Article II. Impotence

I. Notion. Impotence is the incapacity of completing copula, or copula of itself apt for generation. But copula of itself apt for generation consists in this: that the man, having entered the female vagina by natural force, that is, by an erect member and not artificially, there pours forth true semen. And so a man is impotent when he cannot naturally enter the female vagina and emit true semen into it; but a woman is impotent when she cannot receive semen in her vagina (St. Alphonsus VI, 1095).

Impotence differs from sterility, which is the incapacity of generating, or which leaves possible copula of itself apt for generation, but in fact necessarily infertile because of a physical defect. Sterile persons are: 1° men who can indeed produce and emit semen, but semen deprived of spermatozoids and therefore not procreative, as occurs among youths up to about the seventeenth or eighteenth year, among old men, and among men laboring under certain diseases; 2° women who can indeed receive male semen, but cannot retain any of the semen; likewise, commonly, women who have passed the critical age, as it is called, 45-50 years. But concerning others there is dispute whether they are impotent or sterile, as will be explained presently.

II. Division. Impotence is distinguished:

1. Into natural and accidental, according as it proceeds from a natural defect, as from a defect of the genitals, or from an extrinsic cause, as from malefice.

2. Into antecedent and supervening, according as it precedes marriage contracted, or supervenes upon it.

3. Into perpetual and temporary. Perpetual impotence is that which cannot be removed either without a miracle, or without sin, or without grave danger of death. Temporary impotence is that which will cease either by the passage of time, or can be removed by an honorable means and without grave danger of death.

4. Into absolute and relative, according as it excludes the capacity of coeundi with any woman whatever, or only with a determinate person or determinate persons (St. Alphonsus VI, 1095).

5. Into certain and doubtful; and doubtful impotence can be doubtful by a doubt of law or of fact (n. 758, note 1).¹

¹ Cf. Eschbach, Disputationes physiologico-theologicae, disp. 1, cap. 7; Antonelli, De conceptu impotentiae.

III. Existence of the impediment. 1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence, whether on the part of the man or on the part of the woman, whether known to the other party or not, whether absolute or relative, diriments marriage by the very law of nature (canon 1068, § 1); and indeed absolutely, or with all persons, if it is absolute; if it is relative, with the determinate person or determinate persons. The reason is that such an impotent person cannot hand over to the other party the right essential to marriage, that is, the right to copula of itself apt for generation (St. Alphonsus VI, 1095).

2. Temporary impotence does not diriment marriage, because such an impotent person can hand over the right to copula with the obligation of admitting it when the impotence has ceased (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). Hence the marriages of the non-pubescent are not diriment by the law of nature, but only by ecclesiastical law. Hence a marriage entered, for example, by a woman who because of narrowness cannot have copula is valid if the woman can be rendered apt by incision or a non-dangerous operation, or by frequent use; otherwise, if this cannot be done without danger to life (St. Alphonsus VI, 1096).¹

3. Sterility neither diriments nor impedes marriage (canon 1068, § 3). The reason is that it does not take away the object of the matrimonial contract, that is, the right to copula of itself apt for generation (St. Alphonsus VI, 1095).

¹ Suppose that the woman underwent a medical operation and became apt: does the marriage hold? Response 1. If that operation was truly dangerous, the marriage did not convalidate, but renewal of consent is necessary (St. Alphonsus VI, 1096). Response 2. If the operation was certainly light, the marriage was and remains valid. Response 3. If - something which can occur not rarely - it is doubtful whether danger was present or not, at least for caution let a private renewal of consent be made (Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., II, n. 976).

IV. Cases of impotence. The following are impotent:

1. A man who lacks the male member.¹

2. One who is deprived of both testicles.² For men of this sort, although at least sometimes they can penetrate the vagina and ejaculate some liquid, nevertheless cannot produce true semen. The same must be said of one who has testicles broken, bruised, or wholly atrophied or dried up, because he cannot elaborate semen.

3. One who is so frigid that he cannot erect the male member, or so ardent that he always pours forth the whole semen before he can penetrate the female vessel. But the aforementioned impotences are rarely perpetual, so that commonly they do not diriment marriage.

4. One who pours forth semen not at the extremity of the member but near its root, so that he can indeed enter into the female vessel, but cannot inject semen into it.

5. One who has undergone vasectomy.³ For he is impotent who cannot posit an act of itself apt for generation, in other words, who cannot penetrate the vagina together with effusion of semen into it. But one who has undergone vasectomy cannot posit an act of this sort, as follows from its nature, described in the note.

