Impotence

IMPOTENCE is the incapacity to have carnal intercourse such as is required for the procreation of children. It is absolute if the incapacity extends to all persons of the other sex, otherwise it is relative. Temporary impotence exists only for a time, and may be cured by lapse of time or by some lawful operation which does not endanger life; perpetual impotence lasts for life. It is antecedent if it precedes marriage, otherwise it is subsequent.

Antecedent and perpetual impotence annuls marriage by the law of nature, for the matter of the marriage contract is in that case impossible. This is true whether the impotence be absolute or only relative, but in the former case marriage is out of the question, while in the latter a valid marriage may be contracted with someone else, though it is impossible with a person with respect to whom the party is impotent. Subsequent impotence, which has supervened on marriage, cannot, of course, annul the marriage already contracted, but if it is altogether certain it makes the use of marriage unlawful (Can. 1068).

This, however, is not to be lightly presumed, for the right is in possession, and for its lawful exercise it suffices if there be any probability of its not being impossible.

Neither does antecedent but temporary impotence annul marriage, for a contract is valid if the matter is possible or by using ordinary means can be made possible.

When it is doubtful whether a spouse is impotent or not the decision must be in favour of the validity of the marriage, and since all such questions belong to the forum externum, they fall under the cognizance of the bishop, nor can they be settled by the confessor.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Article II. Impotence · Vol. III, Bk. II, Pt. I, Sect. I, Ch. I, Art. III, § 3. On Impotence for Intercourse

Mere barrenness or sterility is not impotence, nor does it make marriage impossible or unlawful. There is a controversy among experts as to whether removal of the ovaries or of the womb or of both organs makes a woman impotent or only sterile. The decisions which have been given by the Roman Congregations in particular cases are quoted in defence of both opinions, and as yet no general solution of the question has been given. Until this happens, a woman who has undergone such operations should not marry without consulting the bishop, but if she is already married the more favourable opinion should be followed. This impediment is recognized by English law.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 7 passages

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Article II. Impotence

n. 771.

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.

n. 772.

II. Division. Impotence is distinguished:

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

n. 773.

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).

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
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).

n. 774.

IV. Cases of impotence. The following are impotent:

A man who lacks the male member.¹
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A woman who suffers from vaginismus, that is, hyperesthesia of the vaginal nerves, by which she cannot endure the contact of the man.
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.

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

n. 775.

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.

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.

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.

Vol. III, Bk. II, Pt. I, Sect. I, Ch. I, Art. III, § 3. On Impotence for Intercourse

n. 86.

Those able to have intercourse, and therefore not bound by the impediment, are men who can place an act of itself apt for generation; likewise wives who are capable of admitting acts of this sort. But an act of itself apt for generation consists, on the part of the man, in this: that the man penetrates the woman's vagina and pours forth true semen there; on the part of the woman, in this: that she permits the penetration of the male member and the effusion of semen in the vagina. These things laid down, I say:

n. 87.

I. They lawfully have intercourse:

Those who are only incapable of generating, such as sterile women; or old men who lack fertile semen (St. Alphonsus VI, 1095).
Women who cannot retain semen.
Women whose uterus or ovaries have been removed. For to those to whom marriage must be permitted, the use of it is also permitted. But marriage must be permitted to the aforesaid women.¹ The final reason for affirming this, however, is that in the case the act placed is of itself apt for generation.
Women who have undergone oophorectomy. Oophorectomy consists in the division of the oviduct or canal by which semen is led to the ovaries; hence it only brings it about that the semen of the man cannot ascend to the ovaries, but it does not prevent its being poured forth into the vagina, or prevent an act of itself apt for generation from being placed.

87. II. It is disputed whether one who has undergone vasectomy and a castrated man lawfully have intercourse.

One who has undergone vasectomy. Vasectomy consists in this: that, after an incision has been made through the scrotum, the organ carrying semen elaborated by the testicles is cut away, so that the way to ejaculation is broken off for the semen. From this it follows that one who has undergone vasectomy cannot, after the emptying of the epididymis, pour forth semen into the vagina;² hence, if the completed act of venereal things is admitted, he is truly polluted.
A castrated man. To him both imperfect intercourse, or penetration of the vagina, and incomplete acts seem lawful. For a castrated man, by force of marriage, received and retains the right to perfect intercourse. Now the right to perfect intercourse carries with it the right both to the act which is an essential part of perfect intercourse, that is, to penetration of the vagina, and to the acts which by their nature are referred to perfect intercourse, that is, to incomplete acts.

Objection 1. No one can have a right to something unlawful. But perfect intercourse is radically and irremediably unlawful for a castrated man.

Response. Perfect intercourse for a castrated man is rather impossible than unlawful (cf. St. Alphonsus VI, 933).

Objection 2. Since a castrated man is unfit for an act of itself apt for generation, that is, since he cannot pour semen into the vagina, the insemination of the wife becomes mere pollution.

Response. Since the wife, from the act which is an essential part of perfect intercourse, that is, from penetration of the vagina, seems to receive the right to insemination, this is undeservedly called pollution. But as to the fact that the insemination of the wife is frustrated of its end, both the man and the wife permit this.

Question. Whether marriage and its use can be permitted: 1. to a man lacking testicles, into whose scrotum the testicles of an animal have been inserted, which we know sometimes has taken place; 2. to a woman for whom a vagina has been made artificially.

Response. As regards the former case, it seems that it must be answered affirmatively as soon as, in view of the declaration or doubt of an expert, the testicles must be judged at least probably to have become part of the body and to produce human semen, although infertile. Likewise as regards the other case, it seems that it must be answered affirmatively as soon as, again considering the declaration or doubt of an expert, the vagina has at least probably become part of the body (cf. can. 1068, § 1). In both cases, however, the future partner must be warned. Moreover, it is certainly to be advised that, when the case occurs, ecclesiastical authority be consulted.

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 16, 1905; Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, April 2, 1909.

² Namely, those who have undergone vasectomy, and likewise castrates whose testicles have been crushed in mature age, can for some space of time emit semen kept in the epididymis; but after the said semen has been emitted, they can indeed preserve the erectability of the member and penetrate the vagina, and even ejaculate a certain liquid, but this liquid is not true semen, but some watery humor secreted by the prostate gland (De Smet, De Matrimonio, II, n. 550).

Bucceroni, Commentaries (1910)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 31 passages

Ch. IV, Article II: On Impotence

n. 149.

When spouses cannot have copulation of itself apt for generation, impotence is had; and if it precedes marriage and is perpetual, whether absolute and toward all, or respective and toward one or only some, it dirimently impedes marriage. The reason is that a contract cannot be valid when the thing promised will never be able to be furnished, according to the rule of law: one unable to pay is also unable to promise. It is said, if it precedes marriage and is perpetual; for it will be otherwise if impotence, even perpetual, supervenes after marriage has been validly contracted, since marriage once validly contracted is indissoluble; or if it indeed precedes marriage but is temporary, for it is not of the nature of marriage that perfect copulation can always be had, but that it can be had at some time. Yet except the impotence of impubescent age, which, as is clear, is temporary; for by ecclesiastical law it dirimently impedes marriage. By the name of puberty is designated the age at which a man and woman become apt for generation. Puberty in males is in the fourteenth year of age, but in females in the twelfth year. Sporer 525. and following.; Milne Edwards, t. 9. pp. 85-89. 100. 104. 105.

Note. Four cases of impotence are listed in men. The first is if they lack both testicles, or have both crushed, because they are incapable of prolific semen. The second is the perfect absence of the penis, so that not even the little extremity of the male member remains, which could at least bring semen into the exterior genital parts of the woman. The third is imperforation of the penis, or a perforation of it which reaches no interior cavity, so that human semen cannot be emitted outside. The fourth is frigidity, or such weakness of the male member, whether it arise from disease, or from a natural aversion of the other spouse, or even from malefice, that by no art and remedy can he experience erection, nor can he penetrate the feminine vessel, nor can he pour forth semen. Excessive heat also is customarily listed by the older theologians, by which the man pours forth semen so prematurely that he cannot wait for conjugal copulation itself; this indeed can very rarely constitute a true diriment impediment. For if, approaching the first time, he cannot do this, it is very difficult that, attempting copulation a second and third time, he would be unable to complete the act.

But three cases chiefly of perpetual impotence in women are listed: first, the absence of both ovaries; second, the absence of the uterus and vagina; third, perfect obliteration of the uterus and vagina. But generally that impotence is judged perpetual which cannot be removed without a miracle, or sin, or danger to life; hence although such impotence is removed, the marriage nevertheless was null and therefore must be repeated. Debreyne, l. c. Sect. 1.; Milne Edwards, t. 8. p. 383.; t. 9. p. 21., etc.; Sanchez, de Matr. l. 7. D. 92. n. 1. 7.; Reiffenstuel, L. 4. Decret. Tit. 15. n. 3.

There are several modern authors who hold that perfect absence of the uterus and ovaries, as well as occlusion of the vagina, does not constitute the impediment of impotence in a woman. They rely chiefly on the fact that marriage is also for the remedy of concupiscence. Certainly for the remedy of concupiscence, but nature first already presupposes marriage, which is principally and essentially for generation. For in what other thing is that remedy to be sought, except in marriage? Is it to be sought otherwise than by the conjugal act? Therefore marriage is presupposed, and consequently the natural power for marriage, which by its nature is instituted for generation.

Nor truly does it avail to say that power for coiting suffices and not also power for generating offspring; for this must be proved. Coitus is not the end of marriage, but the natural means to its essential end, namely generation. And if impotence for generation were on the part of the woman, then equality would be lacking in the contract of marriage; for the man would hand over that power, but the woman in turn would not be able to hand it over. Eminent Cardinal Gasparri, in his Tr. de Matr., Paris, 1891., vol. 1. p. 119. num. 205., explaining the definition of marriage, excellently says: "The companionship of life signifies in the first place a mutual right, with relative obligation, over the body of the other in order to generate and educate offspring, or THE RIGHT OF COITING, as they say.... Therefore marriage brings to each party an exclusive and perpetual right, with relative obligation, over the body of the other in order to generate and educate offspring." And if marriage is valid with a woman impotent for generation, why then is marriage not also valid with a man impotent for generation, with a eunuch, with a castrated man? For these could use marriage well, not indeed for generation, but for the remedy of concupiscence, for taking pleasure. But it is objected: they cannot take the greatest and full pleasure from marriage. But is pleasure the end of marriage? And if they cannot take full pleasure, nevertheless they take as much as they can take, and this fully suffices for them as a remedy of concupiscence, if, for there to be marriage, it suffices, as they say, that it be for restraining, or rather satisfying, concupiscence. Castration, or the removal of both testicles, brings perpetual inability for generation, but by no means inability for copulation, nor does it carry with it the absence of venereal sense.

Lastly, there are indeed several modern authors who oppose the common opinion of the ancient doctors, but there are also several modern doctors who still hold it and support it by reasons.

R. P. Lehmkuhl, in his very recent Compendium Theol. Mor., year 1907, num. 1019., defines marriage as: "The individual association of male and female, BY WHICH THEY ARE MUTUALLY COMPLETED for constituting by right ONE PRINCIPLE OF GENERATION." And num. 1052 he says that impotence "renders one incapable of consummated copulation, or copulation of itself apt for generating.... Sterility is distinguished from impotence; it supposes the possibility of copulation, but offspring is not generated because, whether on the part of the male semen or on the part of the woman, something stands in the way so that the male semen may not fecundate THE MATERNAL EGG." And num. 1054 he says: "Whether she who lacks both ovaries or even the uterus is judged impotent is disputed. The Holy Office, indeed, having been asked whether a woman rendered sterile by the defect of both excised ovaries can and lawfully may be permitted to enter marriage, on February 3, 1887, responded: Having considered the matter maturely and for a long time, that the marriage of the woman in the case should not be impeded. It answered the same on July 30, 1890, concerning excised ovaries and uterus. But in those cases there was no certainty about complete excision, nor about absolute impossibility of conceiving."

"If a woman," says Noldin, ed. 2, 1908, de Matr. n. 577., "lacks both ovaries or the uterus, impotence is had. Today indeed many theologians think that the woman who lacks both ovaries or the uterus is not impotent, but sterile. Namely, they define impotence not as inability for generating, but as inability for coiting. But theoretically the opinion once common seems altogether to have to be retained, because according to the mind of the authors it seems certain that impotence is present where there is inability for copulation of itself apt for generation. Nevertheless, since doctors dispute among themselves whether marriage entered with a woman lacking ovaries is valid, and ecclesiastical authority has not yet defined this question, the Holy See recently still declared that practically it did not seem opportune to institute a process for declaring the nullity of a marriage from defect of ovaries in a woman. Holy Office, December 10, 1905."

It was declared to me myself by His Eminence Cardinal Parocchi, Secretary of the Holy Office, that the responses given refer only to particular cases, and suppose that generation could still of itself follow in those cases. It is indeed certain that pregnancy has sometimes been had after the ovaries were removed, because according to the operative method employed, namely the operation performed through the vagina, the removal was not certainly total, or, if total, there was a supplementary ovary. Antonelli, v. p. 148. 154. 155. His Eminence Cardinal Aloisi Masella, Pro-Datary, adhered to the same opinion by unanimous judgment of the Congress. And recently His Eminence Cardinal Di Pietro, now Datary, on May 18, 1908, when a dispensation was sought from the impediment of consanguinity in the first degree mixed with the second of the collateral line, by the unanimous judgment also of the Congress ordered that it be answered negatively, because this cause was adduced: "The physical infirmity of the petitioner, who has undergone a surgical operation by which she is rendered incapable of conceiving." Cf. Institutiones Morales, ed. 5. n. 994. 995.; Appendix n. 958.; Cas. Consc. ed. 5. vol. 2. n. 146.

Nevertheless, since the genital apparatus of the man is wholly apparent and sensible, while the genital apparatus of the woman is only in part apparent and sensible, perhaps from the very institution of nature, by this constitution of nature itself, God permits marital copulation without further and more intimate inquiry being made concerning the intrinsic force of that copulation in order to generation. And it is not to be doubted that several women who enter marriage and who are afterward found sterile are perhaps sterile because they are impotent, their impotence remaining hidden. From this it easily follows that marriage in cases of this kind is not to be impeded. And, since the Supreme Pontiff can well declare doubts pertaining to natural law, he will certainly be able to declare even such a doubt, if he himself judges it necessary and opportune.

n. 151.

Corollaries. 1. Those who lack only one testicle are not impotent, because they can penetrate and emit prolific semen. 2. Generally speaking, old men are not to be held impotent, since even in advanced age they can both penetrate and pour forth semen, as is clear concerning several who at the age of eighty, ninety, and even one hundred years have begotten offspring. And it is lawful for them to come together, although sometimes semen is poured forth by accident. L. 954. 1067. Cf. here n. 136. 3. Sterile women are not impotent, because although they do not conceive, nevertheless they can perform an act of itself apt for generation. For they can be penetrated through marital congress and receive male semen. But that generation does not follow is by accident. Sterility can never be held as absolute and perpetual. A woman can be sterile for several years and afterward become fertile, Debreyne, p. 281. Therefore sterility is only in a certain accidental impediment to generation, whether on the part of the man or on the part of the woman. St. Colette V was born from a sterile and sexagenarian mother. Moreover sterility properly so-called, insofar namely as it differs from impotence, is situated in this: that either the male semen, or the ovule, or both fail for a time, or do not come to due maturity, or other physical conditions are lacking by which both the ovule and the male sperm may arrive at due contact; and thus generation is frustrated. Cf. Milne Edwards, T. 8. pp. 359. 360. 383.; t. 9. pp. 114. 115. etc.; Antonelli, V. 2. p. 155. and following. 4. Women who bring forth fetuses only dead, or only with danger to their own life, are not considered impotent; for in reality they generate. 5. Those about to die shortly are not impotent, because their impotence is only accidental and extrinsic, and regards only the use of the thing, not the power of using. Laymann, l. 5. Tr. 10. p. 4. c. 11. n. 6.

n. 152.

Does the narrowness of a woman, by which she cannot be penetrated by a man, constitute impotence?

n. 152.

Resp. There are not lacking those who deny it. For, to have power for marriage, power simply for generation suffices. But it is now known that a woman can conceive when the semen of the man is poured forth near the vagina. For the smallest quantity of semen can suffice for generation, and because of the attractive force which is present in the genital parts of the woman, it can reach all the way to the uterus. And indeed only by the commixture of seeds do spouses become one flesh. But hence, according to the aforesaid opinion, the question which was raised by theologians concerning this narrowness of the woman seems no longer to have place: namely, whether a wife unfit for copulation because of narrowness is bound to suffer incision with danger of grave disease. Physicians note, however, that incision is done in vain, because after the wound has healed the narrowness returns; and other means are now used to correct that narrowness by art, which in no way display danger of grave disease. Debreyne, l. c. Sect. 2.

n. 152.

But others more commonly affirm, and it seems it must be affirmed. For the power for marriage is the natural power for generating by natural copulation. The power for generating without copulation is not according to the order of nature. Therefore generation without copulation is had by accident. St. Alphonsus, l. 6. n. 1097., judges that marriage is null if the woman could not be made capable except by a grave and dangerous incision. And n. 1099. he says: "The very common and more probable opinion ... says that the woman is bound to suffer incision even with grave trouble and pain, but not with danger either of death or of grave disease ... because a woman is never judged to have wished to oblige herself to endure so great a danger, nor by force of the contract of marriage does she seem to be bound to such a burden. But that she is bound with grave trouble and pain to render herself apt for copulation is proved, because the woman seems to be obliged to this by force of the contract, since this is necessary for preserving the right of copulation which she transferred to the man.... But it is very probable ... that if the incision could not be done except by the hand of a surgeon, the woman is not bound to suffer this incision with so much shame, which would be a burden more than most grave." Acta S. Sedis, vol. 12. pp. 629. 630.; vol. 14. p. 68.

What is to be done in the case of impotence?

Resp. 1. If the impotence is certain and perpetual, and preceded the marriage, "one must by no means wait, but separation must immediately be made; for in that case the marriage is certainly null.... Hence, once certain and perpetual impotence is known, the spouses can immediately be separated, even by their own authority, if this can be done without scandal; indeed they are bound, if there is danger of incontinence. And the party not laboring under the impediment can also pass to other nuptials, as Sanchez and the Salmanticenses say with Candidus. But if there is danger of scandal, as commonly there is, then they must make complaint before the ecclesiastical judge, by whom they are to be separated, at least as to bed; and if the other should ask, even as to habitation, without awaiting the triennial experience, which is given for doubtful impotence, not for certain impotence: thus Sanchez and the Salmanticenses with Pontius, Guttierrez, and Dicastillo. And it is clear from c. Laudabilem, de Frig. etc., where: If frigidity cannot be proved, let them cohabit for three years. Therefore, if the impediment is proved, three years are not given. But if they wish to cohabit as brother and sister by mutual consent, provided the danger of incontinence is absent, this is permitted from the same text; but Merbesius rightly warns that this must never be permitted if the spouses are not old." L. 1101. "From the present discipline of the Church, it is now no longer permitted to them to cohabit as brother and sister, especially if the spouses are young, although they have not insisted on a declaration of nullity of marriage. Hence Sixtus V, by letters to the Bishop of Novara, legate of the Apostolic See in Spain, commanded that such contracting persons should not cohabit together." Scavini, Tr. 12. D. 3. C. 2. art. 5. q. 1.

