfully impotent man.

B. On the contrary, in the man, in whom various conditions can be considered:

1. Castration of both testicles most certainly constitutes the impediment of impotence, as we know from the declaration of Sixtus V, Cum frequenter, 27 June 1587, concerning eunuchs and spadones. The reason is both that they cannot complete perfectly satiating intercourse which calms concupiscence, and that they cannot emit true semen, but only a fluid similar to semen.

2. Irradiation of the testicles can produce sterility, and sometimes impotence, but only for a time.

3. Vasectomy appears to constitute true impotence, because a vasectomized man cannot emit true semen, but only a fluid similar to semen, since he cannot ejaculate anything elaborated by the testicles. But emission of true semen is an essential element of intercourse of itself apt for generation; and if such emission cannot occur, by that very fact an act apt for generation is impossible.

Recently some have said that carnal intercourse does not require that true semen elaborated by the testicles be emitted and deposited in the vagina, but that it suffices for the testicles to produce it, even if it cannot be emitted externally. Hence they say that vasectomized men are capable of intercourse.² But although this can suffice for copulation even with delight that is in some measure satiating, it nevertheless does not suffice for conjugal intercourse, or intercourse of itself apt for generation.

² Thus Dr. O'Malley and Gemelli, under the pretext that spermatozoa are not an essential element of true semen. But in this they most certainly err, for secretions elaborated by glands other than the testicles produce only a fluid apparently similar to semen. Most recently certain persons proposed the same opinion on the ground that vasectomized men are not incapable of intercourse. Vermeersch also acceded to this opinion, which hitherto he had not yet dared to hold and propose firmly. See Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift, 1936: Aktuelle Fragen des Eherechts und der Ehemoral.

And indeed, that act is of itself apt for generation in which nothing on its own part is lacking for generation to follow; that is, an act which, from the manner in which it is performed and from all the elements required for it, including the very condition of the potency and the organ by which it is exercised, is apt for generation, although generation does not follow because of a defect arising from elsewhere. But in vasectomized men intercourse takes place in such a manner and condition that, from the very constitution of the organ, the emission of true semen and consequently generation are altogether impossible, because an essential element has been destroyed, namely, the communication of the canals which carry the semen. Therefore vasectomized men are not capable of an act of itself apt for generation. And although a certain fluid similar to semen can be ejaculated, true semen furnished with spermatozoa, which are an essential element of semen, cannot, since nothing elaborated by the testicles can be emitted. Hence, if we called such an act of itself apt for generation, they would certainly ridicule us. In the same way, the looking by which a blind man attempts to see those standing by would be called an act of itself apt for vision.

Vasectomized men, under this aspect, are like eunuchs.

They say: 1. Under another aspect they are not alike, because they can complete intercourse and seek the calming of concupiscence, which is a secondary end of marriage.

Response. They generally preserve the internal secretion of the testicles, and therefore sexual appetite and all the energy and capacity for intercourse that is even somewhat satiating; and thus a certain secondary end of marriage, the calming of concupiscence, could be obtained. But since this end is subordinated to the primary end, it cannot licitly be procured except by an act of itself apt for generation. "For there are, both in marriage itself and in the use of the conjugal right, secondary ends also," says the encyclical Casti connubii, "which spouses are by no means forbidden to intend, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is always preserved and therefore its ordination to the primary end." But among vasectomized men the nature of the act is perverted, and its order to generation is radically removed.

They insist: 2. According to the ancient theologians the power of intercourse sufficed, and there was no question of an act of itself apt for generation.

Response. They did not say this in express words, but it was implicitly contained there, as is evident from the declarations generally added. Moreover, this clearer manner of speaking has already been employed in theology for more than three centuries, and is sanctioned by the Code of Canon Law itself, indeed by canon 1081, §2, in which matrimonial consent itself is defined "as an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body, in order to acts of themselves apt for the generation of offspring." Such a declaration, pertaining to natural and divine law, could scarcely be said to be subject to change. Indeed, it appears to regard the universal Church, since it concerns "those things which by the very nature of the matter also affect the Oriental Church" (can. 1), and for this reason it would fall indirectly under the infallibility of the Church.