6. A woman who lacks a vagina or has it closed at the very entrance. There is dispute concerning a woman who has a vagina closed in this way near the uterus. But she seems to be called impotent, because the vagina is like a flaccid canal open on both sides, so that a vagina closed near the uterus is substantially vitiated, and therefore in the stated case a properly so-called vagina seems to be lacking. The responses of the Sacred Congregation of the Council favor this in the Salernitana,⁴ in the Verulana,⁵ and in the Monasteriensis.⁶ Namely, those responses declare null the marriage of a woman who lacked a uterus but had a short vagina closed near the uterus. But lack of a uterus does not seem to obstruct potency, as will be said under 9; therefore it remains that the closing of the vagina is the obstacle. For the rest, the stated impotences, if they can be cured without grave danger, are only temporary.

7. A woman who indeed has an open vagina but one so narrow that the male member cannot enter it. Some few, indeed, judge that in this case impotence is absent, or in other words, that it suffices that the man can deposit male semen at the exterior part of the vulva, or at least, the vulva having been penetrated, at the orifice or entrance of the vagina. But these opinions seem wholly to be rejected. For first, chapter 6, title 15, de frigidis et maleficiatis, declares that the impediment of impotence is had if a man cannot penetrate the woman's vagina. Next, for potency there is required aptitude for consummating marriage in that mode by which generation can follow of itself and not only by accident (cf. canon 1081, § 2). But from the deposition of semen either at the exterior part of the vulva or at the orifice of the vagina, generation does not seem to follow except by accident. Finally, this opinion is recommended by the fact that in the stated case there is lacking the faculty of consummating marriage according to the mode instituted by nature, that is, by penetrating the vagina. St. Thomas so thinks (In IV, dist. 41, q. un., a. 1, sol. 4, ad 2), and St. Alphonsus teaches the same at least implicitly (VI, 1075-1097). But the fact that the vagina can be penetrated only partially does not constitute impotence, or does not prevent there from being an act or copula of itself apt for generation. This is first deduced from the fact that copula which, as to substance, follows the mode indicated by nature, must be judged of itself apt for generation. But the copula of which we have spoken follows, as to substance, the mode indicated by nature; for it involves some penetration of the vagina, and more perfect and less perfect penetration differ only according to more and less, or are judged substantially similar to each other. Add that no theologian up to this point has taught that those who cannot coire more perfectly are impotent; indeed, the practice of the Roman Curia supposes that they are potent.

8. A woman who suffers from vaginismus, that is, hyperesthesia of the vaginal nerves, by which she cannot endure the contact of the man.

9. There is dispute whether a woman is impotent who lacks a uterus or ovaries, or who has the aforesaid organs wholly atrophied⁷ or dried up. Now a woman of this sort seems to be potent, because for potency it suffices that one be capable of copula of itself apt for generation. But the copula of which the stated woman is capable is of itself apt for generation, or in other words, from itself or by its nature it is ordered to generation, although generation in fact cannot follow because of the defect of another organ required for it. Therefore all things are present which are required for generation insofar as generation depends on human action; once that action has been posited, the act of nature begins. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that, if the contrary opinion is admitted, or if capacity for generating is required for potency, it would also have to be admitted - something admitted with difficulty - that many men and many women, as being totally impotent for generating, are incapable of marriage: for example, men who have semen irremediably vitiated, and women who have ovaries irremediably inert. That there are many such persons in advanced age cannot be denied, although which persons are such cannot be determined with certainty.⁸

This controversy cannot be decided by authority. "Since authors dispute," says the Sacred Congregation of the Council,⁹ "whether a marriage entered with a woman lacking ovaries is valid or not, and since ecclesiastical authority has not yet defined this question, and indeed the Congregation of the Holy Office has several times declared in particular cases, when the matter concerned a marriage to be contracted, that this is not an impediment,¹⁰ but when the matter concerned a marriage already contracted, that the spouses are not to be disturbed, now in practical reality it does not seem opportune to institute a process for declaring the nullity of marriage from defect of ovaries in a woman." The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments¹¹ indeed permitted marriage to a woman for whom, after the matters set forth and the express attestation of a surgeon were considered, the ovaries had certainly and completely been excised; but it can be said that, while the theoretical doubt stands, the marriage was declared licit for practice, without the theoretical question thereby being settled.

What has been said concerning a woman deprived of ovaries, you should also apply to a woman who has undergone oophorectomy, that is, resection or division of the canal by which male semen is carried to the ovaries, and ova to the womb.

10. Finally it is evident that a woman is impotent who cannot be fertilized except artificially, supposing artificial fertilization properly so called.¹²

11. It belongs to physicians to decide whether hermaphrodites¹³ or androgynes can contract, and according to which sex (St. Alphonsus VI, 1095).

¹ He is called an ectomus if his male member has been cut off.

² Constitution of Sixtus V, Cum frequenter, June 22, 1587. From those deprived of both testicles must be distinguished those apparently such, or cryptorchids, who carry their testicles in the groins and can produce true semen, although infertile.