If the impotence again is certain and perpetual, but supervenes after marriage has been validly contracted, it seems that it must then be said that all and only those acts are lawful to the spouses which of themselves do not tend to produce pollution. The reason is that the impossibility of conjugal copulation of itself apt for generation indeed renders illicit the consummation of the act from the other side, which perhaps is potent, since this consummation of the act then has the true notion of pollution; but it by no means renders illicit other incomplete acts, which remain of the same nature whether the spouses are potent or impotent. Reiffenstuel, l. 4. Decret. tit. 15. n. 65: "Spouses rendered perpetually impotent are bound to abstain from every attempt at copulation, but not likewise from touches, kisses, embraces." And Lehmkuhl, Comp. cit. num. 1055., has these words: "If the spouses were potent, whatever supervenes, the marriage is not dissolved; but if there is no longer any hope of completing the matrimonial act, they must abstain from those acts which expose either one to danger of pollution." But cf. here n. 134.

If the impotence is doubtful, "and the doubt precedes marriage, he who doubts about his impotence cannot enter nuptials until, after the matter has been diligently investigated, he lays aside the doubt, because of the grave injury which he would otherwise inflict on the other, who is potent, as Sanchez, Mazzotta, and Palaus rightly say with Guttierrez. But if, notwithstanding the doubt, he has contracted, he will lawfully be able to render and to ask; for then at least triennial experience is given to him.... But Dicastillo apud Croix and Elbel with Cardenas and Viva say that if someone is doubtful about his impotence because of some positive indication, he can lawfully contract marriage if, with regard to the expertise of physicians and experiences, it is at least probable that he is potent; because in doubt the presumption favors him, that he is naturally potent. And this seems sufficiently probable; for since it is most probable that it is lawful to administer a sacrament under condition if a just cause is present ..., here he has a sufficiently just cause for marrying under condition, if he is able, lest in such a doubt he be forced to remain perpetually celibate. Nevertheless before marriage he ought to warn the spouse about such a doubt. Moreover, apart from circumstances and experiences, everyone is presumed able, even if he has lived most chastely." L. 1102.

"But if the doubt of impotence supervenes after marriage, then triennial experience is given from the cited c. Laudabilem, de Frig. etc. While this lasts, spouses can lawfully attempt copulation, although often or always they pour forth semen outside the vessel, as Sanchez, l. IX. d. 17. n. 20., and several others commonly teach." L. 1103. "But this time, according to the truer opinion, begins from the time of attempted copulation; but it must be morally continuous, namely so that the spouses cohabit with each other for the greater part of the year." Scavini, tr. 12. D. 3. C. 2. art. 5. q. 1. Moreover Sanchez has these things in the cited place: "Where there is probable hope of seminating within the vessel, it is lawful to strive for it, although by accident and besides the intention the semen is poured outside the vessel. This is clear, first, because that spouse gives work to a lawful thing, procuring copulation possible and permitted to himself, and that external effusion follows besides the intention. Second, because by c. Laudabilem ... triennial experience is conceded to spouses doubting whether the impotence is perpetual, and therefore whether the marriage was valid; and nevertheless during that space it is clear that it will always or often happen that the semen falls outside the vessel; and while such danger stands, it is lawful to strive for copulation, and it is approved by law. Because, while that doubt remains, the spouses have the right of persevering in the marriage and of investigating that impediment, which cannot sufficiently be done unless by applying themselves to conjugal work. Therefore much more strongly in our case this will be lawful, where the validity of the marriage is certain, and consequently the spouses have a more certain and stronger right to apply themselves to conjugal copulation and to try whether that impotence of seminating within the vessel is perpetual." And n. 24 he adds these things: "Finally you will ask for how long a space of time it is lawful to strive for copulation and to make trial, where there is doubt about the aforesaid impotence? Briefly I say that this is lawful as long as there is probable hope of seminating within the vessel.... But when that probability would not be present, but, all circumstances considered, there would be complete doubt about the perpetuity of the impotence, we can prescribe no other more certain delay than that which was prescribed in c. Laudabilem, namely that triennial experience be conceded. And although in that case the discussion concerns where there is doubt about impotence preceding marriage, and consequently about its validity, whereas in the present case the marriage is certain and there is doubt only about supervening impotence; nevertheless, since in each case there is doubt about the perpetuity of impotence, in the prior case for entirely dissolving the marriage, but in the latter for dissolving it only as to copulation, by merit a lawful and sufficient experience will be taken in each case over that space of three years, whether the impotence is perpetual or temporary." Cf. here n. 136.

The triennial experiment is no longer required today. But a dispensation is granted from a ratified and non-consummated marriage by the Sacred Congregation for the discipline of the Sacraments, to which recourse must be had. Judgment about impotence in the external forum pertains neither to the confessor nor to the parish priest, but to the ecclesiastical judge. Cf. L. 1103. 1104. Since marriage is contracted in the face of the Church, so that because of impotence or another impediment spouses may be separated and pass to other nuptials, the nullity of the marriage must first be declared by the same Church, or a dispensation must be given concerning a marriage that is only ratified and not consummated. When antecedent perpetual impotence certainly appears, the experiment must now cease, and the marriage is to be declared null. But if even after three years the doubt persists, the marriage must be judged valid, for one must stand for the validity of the act. "In an equal doubt on either side, whether impotence preceded or followed marriage, it must be presumed in favor of marriage that it followed it. Cap. fin. de Sent. et re judic. and Cap. Si quis acceperit, 33. q. 1." Billuart, de matr. Diss. 7. art. 9. Petes 6. Cf. here n. 192.

If the impotence of generating is from defect of age, although the spouses have already reached the year of puberty constituted by law, which for females in Canon Law, as has already been said, is the completed twelfth year, for males the completed fourteenth, "some say that two or three years must be given to them for experiment, but more commonly they judge that one must wait in the man up to the eighteenth year and in the woman up to the fourteenth, because then nature is strong with perfect vigor, nor here does the rule of three years in c. Laudabilem, de Frig. et malef., proceed; for that proceeds when impotence arises from frigidity or another impediment, but not when it can arise from weakness of age." L. 1067. But D. Bouvier has these words, Supplem. ad Tr. de matr. quaest. 1. q. 6: "If during the time conceded for experience it happens that the parties of the lustful matter are unable to be active for a notable interval, because of a long illness or long absence, it is lawful, according to the more common opinion, to supply that time.... But where spouses have contracted marriage immediately after one has reached puberty, and are unable to consummate it, the time of probation must be computed not from the day of the contract, but from the day of full puberty, because before full puberty there is always doubt whether the impotence arises from a perpetual cause, or rather from weakness of strength. Thus Sanchez, l. 7. D. 110. n. 10.; Collet; Andeg.; Pontas; Collet, etc. But the age of perfect puberty is fourteen years for females and eighteen for males."

n. 154.

Note. "Where a woman could not retain within the vessel the semen received, but would altogether expel it, and no hope of retaining it remained ... I judge that the use of marriage must in no way be forbidden, because often the womb retains the semen necessary for generation, the superfluous being expelled." Sanchez, l. 9. d. 17. n. 22. 23.

n. 155.

Are there truly hermaphrodites?

n. 155.

Resp. Debreyne denies it, saying that hermaphroditism is not given except as apparent from some defect of organization; but one determinate sex really always prevails, in which case marriage will be possible; or that no determinate sex capable of generation exists, although there is coexistence of the organs of male and female, and then by reason of impotence marriage is impossible. 2. P., Ch. 1. Sect. 1. at the end. But according to Milne Edwards, not only apparent hermaphroditism is possible, but also the coexistence of organs of male and female, Tom. 9., pp. 80. 81. 23.; Tom. 8., p. 369. But where the coexistence of organs of male and female is had, although perhaps in some case marriage could still be possible, nevertheless it is impossible that one and the same individual himself alone should be naturally fecundated and generate. Antonelli, l. c. v. 1. c. 20. Cf. here following n.

Can a hermaphrodite validly receive orders, be professed in a religious order, and enter marriage?

Resp. If the feminine sex prevails in him, he is considered a woman, and cannot validly receive orders, be professed in a religious order of men, and take a wife, just as any other woman could not; but he can validly be professed in a monastery of nuns and marry a man.

If the male sex prevails in him, he is considered a man, and cannot validly be professed in a monastery of nuns or marry a man, just as any other man; but he can validly receive orders, although not lawfully because of an irregularity imposed by positive law, be professed in a monastery of men, and marry a woman.

Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, XXXIII. On Causes Excusing from Restitution · Vol. III, On Penance, V. On the Integrity of Confession · Vol. IV, On Marriage, III. On the Impediments of Marriage

If neither sex prevails, but each appears equal after examinations and the testimonies of physicians or of experienced matrons, Antonelli judges that the hermaphrodite cannot then enter marriage, v. 2. p. 168. n. 322. But the doctrine of the ancients is that he himself ought to determine which sex he wishes to use, and to promise by oath that he will not use the other sex; and then he can, according to the sex chosen by himself, contract marriage; for he is capable of it. Nevertheless he will not be able validly to receive orders, for he is truly a woman; which doctors also extend to profession in religion, whether of men or of women, so that it too would be invalid. For since there is grave indecency and danger of grave abuses, it must be believed that the Church does not admit such a profession. Lugo, Resp. mor. l. 1. d. 31.; Sanchez, de matr. l. VII. disp. 106.; and Cons. mor. l. 7. c. 3. dub. 31.; La-Croix, l. IV. n. 23.; L. 784. 1095.

n. 157.

Can a hermaphrodite, in whom the male sex prevailed and who was validly ordained and professed religion, or accepted a wife in marriage, if afterward the female sex prevails, validly celebrate, and does the bond of religious profession or of marriage endure?

n. 157.

Resp. Negatively. The first reason is that, although the sacramental character remains in the soul, nevertheless, since the use of sacerdotal power must be exercised not by the soul alone, but by the soul informing the body, and, in order to be valid, by the soul informing a male body, since the body is now female, that use will be invalid; and thus, although by force of the character sacerdotal power remains in the soul, because of an invalidating impediment existing on the part of the body, its use becomes null. The second reason is that religious profession, both on the part of the one professing and on the part of the one accepting, was the profession of a man; when the subject of the profession is destroyed, the very bond arising from that profession is destroyed; and thus such a person is not bound to enter a monastery of nuns. The third reason is the same, because the matrimonial bond is not a bond of just any persons whatever, but of male and female; therefore, when the bound subject perishes, the bond perishes.

n. 157.

But the same is to be said proportionately about the hermaphrodite in whom the female sex first prevailed, and afterward the male sex began to prevail, both as to marriage and as to religious profession. Lugo, Resp. mor. l. c. d. 31.; Billuart, de Matr. Diss. 7. art. 9. Colliges 5.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 5 passages

Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, XXXIII. On Causes Excusing from Restitution

n. 1462.

Whether impotence excuses from restitution? - Not only physical impotence, which is had in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity, excuses from restitution, but also moral impotence, or grave difficulty of restoring, e.g., if you cannot live according to the decency of your state justly acquired by you, otherwise if unjustly acquired; if you cannot restore without danger to life or notable detriment of goods or reputation; if restitution cannot be made without danger to your salvation or that of yours. The reason is 1. because otherwise you would sustain more damage than you inflicted in several of these cases, if not in all; 2. more generally, because what is very difficult, and what cannot be done decently and honorably, cannot reasonably be urged by the owner; since justice does not exclude charity and prudence. And this indeed is valid, as is clear, although the debtor culpably cast himself into such straits. L. 697, 698, 702.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 62, a. 8 ad 2.; Ithur. Cas. 16, n. 10, 11.; C. B. 275.

Vol. III, On Penance, V. On the Integrity of Confession

n. 718.

Are there sometimes causes excusing from the integrity of Confession? - Resp. In the affirmative, because sometimes that integrity is physically or morally impossible.

In order that someone be judged excused from the integrity of Confession by reason of moral impotence, although sins occur to the mind, these conditions are to be observed: 1. That only those sins be omitted which cannot be declared, or from whose manifestation there would follow a most grave extrinsic inconvenience, whether spiritual or temporal, either to the penitent, or to the confessor, or to some third person. 2. That another confessor cannot be found to whom an integral Confession may be made without such inconvenience. 3. That Confession is here and now necessary. From the common opinion of the doctors, this necessity is judged to be present if the precept of annual Confession or Communion must be fulfilled; if the reception of the Eucharist or the celebration of Mass cannot be omitted without disgrace or scandal; if otherwise someone must long lack the benefit of the sacraments; indeed, as Suarez adds, de Poenit., d. 23, s. 2, n. 7, if someone otherwise would be deprived of the great utility which the sacrament of itself brings. Wherefore the penitent's fear suffices lest he remain in the state of mortal sin for one or another day.

But a difficulty intrinsic to Confession never excuses, however grave it may be. The reason is that Confession from its own nature is essentially laborious; and therefore, if a grave difficulty, e.g., great repugnance or shame or the loss of one's own reputation before the confessor, excused from integrity, the faithful would for the most part be excused from accusing mortal sins, and therefore the institution of the sacrament of penance would collapse for the greatest part. Besides, the Church could not reserve atrocious crimes, because it creates no light inconvenience for penitents.

When the cause excusing from material integrity ceases, the divine precept of confessing all omitted mortal sins urges again; for when an impediment occurs, the obligation of Confession does not cease simply, but is only suspended. Therefore, when the excusing cause ceases, the obligation of the law revives integrally; and since the precept of confession is not fixed to a time or to a circumstance, but affects the whole life, therefore sins not yet accused are afterward, if it can be done, necessarily to be accused. This is established besides from proposition 11 condemned by Alexander VII. - L. 487, 490; Lugo, d. 16, s. 13.

Vol. IV, On Marriage, III. On the Impediments of Marriage

What is the impediment of impotence and of age? - For contracting marriage there is essentially required a thing suitable for contracting: for the substantial elements of a contract are thing, cause, consent. The thing is the right of coming together in order to the generation of offspring, to be handed over and accepted on both sides. Therefore impotence for coming together, so that man and woman cannot become one flesh, constitutes a diriment impediment of marriage, which is called impotence. C. 1, section 1, de Frigid.; Sanchez, l. 7, d. 92, n. 7. Wherefore those who are impotent for the aforesaid act "cannot satisfy even the secondary end, which is the remedy of concupiscence, for that must be had not through any intercourse whatever, but through that which from its nature is apt for the generation of offspring." Schmalzgrueber, l. 4, t. 15, n. 32.

Hence they cannot contract even as a remedy for concupiscence, since the secondary end supposes the primary; and marriage cannot be for a remedy of concupiscence unless it is marriage. For marriage "is principally for the office of nature." St. Thomas, III, q. 73, a. 2, apud Cajetan. And an accessory cannot exist without the principal. And certainly marriage instituted secondarily as a remedy for concupiscence is not another marriage of its own kind; but it is that same marriage instituted before sin, so that to that institution for the office of nature there afterward acceded another institution as a remedy for concupiscence. St. Thomas, ibid., in c., ad 2, ad 3. If therefore marriage is impossible according to the first institution, how can marriage be had according to its secondary institution? Indeed, how can a natural union, or union according to nature, of man with woman any longer be had, once the possibility of offspring and the ordering of that union to offspring has been removed? "The union," says the Angelic Doctor, Suppl. q. 55, a. 3, c., "of husband and wife is called natural principally because of the production of offspring." And this union according to the same Angelic Doctor is at the same time so natural and principal that it is what constitutes the first perfection or essential perfection of marriage. "It must be said," he says, q. 73, a. 4, c., apud Cajetan, "that integrity is twofold; one is attended according to first perfection, which consists in the very being of the thing. The other is attended according to second perfection, which consists in operation. Since therefore carnal union is a certain operation, or use of marriage, through which faculty is given for this, therefore carnal commingling will be of the second perfection of marriage and not of the first"; and faculty for it will be of the first. Wherefore, immediately ad 1, speaking of the first institution of marriage, and of those words, "they shall be two in one flesh," the holy Doctor says: "It must be said that Adam set forth the integrity of marriage as regards each perfection, because a thing is made known from its act." Whence this also appears, that according to the Angelic Doctor the aforesaid carnal commingling is commingling apt of itself for generation, or, as the same holy Doctor speaks, a commingling of seeds which can be the cause of generation. Suppl. q. 55, a. 3, ad 3. And Cajetan in cited q. 75, a. 1, defining conjugal intercourse, says: "For that is what is ordered of itself to one kinship and the education of one offspring, and one domestic life." Therefore by this intercourse the remedy of concupiscence can be sought, not by another. Intercourse from which, according to itself and not according to some accident, as in the sick, the sterile, and the elderly, generation cannot follow, is, according to the Angelic Doctor, an act against nature, and therefore in it it is altogether absurd to seek the remedy of concupiscence. "That act," says the holy Doctor, "is against nature in the genus of lust from which generation cannot follow according to the common species of the act; but not that from which it cannot follow because of some particular accident, as old age or infirmity." QQ. DD. de Malo, q. 15, a. 2, ad 14, and a. 1, c.

Therefore it is impossible to enter the contract of marriage, as certain moderns assert, by intending its secondary end, with the primary end positively excluded, in which alone that secondary end is to be sought.

Impotence is one thing natural, another accidental. The first is that which is naturally inherent, as frigidity of the man, by which intercourse of itself apt for generation cannot be perfected at all; or excessive heat, by which the man always emits seed outside the vessel before he can penetrate. The other is what is from accident, for example, from abhorrence of the man toward the woman, from disease, from cutting off, from sorcery. Likewise one is temporary, another perpetual. If it can be removed either by some licit remedy without danger of life, or by the progress of years, it is temporary; otherwise perpetual. C. 1, de Frigid.; St. Thomas, 4, d. a. 24, a. 2. And thus impotence of excessive heat is temporary, and the impotence of a sick man even in danger of death. Perpetual impotence is one thing absolute, if namely the impotence is of coming together as regards all, another relative, if it prohibits commingling only with someone.

Only perpetual impotence, if it is antecedent to marriage, whether absolute or relative, dissolves marriage, and this by natural law, and therefore even if unknown; but temporary impotence does not stand in the way of marriage. C. 1, 2, 3, 6, de Frigid.; Sanchez, l. 7, d. 92, n. 6; d. 97, n. 2; St. Thomas, Quodl. 11, a. 10, 11. - Therefore there is no marriage contracted with a castrated man or eunuch lacking both testicles, who does not have true seed, Sixtus V, Const. Cum frequenter; Sanchez, l. 7, d. 92, n. 20; with one frigid, or so worn by disease or old age that there is no power for the conjugal work; otherwise one is by no means prohibited from marriage even by extreme old age. Consequently there is no marriage, as it seems, contracted with a woman absolutely lacking both ovaries, or a uterus, or having a closed uterus; there is no marriage with her from whom someone is restrained either by sorcery, or natural repugnance, or because of excessive narrowness. C. 4, c. 33; C. 1, 5, 6, de Frigid.; Dominic Benetti, Opus Medico-Morale, Canon Eleventh, Annotations, num. 1, 2, 3.

Consequently; because in the same way as with the impotence of the man, when the impotence of the woman intervenes, an act per se apt for generation, or a conjugal act, cannot exist. Then neither husband nor wife can exist. For marriage is a marital union, or a union ordered to those things which the office of a husband requires. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 44, a. 3, ad 1. And there, in the body, speaking of the essence of marriage and of the definition which touches the essence of marriage, namely that it is a marital union, the Angelic Doctor says that the specific difference is contained in that word "marital," "because since marriage is a union ordered to one thing, such a union receives its species from that to which it is ordered, and this is that which pertains to the husband." And there, a. 1, the Angelic Doctor says that marriage "is ordered to one generation and education of offspring, and again to one domestic life." According to that union one is and is called husband and wife; and according to this ordering there is and is called marriage, in the body and ad 3. "I wish to beget children, and therefore I have taken a husband." C. 1, de Frigid. Nor is one pubescent unless he can generate. C. Puberes 3, de Despons. impub. And L. 320, § 3, ff. de Verborum significatione: "Nature also teaches us that pious parents take wives with the intention and desire of procreating children." And L. 9, C. de Nuptiis: "If, with neighbors or others knowing it, you had a woman at home as a wife for the sake of procreating children... although no nuptial tablets were made, the reality of marriage nevertheless has its own force." And Auth. Coll. IV, tit. 1, Nov. XXII, Pref., marriage is called honorable from the procreation of children. And there, chap. VI, a man is called potent who is able to minister to the procreation of children. Therefore also a woman. Cf. Commentary, n. 150. If it were otherwise, the definition of marriage, and the object of the matrimonial contract, would indeed have to be changed.