Therefore our manner of speaking is conformable to the opinion hitherto common for many centuries, and the new opinion does not appear solidly probable.

III. Whether the aforesaid impotence is perpetual or, on the contrary, potency for intercourse can be restored. Definitive impotence certainly results from castration, but the question concerns vasectomy.

Some affirm that the former physiological condition can be restored and communication between the testicles and the penis reestablished. For since the nerves, arteries, veins, and lymphatic vessels are not customarily cut in the operation of vasectomy, and their action remains intact, while only the spermatic cord or vas carrying the semen is resected, atrophy of the testicles does not follow from this, and communication of the excised deferent canal can be restored by suturing together its two extremities. Hence they say that the impotence is merely temporary. Others, regarding this as doubtful, and consequently judging that the aforesaid impotence can perhaps be removed by some operation, assert in consequence that marriage can be permitted to vasectomized men, according to canon 1068, §2: "If the impediment of impotence (namely, perpetual impotence) is doubtful, whether by a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, marriage is not to be impeded." But:

1. The doubt appears negative, as founded upon a mere hypothesis, since up to the present not even one fact is reported of a man who underwent vasectomy and whose potency was restored.³ But doubts which are negative are commonly taught not to be worthy of consideration, even in this matter.⁴

³ Concerning this Antonelli, op. cit., III, pp. 429-431, says: "It must be said that the operation of restoration of the deferent canal has up to the present been performed only in cases of epididymitis, with an outcome not too successful.... In a man after vasectomy, this operation has never (so far as I know) been performed. Moreover, there is the fact that the operation of restoration, according to the testimony of Dr. O'Malley himself, is very difficult, requires the greatest skill, and a certain outcome cannot be expected in it. For the lumen, or diameter, of the deferent canal is very small, since it is 1 to 2 1/2 millimeters, and sometimes even 1 millimeter. In the middle, the diameter of the canal reaches a third part of this thickness of the walls, according to ... all treatises of human anatomy. Hence it is exceedingly difficult so to suture the margins of the excised canal that communication can be established in a physiological manner. Nor can it be said that this was obtained in the operation of restoration of the canal in epididymitis.... In epididymitis a lumen not altogether obstructed can remain; but through vasectomy the extremities of the excised canal are necessarily covered by scars, and in the operation of restoration they become shorter, whereby their suturing and the restoration of the former condition become more difficult....

⁴ Cf. Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis, III, n. 720, referring to Wernz, IV, 345, note 35; Cappello, De Matrimonio, n. 367; Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, V, n. 223; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, II, n. 341, 2; Génicot-Salsmans, Theologia Moralis, II, n. 487; Noldin-Schmitt, Theologia Moralis, III, n. 569, 4; Chrétien, De Matrimonio, n. 148, B, 1°, 2c.

2. Since, therefore, that operation is very problematic, a vasectomized man is rather to be regarded as perpetually impotent until it is established that potency has been restored to him. He, namely, concerning whom it is established that he was once impotent, must prove that he has become, or can become, potent.

3. Indeed, in practice the impotence is to be regarded as perpetual in the present state of surgical art, because no apt means for restoring potency yet exists.

4. Moreover, although prudence can warn that the impossibility of a certain surgical operation is not easily to be asserted theoretically, nevertheless in certain circumstances it appears impossible: namely, where, besides the cutting of the deferent canals, other vessels also have been excised or tied with a silk thread, and this has lasted for a notable time; or if the cut canals are so affected by atrophy that their physiological operations cannot be restored to their former condition, as can easily occur in a vasectomy which is not recent. Hence it would not be intelligible for marriage to be declared permissible to vasectomized men by a certain general rule and without discrimination. But in particular cases attention must be given to the manner in which the vasectomy was performed and to the present conditions of the organism, so that it can be known whether restoration is altogether impossible, or at least is not possible without grave danger; for then the impotence is perpetual.⁵ This can be established from the testimony of physicians. But if they disagree and the doubt remains, marriage is not to be impeded, although ordinarily it is to be dissuaded.

⁵ Gasparri, De Matrimonio, I, appendix De Vasectomia, 3° and 7°.