³ Vasectomy consists in this: after an incision has been made through the scrotum, the organ carrying the semen elaborated by the testicles is resected, so that the path to ejaculation is broken off for the semen. One who has undergone vasectomy can indeed produce semen, but cannot pour it into the vagina, nor secrete it internally, since it is absorbed by the body (cf. De Smet, De spons. et Matrim., n. 550). Moreover he can preserve the erectibility of the male member and penetrate the vagina, indeed even ejaculate a certain liquid; but this liquid is not, as follows from what has been said, true semen, but some watery humor secreted by the prostate gland (cf. De Smet, op. cit., n. 550).

⁴ March 21, 1863.

⁵ January 24 and June 22, 1871.

⁶ December 16, 1899.

⁷ Note that complete atrophy can scarcely be established; hence, even in the opinion of those who hold perfect atrophy of the ovaries to be a cause of impotence, scarcely anyone can be barred from nuptials.

⁸ Cf. Collectanea Brugenses, 1910, p. 701.

⁹ December 16, 1905.

¹⁰ Holy Office, February 3, 1887; July 23, 1890 (Collectanea, n. 1733); July 31, 1895 (Collectanea, n. 1007).

¹¹ April 2, 1907.

¹² It consists in this: that the physician receives in a little vessel male semen poured forth by the man solitarily or onanistically, and by means of a syringe pours it into the woman's genitals. In this case copula is lacking, so that a woman who cannot be fertilized except in such a way is incapable of copula and therefore impotent.

¹³ That is, those who, besides the perfect organs of one sex, display some essential thing of the other, or who are endowed incompletely and monstrously with the organs of both sexes. But more commonly it happens that persons are born apparently hermaphrodites: namely boys who, since they still have testicles hidden in the abdomen, imitate in part the female sex; or girls who, having obtained a more extended clitoris, seem to be endowed with a male member (cf. Eschbach, op. cit., p. 53).

V. Effects of impotence. The discussion concerns perpetual impotence, since it alone diriments marriage. But a distinction must be made between certain impotence and doubtful impotence.

1. The effects of certain perpetual impotence are:

a) Before marriage has been entered. If impotence is certain, marriage must be abstained from, since it is certainly null.

b) After marriage has been entered. If perpetual and certain impotence certainly preexisted the marriage, the marriage is certainly null. In the case, of itself, separation from bed must be instituted at once; but it can be preferable that the parties be left in good faith. Separation from cohabitation cannot be instituted by private authority, and therefore the case must be submitted to the ecclesiastical judge, unless it can be permitted - which, when danger of sin is absent, can be permitted - that they cohabit as brother and sister (St. Alphonsus VI, 1101). Once the case has been brought to the judge, one proceeds according to the norm of canons 1975-1981; if the impotence is certainly established, the nullity of the marriage is pronounced; if it is not wholly established, but the non-consummation of the marriage is established, the Holy See is accustomed, with the requisite things having been placed, to dissolve for caution a ratified and non-consummated marriage.

2. The effects of doubtful perpetual impotence are:

a) Before marriage has been entered. In a doubt either of law or of fact, marriage is permitted (canon 1068, § 2). In a doubt of fact, that is, in a doubt concerning the fact which, if established, would certainly mean that impotence was present, the truth, if it can conveniently be done, must be investigated, for example by consulting experts. If the doubt persists, it is lawful to enter nuptials, after warning the other party, however, concerning the probable impotence (cited canon), but only under condition (St. Alphonsus VI, 1102; n. 758).

b) After marriage has been entered. In a doubt of law the use of marriage can be continued. In a doubt of fact not yet investigated, the truth must of itself be investigated, namely if there is hope of finding it; although commonly it is preferable to keep silence about the obligation. Practically, with respect to a spouse who complains of the impossibility of performing copula duly, these things hold: it is lawful for him to make trial as long as there is hope of coeundi duly, with emission of semen outside the vessel permitted if it is going to take place.¹ Meanwhile let him be advised to consult a physician. When hope of coeundi duly is wholly lacking, the case, with the things to be observed being observed, should be referred to the Ordinary, if it is known that the spouses wish for separation and for a declaration of the nullity of the marriage. If the spouses do not wish separation and are in good faith, it will often be preferable to leave them in good faith; if they are not in good faith, and danger of sin is absent or can be removed, it can be permitted that they live as brother and sister² (St. Alphonsus VI, 1101).

Corollary. The confessor should not inquire into impotence unless a founded doubt has arisen; but questions should be put very moderately and prudently, lest he disturb prematurely the good faith of the penitent regarding the validity and use of marriage.

¹ Cf. chapter 5, de frigidis et maleficiatis.

² Cf. chapter 5, de frigidis et maleficiatis; Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 15, 1877.