Nor is it valid to object that the woman contributes nothing essential in generation. For this, especially at present, after the latest studies of physiology, is altogether false. For generation, on the part of the man, a zoosperm is essentially required; on the part of the woman, an ovum; and the mingling of the seed of both, as the ancients speak. And, as a consequence, on the part of the man testicles are required, by which that zoosperm is elaborated, and the penis by which the same zoosperm is ejaculated into the woman's vagina. But on the part of the woman, besides the vagina, which receives the male penis, ovaries are required, by which ova are elaborated, and the uterus, in which generation takes place, and therefore communication of the vagina with the uterus; otherwise the fertilization of the ovum in the uterus is physically impossible. Cf. the paragraph on Impotence.

Nor likewise can it be objected that nature intends nothing other than sensible copulation, with no account taken of those things which are not sensibly evident; and therefore impotence is present if copulation appears impossible, but potency is present if the possibility of material copulation is established, without inquiry into the virtue and efficacy of the copulation itself. But since eunuchs, if removal of the testicles takes place after puberty, retain the capacity of erecting the member and of coeundum, their marriage then would be wholly valid, contrary to the cited Constitution of Sixtus V.

And as regards the substance of the matter, the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor on generation agrees with this. For in it he fully recognizes as essential not only the part of the man but also the part of the woman. Speaking of affinity, Suppl., q. 55, a. 4, ad 2, St. Thomas says "that man and woman become one flesh in carnal copulation through the mingling of seeds." And this mingling of seeds, namely of the man and of the woman, is, according to the Angelic Doctor, the cause of generation. Hence there, a. 3, ad 3, he says: "It must be said that intercourse against nature does not have a mingling of seeds which can be the cause of generation; and therefore from such intercourse affinity is not caused."

Moreover St. Thomas, speaking of generation, Suppl., q. 58, a. 1, ad 6, says "that the male is active, but the female is passive." Yet she is not passive in such a way that she does nothing and contributes nothing in generation. Hence there he immediately adds: "And therefore greater heat is required in the male than in the female for the work of generation." And III, q. 15, a. 1, ad 2: actively generation is from the man, because he supplies the seminal principle; passively from the woman, because she supplies the corporeal substance. And Quodl. 5, a. 8: "Since in the generation of man," he says, "as also of other animals, the seed of the father is active, but the matter supplied by the mother is as passive, from which the human body is formed, etc." Likewise Quodl. 8, a. 5, ad 3: "For the conception of a human body two things concur: namely the matter from which the conceived body is formed, and again the formative power which forms the conceived body. The first of these Augustine calls the corporeal substance, the second the seminal principle. We are therefore said, according to both of these, to have been in Adam originally, inasmuch as the matter of the conceived body is prepared by the generative power of the mother, but the formative power is in the seed of the father." Cf. also I-II, q. 81, a. 5; II-II, q. 26, a. 10, ad 1. If the seminal principle is called the zoosperm of the man, which fertilizes the ovum of the woman, and the corporeal substance is called the ovum on the part of the woman, in what does this doctrine disagree with the opinions of recent physiologists? Besides, since according to the Angelic Doctor something essential to generation is supplied both by the man and by the woman, although principally by the man, as regards the substance his doctrine on generation in no way differs from the doctrine altogether certain among physiologists, especially after more recent observations have been made. And when physiologists say that generation is had from the fusion of the substance of the zoosperm with the germinal vesicle of the ovum in the uterus, can this not rightly be understood in other words as that mingling of seeds by which, according to the Angelic Doctor, man and woman become one flesh, and by which the production of offspring is had, Suppl., q. 55, a. 8, in the body, and a. 4, ad 2, the seed of the man descending to the womb of the woman, Quodlib. 6, a. 18?

Equally it is nothing to object that according to St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 58, a. 1, ad 1, of the essence of marriage there is not potency for the act of generation, but potency for carnal copulation. Certainly, according to the Holy Doctor, there does not pertain to the essence of marriage potency for copulation or carnal union, or union of bodies, of any sort whatever; otherwise even sodomitic copulation could be understood. Rather, it is potency for conjugal carnal copulation; and this, from the whole doctrine of the Angelic Doctor in the Supplement, is no other than that which is ordered to generation. "It must be said," says the Angelic Doctor, Suppl., q. 49, a. 2, ad 1, "that in offspring there is understood not only the procreation of offspring, but also its education, to which, as to an end, the whole communication of works which exists between man and wife, insofar as they are joined in marriage, is ordered... And thus in offspring, as in the principal end, the other is included as secondary," namely the communication of works. If the communication of all other works has no principal end except offspring, is not carnal copulation per se ordered to offspring according to the Angelic Doctor? Therefore, although this Holy Doctor does not repeat this in the cited place, nevertheless it is understood, and so that carnal copulation is copulation per se apt for generation. Nor could it be otherwise at all; for nature does not intend that copulation for its own sake, so as to stop in it, but for something else, for generation. "Nature intends offspring" in marriage. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 49, a. 5, ad 1. And Contra Gentiles, book 3, chap. 122: "coitus," says the Angelic Doctor, "is ordered to the utility of generation... Thus, therefore, the emission of seed ought to be ordered so that both fitting generation and the education of the one generated can follow." Therefore, if generation is positively excluded, that carnal copulation is already illicit. And so also, if in marriage itself a condition is positively placed of offspring to be positively impeded, if you avoid the generation of offspring, L. 891, if you procure poisons of sterility, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 43, a. 1, the marriage is null, because that condition is repugnant to the substance of the contract. C. fin. de Cond. appos. in despons.

Nor is it valid to press the answer of the Holy Doctor in that same article 1, q. 58, ad 1: "that old persons, although sometimes they do not have sufficient heat for generating, nevertheless have sufficient heat for carnal copulation. And therefore marriage is conceded to them insofar as it is a remedy, although it does not belong to them insofar as it is an office of nature."

For those old persons, according to the Angelic Doctor, are not impotent for an act per se apt for generation, since the Angelic Doctor says only that they sometimes do not have that power. Hence, according to the Angelic Doctor, if generation does not in fact follow from that act, as it can follow and sometimes does follow, this is only per accidens. And this fact of generation, according to the same Angelic Doctor, is sometimes lacking not because of impotence, but because of sterility; for it is lacking because of a defect of sufficient heat, which indeed does not pertain to the very physiological cause of generation, which consists in the organs of generation themselves and in copulation performed in the natural manner, cf. 995, but to sterility, namely to those favorable conditions in which that cause, like all causes, must be found in order to produce its effect.

But these favorable conditions in human generation are very many and hidden, and they depend not on the human will, but on nature itself. Hence the same Angelic Doctor, Quodl. 11, a. 11, ad 1, says that old persons are not cold with respect to the act of generation, but with respect to the generation itself of offspring.

Potency of generating, joined with the effect, fails regularly in women from the age of 45-50, and is regularly diminished in men from the age of 50. There are, however, cases in which even sexagenarian and septuagenarian women generate; and septuagenarian men generate more easily with a younger woman. But detriment to the offspring is not absent when there is a notable inequality in the age of the spouses. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, 2nd ed., vol. 2, nn. 340, 363.

Hence, according to the Angelic Doctor, marriage "is conceded" to old persons and to the sterile "insofar as it is a remedy, although it does not belong to them," namely, does not in fact belong to them, "insofar as it is an office of nature"; but by no means although it cannot belong to them insofar as it is an office of nature, while there is physical impotence for generation. For this, according to the Angelic Doctor, renders marriage impossible. For, speaking of the threefold good of marriage, offspring, fidelity, and sacrament, he says that the good of offspring is more principal and more essential, indeed the most principal and most essential: "Offspring is the most essential thing in marriage." How would that most essential thing be present, if in marriage copulation per se unfit for generation sufficed? Therefore marriage can belong to old persons and to the sterile as a remedy in such a way that this most essential thing is not wanting, namely not in act, but in potency. Indeed this most essential thing is again so truly such that neither those old persons, nor all others joined in marriage, can licitly, according to the Angelic Doctor, intend the remedy in carnal copulation unless they simultaneously intend the office of nature. What then if they positively exclude it, by positively rendering that office impossible, both as regards the liceity of copulation after marriage has been contracted and as regards the validity of the marriage itself to be contracted? "When spouses," says the Angelic Doctor, "come together for the sake of procreating offspring, or in order to render the debt to each other, which pertains to the end, they are wholly excused from sin... And therefore in only two ways do spouses come together without any sin, namely for the sake of procreating offspring and of rendering the debt; in other ways there is always at least venial sin... If someone through the act of marriage intends to avoid fornication in the spouse, there is no sin, because this is a certain rendering of the debt, which pertains to the good of fidelity. But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is excess there, and according to this it is venial sin; nor was marriage instituted for this except according to indulgence, which concerns venial sins." Suppl., q. 49, a. 5, corpus and ad 2. For it was instituted for the procreation of offspring, to which that carnal copulation, constituting the conjugal debt, is per se ordered, and in which the remedy of concupiscence is constituted secondarily; so that "without the intention of offspring there cannot be marriage," ibid., a. 3, corpus, nor consequently the conjugal debt and the remedy of concupiscence. "From the principles of St. Thomas," says Billuart, diss. 7, a. 9, "you will gather, third, that for the consummation of marriage, by which man and woman are judged to be one flesh, there is required a mingling of seeds, or of those things which are in place of seed on the part of the woman." Therefore, from the principles of St. Thomas, for a ratified marriage there is required potency, natural and physical potency, Billuart, l.c., ibid., ad 1, for the aforesaid mingling of seeds, by which the spouses can become actually one flesh. Therefore a ratified marriage as a remedy, without the aforesaid potency, namely for an act per se apt for generation, cannot subsist from the principles of St. Thomas. "From this it is clear that every emission of seed in such a manner that generation cannot follow is against the good of man... But I call that manner from which generation cannot follow according to itself, as every emission without the natural mingling of male and female; for which reason sins of this kind are called against nature. But if per accidens generation cannot follow from the emission of seed, it is not for this reason against nature, nor a sin, as, for instance, if it happens that the woman is sterile." Contra Gentiles, book 3, chap. 122.

And as regards old persons, St. Thomas himself expressly tells us that that copulation of the old is not, according to itself, impotent for generation, but only per accidens, and therefore both marriage and conjugal copulation are permitted to them. Indeed, still more clearly, the Angelic Doctor tells us that that copulation of old persons is not, according to its intrinsic nature or species, impotent for generation, and therefore is per se apt for generation, although from a merely particular accidental cause generation does not follow. Let his words, brought forward above, be reported again here: "That act is against nature in the genus of lust from which generation cannot follow according to the common species of the act; but not that act from which it cannot follow because of some particular accident, such as old age or infirmity." Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo, q. 15, a. 2, ad 14. Hence, when that particular accident has been removed, generation follows even in old persons and in the infirm. Now, when ovaries and uterus are perfectly and absolutely lacking, or when the uterus is entirely closed, can the copulation which is had in such circumstances be called an act according to its common species from which generation can follow, and consequently one in which, when that accidental cause of the defect of the uterus, ovaries, and closure of the vagina is removed, generation in fact follows? If so, then indeed impotence is not had from it; but if it is not so, according to the Angelic Doctor impotence is had.

Lastly, the well-known Responses of the Sacred Penitentiary and of the Holy Office, that marriage is not to be impeded in the case of excision of an ovary and uterus, do not stand in the way at all. For, as was expressly declared to me by His Eminence Cardinal Lucido M. Parocchi himself, Secretary of the Holy Office, those Responses, given only for particular cases, supposed that generation could still per se follow in those cases, namely insofar as there had not been perfect and absolute excision and absence of the uterus and ovaries. And the same opinion was embraced, as regards matrimonial dispensations to be granted or denied, both by His Eminence Cardinal Aloisi-Masella and by His Eminence Cardinal Di Pietro, Datary of His Holiness and both belonging to the Holy Office. And, omitting other cases, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 19, 1899, because of a defect of the uterus, declared a marriage invalid, although the defender of the bond ex officio had sharply maintained the contrary in the Monasterien. cause. And in the Collectanea of the S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 2nd ed., 1907, n. 1733, to the Response of the Holy Office, "It is not to be impeded," there is added the note: "This response concerns the particular case with which it was dealing." And the same Congregation of the Holy Office, January 16, 1895, declared that in cases of this kind recourse must be had in each individual case, since thus far no response had been given except for particular cases. Collectanea, cited, n. 1907.

Nor is the most recent Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, April 2, 1909, in any way decisive. For the Sacred Congregation, referring to the Response already given elsewhere by the Holy Office, June 23, 1890, answered with the usual formula: Marriage is not to be impeded.

Therefore, when a practical case occurs, recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation, since the matter has not yet been defined. And in practice marriage is indeed not to be impeded, since it cannot be denied that the natural sciences can still progress, and that other things necessary and sufficient for generation can be found. As it was reported to me by a certain Official of the Sacred Congregation, the Supreme Pontiff Pius X said that marriage is not to be impeded; for it is not known what is within, what happens within.

There is likewise another question concerning vasectomy in the man, or the cutting of the canals which carry the male seed. And as regards impotence, the matter likewise is not altogether certain; for some say that perpetual impotence is had from it, since the potency for emitting seed cannot be restored, and consequently the marriage is null; others, on the contrary, say that the aforesaid potency can be restored, and consequently, since the impotence is only temporary, the marriage is valid.

Impotence, on the contrary, is not had from mere shortness of the vagina, because carnal copulation can still be had; and it can sufficiently receive and retain the male seed as much as is enough for generation, for which one zoosperm suffices, fertilizing one ovum in the uterus, in which it is then developed. It is developed; whether, taking the matter properly and strictly, the ovum is also fertilized in the uterus, or is fertilized in the tubes or in the ovaries, we leave to physiologists to define, since this does not pertain to us, nor does it change anything with respect to the moral doctrine on impotence, with which we are dealing.

Many and weighty doctors assert that it is enough if the man can pour out seed at the opening and entrance of the vagina, and the woman can receive it within herself; for experience itself establishes that this suffices for generation. Gury-Ballerini, 885; D'Annibale, 3rd ed., n. 431. Yet others deny this. Indeed, it is one thing for generation to be able to be had by that act; it is another thing for marriage to be able to be had by that act, or by potency only for an act of that sort, since it is not the marital act in a natural manner. And if that most imperfect act sufficed for marriage, it no longer appears how frigidity can be reckoned an impediment of marriage, as is commonly handed down. And thus La Croix, book 6, part 3, n. 793, says: "If the man cannot penetrate the female vessel, although he pours out seed at its entrance..., impotence must be judged present, because such insemination does not suffice per se for such spouses to be judged to become one flesh in the natural manner." Cf. Sanchez, book 2, disp. 21, nn. 2, 5; St. Thomas, Quodl. 6, a. 18; A.S.S., vol. 26, p. 534 ff. And this seems to be held from causes often decided by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, for dispensation from a ratified but non-consummated marriage, in such a case.

This impediment of impotence, of natural and divine law, is altogether irrationally and unjustly not admitted by the French Civil Code. The Italian Civil Code admits it, 107; the Spanish Civil Code, 83; the Austrian Civil Code, 60. But it is had only implicitly and in a limited way in the German Civil Code, 1333, 1334. Moreover, since all Codes must admit the invalidity of marriage from error of person, and since, when impotence stands, there would be a substantial error in the person, marriage, according to the same Codes, if not directly, at least indirectly, must also be held null in civil law. Cf. French Civil Code, 146, 180.

Now, if a marriage is null because of this impediment of impotence, the spouses are separated by the authority of the ecclesiastical judge; other nuptials are forbidden to the impotent party, and another marriage is permitted to the potent party. C. 5, 6, 7, de Frigid. In such a case recourse must be had to the Ordinary and to the Sacred Congregation of the Council.

Only by positive law is the marriage of the impubes invalid, because they are presumed to labor under a certain natural impotence for generation, although only temporary. Puberty is had by the same canon law for males when the fourteenth year has been completed, for females when the twelfth year has been completed, because the proximate potency of generating usually begins and ceases sooner in females than in males. For the capacity of generating begins with puberty, namely when in males the testicles begin to elaborate zoosperms, which happens between the thirteenth and sixteenth year of age; and ovulation likewise begins in females, which is regularly had with menstruation, and this begins around the twelfth year. Therefore the marriage of impubes is valid if they can already generate and coire, and sufficiently understand the burden of the conjugal bond; and the marriage of an impubes who already can, with a pubescent person who cannot yet coire. Nevertheless it would always remain illicit to contract marriage without the license of the Ordinary before the lawful age. Likewise valid is the marriage of impubes who have the use of reason among unbelievers, who are not subject to the laws of the Church. C. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, de Despons. impub.; Benedict XIV, Const. Magnae nobis, June 29, 1748; Sanchez, book 7, disp. 104, n. 9; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 2, nn. 48-60.

For a just cause the Supreme Pontiff can dispense the faithful in this impediment, and at times has in fact dispensed. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 2, nn. 50-52; Navarrus, Cons. 4, 5, tit. de Despons. impub.; de Iustis, book 8, n. 55.

The Austrian Civil Code, 48, and the Spanish Civil Code, 83, agree with canon law as regards the required age. But since full and perfect puberty is had as regards the man in the eighteenth year, and as regards the woman in the fourteenth year, hence other more recent Codes require the eighteenth year in the man and the fifteenth in women, Italian Civil Code, 55; French Civil Code, 144. According to the German Civil Code, 1303, a man before majority and a woman before the sixteenth year cannot contract marriage. Before the eighteenth year for men and the fifteenth for women, they either are still sterile or beget only weak offspring. And in order that good effects may follow from marriage, besides the faculty of generating, it is necessary that the body of the spouses be fully developed; this happens for both woman and man after the twentieth year of age. If marriage is contracted at a lower age, not a few inconveniences for the spouses and for the children will easily follow. Antonelli, vol. 2, p. 180, nn. 360, 361, 362. L. 1064-1066, 1094-1104; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 58; E.M.

n. 995.

Note: In doubt concerning antecedent impotence, one must stand for the validity of the marriage, and the spouses must be permitted to try copulation. Indeed, for this purpose a three-year period is conceded to them by canon law, notwithstanding greater probability for perpetual impotence. C. Laudabilem, de Frig. et malef. Therefore, when antecedent impotence appears with certainty, the experiment must already cease, and the marriage must be declared null. But if even after the three-year period the doubt persists, the marriage must be judged valid, for one must stand for the validity of the act. In doubt concerning consequent impotence, it is likewise lawful for the spouses to try copulation until they are certain that it can in no way be completed, "although often or always they pour out seed outside the vessel." L. 1103. "Excessive heat can scarcely be a perpetual impediment." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 58, a. 1, ad 2. "Continuators of Tournely and Cabassut probably judge that spouses of this kind, if they are young, are not to be separated, because in the course of time that ardor diminishes, and thus they can become apt." L. 1096.

Impotence is not to be confused with sterility. Impotence, as the word itself indicates, consists in an essential defect of the physiological generative cause, which remotely is in the organs of generation of the man and the woman, and proximately in the carnal copulation itself perfected in the natural manner, namely with the pouring out of seed on the part of the man into the vagina of the woman, and reception on the part of the woman, so that generation can follow, or they can truly become one flesh.