IV. Whether the use of marriage is licit for sterilized persons.

A. For sterilized women the use of marriage is per se licit, because per se they remain capable of an act of itself apt for generation. But if sterilization results from an illegitimate act voluntary on their part and can easily be removed, it will first have to be removed before they request the marital debt, because otherwise they would voluntarily place an impediment to generation.

B. For sterilized men who are impotent, as generally happens, the use of marriage is illicit. And indeed:

1. If the impotence is only doubtful, after a diligent examination has first been made, it is licit for them to attempt carnal intercourse so long as they have hope of completing it.

2. If the impotence is certain, the use is illicit. For if it is perpetual and antecedent to marriage, the marriage is null, and consequently every use of it is illicit. If the impotence is consequent, the marriage subsists; but intercourse is illicit so long as the impotence lasts, whatever one or another may have thought,⁶ for although the radical right to intercourse remains, an unimpeded right or the exercise of the right does not, because there cannot be an unimpeded right of doing, attempting, or exercising an altogether impossible act. And although it is per accidens that they cannot perform intercourse apt for generation, nevertheless intercourse such as would occur in them is unfit for generation, not indeed per accidens, but per se. Hence:

⁶ It does not appear that much attention should be paid to this opinion, both because more recently they did not study this question specifically, and because in this matter they do nothing but copy, without a new examination, what certain persons said earlier to be probable.

a. Even to seek the venereal pleasure of intercourse is illicit for them, because pleasure is not licitly sought except for the sake of the act; and if the act is illicit, the pleasure annexed to it is likewise illicit.

b. If potency could easily be restored, it would first have to be restored so that intercourse could licitly be had.

c. Inchoate or incomplete venereal pleasure is also illicit, whatever some have said,⁷ because inchoate and incomplete pleasure in its entirety is ordered to consummated and complete pleasure; hence, if one is illicit, so also is the other. An exception is to be made if the impotence will last a short time, because then incomplete pleasure could be had as a preparation, disposition, or arousal toward intercourse to occur in the near future. But this can in no way be said if the impotence is perpetual or remains for a long time.

⁷ See the note on the preceding page.

3. As regards touches, kisses, and looks, since according to themselves or according to their species they are indifferent acts, a distinction must be made:

a. To exercise those acts in order to intercourse, as though they are a preparation for or beginning of the complete act, is generally illicit, because for those to whom consummation is illicit, its preparation and beginning are also illicit. Hence they cannot seek venereal pleasure in those acts, voluntarily perceive it, or consent to it when it arises, saving the exception indicated above under 2.c, because the entire pleasure exists for the sake of intercourse, which is prohibited to them.

b. To exercise those acts moderately, insofar as they pertain to the conjugal state and belong to spouses more than to others, or insofar as they are of themselves directed to mutual love and mutual consolation, is licit for impotent spouses, even if it is foreseen that venereal pleasure will arise or that pollution will follow per accidens, provided they do not consent to these and are not in proximate danger of consenting.

In practice, impotent spouses can easily be ignorant in good faith concerning these matters, and for a grave reason can be left in that good faith, provided a greater evil is not to be feared.

"The experiments instituted by Gemelli upon dogs and cats which he had previously subjected to the operation of vasectomy, and in which he afterwards affirms that he joined the excised deferent canals with a successful outcome so that the animals subsequently even produced spermatozoa, did not generally receive the applause of physicians. For he himself says only that he successfully performed this restoration after vasectomy. But in a question of such moment many more things ought to have been added and elucidated. For we do not know the particulars of the operation; how long after the vasectomy the operation of reintegration was performed; the method employed; possible changes in the testicles after vasectomy; and so forth.

"Moreover, whatever may be true of the experiments of Father Gemelli, we have no operation restoring the aforesaid canals in a man after vasectomy; and from experiments upon dogs and cats moral certainty cannot be had that in a man the operation can result with lesser difficulty.... Moreover, the other reasons which we have set forth remain intact concerning the very doubtful outcome, and concerning profound changes with atrophy in the ligation of the deferent canals, and therefore in their resection. Consequently, the difficulties in performing the operation of reintegration of the deferent canals are increased, so that the former physiological condition may follow, especially if the vasectomy was performed no short time previously."