Sterility: It is wrongly confused with impotence by certain moderns. Sterility is not impotence. For the latter regards the very cause of generation, and consequently imports a substantial defect of the members necessary for the conjugal act and for generation. Sterility, on the contrary, regards the effect itself of generation not having followed, because of an accidental defect of the due conditions by which the generative cause can produce its effect. This is established by the most common opinion, for all permit marriage to the sterile, and all forbid it to the impotent. The same is also established from the very meaning of the words; for impotence is a defect of power, sterility is a defect of effect.

But it is altogether illicit by a direct intention to procure the sterility of a woman. Holy Office, May 22, 1895.

Sterility consists only in some accidental impediment of fecundation and generation, whence either there is an obstacle to the entrance of the zoosperm into the ovum and to the contact of both elements essential for generation, or, once that contact has been posited, there is an obstacle to the action of the fecundative power of the zoosperm upon the ovum, or finally there is a temporary absence of spermatozoa in men or of ova in the woman. Hence it happens that, when that impediment is removed, as often occurs, generation follows in act. For this reason copulation in circumstances of this kind is and always remains per se apt for generation, but only per accidens, namely from an accidental impediment, remains frustrated of its effect, through defect of those favorable dispositions in which that cause must be found in order to produce its effect. And this defect is per accidens, for a time, indeed even for a moment, and regularly hidden. Physiologists themselves do not have fully perfected knowledge of all those dispositions which are in fact necessary for generation to be had. In general this can be said to be required: that the zoosperm be sound and mature, that the ovum be sound and mature, and that both arrive at a suitable and fitting contact. Therefore impotence concerns the conjugal act itself; sterility concerns its effect. Sterility is hidden; impotence is manifest.

Hence in human generation there are as it were two acts. The first is in copulation, which depends on the human will, and which, in order to be licit, need only be per se apt for generation, and consequently must take place in this manner and in these circumstances of aptitude; and therefore nothing is done which is positively against generation, or which obstructs generation contrariwise, as is the most common opinion of the doctors. The other act, which is the continuation of the first, depending on nature itself and not on the human will, is the meeting of the sperm through the vagina and uterus with the ovum, and the fusion of that sperm with the substance of the ovum, whence its fecundation, or generation, is had. And this is to become one flesh. "They shall be two in one flesh," that is, "in one perfect and due principle of carnal generation," as Cajetan says, Ientac. 9, q. 1, who then explains the matter thus: "And indeed that one perfect carnal principle of generation intervenes here is clearly evident: for although the flesh of the woman and of the man are two, and each is a partial principle of generation, nevertheless both concur to make up one numerically complete principle of generation." Therefore in those words "the discourse is about the flesh of the spouses themselves, and about the numerical unity of the perfect and due principle of carnal generation." Cajetan, ibid. That the perfect principle of generation is had by the mingling of bodies, Cajetan says there; certainly by that mingling which is per se apt for generation, both on the part of the man and on the part of the woman; otherwise how will there be able to be one perfect principle of carnal generation?

Therefore, since sterile persons are not impotent for the conjugal act, they can licitly coire; indeed they can also enter marriage. Although generation does not follow per accidens, nevertheless, once copulation is duly perfected, the act is still per se apt for generation. And thus old persons who are able to consummate marriage validly contract, as also men lacking one testicle; likewise women who can receive the seed, even if they do not retain it, Gousset, 791; L. 1095, and women lacking one ovary.

n. 1028.

What is clandestinity according to present law? Clandestinity in marriage now is had when it is not celebrated in the face of the Church, that is, before the Ordinary of the place or the pastor and two witnesses, or before one delegated by either of them and two witnesses. It renders marriage illicit and invalid. The pastor and the local Ordinary validly assist at marriage only from the day when possession of his benefice has been obtained or office has begun, only within the limits of his territory, and if, invited and asked, without force and grave fear, he asks for and receives the consent of the contracting parties, whether his subjects or not subjects. But he assists licitly when the free state of the contracting parties is established, and when at least monthly residence is established; in the absence of this, the permission of the Ordinary or proper pastor of the contracting parties is needed, grave necessity being excluded. Otherwise, he does not make the stole fees his own and they are to be remitted to the proper pastor of the contracting parties. But the pastor and the local Ordinary can grant permission to another determined and certain priest that he assist at marriages within the limits of his territory. The pastor of the bride regularly assists at the marriage. But when the marriage has been celebrated, its celebration is to be noted in the book of marriages and of the baptized. If there is, in some region, common inability to have the local Ordinary, or pastor, or one delegated by either of them, and this condition of things has lasted for a month, marriage can be licitly and validly contracted before two witnesses.

When danger of death is imminent, where the pastor or local Ordinary or delegated priest cannot be had, marriage can be contracted validly and licitly before any priest and two witnesses. Clandestine marriages of heretics among themselves are valid. Mixed clandestine marriages, as also betrothals, are illicit and invalid. Decree Ne temere of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, August 2, 1907. From this the present law in force is constituted.

Monthly residence is to be attended to only for marriage, and not also quasi-domicile. But one validly contracts marriage who, in fraud of the law, betakes himself to a region from which the pastor or local Ordinary, or priest delegated by them, has been absent for a month.

As regards Catholics of the oriental rite, nothing was changed by the decree Ne temere as regards contracting marriage. Nevertheless the marriage contracted by a Catholic of the Latin rite with a Catholic of the oriental rite is not valid if the form established by the decree Ne temere has not been observed.

Non-Catholics, whether baptized or not baptized, even schismatics and heretics of the oriental rites, are nowhere bound to observe the Catholic form of betrothals and marriage.

Those who have passed over to a schismatic or heretical sect, or who, converted to the Catholic faith, afterwards defected from it, even in youthful or infant age, even in the German Empire, in order to contract marriage validly with a Catholic person, must employ the form established in the decree Ne temere, namely so that they must contract before the pastor and two witnesses.

As regards marriages of those who, born from non-Catholic or unbelieving parents, but baptized in the Catholic Church, afterwards from infant age grew up in heresy or unbelief, or without any religion, whenever they contract with a non-Catholic or unbelieving party, whether they are bound by the decree Ne temere, art. XI, § I, recourse must be had in individual cases. Holy Office, March 31, 1911.

Pastors who have territory cumulatively with another pastor or other pastors can assist at marriage in the cumulatively held territory. A pastor who, in territory assigned to other pastors, has some persons or families subject to him can validly assist at marriage, as regards his own subjects only, everywhere in the said territory. Chaplains or rectors of pious places of any kind exempt from parochial jurisdiction can validly assist at marriages, without delegation of the Ordinary or pastor, as regards the persons entrusted to them, yet in the place where they exercise jurisdiction, provided it is established that full parochial power was committed to them. As regards military chaplains or pastors who have absolutely no territory, nor cumulatively with another pastor, and who exercise jurisdiction directly over persons or families, so that they follow these persons wherever they betake themselves, nothing was changed by the decree Ne temere as regards assistance at marriages of their subjects.

Those dwelling in places of the East Indies in which a double jurisdiction is in force contract marriage validly and licitly before the personal pastor, but by no means before the pastor of the territory. As regards delegation, in relation to marriage, nothing was changed except the necessity of making it to a determined and certain priest, and restricted to the territory of the delegating party. Exempt regular churches, according to the tenor of the decree Ne temere, can and do have power to be considered as the territory of the pastor or Ordinary in whose territorial district they are situated, for the effect of assistance at marriage there. As regards the quality of witnesses, in relation to marriage, nothing was changed by the decree Ne temere.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 10 passages

146. Impotence and Bond

Sabinus, wishing to contract marriage, asks the confessor whether he can effect this. The reason for his doubting is his natural debility, by force of which, although he himself can pour forth seed, nevertheless he experiences no erection. Without any hesitation the confessor responds affirmatively, because, he says, on the authority of many and grave theologians, it suffices that seed can be poured forth at the mouth of the vagina, which Sabinus can certainly accomplish.

It is asked: What is to be said to the case?

R. The confessor's undoubting response does not seem to be approved. For Sabinus first does not seem able licitly to contract marriage. For the wife could be wholly unwilling as to that imperfect mode of coming together. Then also, once marriage has been contracted, scandals can easily arise. For, with that imperfect mode of coitus standing, if dissensions arise between the spouses, they will immediately seek divorce, and will institute a lawsuit, and will introduce the cause from the head of the impotence of the man, as is evident from the fact itself. But neither does he seem able validly to enter marriage. For Sabinus labors under the impediment of impotence, which is called the impediment of frigidity. For this impediment, in impotence, is not in the impotence of generation, nor is it in the impotence of pouring forth seed, but it is in the impotence of coition, as is to be seen through almost the whole title de Frigidis et Maleficiatis. The impediment of impotence surely exists when there is impotence for consummating marriage. But then marriage is properly said to be consummated when it is established that copula sufficient for generation has intervened, as the S. C. C. teaches in the Nuscana marriage case, Sept. 11, 1880. Where, therefore, impotence is had for accomplishing that copula, an impediment is had to the marriage itself. Most clear on this matter is the doctrine of St. Thomas: "Although the act of carnal copula is not of the essence of marriage, nevertheless potency for this is of its essence, because through marriage there is given to each spouse power over the body of the other with respect to carnal copula." 4, D. 34, q. 1, a. 2, ad 1. Hence the Angelic Doctor then concludes, ibid. ad 6, that with respect to the impediment of marriage "the same judgment is to be made concerning the narrowness of the woman and the frigidity of the man," namely, because of impotence of coition in both cases.

Fabia, wishing to contract marriage with Fabius, asks her confessor whether she can; for she has purposely undergone the excision of an ovary, namely, so that, after marriage is then entered into, she may not have children. There is no difficulty, says the confessor. And he responds thus because he judges that marriage pertains also to the mutual assistance of life and to restraining concupiscence. D'Annib., p. 3, n. 431, note 9, ed. 3. Nevertheless the parish priest raises a difficulty, and requires the attestation of a surgeon, by which it may be established that generation is not physically impossible, with attention to the manner in which that excision of the ovary was accomplished. And when Fabia did not acquiesce in this decision, the matter was brought to the bishop, who wholly approved the decision of the parish priest.

It is asked: What is to be said to the case?

R. Certainly the most prudent manner of acting of the parish priest and the decision of the bishop are to be approved. For if it is established that the ovaries were altogether perfectly excised, so that generation is physically impossible, marriage is impossible. But otherwise, if that excision was wholly imperfect, of part of an ovary or of only one ovary. Likewise it is impossible that marriage be also for mutual assistance of life and for quieting concupiscence, unless it is marriage. But marriage is essentially a conjunction in order to offspring. Hence Augustine, praised by the Angelic Doctor, "says against Faustus that a woman ought not to marry for any other thing, except that she be a mother." But where offspring is physically impossible, conjunction in order to that offspring is impossible. S. Th., 3 p., q. 75, a. 2, apud Cajetan. Likewise from the same Angelic Doctor, apud the same Cajetan, q. 76, a. 1, the conjunction which is the sacrament in marriage is a conjunction which is for the office of nature. A conjunction which would not be for the office of nature cannot be marriage as a sacrament, and therefore neither a remedy of concupiscence. And once the office of nature has been excluded, neither can the assistance of life be had in a wife, namely such as nature itself intends. "Woman was made principally for this, that she might be a help to man for offspring; but man was not made for this." S. Th., ib., q. 75, a. 2, ad 1. And in the Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, marriage as sacrament is said to have been instituted by Christ Our Lord so that the Church may be CORPOREALLY INCREASED through it. Once the physical possibility of offspring has been excluded, and, on the contrary, the physical impossibility of offspring established, how can it any longer be true that this sacrament IS ORDERED TO THE MULTIPLICATION OF THE CHURCH, as the same Council of Florence has it? I. M. 994, 995.

"1. A certain woman, after she had waited in vain for two or three years for the return of her husband, was united in marriage to another man, notwithstanding the admonitions which the missionary made to both; now the second husband of this woman, repenting of the deed, would wish to leave her and pass to other vows. - 2. Another woman, since she also had waited in vain for the return of her husband, after three years, judging that he was already dead, in good faith joined herself in marriage to another man; and since it is now impossible to investigate whether the first husband is still living or is in reality dead, it is asked whether she herself can be left in the use of the second marriage contracted until certainty is had concerning the life of the first husband?"

R. The Holy Office, March 24, 1865, responded: "As to the first, that the spouses are to be separated, and that the man cannot enter second nuptials until it is morally certain that, at the time when he himself entered marriage with the woman in question, the first husband of that same woman had already died. As to the second, that they are to be left in good faith." Cf. E. M. 996.

n. 4.

There is a husband who, after 14 years, has not yet been able to have information concerning his wife. Can he enter other nuptials?

n. 4.

R. Negatively. "A lapse of time, of whatever length, is not sufficient for spouses to be permitted to enter new nuptials, unless first it has been established with moral certainty that the former spouse has died, as from c. In praesentia 19, de Sponsalibus." S. C. de P. F., Apr. 21, 1788; Collect. n. 1365, 1366, 1368; I. M. 996.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 14 passages

Vol. II, Treatise on Matrimony, Ch. VI, Art. II, § II, Point XII. On the Impediment of Impotence

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. 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.

n. 855.

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.

n. 855.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 3 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Matrimony

On Impotence

“Can the woman N. N., rendered sterile by the defect arising from the excision of both ovaries, be permitted lawfully to enter into Matrimony or not?—Response. The matter having been maturely and long considered, the Marriage of the woman in question is not to be impeded.” Holy Office, 3 February 1887.

“Can the woman N. N., whose two ovaries and uterus were removed by a surgical operation, be admitted to contracting Matrimony?—Response. The Marriage is not to be impeded.” Holy Office, 30 July 1890.

The prohibition which the Sacred Congregation places upon an impotent party, in causes of impotence, against contracting other nuptials without having obtained permission from the same Sacred Congregation, does not introduce an invalidating impediment. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 6, p. 518; vol. 11, p. 595.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 13 passages

Vol. I, Matrimony, and Holy Orders, On Marriage (Volume I), Supplement to the Treatise on Marriage

Art. I. On the Impediment of Impotence. — I. Notion of Impotence.

1° Impotence is indeed a natural impediment of marriage; but it belongs to the Church, insofar as she is the interpreter of natural law, to define wherein that impediment consists. Now impotence, insofar as it is a canonical impediment of marriage, is not impotence for begetting or sterility, but impotence for coition, or for having copula of itself apt for the generation of offspring. Hence for valid marriage the power of begetting is not required, but it suffices that there be the power of coiting in such a way that the man can pour forth seed within the vagina of the woman², and the virile seed can be mixed with the female ovule.

¹ Decretals of Gregory IX, book IV, title XI, De frigidis et maleficiatis et de impotentia coeundi; the Canonists on this title; St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 58, a. 1-2; Sanchez, book VII, disp. 92-114; St. Alphonsus, book VI, n. 1095-1105; Lehmkuhl, n. 743-747; Bull. P., n. 864-891, ed. 3, 1900; Gasparri, De Matrimonio, n. 510-536; Eschbach, Disputationes Physiologico-Theologicae, Rome, 1901, disp. 11; id., De novo quodam sterilitatis conceptu, Rome, 1903; Antonelli, De conceptu impotentiae, Rome, 1900; id., Pro conceptu impotentiae, Rome, 1901; id., Medicina pastoralis, Ratisbon, 1905, vol. II, n. 42-293; Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, p. 162-169; American Ecclesiastical Review, Dec. 1902, p. 609; Jan. 1903, p. 57, etc.; Surbled, La Morale dans ses rapports avec la Medecine, 6th ed. 1900, vol. II, p. 113 sq.

² Indeed, according to some, such as Capellmann (p. 164), Ballerini P., n. 873, and others, impotence does not exist when the man can emit seed at the mouth of the vagina, so that the seed can be drawn into the vagina and uterus.

Indeed, marriage was established primarily for the procreation of offspring, but secondarily as a remedy for concupiscence; and therefore it is judged valid whenever this secondary end is obtained, even if the primary end by accident cannot be attained. Now whenever virile seed can be poured forth within the vagina of the woman, concupiscence is quieted, even if by accident conception cannot take place.

Hence the sterile contract validly, provided they can have copula with each other in the sense explained; but eunuchs who lack both testicles contract invalidly, because, even when they can penetrate the natural vessel of the woman, they cannot pour forth seed¹.

¹ Thus Sixtus V, Motu proprio Quod frequenter, June 27, 1587.

2° Impotence is: (a) natural, when it arises from the very constitution of the body; accidental, when it comes from an extrinsic cause, e.g., from disease or wound; (b) antecedent, when it precedes marriage; subsequent, if it occurs after marriage already contracted; (c) perpetual, if it cannot be removed by licit human means, nor means gravely dangerous; temporary, if it can be healed by licit human means and not otherwise gravely dangerous; (d) absolute, which exists in relation to any person whatever; relative, which exists only with such a determined person, e.g., because of defect of proportion between the sexual organs.

§ 11. Fitness for Marriage and Generation · § 12. The Question of Impotence and Sterility · § 12, I. On the Genuine Nature o…, A. Presentation of the Opinions

II. Conditions That Impotence Be A Diriment Impediment.

1° Principle: Antecedent and perpetual impotence invalidates marriage as regards all, if it is absolute; but if it is relative, with respect to that person with whom true copula is impossible.

(A) It is explained: (a) antecedent, for if it follows upon a marriage already validly contracted, it does not dissolve it.

(b) Perpetual, for if it can be removed, it does not render someone incapable of copula except for a time; but such a one can validly transfer the right over his own body, to be exercised as soon as the impotence has ceased. - Hence, if after marriage impotence of this sort is detected, much more probably there is an obligation of removing it, if this can be done without danger of life or of grave illness; for, since the right over one's own body has been handed over in order to generation, everything must be furnished which is morally possible lest the other party be defrauded of his or her right. But if the impediment cannot be removed without danger of life or of grave illness, there is no obligation of incurring such danger, because law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience¹.

¹ Today danger of this sort is often lacking, on account of the wondrous advances of surgical art.

n. 4.

(B) It is proved. The essence of the matrimonial contract consists in the handing over of the right over one's own body in order to acts of themselves apt for the generation of offspring, as is clear from the very definition of marriage; but one who labors under perpetual impotence for coition cannot give to another the right to copula, of which he is wholly incapable. - From this it follows that this impediment is of the law of nature and therefore indispensable; but if the impediment "is doubtful, whether by a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, marriage is not to be impeded" (Code, c. 1068, § 2).

n. 5.

2° Corollaries. Therefore the following labor under impotence: (A) Men (a) lacking both testicles, because they cannot emit seed; (b) whose testicles are so crushed that they cannot perform their function; but if the testicles are hidden, it belongs to physicians in the particular case to discern whether they can produce seed or not; (c) whose virile member cannot be erected² (which defect the ancients called frigidity); or is so deformed that seed cannot be introduced into the vagina of the woman³; today this defect is easily remedied; (d) more probably those who have undergone vasectomy, namely by which the canal through which seed is carried to the virile member has been cut⁴; (e) those who always emit seed before they can penetrate the natural vessel; this defect, however, can for the most part be healed. - But phimosis, or excessive extension of the foreskin, which impedes the ejaculation of seed, can easily be corrected, and therefore is not an impediment.

² Cf. Eschbach, op. cit., p. 146-149; Antonelli, vol. II, n. 220 sq.

³ This especially occurs when the urethral canal is open in the middle of the penis, or in the lower or upper part; this defect they call epispadias and hypospadias; on which see Capellmann, p. 163-164.

⁴ But this operation is illicit, unless for saving the whole body (below, n. 8); therefore it does not seem licit for rendering evil men sterile, since there are other means for protecting society against the multiplication of the evil. - Vermeersch (De Castitate, n. 73, 84) thinks this operation does not certainly invalidate marriage.

(B) Women (a) lacking vulva or vagina, because they are wholly incapable of copula; (b) more probably having vulva or vagina so closed or narrow that it cannot sufficiently be opened without danger of death or of grave illness⁵. - But vaginismus, by force of which the woman, from a lighter contact of the man, suffers atrocious pain, is not an impediment, because by its nature it is not incurable.

⁵ In this case conception can indeed take place by accident, because seed poured forth at the lips of the vagina is sometimes drawn into the uterus; but, since copula does not take place in the due vessel, not a few say that impotence still subsists; but others, much more probably, think that it ceases by that very fact, as soon as it is proved that conception has taken place: for then the two spouses are truly one flesh, and the marriage can be called consummated. Cf. Eschbach, p. 152; Berardi, n. 5158; Ball. P., n. 1269-1270 (873-874 ed. 3). - Moreover if a woman, laboring under perpetual impotence, undergoes a dangerous operation by which she is rendered potent, she can either pass to other nuptials, or contract again with her prior husband; the latter solution is wholly to be urged.

n. 6.

3° Disputed question. Here, however, it is asked whether a woman whose uterus and ovaries are absent or have been excised¹ must be held truly impotent. (A) The reason for doubting is that, on the one hand, this woman remains apt for copula, since the vagina is left intact; but on the other hand, copula does not seem of itself apt for generation, since ova, absolutely necessary for conception, are wholly lacking. Hence theologians have gone into various opinions: some say this woman is truly impotent, because ovaries in a woman are required for conception no less than testicles in a man². - But others hold that she is indeed sterile, but not impotent: for that which is required and suffices for the essence of marriage is the power of coiting, not of begetting; but this exists, provided the vagina remains intact; if conception becomes impossible, that is related by accident, insofar as ova are lacking, just as they are absent in old women, who indeed are sterile, but not for that reason impotent³.

¹ Today that operation which is called Porro is performed without great danger, from the physician who first successfully performed it.

² Antonelli vigorously defends this opinion, op. cit.

³ Thus Eschbach, op. cit., p. 197-204; Berardi, Casus Conscientiae, year 1892, p. 22 sq., where he illustrates the matter thus by comparison: "An old woman of eighty or ninety years is certainly unfit for generation; and nevertheless her marriage is valid. But what difference is there? An old woman is a vine whose roots are dried up; a woman without ovaries is a vine whose roots have been cut off. Both without fruit, both incapable of generation. Therefore if the marriage of the first is valid, the marriage of the second also ought to be valid."

n. 7.

(B) On this matter the Holy Office, in two particular cases, responded thus. On February 3, 1887, to the question: "Whether a woman, rendered sterile by defect of both ovaries having been excised, can and may be permitted to enter marriage or not?"; the response was: "The matter having been maturely and long considered, the marriage of the woman concerning whom in the case is not to be impeded." - But on July 30, 1890, to the question: "Whether woman N. N., to whom by surgical operation the two ovaries and uterus have been removed, can be admitted to contracting marriage?"; the response was: "Marriage is not to be impeded." - Although these decrees do not have the force of a general law, a prudent confessor will follow them in practice, whenever it is not certainly established concerning the perfect and absolute excision of the uterus and ovaries¹: for no one ought to be deprived of the natural right of marrying, unless it is canonically established that he or she is bound by some impediment. But if, by the judgment of physicians, the absolute excision were established, recourse would have to be had to the Sacred Congregations.

¹ According to Bucceroni (Institut. theol. mor., vol. II, n. 994), His Eminence Parrocchi, secretary of the Holy Office, declared that the aforesaid responses regard only cases in which, by the judgment of experts, it was not altogether established concerning the perfect and absolute excision or absence of the uterus and ovaries.

n. 8.

Notes for practice. Here, however, it is fitting to advert to two things: (A) Excision of the uterus and ovaries is not licit except from a very grave cause. (a) This certainly exists when otherwise the life of the woman cannot be preserved; for, according to St. Thomas², since some member is part of the whole body, it must be disposed of according as it is expedient for the whole; therefore if some member is corruptive of the whole body, it is licit to cut off the putrid member for the health of the whole body.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 65, a. 1.

(b) According to Lehmkuhl (n. 856), this is also licit when danger of death, although not so immediate and certain, but nevertheless actually existing, is notably lessened by this operation; e.g., if, in a Caesarean operation, the danger becomes much less, granted that the uterus is extirpated; or if from an ulcerated uterus or one otherwise badly affected a grave danger of life is justly feared.

n. 9.

(c) Can the same thing be said when, from the very narrowness of the woman, without any disease, childbirth is foreseen to be very dangerous both for the woman herself and for the offspring? Most authors deny³, because it is not licit to cut off a member except for saving the whole body; but this would be done proximately in the case for preventing conception.

³ Lehmkuhl, n. 856; Capellmann, p. 27; Eschbach, p. 370-373.

(d) Finally it is certain that it is a very grave sin to permit this excision for this end only, that sterility be induced, and copula be able to be had without fear of offspring to be conceived.

n. 10.

(B) A woman who has undergone this operation cannot licitly contract marriage unless she makes the man whom she intends to marry more certain concerning this matter; for, since the primary end of marriage is the generation of offspring, she would deceive the spouse in a grave matter if, knowing very well that she is wholly unfit for generation, she manifested nothing to him concerning a matter of such moment.

n. 11.

4° On the manner of acting as regards the impotent. (A) When it is certain that the impotence is antecedent and perpetual, regularly the spouses must be admonished that they separate as regards bed; otherwise they are exposed to danger of sinning against chastity. - It is said regularly, because often it is expedient to leave them in good faith, until the nullity of the marriage is declared by the ecclesiastical judge; for if they are imprudently admonished concerning the obligation of this separation, material sins which they previously committed now become formal. This is especially true when it is not expedient to declare the nullity of the marriage, whether because of scandal, or because of civil law, which does not admit such an impediment; then they can be permitted to live as brother and sister, provided such cohabitation is not an occasion of sinning¹.

¹ Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, Dec. 15, 1877, apud Gasparri, n. 535.

But if no scandal or other grave inconvenience is feared, it is expedient that the matter be referred to the Bishop, so that by a twofold judicial sentence the nullity of the marriage may be pronounced²: then the party who does not labor under impotence can enter other nuptials; the other must remain unmarried, unless the impotence is only relative.

² The order to be followed is described in the Constitution Dei Miseratione of Benedict XIV, and in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, Aug. 22, 1840; and also in the Instruction of the Holy Office for making the process concerning the impotence of the man, and the non-following consummation of marriage; these documents you will find apud Gasparri, vol. II, p. 538-555; but it is set forth at length apud Bassibey, Le Mariage devant les tribunaux ecclesiast., Paris, 1899; Smith, Marriage Process, Part III-IV; C. Sagnori, Exemplar actorum forensium quibus inquirendum est de matrimonii nullitate ex capite impotentiae, Rome, 1903; more briefly apud Peries, Code de Procedure canonique dans les Causes matrimoniales, Paris, 1894.

n. 12.

(B) If impotence is only doubtful, it is not licit to contract marriage unless, the matter having been canonically investigated, the doubt has been practically removed; but, with marriage already contracted, the spouses can attempt copula as long as hope remains of accomplishing it, even if by accident seed were poured forth outside the vessel; but when every hope has vanished, one must proceed as above. - By canonical law they can attempt copula in this way for three years; but today recourse is rather had to the Holy See for dispensation from a ratified and non-consummated marriage.

n. 13.

(C) Since it is often difficult to prove that impotence is antecedent and perpetual, the easier way for dissolving the bond is namely by seeking a dispensation concerning a ratified and non-consummated marriage. In order that this be granted, the non-consummation of the marriage must be proved; this is demonstrated according to the norm of the Bull Dei miseratione, issued by Benedict XIV, Nov. 29, 1741: (a) by the sworn testimony of the spouses; (b) by testimony of the seventh hand, i.e., by the testimony of seven witnesses both on the part of the man and on the part of the woman, who, under the faith of oath, depose that the spouses are worthy of trust, and moreover whether they have heard that the marriage was consummated or not; (c) by inspection of the bodies performed by physicians or surgeons; as regards the man, the physicians examine by decent means whether he is impotent or not; as regards the woman, midwives, first to be instructed by at least two physicians, investigate whether signs of virginity are present, especially whether the hymen is intact or not¹. All these things having been done, if it is morally certain that the marriage was not consummated, the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense in it.

¹ Cf. Instruction of the Holy Office, 1858; and Sept. 1890, apud Acta S. Sedis, XXVI, p. 37-41; Bassibey, op. cit., book III, n. 230-474; Smith, Part III-IV.

Vermeersch, On Chastity

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 153 passages

§ 11. Fitness for Marriage and Generation

n. 54.

What is puberty?

54. - Puberty in the man signifies the production of nemaspermata in the testicles. These testicles at the same time produce the element essential to fecundity, or sperm strictly understood, and possess an internal secretion whose fluid, mingled with the blood, fosters sexual appetite; and, as we have seen, induces the secondary marks of virility: beard, pubic hair, and changed voice.

n. ¶355.

In the woman, puberty is had from the time of ovulation, which is customarily revealed by menstrual flow, occurring almost every 28 days and following the discharge of a mature ovule.

n. 55.

Maturity for marriage?

55. Yet a man is not fully mature for marriage, nor is a woman to be judged fully marriageable, before they have fully matured, or have perfectly attained strength.

n. ¶356.

It is therefore desirable of itself that, in our regions, a daughter not marry unless she has passed the twentieth year of age, and a son unless he has passed the twenty-third year.

n. ¶357.

Hence the Code of Canon Law also wisely distinguishes, in canon 88, the age at which someone is deemed pubescent, namely, the completed fourteenth year for males and the twelfth for females, from the age at which one can validly contract marriage. Canon 1067, moreover, requires the completed age of sixteen years in males and fourteen years in females for the validity of the nuptials themselves. As is evident, dispensations will frequently have to be granted in warmer regions, for example African ones, especially since the exception "unless malice shall have supplied the age" is no longer in force.

n. 56.

Fitness for generation: when does it cease?

56. "In the woman," thus the Reverend Father Gemelli ¹, "ovulation ceases in the twenty-eighth or thirtieth year after puberty; at that time the ovaries and adjoining organs undergo the process of involution; the menstrual flow ceases, and thereafter the whole organism also is subjected to the process of involution."

¹ Non moechaberis, p. 20.

n. ¶358.

The age at which the woman is thus changed is customarily comprised between the forty-fifth and fiftieth year; and it is called critical because the woman then has dangers of health to overcome. Observe, however, that perfect degeneration of the ovaries, upon which conception becomes impossible, is not had until some years, from two to four, after the menstrual flow has ceased. In practice, scarcely any woman can conceive after completing fifty years of age. But the customary order of nature is that, at least a few years after the menstrual flow has been suppressed, the ovaries are deprived of their function.

n. ¶359.

The man, however, probably produces living nemaspermata up to sixty years of age. Thereafter the probability decreases, and at the age of eighty years it becomes minimal.

n. ¶360.

Compare Lawson, Tait, and Peuch, cited by Luciani, Fisiologia, vol. 2, p. 770; Mangiagalli, Ann. di ostetr. e ginecol., 1895.

§ 12. The Question of Impotence and Sterility

n. 57.

Opportunity and place of the question.

57. We conclude this introduction with a question which, being fairly recently disputed, affects the validity of marriage and its connected rights and duties too greatly for it to be capable of being ignored by a moral theologian. Hence it also obtains a place in the moral treatise on chastity and marriage, although it pertains properly to the anthropological elements which ground and prepare the moral treatment.

§ 12, I. On the Genuine Nature o…, A. Presentation of the Opinions

n. 58.

What twofold impotence is distinguished.

58. - The distinction received formerly and today. To begin from the common judgment of the present and preceding age, from antiquity even to our own day a twofold impotence of the sexual order is distinguished: impotence for intercourse and impotence for generation. Hence a grave suspicion of falsity falls upon the opinion which abolishes this distinction or preserves it only apparently.

n. ¶361.

Come now, the impotence which obstructs a valid marriage is called, in law and by the best authors, impotence for intercourse; and the name impotence is more properly reserved for it.

n. ¶362.

Thus it is done in all the chapters of C. XXXIII, q. 1, of the Decree of Gratian, which, moreover, in its dicta, inquires into the impossibility of the office, that is, of rendering the debt. Thus also in the chapters of title XV of the fourth book of the Decretals, which is inscribed Concerning the Frigid, the Bewitched, and Impotence for Intercourse. In the other books of the Corpus of Law, however, the argument is no longer touched upon.

n. ¶363.

Now to call upon the authors, Tancred, in his celebrated Summa de matrimonio, has this: "Among the other impediments of marriage, the impossibility of intercourse obtains the greatest place." The same words occur in St. Raymond, the author of the Decretals, in his Summa. St. Thomas ¹ calls the power for carnal copulation essential. "Natural impotence for intercourse," says St. Bonaventure, "if perpetual, then impedes contracting and invalidates the contract, namely, marriage... because... it is necessary to consent to mutual power over the bodies; but this consent is null, nor is there such an obligation in one who does not have the power to exercise that act" ².

¹ Supplementum, III, q. 58, art. 1.

² In IV Sent., art. 2, q. 1, conclusion and ad 1.

n. ¶364.

"The twelfth impediment," says Cajetan in the Summula, "is impotence for intercourse." Laymann uses these explicit words ³: "One impotence is for generating offspring, which is called sterility; and this, if it exists alone, brings no impediment to marriage. Another, however, is impotence for carnal copulation, concerning which let this be the assertion: perpetual impotence for perfect copulation renders a subsequent marriage invalid." From contemporary authors we shall cite Feije of Louvain ⁴, who has this: "Impotence for intercourse by perfect copulation... must be distinguished from impotence for generating, or sterility: the former obstructs the validity of marriage, but the latter does not." The Most Illustrious Doctors Freisen ⁵, De Becker ⁶, and the Most Eminent Cardinal Gasparri ⁷ speak in an entirely similar manner, so that the Reverend Father Ojetti ⁸ could propose these two things as certain: "Antecedent and perpetual impotence for intercourse by the very law of nature invalidates marriage.... Impotence for generation, which is sterility, does not invalidate marriage."

³ Theol. mor., book 5, tractate 1, part 4, chapter II, no. 1.

⁴ De impedimentis, etc., no. 538.

⁵ Geschichte des Kanonischen Eherechtes, 30, 7, p. 330.

⁶ De Sponsalibus et Matrimonio, pp. 165-169.

⁷ De matrimonio, no. 573.

⁸ Synopsis, no. 2389.

n. ¶365.

Note well. Congenital impotence for intercourse in the man is also called frigidity.

n. 59.

The doubt concerning the castrated man was resolved by Sixtus V. Hence the new formula of impotence.

59. - Origin of the confusion and obscurity. Roman law granted marriage to the spado, or to him who was incapable of copulation through natural infirmity, but denied it to him who had been castrated by the hand of men: "In the castrated man there is no marriage" (L. 23, 1, D. 23, 3; compare l. 26, D. 28, 2; l. 14, D. 4, 2).

n. ¶366.

Thus it came about that, concerning those who lacked both testicles, it was disputed in the Church herself whether or not they could contract a valid marriage. Ledesma ⁹ reports this controversy, which Sixtus V resolved by the celebrated motu proprio Quod frequenter, June 27, 1587, to the Apostolic Nuncio in the kingdoms of Spain, in which he at the same time relates that there were several eunuchs who, "boasting that they were capable of intercourse, had celebrated nuptials." The Pontiff then commands not only that those marriages be prohibited in the future, but also that those previously contracted be declared null; which appears to disclose quite clearly a conviction of nullity from the law of nature.

⁹ De magno sacramento matrimonii, q. 58, art. 1.

n. ¶367.

In order to take away from eunuchs the argument which they had drawn from the customary definition of impotence and sterility, several authors, after this act of Sixtus V, but not before it - which must be well noted - began to require, in order that marriage be valid, the power for "perfect copulation, that is, with the emission of true semen into the female vessel" ¹⁰; or even "for copulation apt for generation." Thus, for example, Gonzales Telles ¹¹ and St. Alphonsus ¹², at the place of Busembaum, where the latter says: "Marriage consists in the mutual handing over of bodies physically apt for generation."

¹⁰ Laymann, loc. cit., no. 3.

¹¹ In decret., book 4, title 15, no. 9.

¹² Book 6, tractate 6, no. 195.

n. ¶368.

Therefore, words of this sort, which are frequently employed today, take their origin from the motu proprio of Sixtus V and were employed by writers so that, by the very manner of speaking, they would exclude eunuchs from marriage.

n. ¶369.

But at the same time they introduced a new manner of understanding impotence, as though the formal reason why eunuchs cannot validly marry a wife were to be sought from their unfitness for generation.

n. ¶370.

The ancient doubt concerning a woman who cannot emit seed.

With the matter thus conceived, this further question was consequently raised, whether or not this rule was to be transferred to the woman. In the middle of the seventeenth century Busembaum affirmed this in these words, which at the same time prudently reserved the factual supposition: "Impotence in the woman is judged to exist when she cannot emit seed, if it is true that the seed of women is required for generation." At that time the monthly production and emission of the ovule were unknown, and that abundant distillation which a woman is accustomed to experience in carnal copulation was held to be emission of seed. Concerning this emission, therefore, it was doubted whether it was required for generation or whether, as not a few judged, male semen was sufficient for generation.

n. ¶371.

The present question concerning a woman deprived of her ovaries.

This antiquated account now being omitted, at the end of the nineteenth century and in our own century the question returned under this new form: Since the furnishing of an ovule is altogether necessary for a human being to be able to generate, must not the woman who lacks ovaries, or whose ovaries have been excised, be called impotent rather than sterile? If we are not mistaken, Busembaum would have judged this to be conceded by logical necessity; and most today would have conceded it, unless the wise rescripts of the Holy See counseled a different response.

n. ¶372.

Replies of the Holy See.

For four replies of the Holy Office exist concerning this matter. First, on February 3, 1887, and then on July 23, 1890, it declared that the marriage of a woman whose two ovaries and uterus had been removed was not to be impeded; third, on July 31, 1895, when questioned concerning a woman whose ovaries had been excised, it confirmed its former reply ¹³. Finally, in 1902, it gave a similar reply, but this was after it had asked the physician by what method he had excised the ovaries, and he had replied that their perfect absence could not be established with certainty ¹⁴.

¹³ Coll. P. F., no. 1907.

¹⁴ In Wernz, Ius Decr., vol. 4, no. 345, note 34.

n. ¶373.

Thereafter the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments resolved a similar case in the same manner on April 2, 1909. Moreover, concerning this last case it will be helpful to note, in order to forestall an evasion, according to the testimony of the Reverend Father Ferreres ¹⁵, that, in the physician's opinion, the complete excision of the uterus and both ovaries had been indubitable in the case, and the Congregation was not concerned about that matter. Furthermore, as the Reverend Father Ferreres excellently observes ¹⁶, the fact that the matter was concluded no longer through the Holy Office, but through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, and indeed in a simple "Congress," not in a plenary Congregation, demonstrates that the solution appeared plain.

¹⁵ Razón y Fe, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 101, or the pamphlet De vasectomia duplici, necnon de matrimonio mulieris excisae, nos. 253-260.

¹⁶ In the praised pamphlet, nos. 250-251.

n. 60.

60. - Opinions. A threefold opinion concerning impotence and sterility is proposed today.

n. ¶374.

The first opinion concerning impotence and sterility.

Some, the stricter authors, contend that marriage is inaccessible not only to those who cannot complete copulation, but also to those, whether of the male or female sex, who, because of a physical defect of the organs, suffer from a certain and perpetual incapacity for generation. Let the Reverend Dr. Antonelli be heard, who most sharply and with many arguments defends this opinion both in separate pamphlets and in the otherwise praiseworthy book Medicina pastoralis: "Impotence is an absolute and necessary inability to obtain offspring because of the absence of organs essential to generation, or because of their atrophy, or because of any other defect which renders copulation either impossible or, by its own nature, necessarily infertile" (vol. 2, no. 537).

n. ¶375.

Patrons and adversaries of this opinion.

This opinion, at least insofar as in some application of it it excludes from marriage women who lack or have been deprived of their ovaries or uterus, has obtained not a few eminent patrons. For Bucceroni ¹⁷, the Most Illustrious Dr. Rosset ¹⁸, Santi-Leitner ¹⁹, Lehmkuhl ²⁰, Noldin ²¹, and Wernz ²² can be cited for it; yet canonists or theologians no less approved contradict them: Eschbach ²³; the Most Eminent Cardinal Gasparri ²⁴; D'Annibale ²⁵; Laurentius ²⁶; Sebastianelli ²⁷; De Smet ²⁸.

¹⁷ Institutiones Theol. mor., vol. 4, no. 958, with the note on pp. 487-490.

¹⁸ De matrimonio, vol. 3, no. 1408 ff.

¹⁹ Prael. iur. can., book 4, title 15, no. 1, note.

²⁰ Theol. mor., vol. 2, no. 975.

²¹ De Sacramentis, no. 577.

²² Ius Decr., book 4, no. 345, note 34.

²³ Disp. phys. theol., disputation 2, part 2, chapter 3, De novo quodam sterilitatis conceptu.

²⁴ De Matrimonio, nos. 510-515.

²⁵ Summula, vol. 3, no. 413, note 9.

²⁶ Instit. iur. can., no. 619.

²⁷ Prael. iur. can. De Rebus, no. 65.

²⁸ De Sponsalibus et Matrimonio, no. 278.

n. ¶376.

It is defended especially by these arguments:

n. ¶377.

Matrimony and human intercourse have an essential order toward generation, which order cannot be present in the proposed case.

n. ¶378.

For a valid marriage, copulation of itself apt for generation is required. But copulation with a woman who lacks ovaries or a uterus is unfit for generation.

n. ¶379.

No less is required on the part of the woman than on the part of the man. But the man, in order to be potent, must make a true semination. Therefore the woman, in order to be potent, must be able through her ovule to contribute to the commingling of the bloods.

n. ¶380.

There must be submitted to the consent of the contracting parties an object which can at least be presumed substantially apt for generation. But a woman without a uterus or ovaries is not such. Therefore.

n. ¶381.

If these marriages were permitted, excisions would be performed deliberately so that a marriage immune from the danger of offspring might be contracted; nor would there any longer appear to be a reason why congresses against nature should be prohibited (thus Dr. Antonelli, De conceptu impotentiae, pp. 110-111).

n. ¶382.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council four times declared invalid the marriage of a woman who had been deprived of her uterus: in the Salernitana, August 9, 1862-March 21 and June 27, 1863; in the Verulana, January 24-June 22, 1871; in the Albinganensi, August 17-September 7, 1895; in the Monasteriensi, March 18-December 16, 1899. (Compare Thesaurus Resolutionum S. C. Concilii, vols. 121, 122, 130, 154, 158.) "These decisions," says Wernz ²⁹, "of themselves have greater authority, since they are not rendered by the Cardinals unless certain proofs of the facts and of the law, whether canonical or divine, have first been obtained."

²⁹ Loc. cit.

n. ¶383.

Refutation.

Nevertheless, omitting for the present the direct and intrinsic argument which will be proposed below, it seems that this opinion must already be departed from because of reasons drawn from without. For:

n. ¶384.

It corrupts the formal rationale of the impediment of impotence received for centuries. The classical authors carefully distinguished impotence for generation from impotence for intercourse; they said that the latter, but not the former, obstructed validity. "A woman," says St. Bonaventure ³⁰, "cannot be separated from her husband because of a defect of the power for generation, but of the power for intercourse." In vain, moreover, does one have recourse to later authors to explain these words, especially to Pichler ³¹, who, living at the close of the seventeenth century, especially since writers, because of the decree of Sixtus V, had adopted a new mode of speaking, as we noted above. But the opinion under criticism recognizes the true root of the diriment impediment not only in the incapacity to perform the act which of itself is ordered toward generation, but in the very inability to generate. Compare the definition of Dr. Antonelli given above. And although others, for example Wernz, retain the classical definition, nevertheless in reality they place in unfitness for generation the formal cause why an excised woman is to be called impotent.

³⁰ In IV Sent., dist. 34, dub. 2, concerning the letter of the Master.

³¹ The renowned Antonelli does this in Pro conceptu impotentiae, etc., no. 31.

n. ¶385.

In order to avoid certain consequences of this opinion, the notion of presumption must be perverted. For, lest they be compelled to declare impotent a woman who is more than fifty years old, the patrons of this opinion take refuge in a presumption of capacity for generation, by which a woman of every age would be permitted to enter marriage without any other proof.

n. ¶386.

But, since what is at issue here is not an arbitrary presumption of positive law, but a natural one, that must be presumed which is generally or of itself the case. Now from about the age of forty-five there occurs a process of involution which ends in the natural atrophy or inactivity of the ovaries (compare no. 56). Hence in the year 1885, in the whole city of Berlin, not even one woman could be found who had married at fifty years of age and either had or had had offspring ³². Is not the natural presumption, therefore, against potency; and consequently would not the potency for generation (if it were necessary for the validity of marriage) have to be demonstrated, just as, under the law before the Code, those below puberty, in order to marry validly, had to prove the maturity which supplied for age? "In these women," as the Reverend Father Ojetti writes most excellently ³³, "impotence ought to be presumed; wherefore, in order to permit the marriage of these women, it ought to be proved that the presumption does not hold in the case."

³² Compare Moll, Handbuch, etc.

³³ Synopsis, no. 2417.

n. ¶387.

Nor can recourse be had to doubtful impotence, with which marriage is permitted. For, in order that one who doubts may lawfully contract, an inquiry intended to remove the doubt must have preceded, which demonstrates him to be at least probably fit. "He who doubts concerning his impotence cannot enter marriage before he has diligently investigated the matter and has at least probably laid aside the doubt." Thus St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 902. But nothing of this kind is demanded even of a sixty-year-old woman.

…and 113 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 7 passages

Vol. III, Tomus IV: On Chastity and …, Tr. III, Chapter II: Who Can Contract Matrimony

n. ¶1.

Usefulness. It is manifest that very grave questions depend upon matrimonial capacity rightly understood. The controversies themselves of today confirm the importance of the matter.

n. 38.

I. Principle. "All can contract matrimony who are not prohibited by law" (c. 1035).

But the prohibition can be of natural law or of positive law.

n. 39.

II. Intellectual incapacity. They cannot validly marry who, on account of a defect of judgment, are incapable of every contract; for the nature of a contract is essentially in matrimony. The same must be said of those who are ignorant of, or do not sufficiently perceive, the common nature of that contract. We say the common nature, because ignorance of the sacramental dignity does not prejudice the validity of consent.

Therefore: "c. 1082, §1. That matrimonial consent can be had, it is necessary that the contracting parties at least not be ignorant that matrimony is a permanent society between a man and a woman for procreating children."

It is not required that the parties know the necessity of carnal copulation; it seems sufficient that they know that offspring is obtained and begotten by the mother by a certain concurrence and familiarity of the parents.

But although ignorance after puberty is not presumed, nevertheless care must diligently be taken that the contracting parties celebrate matrimony instructed concerning their whole right and office. (Cf. Epitome, II, n. 369).

Marriages made in lucid intervals are valid but illicit, unless the danger of an unsuitable education of the offspring is removed, and a grave cause is present. (Thus Wernz, Ius Decretalium, IV, n. 41).

In a positive doubt about capacity, the half-witted and deaf-mutes not perfectly instructed are not to be prohibited from matrimony, although such marriages are little to be desired.

By the natural law no age is required for the validity of the matrimony of those in whom neither judgment nor knowledge is lacking. But knowledge is not presumed in one impubescent. By the positive law of the Church and of every cultivated nation, however, a minimum age has been established, before which nuptials cannot validly be contracted.

Besides intellectual capacity, physical fitness of body is required, concerning which something must be said a little more fully on account of controversies which have arisen, and on account of the connection with the faculty of carnal and generative commerce.

n. 40.

III. Physical incapacity. 1. A twofold physical potency comes here to be considered: potency of coition, or of perfecting copulation, and potency of generating. But because it happens that the matrimony even of those in whom potency of generating is not lacking remains sterile, and because it helps to make a beginning of speaking from notions which abstract from the controversies of today, it is better to admit a generic description of sterility, which is the state or condition of spouses who do not generate children. This sterility in turn is then distinguished from its cause into sterility which flows from the very impotence of generating, and sterility which proceeds from other occult or manifest causes. But impotence itself can be either organic, which is more easily detected in the very defect of the organs, or functional, which is revealed by no defect of this kind.

Therefore the question is what physical impotence induces impotence of matrimony, and this from the natural law itself. For positive law, on account of a proportionate cause, can render persons unfit for matrimony who labor under no natural incapacity.

2. With what certitude must this capacity itself be present? There is no reason why we should recede from the general norm which demands that a positive aptitude for the state be present at least probably.

Indeed Sanchez, Matr., l. 7, d. 103, n. 10; Reiffenstuel, in l. 4 t. 15, n. 26; Schmalzgrueber, in the same title, n. 56 and 57, and several others said that he sins mortally who had not laid aside doubt concerning his potency before matrimony. And indeed examination of the doubt is necessary from the natural law. Nevertheless, if the doubt perseveres, from the Code itself c. 1068, §2, matrimony is not to be impeded. Moreover, as is clear, the party who doubts concerning his potency is bound by natural justice itself to manifest the probable defect to the other party, lest this latter be deceived in a most grave matter.

But when no serious contrary indication is had, moral certitude of capacity is gathered from the natural presumption itself. Nor is a physical examination of capacity then required. Nevertheless, where that presumption is lacking, especially where it is converted into a contrary moral certitude, a positive argument of capacity must be supplied.

3. Now indeed, the natural potency of coition perseveres of itself as long as the appetite of copulation itself is had; not likewise the potency of generating. After a certain age, old men no longer have prolific semen. The so-called process of "involution" occurs even earlier for women, so that it is morally certain that, some years after the critical age at which the menses cease, the ovaries are atrophied or even no longer found. Wherefore Sacred Scripture itself regards births in old age as miraculous. Think of the promise made to Sarah and Elizabeth.

With this moral certitude the presumption concerning capacity of generating cannot be composed.

4. What potency, whether of coition or of generating, is necessary so that matrimony can consist?

These things are certain: a) Generative force without the force of coition does not suffice. Fecundation indeed is possible without copulation; and by medical art it will perhaps be able to be made truly probable, even without any pollution. Nevertheless, a man and woman to whom the faculty of copulation is perpetually lacking must be declared, without ambiguity, incapable of contracting matrimony.

For the handing over of bodies, which is the object of matrimony, is made immediately not for generating offspring, but for carnal commerce, which is the natural way to that generation;

b) As long as old persons preserve the faculty of copulation, they are not to be prohibited from matrimony. The perpetual practice of the Church proves this, which reason confirms. For a great propensity toward copulation has not been taken away. Moreover it seems to repugn to the order of nature that a natural propensity, or a mingling of bodies, be deprived of every lawful use for a great part of men;

c) Eunuchs or castrated men, who lack both testes or have been deprived of them, are incapable of matrimony. This was declared by Sixtus V in the celebrated response to the nuncio of Spain and afterward admitted by all Catholic doctors. The matter was previously disputed, and, according to Ledesma (De magno sacramento matrimonii, q. 58, art. 1), on account of the controversy itself their marriages were permitted;

d) Those who wish to impede the fruit of sexual conjunction and contract de futuro under this condition place a condition contrary to the substance of matrimony and therefore marry invalidly. For they introduce, as R. P. Ojetti very well observes (Synopsis, n. 2113), into the very act of celebrating matrimony an obligation which, as contrary, destroys another obligation which is necessarily undertaken from that same act. St. Bonaventure himself already acutely discerns what difference there is between those who by a pact concerning the sterility of offspring directly attack the institution of matrimony, and those who by nature or art have been made sterile: these can marry. (Cf. in 4 S. d. 31, art. 1, q. 3.)

But it is less certain how far the very power of generating must be present. For if we consider matrimony simply as an institution primarily ordered, by means of acts of sexual conjunction, to generating offspring, its fundamental law or even constitution seems able to be conceived in various ways. For:

a) Only those acts of copulation could be permitted to the spouses which could be positively useful for human generation. This severity in the first centuries, indeed also afterward, had patrons, so that they prohibited copulation with a pregnant or nursing wife. Today the more benign opinion has altogether prevailed. This alone is disputed, whether, after impotence consequent upon a valid matrimony, it prohibits the use, at least completed in a broad sense, or not;

b) This also could have been established by God, that habitual potency of generating, and therefore of attaining the primary end of matrimony, should be essential;

c) But the sole essential capacity could also have been the potency of truly coiting. For with this power had, and its right use commanded, the due multiplication of the human race is sufficiently provided for, and provision is made for the honesty of morals by the expedient faculty of satisfying the immense propensity to carnal commerce.

The modern style of the Curia is adapted to the third explanation. For a woman whose ovaries have been removed is not barred from matrimony.

Speculatively, three opinions are freely proposed.

Some, adhering to doctrines which for many centuries were admitted in the Church, call those only and all those impotent who are incapable of copulation apt in itself for generation. Wherefore they think a man impotent who, incapable of erection, cannot penetrate the female vessel; a eunuch and one who has undergone vasectomy, because he cannot pour forth prolific semen; a woman who is deprived of a vagina or bears it occluded, because in her the faculty of any copulation is lacking. But a woman from whom both ovaries, even perhaps with the uterus, have been removed, they call merely sterile, because the contribution of the ovary and uterus follows copulation.

This opinion is perfectly adapted to the present use of the Curia.

Others, whose line Dr. Antonelli leads, call impotent for matrimony not only those who are incapable of copulation, but all who, on account of a physical defect of organs, cannot generate through copulation. Therefore for them an excised woman is impotent. They argue from this, that matrimony, with the primary end excluded, cannot be had; and against the patrons of the former opinion they object that these are not very coherent in demanding on the part of the man a semination fecund in itself, while they call potent a woman who can supply no seed, that is, ovule. But the responses of the Holy See they explain either because, since the matter is controversial, in doubt the marriage of these persons is not to be impeded, or because there was question of a woman not perfectly excised^¹.

R. P. Arendt, with the long tradition of the school, holds that only those labor under the impediment of impotence who are incapable of copulation apt in itself for generation. Nevertheless those who know with physical certitude that they are impotent for generating cannot validly consent to matrimony, as he himself thinks, because their consent cannot be borne toward the primary end of matrimony, or the end of the work. But if that physical incapacity is unknown, they validly contract matrimony, on account of the natural presumption of capacity for generating, which perseveres until the contrary is most certainly manifested. Nor does it hinder the validity of matrimony if after the celebration of matrimony an incapacity of generating, even if it precedes matrimony, is detected, because the spouses were not affected by the impediment of impotence, and, on account of presumed capacity, consent reached the very end of the work, that is, of matrimony.

Against the first opinion there can be objected the defect of consequence noted above; it is not so clear what the classical doctors would have thought if they had known that the ovule necessary for fecundation is supplied not in the very heat but afterward.

Against the other opinion stands the very novelty of the theory, and the perversion of the classical notion of the impediment of impotence, which, with common voice, the doctors professed to flow not from impotence of generating but from impotence of coition. Add the too many and occult causes of nullity, and, in this most grave matter, the logical necessity, hitherto unknown, of a bodily examination before nuptials, so that provision may be sufficiently made for the validity of matrimony.

Against the third opinion it will be conceded with difficulty that in wholly the same objective circumstances a valid consent can or cannot be given according as impotence of generating was unknown or manifest. For in neither case is that consent vitiated by a direction positively opposed to the primary end of matrimony; indeed, by the argument of c. 1085, it is not repugnant that by affection it embrace generation itself, just as knowledge of the nullity of matrimony does not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent. But if you argue not from a subjective defect but from the objective term of it, the ignorance or knowledge of the parties does not change that objective reason. And if you insist by saying that the conditions of the generative function are such that manifest defects alone can shake the validity of matrimony, will not others answer that this is an indication why potency of generating ought not to be essential to the validity of matrimony?

But each opinion labors in explaining the marriages which are permitted to old persons. Even if we admit the rarest cases of senile fertility, these do not take away the moral certitude of impotence of generating among old persons, so that individual persons cannot, without further examination, say that they are probably potent. Nor did the ancients flee to these subtle explanations; but several at least, and these most excellent, affirmed impotence of generating among old persons, and at the same time taught that their marriages nevertheless were valid, because, in the present order, marriages can be contracted honorably either for the sake of receiving offspring or for the sake of calming concupiscence. This, according to the most erudite Esmein^¹, is the common doctrine of the Middle Ages. Nor did they understand St. Thomas otherwise, to whom St. Bonaventure can be added. Both Tancred and St. Raymund, in order to exclude from matrimony those who are incapable of copulation, reason thus: "For since every matrimony comes about either for the sake of receiving offspring or for the sake of incontinence, the impossibility of coiting removes each cause" (In Summa). "What if a man cannot generate or a woman conceive, can they contract matrimony?" To this interrogation Goffredus of Trani responds: "I respond thus; for although in the matrimony of such persons both causes of matrimony do not have place, nevertheless it suffices that the other is not lacking."

"As is clear from the universal tradition of the Church," says Ledesma, De magno matrimonii sacramento, q. 58, art. 1, "the marriages of old persons are valid, nevertheless old persons have impotence of generating, as is manifestly clear." Sanchez, De matrimonio, l. VII, d. 92, n. 26: "The Church everywhere admits old persons to entering it," that is, matrimony, "although it is certain that their seed is sterile... Because, although that matrimony is frustrated of the primary end, which is the generation of offspring, nevertheless it obtains the secondary end, namely satisfying concupiscence, true copulation being had; which suffices for its validity. And thus St. Thomas maintains in 4 d. 34, q. un., art. 2 ad 3, received everywhere by all theologians and professors of pontifical law, with a few excepted... whom Barbosa very well attacks, L. 1, p. 1, n. 98, De solut. matrim."

Schmalzgrueber, in L. 4, t. 15, n. 2, says: "Impotence for generating can be given without the former," impotence for copulation, "as happens in old persons."

What of the fact that Laymann (L. 5, tr. 1, p. 4, c. 11, n. 1) and several other distinguished doctors used these or similar words: "Impotence is one thing for generating offspring, which is called sterility, and this, if it alone is present, brings no impediment to matrimony."

As regards us, we would not wish to propose as it were a fourth opinion. Nevertheless we advert that all things in the first opinion can be said more coherently, if the reason why castrated men are incapable of matrimony is gathered not precisely from the lack of seed strictly so called, but from the fact that, on account of cutting away, the internal secretion itself which fosters the very faculty of copulation is suppressed, so that, on account of a lethal wound of that faculty, they cannot undertake the perpetual obligation of copulation. Nor did Sixtus V himself give this reason for his opinion, that castrated men could not generate, but because "from marriages of this kind no utility comes, but rather the allurements of temptations and incentives of lust arise." For they thought that castrated men were not sated by copulation but excited. (Cf. Ojetti, l. c., n. 2399.)

¹ This subtle evasion is shown to be sufficiently futile also by this reason, that no solicitude was had concerning whether the fallopian tubes were excised or not. But when the way is suppressed, impotence of generating remains.

¹ Marriage in Canon Law, I, p. 249, 250. "One of the ends of marriage was attained, and this sufficed to render it valid."

n. 41.

Impotent and sterile persons. 1. From what has been said thus far we gather that those are undoubtedly impotent who, on account of a defect of structure or disease, or even on account of psychic causes, are incapable of copulation. Thus the man is impotent whose penis so opens that he cannot pour seed into the vessel, or the woman who lacks a vagina or whose vagina is not penetrable; he is impotent who, on account of disease or weakness or even aversion of soul, cannot erect himself, just as the woman is impotent who, on account of vaginismus, or spasmodic constriction of the muscle or sphincter of the vagina, holds the opening firmly closed and does not tolerate contact.

The man who has been deprived of both testicles is also impotent.

Most place among the impotent those who have undergone section of each deferent canal or double vasectomy. This is less explored by us, because the excitatory internal secretion is not suppressed, nor, in our opinion, has sufficient attention been given to that difference by which a man after vasectomy differs from a eunuch.

Are men impotent who pour forth aspermatic semen, such as those who have kept very small testicles, similar to little peas? This is disputed. You may say the same of him who emits only dead zoosperms.

For a woman whose ovaries, indeed whose uterus, have been removed, nuptials are permitted, although, as we have seen, there are not lacking those who pronounce the same woman either impotent or incapable of matrimonial consent.

2. Impotence, whether it is explained by a physical or psychic cause, can be absolute, with respect to any person of the other sex, and can be relative.

3. Sterility for some is merely a defect of fecundation which experience demonstrates, but which no cause at least organic explains; while others hold the very impotence of generating as sterility.

n. 42.

Impediment of impotence. Nevertheless, impotence does not dirimently impede a matrimony to which it is subsequent; nor does it take away the habilitation for contracting nuptials, unless it was perpetual, i.e. unless it cannot in any way or at least without a grave operation be healed.

Nevertheless, when the operation has been done, the impotence ceases, as is clear. What therefore if one who will certainly and soon admit the surgeon's hand contracts matrimony? We judge that this matrimony is not valid, because until it has been removed by the surgeon's hand, that man must be said to labor under perpetual impotence.

A positively doubtful impotence is practically none. Nevertheless it is necessary that potency be present probably. The presumption itself supplies a sufficient probability indeed. But if the very potency of generating is required, this in old persons is no longer probable, so that not even from presumption can matrimonial capacity be attributed to them. Therefore by the very necessity of having at least probable capacity the first opinion is confirmed.

Impotence can be absolute toward all or relative.

To the point the Code, c. 1068: "§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, dirimently impedes matrimony by the law of nature itself.

"§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by doubt of law or doubt of fact, matrimony is not to be impeded.

"§3. Sterility neither dirimently impedes nor impedes matrimony."

n. 43.

Summary

I. All can contract matrimony who are prohibited neither by natural nor by positive law (c. 1035).

II. Intellectual capacity. By natural law those are barred who are incapable of every contract, or who do not sufficiently perceive the common object of this contract.

Marriages are valid, although of themselves illicit, which are celebrated in lucid intervals of the insane.

And in a positive and probable doubt, matrimony cannot be impeded.

III. Concerning bodily capacity. 1. A twofold impotence is to be attended to: of coiting and of generating.

The potency of coiting is essential to matrimony. Most are content with this potency, while nevertheless requiring that the organs of the man permit copulation apt in itself for generation.

Some more recent authors furthermore require potency at least organic of generating.

R. P. Arendt denies that they can consent to valid matrimony who, at the time when they contract, labor under manifest impotence of generating.

The first opinion rests upon a long juridic tradition, upon the general permission given to old persons of contracting matrimony, and upon the secondary end of matrimony subsisting.

The other opinion appeals to the primary end of matrimony, with which excluded, as they say, matrimony cannot be had.

The third opinion invokes the necessity of consent to the primary end. This consent cannot be given unless, at least from natural presumption, some capacity of generating can be gathered.

We judge that the first opinion stands better if the incapacity of eunuchs is drawn rather from the defect of perpetual potency of coition.

A positive doubt of impotence is practically none. Nevertheless it is necessary that potency probably be present. The presumption itself supplies a sufficient probability indeed. But if the very potency of generating is required, this in old persons is no longer probable, so that not even from presumption can matrimonial capacity be attributed to them. Therefore by the very necessity of having at least probable capacity the first opinion is confirmed.

Impotence can be absolute toward all or relative.

2. Sterility for some is the mere fact of those who do not have children; while for others it is also the very impotence of generating joined with the power of coiting.

3. But the impediment of impotence is not had except by antecedent and perpetual impotence.

4. Certainly impotent are all those who, on account of a defect of structure or disease or even on account of psychic causes, are incapable of copulation. Also impotent is the man who lacks both testicles. For most, he also is impotent who has undergone vasectomy; concerning this conclusion we doubt. Concerning the man who pours forth aspermatic semen or semen without living zoosperms, and concerning the woman whose ovaries have been removed, the matter is theoretically disputed.

Moreover, even that impotence to which an end can be put only by a grave operation is judged perpetual.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 96 passages

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, I. Questions Concerning Ch…, On Chastity and Lust, Question One: Concerning the Genital Organs and Generation — Physiological Notions · Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, IIbis. Questions Concernin…, Appendix — On the Marriage of Sterilized Persons · Ch. V, Article II: Impotence

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, I. Questions Concerning Ch…, On Chastity and Lust, Question One: Concerning the Genital Organs and Generation — Physiological Notions

n. ¶47.

V. Impotence and sterility. The impotence of coeundi, or of copulating, is one thing; the impotence of generating is another. The former dirimently impedes marriage, which consists in the mutual handing over of bodies in order to carnal copulation, and therefore has as its immediate end copulation itself: this is impotence with respect to marriage itself. The latter, the impotence of generating, does not impede marriage itself, but only the further principal end for which marriage was instituted: this is not impotence of marriage, but only its sterility.

n. ¶48.

In other words: the primary end of the institution of marriage is one thing, and is generation; and the end of the thing instituted, or of marriage itself, is another, and is copulation of itself apt for generation. If this immediate end is attained, the thing itself is valid, even if by accident it is impossible that the further end, or primary end of the institution, be attained. But carnal copulation of itself apt for generation is essentially the act by which, through intromission of the virile member into the female genital canal, virile semen is emitted and deposited there. Hence whatever renders that copulation impossible, absolutely or relatively, constitutes the impediment of impotence; whatever does not impede copulation, but only generation, is not impotence, but only sterility. Hence:

n. ¶49.

A. Impotence (onvermogen) is present whenever there are not organs ready for carnal copulation, or when, though the organ remains, copulation is nevertheless impossible. It is absolute or relative according as it is toward every person or toward only some person. Hence:

n. ¶50.

In the man impotence is: a) absence of the virile member; b) defect of both testicles, or their perfect contusion or atrophy;¹⁴ c) double vasectomy, or resection of both deferent canals; d) disproportion of the virile member; e) hypospadia¹⁵ and epispadia, by which the meatus opens not at the extremity but in the middle of the virile member, whether on the lower part or on the upper part, so that the semen cannot be poured into the female genital canal; f) aphrodisia, or excessive heat, by which, from exaggerated excitation, the semen is lost before copulation; and anaphrodisia, or excessive frigidity, by which erection of the virile member and expulsion of semen are impeded.

¹⁴ Those who lack both testicles are called eunuchs; cf. Mt. XIX, 10 sq. Some are spadones, who are born thus; others are castrated, who by human art have been deprived of the testicles or even of the virile member itself. "A spado, or one who is born a eunuch, and one who was castrated as an infant, is incapable of true copulation; those deprived of both testes in adult age remain capable of copulation for some time, but generally through a more or less ample interval afterward they can no longer exercise copulation itself. Those deprived of the testes are deprived of the internal secretion by which the energy of copulating with effusion is nourished, so that they are destitute of satiative copulation with effusion, and then of the faculty of copulation." Thus Vermeersch, cited work, n. 60 and 84.

¹⁵ De Smet, De Matrimonio, n. 551, note 4, notes that that defect is sometimes cured by a mere change of position in copulating.

n. ¶51.

The first three make impotence absolute; the fifth and sixth make it relative; the fourth makes either one. The sixth ordinarily does not render one perpetually impotent; concerning the third it is disputed whether potency can be restored.

n. ¶52.

In the woman impotence is: a) defect of the female genital canal or of an opening in it, so that it cannot be perforated at all; b) excessive narrowness; c) vaginismus, by which, from excessive excitation, the external pudendum is closed, cannot endure intromission, and impedes copulation.

n. ¶53.

In the first case there is absolute impotence; in the second, relative; in the third, either one, and not always perpetual.

n. ¶54.

B. Sterility (onvruchtbaarheid) 1. in the man is the absence of prolific semen because, on account of an accidental and transient cause or an obstruction, the semen here and now is destitute of zoosperms, or because, on account of disease of the testicles, the seminal vesicle, the urethra, and so forth, the zoosperms are not sufficiently lively, or perish too quickly, or lack a necessary element, or are not apt to enter the ovum.

n. ¶55.

In the woman it is: a) perfect excision of both ovaries or perfect atrophy of them, so that no ovum is present; b) a vice or disturbance of the organ by which the ovum cannot mature; c) an impediment by which, whether naturally or artificially, for example from ligation of the oviduct or excision of the uterus, no conjunction of ovum and sperm is possible.

n. ¶56.

From these things one already understands that about which there was so much dispute: why absence of the testicles or of the emission of semen in the man is impotence, while absence of the ovaries or of the ovum in the woman is not.¹⁶ Namely, because the emission of semen is of the essence of copulation of itself apt for generation, whereas the ovum is not an essential element of copulation, but only of generation.

¹⁶ Thus the Holy Office, 3 February 1887; 23 July 1890; 31 July 1895; Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 2 April 1909. Cf. Vermeersch, who maintains that this is the legitimate sense of the responses, and replies to adversaries, cited work, p. 53-55.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, IIbis. Questions Concernin…, Appendix — On the Marriage of Sterilized Persons

n. ¶1702.

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

n. ¶1703.

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.

n. ¶1704.

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

n. ¶1705.

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.

n. ¶1706.

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

n. ¶1707.

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.

n. ¶1708.

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.

n. ¶1709.

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.

n. ¶1710.

Vasectomized men, under this aspect, are like eunuchs.

n. ¶1711.

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.

n. ¶1712.

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.

n. ¶1713.

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.

n. ¶1714.

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.

n. ¶1715.

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

n. ¶1716.

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.

n. ¶1717.

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:

n. ¶1718.

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.

n. ¶1719.

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.

n. ¶1720.

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.

n. ¶1721.

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°.

Ch. V, Article II: Impotence

n. 102.

- I. Notion.

n. ¶6011.

The best definition seems to be that given by St. Raymond of Pennafort, O.P.¹

¹ Summa, l. 4, De impotentia coeundi, § 2, apud Prummer, op. cit., n. 808.

n. ¶6012.

Impotence is "the impossibility of coition, or a defect of soul or body or of both, by which someone is impeded from being carnally commingled with another (in the natural manner)."

n. ¶6013.

a) It is called the impossibility of coition, not the impossibility of generating.

n. ¶6014.

Perfect coition is had when the male member enters the vaginal canal of the woman and pours forth true semen within the vaginal canal. Whenever coition can be completed, true potency must be acknowledged.

n. ¶6015.

b) It is called a defect of soul or body or of both.

n. ¶6016.

Thus are indicated the diverse spiritual or corporeal causes from which impotence can arise. Among spiritual causes there frequently occurs hatred or aversion toward the spouse. The older authors wrote at great length concerning malefice as a cause of impotence. But modern authors judge that a diabolical cause of impotence is to be admitted very rarely and with difficulty. Spiritual causes rarely produce perpetual impotence.

n. ¶6017.

II. Who, in the concrete, are impotent.²

² Capello, op. cit., nn. 348, 350, 375.

n. 103.

- A man is impotent:

n. ¶6019.

lacking the virga, or male member.

…and 56 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 6 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. X, Ch. IX, Art. III, § 2. Physical Impotence

n. 797.

797. Notion. The impediment of impotence is "the impossibility of coition, or a defect of mind or body or of both, by which someone is prevented from carnally commingling with another (in the natural manner)." Thus St. Raymond of Peñafort.^47a

Explanation. It is said, 1. the impossibility of coition. Coition is defined by Gasparri⁴⁸ as "the insertion of the virile member into the woman's vagina with the emission of semen." Hence incapacity for conceiving and for generating must be altogether distinguished from impotence as it is discussed here. In the commingling of man and woman, three things are to be distinguished: active conception, or coition; passive conception, or the vivification of the female ovum; generation, or the birth of the generated human being. For the validity of matrimony, only the possibility of active conception is required. For if this copula is perfect on the part of the man and the woman, it is only accidentally that pregnancy and generation do not follow from it. And so, if spouses have completed the carnal copula in this manner, they are rightly said to have performed the conjugal debt. But all things that follow afterward depend upon nature, and by no means upon the spouses. Not without reason has someone compared the conjugal act with eating. Nutrition is completed by three things: eating, digestion, and assimilation. Eating is ordered to digestion, but digestion to assimilation. Thus, in like manner, coition is ordered to passive conception, but this conception to generation. One who places nourishing food into his mouth and swallows it is said truly to eat, although, because of a disorder of the stomach, all digestion and nutrition are altogether impossible. Eating, as such, is perfect; if it attains no effect, the eating itself is not to be blamed. But if someone swallows inedible matter (stones, iron, etc.), he is no longer properly said to eat. The case is similar in carnal copulation: if true virile semen is naturally deposited in the female vessel, that act of itself suffices for conception and generation. But if neither conception nor generation actually follows, this is accidental, and not essential. Therefore such a copula is licit, nor are those who can complete commingling in this manner to be barred from matrimony, although conception and generation are impossible because of natural defects.⁴⁹ - Furthermore, matrimony was instituted not only for generating offspring, but also as a remedy for concupiscence. Hence St. Paul says: "Because of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn."⁵⁰ Therefore it is licit rightly to complete the marital copula, even if no generation is hoped for. The doctrine thus far set forth concerning the notion of impotence is greatly strengthened by repeated decisions of the Holy Office,⁵¹ which permitted matrimony to women who (as deprived of both ovaries and of the uterus) certainly could not complete a copula of itself apt for generation.

It is said, 2. or a defect of mind or body or of both (by which someone is prevented from commingling with another in the natural manner). - By these words are indicated the causes from which impotence is wont to arise. These causes are both spiritual or psychic and bodily. Among spiritual causes, the ancient canonists spoke much about sorcery, which consists in the influence of a demon impeding the perfect conjugal act. Although an influence of this kind is possible, nevertheless it is not easily to be admitted; indeed, in our times certain examples of this influence are entirely lacking. - Among other spiritual or psychic causes producing impotence, the first place is held by weariness, hatred, and aversion existing between spouses, and vehement homosexuality. Sometimes the genital nerves are so vehemently affected by affections of this kind that perfect coition is plainly impossible. Yet these spiritual or psychic causes rarely produce perpetual impotence. For they are wont to cease with the passage of time, unless bodily causes are also present. Bodily causes are distinguished on the part of the man or on the part of the woman.

^47a Summa, bk. 4, De impotentia coeundi, § 2. - Canonists vehemently dispute concerning the genuine notion of the impediment of impotence. The definition given by St. Raymond seems better than that which is wont to be given by other authors: "The impediment of impotence is the perpetual and antecedent incapacity of a man or woman for completing a copula of itself apt for generation." For both the authority of great authors and the decisions of the Holy Office permitting the matrimony of an excised woman, who certainly cannot exercise a copula of itself apt for generation, favor Raymond's definition. Hence Gasparri rightly says, loc. cit., n. 510: "We, after diligently weighing all things, both the doctrine of the canons and the declarations of the Apostolic See and the conclusions of physiologists or physicians, say that impotence for coition is an incapacity for the copula by which the man and woman become one flesh, or, in other words, by which virile semen enters the woman's vagina." St. Thomas seems to agree with St. Raymond; for he explains the impediment of impotence as an incapacity for rendering the conjugal debt (Suppl., q. 58, a. 1). Wigandt (Tribunal confessar., tr. 16, exam. 6, q. 10), Reiffenstuel (on bk. 4, tit. 15, n. 2), Ferraris (Prompta Bibl., s.v. "Debitum coniugale"), and, among the moderns, especially Eschbach (Disp. physiol.-theol., 190), speak in the same manner. The latter says: "The canonical diriment impediment of impotence is solely the antecedent and perpetual incapacity of the spouses for the perfect copula, by which, namely, the man, penetrating the female vessel with the natural debt, pours true semen into it." Thus also Larraga-Saralegui (Prontuario de Teología moral, 3rd ed., n. 1501) and Augustus Sili, who, as consultor in the celebrated Münster case (1899), cites sixteen authors for this opinion of his (Analecta eccl. VIII [1900], 253). Thus also Vogt (Das kirchl. Eherecht, § 33), De Smet (De sponsal. et matrim., 3rd ed., n. 554), who calls this opinion speculatively probable and practically safe; Noldin-Schmitt (De sacr., 17th ed., n. 567); Wernz-Vidal (Ius can. V, n. 219). Among moderns, Antonelli (De conceptu impotentiae), Leitner (Lehrb. des kirchl. Eherechtes, § 26, p. 145), Lehmkuhl (Theol. mor. II, n. 975), Rosset (De sacr. matrim., n. 1406), and others hold the contrary opinion.

⁴⁸ De matrim. I, n. 510.

⁴⁹ Cf. Eschbach, Disp. physiol.-theol., disp. 2, c. 3; and Van de Burgt-Schaepman, Tract. de matrim., pt. 2, c. 6, § 11.

⁵⁰ 1 Cor. 7:2 ff.

⁵¹ Cf. below, n. 799, note 56.

n. 798.

798. On the part of the man, the following are enumerated among the bodily causes producing impotence:

a) The absence or atrophy of both testicles. Therefore eunuchs and castrated men are impotent. Eunuchs are those who were born without testicles, which sometimes occurs in cryptorchidism; but castrated men are those who have been deprived of the testicles by art or accident. Sixtus V declared that eunuchs and castrated men truly labor under the canonical impediment of impotence.⁵² Before this authentic declaration, the canonists did not agree. Thus Peter Ledesma⁵³ writes: "The Church never judged it certain that castrated men lacking both testicles contracted true matrimony; for there were always opinions in the Church concerning this matter, and therefore, because of that variety of opinions, she permitted marriages of this kind, just as she permits others which are made in the Church according to probable opinions. But now it has been determined by the Head of the Church that they do not contract true marriages." - The same seems more probably to be said of those who have undergone the surgical operation which is called vasectomy and which in our times is frequently performed by physicians. This operation consists in the severing of the "vasa deferentia." A man whose vasa deferentia have been severed can still complete the carnal copula and can even introduce semen into the female vessel, but that semen now lacks spermatozoa and is not semen in the proper sense, since spermatozoa are an essential part of sperm. Therefore between a man who has undergone vasectomy and one who has undergone complete castration there seems to be only an accidental difference, and accordingly both are judged to be impotent.⁵⁴ - Complete castration is perpetual and complete impotence.

b) Certain diseases of the nerves, such as sexual anesthesia, which is also called anaphrodisia and is the absence of erectile capacity for completing the copula; aphrodisia, which consists in excessive venereal excitation, by which it happens that the emission of semen precedes penetration.⁵⁵ Such or similar diseases, unless they are joined with an incurable mental disease or with a defect of the organs, are wont to cease with the passage of time.

c) Deformity or absence of the virile member. Such deformities are hypospadias, epispadias, excessive size of the virile member, etc.

⁵² Constitution Cum frequenter, June 27, 1587.

⁵³ De magno sacr. matrim., q. 68, a. 2.

⁵⁴ Thus also De Smet, De sponsal. et matrim., 3rd ed., n. 550; Ferreres in Eccl. Review (1912), 208 ff. Besides, the entire doctrine is not yet sufficiently clear, nor are the effects following from this operation sufficiently known. Hence Dr. A. O'Malley (in Eccl. Review, loc. cit.) teaches that impotence does not arise from vasectomy. If those things which this author says concerning the nature of vasectomy are true, then perhaps he rightly asserts: "The sexual act of a man who has undergone vasectomy has a perfect likeness to the sexual acts of men sterile from old age, debilitating disease, and other causes, who are permitted to enter matrimony and whose matrimony is valid; indeed, a man who has undergone vasectomy is sexually much more potent than all the others [just cited]" (loc. cit., 335 f.). The whole controversy will be resolved if it is established whether the fluid emitted by men who have undergone vasectomy is still true semen or not. If true semen is present (although sterile), impotence is not present. - An operation similar to vasectomy can also be performed in a woman by severing the Fallopian tubes. This vasectomy performed in a woman certainly does not cause the impediment of impotence. But vasectomy performed in a man is a doubtful impediment, and therefore after it matrimony is not necessarily to be impeded.

⁵⁵ Cf. Surbled, La morale dans ses rapp. avec la méd. et l'hyg. II, 142.

n. 799.

799. On the part of the woman, impotence is caused:

a) by defect of the vagina;

b) by excessive narrowness of the vagina;

c) by the disease which is called vaginismus and which is a certain hyperesthesia or spasmodic contraction of the vagina prohibiting every coition.⁵⁶

It is said, 3. by which someone is prevented from commingling naturally with another. In our times, so-called artificial fecundation is sometimes efficaciously employed by physicians. The Holy Office, having been asked whether the artificial fecundation of a woman is licit, responded on March 24, 1897: "It is not licit." - Nevertheless, it is still disputed among authors whether this artificial fecundation is never licit, because the Holy Office condemned only that artificial fecundation which is obtained after the pollution of the man, since this is intrinsically evil. But since there are other modes of artificial fecundation, Berardi,⁵⁷ Eschbach,⁵⁸ De Smet,⁵⁹ Van de Burgt-Schaepman,⁶⁰ and others teach that it is sometimes licit. But whatever may be true concerning the liceity of this artificial fecundation, the common opinion teaches that it does not remove the diriment impediment of impotence. The reason is that it does not give the power of naturally engaging in coition.

Scholion. On hermaphrodites. According to an ancient fable, a human being begotten of Hermes and Aphrodite was at the same time a participant in the male and female sex, or an androgyne. According to present-day physiology, such perfect participation in each sex does not exist. Sometimes, however, it happens that a human being is of doubtful sex, having sexual organs so deformed that even physicians doubt which sex prevails. Such apparent hermaphrodites are wont to be impotent for true carnal copulation and therefore labor under the impediment of impotence. In practice, when such a hermaphrodite wishes to contract matrimony or has already contracted it, it must be investigated with the aid of expert physicians whether the power of coition is present or not. But if such power is lacking, the diriment impediment of impotence is present.

⁵⁶ Cf. De Smet, loc. cit., n. 550. It is much disputed among modern authors whether impotence arises in a woman if, either by nature or from a surgical operation, she lacks the uterus and both ovaries. All those authors cited above who define impotence as the impossibility of a copula apt for generation favor the affirmative opinion. For it is clearer than daylight that a woman who lacks the uterus and both ovaries cannot perform a copula of itself apt for generation. All those who place the impediment of impotence in the simple impossibility of naturally engaging in coition defend the negative opinion. This latter opinion is indeed truer, more common, and more conformable to the responses of the Holy Office. The Holy Office, February 3, 1887: "Can the woman N. N., whose two ovaries and uterus have been removed by a surgical operation, be admitted to contract matrimony? - Matrimony is not to be impeded." The Holy Office responded similarly on July 23, 1890; July 31, 1905; and March 3, 1909. You will find the objections which are raised resolved in De Smet, loc. cit., n. 556, who deservedly calls this opinion practically safe.

⁵⁷ Praxis confess. I, n. 1009.

⁵⁸ Disp. physiol.-theol., 70 ff.

⁵⁹ De sponsal. et matrim., n. 560.

⁶⁰ Tract. de matrim. I, n. 208.

n. 800.

800. Divisions. There are distinguished: 1. natural impotence, which exists from nature itself or from birth, that is, a defect of the genital organs; artificial or acquired impotence, which has arisen from a surgical operation, disease, injury, wound, etc.

Perpetual impotence, which according to the prudent judgment of experts will never cease; temporary impotence, which can cease through human work without grave danger to life.
Absolute impotence, which renders a person impotent for carnal copulation with any person whatsoever;⁶¹ relative impotence, which renders carnal copulation impossible with a determinate person, but not with every person.

⁶¹ If a matrimony is dissolved when absolute impotence exists, the clause is wont to be added: "with passage to other nuptials forbidden," and thus there arises the impediment which is called the "prohibition of the Church."

n. 801.

801. 4. Antecedent impotence, which precedes the celebration of matrimony; consequent impotence, which supervenes upon a matrimony already legitimately contracted.

The law now in force. § 1. "Antecedent and perpetual impotence, whether on the part of the man or on the part of the woman, whether known to the other or not, whether absolute or relative, dirimes matrimony by the law of nature itself. § 2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, matrimony is not to be impeded. § 3. Sterility neither dirimes nor impedes matrimony" (thus the Code of Canon Law, can. 1068).

Certain older authors⁶² taught that impotence was indeed an impediment to matrimony if it was unknown by the other contracting party, but not if it was known. This doctrine must now be abandoned, since the Code of Canon Law expressly establishes the contrary. - Sterility, which neither dirimes nor impedes matrimony, must be altogether distinguished from impotence.

⁶² Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 52, a. 1.

n. 802.

802. Manner of acting for the parish priest and confessor. Where a suspicion of impotence arises, the parish priest and confessor should employ the greatest prudence.

If someone doubts concerning his own physical impotence, he cannot licitly enter matrimony before the doubt has been resolved and the power of coition is morally certain. Therefore a prudent and God-fearing physician must be approached. If the doubt remains after diligent investigation, it is lawful to enter matrimony, as the Code manifestly establishes, provided that the other party has been made aware of the doubtful impotence. The reason is that for a grave cause it is lawful to administer a sacrament with doubtful validity. But in this case a grave cause is present, since otherwise the person who is doubtfully potent would have to remain celibate perpetually.
If a doubt concerning impotence arises after matrimony has already been contracted, it must first be cautiously investigated with the aid of an expert and upright physician whether impotence is truly present and whether it is perpetual and antecedent to the matrimony. If the physician responds that such impotence is not present, then the matrimony is valid, and it pertains not to the confessor or parish priest, but to the physician, to give remedies for obtaining true coition. But if the physician says that such impotence is certainly present, then the confessor or parish priest must prudently inquire whether the putative spouses are in good faith, that is, whether they consider the matrimony entered to be valid or not. But if the spouses are in good faith, they are not to be disturbed if great inconveniences are rightly feared from the dissolution of the matrimony, or if there is little hope that the putative spouses will live chastely together as brother and sister. But if the spouses are in bad faith, that is, if they know their matrimony to be null, then it must be imposed upon them either that they live chastely as brother and sister or that they seek the dissolution of the matrimony through a canonical process. This process must have at least two instances, according to the norm of the Constitution De miseratione of Benedict XIV, November 3, 1741; the Instruction of the Holy Office to the Eastern bishops, June 20, 1883; and the Code of Canon Law, cann. 1975-1981. There is no leisure here to treat this process, which is wont to last for quite a long time. See the canonists.⁶³ In practice it is often easier to prove the non-consummation of the contracted matrimony than the existence of antecedent and perpetual impotence. Then it is preferable to seek from the Supreme Pontiff a dispensation from a ratified and non-consummated matrimony. See several cases of this dispensation in Analect. ecclesiast. I (1893), 111; Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 18, 1893; May 6, 1893; April 27, 1895; etc.

⁶³ Cf. Leitner, Lehrb. des kirchl. Eherechtes, § 26, p. 152; Wernz-Vidal, Ius can. V, n. 234 ff.; our Man. iur. can., q. 540 f.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 51 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Matrimony, Third Part: On the Impedim…, Question Three: On Dirimen…, Article II: On Impotence

n. ¶1.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 58, a. 1 and 2.

876. Impotence (impuissance; lichamelijk onvermogen) is defined by St. Raymond of Penyafort, in the Summa, l. 4: the impossibility of coeundi, or a defect of soul or body or both, by which someone is impeded from mingling carnally with another.

It is said: 1) the impossibility of coeundi, i.e., of exercising perfect copula or an act of itself apt for generation; hence it is not mere impotence of generating or of procreating offspring from copula, which can stand together with potency of coeundi and arise from a natural defect: this is properly called sterility.

a defect of soul or body or both, by which are indicated the various spiritual or bodily causes from which impotence can arise: for one kind is organic, from a physical defect or lesion in the bodily organs required for copula, another functional, from a cause affecting the physiological or psychic life, for instance from some affection such as hatred or aversion, from diseases influencing the nervous system, even from malefice, which nevertheless happens only rarely.

by which someone is impeded from mingling carnally with another, namely, in the natural mode, even if generation were possible in, for example, an artificial mode. For copula to be completed in the natural mode, or for an act of itself apt for generation, it is required that the man penetrate the woman's vagina with the penis and pour out and deposit semen or sperm in the vagina, and that the woman receive the semen in the vagina.

Impotence is variously distinguished:

It is natural or artificial, according as it arises from a natural and intrinsic cause, as from defective conformation or natural frigidity, or from an accidental extrinsic cause, for example, from disease, lesion, or surgical operation.

It is perpetual, if it can in no way, or at least not morally, be removed, namely by ordinary lawful means and means not gravely dangerous; on the contrary temporary, if it can be removed by these means or even ceases spontaneously.

It is absolute or relative, according as it is toward every person or toward a determinate person.

It is antecedent or consequent, according as it precedes matrimony, or supervenes only after matrimony has been contracted.

877. Various causes of impotence. - In order that the whole matter may be well understood, His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri, o. c., n. 509, observes that in human generation there is a human action and an action of nature. The human action is concluded by the penetration of the virile member into the vagina and the pouring forth of true semen in the same; then the action of nature begins. 1 The active principle of the human action is the man, insofar as he penetrates the female vessel and pours true semen into the same; the passive principle is the woman, insofar as she receives true semen in the vagina. The human action is called copula or coitus. The organs of this human action are, on the part of the woman, the receiving vagina; on the part of the man, the testicles forming and the penis emitting true semen; the active prolific element is sperm. The action of nature is chiefly of the woman; and its functions are the passage of the sperm to the interior, the descent of the ovule into the uterus through the tubes, the fecundation of the mature ovule, the development of the fetus in the uterus, birth; the organs of this action are the ovaries in which the ovules are made, the tubes through which the ovule descends from the ovary to the uterus, and the uterus.

Therefore: A. Impotence is present if the human action necessary for generation is not possible, or whenever the organs expeditious for carnal copula are not present, or, the organ being present, copula is nevertheless impossible. Hence:

a) In a man impotence is: 1) absence of the penis or virile member; 2) defect of both testicles or their perfect crushing or atrophy, so that they cannot produce testicular semen; 3) double vasectomy or resection of both canals carrying semen; 4) disproportion of the penis; 5) hypospadias and epispadias, in which the meatus is opened not at the extremity but in the middle of the penis, whether on the lower part or on the upper part, so that semen cannot be poured forth in the vagina; 1 6) aphrodisia or excessive heat, from which by exaggerated excitation the semen is lost before copula, and anaphrodisia or excessive frigidity, by which erection of the penis and expulsion of semen is impeded.

The first three make absolute impotence; the fifth and sixth relative; the fourth makes either one. The sixth ordinarily does not render one perpetually impotent; concerning the third it is disputed whether potency can be restored in some circumstances.

b) In a woman impotence is: 1) defect of the vagina or of the opening in it, so that it cannot in any way be perforated; 2) excessive narrowness; 3) vaginismus, by which from excessive excitation the vulva closes itself, cannot suffer penetration, and impedes copula; 4) hypertrophy or a greatly increased volume of the labia majora, which is an obstacle to copula.

In the first case impotence is absolute; in the second relative; in the third either one and not always perpetual; likewise in the fourth, since the defect can be remedied by a surgical operation.

B. From impotence mere sterility (onvruchtbaarheid) wholly differs, by which, the human action or perfect carnal copula being posited, nevertheless because of some impediment or defect, the action of nature and generation are impossible.

In a man it is the absence of prolific semen, because, on account of an accidental and transitory cause or obstruction, the semen here and now lacks zoospermata, or on account of disease of the testicles, seminal vesicle, urethra, etc., the zoospermata either are not sufficiently lively, or perish too quickly, or lack a necessary element, or are not apt to penetrate the ovule.

He who could never emit anything except an aspermatic liquid, or only dead zoospermata, would rather seem impotent, although there is dispute concerning that case; but in practice each one is presumed to have true semen until the contrary is proved.

In a woman it is: a) perfect excision of both ovaries or their perfect atrophy, so that no ovule is present; b) defect or disturbance of an organ by which the ovule cannot mature; c) an impediment by which it happens, whether naturally or artificially (e.g., from ligation or section of the oviduct or excision of the uterus), that no conjunction of ovule and semen is possible.

From these things it is already understood why absence of the testicles or of emission of semen in a man is impotence, while absence of the ovaries or of the ovule in a woman is not. Because, namely, emission of semen is of the essence of copula of itself apt for generation, but the ovule is not an essential element of copula, but only of generation. To a woman lacking ovaries or ovules nothing is lacking for completing copula itself.

C. Very recently certain men have said that for carnal copula it is not required that semen be emitted and deposited in the vagina, but that it suffices that the testicles make it, even if it cannot be emitted outwardly; hence they hold that the vasectomized are capable of copula. But although this can suffice for coupling even with a certain satiative delectation, nevertheless it does not suffice for conjugal copula, or for copula of itself apt for generation. For this by its nature, from the very condition of the act and with attention to the elements of which it consists, is such that generation can follow; but in the case the act is done in such a mode and condition that from the very constitution of the organ the emission of true semen and consequently generation is altogether impossible, because an essential element has been destroyed, namely the communication of the canals carrying semen. And although some liquid similar to semen can be ejaculated, nevertheless not true semen filled with zoospermata (which are an essential element of semen), since nothing elaborated by the testicles can be emitted; hence if we were to call such an act of itself apt for generation, surely they would laugh at us.

The vasectomized, under this respect, are similar to eunuchs.

They nevertheless preserve the internal secretion of the testicles, and therefore sexual appetite, and the whole energy and capacity for copula, even one in some measure satiative, and thus a certain secondary end of matrimony could be obtained, the quieting of concupiscence; but since this end is subordinated to the primary end, it cannot be licitly procured except by an act of itself apt for generation. "For there are, both in matrimony itself and in the use of conjugal right, also secondary ends," says the encyclical Casti connubii, "which spouses are in no way forbidden to intend, provided always that the intrinsic nature of that act remains safe and therefore its due ordination to the primary end." But among the vasectomized the nature of the act is perverted, and its order to generation is radically taken away.

Thus holds the opinion common hitherto through many centuries; nor does the new one seem solidly probable. 1

Many are ignorant of this distinction or do not even understand it; yet in this matter it is of greatest importance, and necessary for solving several practical questions. Sometimes copula itself, even in ecclesiastical documents, is called the work of nature, because nature teaches it and because it tends to transmitting nature itself, but not insofar as it would be done by nature alone without the action of man; hence, lest confusion arise, it seems better rather to abstain from this way of speaking.

Hypospadias can sometimes be remedied by merely changing the position in copulating.

Sanchez, l. VII, disp. 92, n. 7 sq., recalling the opinion of those who think that for matrimonial copula penetration alone without semination suffices, says: "which opinion, as manifestly absurd, we omit." In Gasparri, o. c., n. 515, note 1, p. 308.

878. Principle. 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 matrimony by the law of nature itself. - Thus can. 1068, § 1.

It is an impediment of natural and divine law, because it is of the essence of matrimony to have the mutual handing over of bodies in order to copula by its own nature apt for generation. But no one can hand over his body for an impossible act, just as neither can he validly enter a contract concerning an impossible thing. But the impotent person cannot complete copula. Therefore neither can he validly hand over his body for copula or enter matrimony. For although copula is not essential in matrimony, nevertheless potency for completing it is of the essence of this.

St. Thomas shows this thus, q. 58, a. 1:

a) "No one can obligate himself to the impossible. But in matrimony a man obligates himself to carnal copula, because for this he gives to another power over his body. Therefore the frigid man who cannot be carnally coupled cannot contract matrimony...

b) In matrimony there is a certain contract by which one is obligated to another to pay the carnal debt. Hence, as in other contracts there is not a fitting obligation if someone obligates himself to that which he cannot give or do, so there is not a fitting contract of matrimony if it is made by someone who cannot pay the carnal debt. And this impediment is called impotence of coeundi, by a general name."

Hence: 1° Antecedent absolute impotence diriments every matrimony, relative impotence only the union between those persons between whom it exists; and this even if it was known to the other party, as can. 1068 explicitly has it, although concerning this matter there was dispute formerly, as St. Thomas indicates, l. c.

2° Temporary impotence does not diriment matrimony, because it does not render one simply unfit or incapable for copula, whence it does not impede an obligation undertaken toward future copula.

3° Nor does subsequent impotence, although perpetual, diriment matrimony, because it supervenes upon a valid matrimony, which is naturally indissoluble: if nevertheless it were not consummated, it could be dissolved by the ministerial power of the Supreme Pontiff.

4° Sterility neither diriments nor impedes matrimony (can. 1068, § 3), because it is not impossibility of coeundi but only of generating; hence old men and excised women contract validly.

5° If, matrimony having been celebrated, antecedent and perpetual impotence is certainly detected, the matrimony is null and therefore the spouses conscious of this nullity are to be separated: immediately as to bed, and also as to habitation if there is danger of sinning, which nevertheless requires the intervention of the authority of the Ordinary (can. 1131, § 1), because it pertains to the external forum and is apt to generate scandal. But if they wish to cohabit as brother and sister, this can be permitted to them, provided danger of incontinence and scandal is absent.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Orleans, A.D. 533 · Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Orleans, A.D. 541 · Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of the Sa…, A.D. 726 · Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Responses of Step…, Otherwise II, which, While Dwelling in Francia, He Gave to the Britannic o…, A.D. 754 · Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of Stephe…, Otherwise III, to Charles …, Kings, A.D. 770

6° It pertains to the ecclesiastical judge to pass sentence of nullity, after antecedent and perpetual impotence has first been proved; once this is posited, the party immune from impotence can enter a new union.

n. 879.

879. Perpetual impotence can be doubtful, either before matrimony to be contracted, or after matrimony has been contracted.

…and 11 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage

Dominic Palmieri, S.J. — 7 passages

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Orleans, A.D. 533

n. ¶1142.

Even if the infirmity is impotence for coition, or brings this about, still, if it is consequent, it does not dissolve the bond.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Orleans, A.D. 541

n. ¶1160.

The liberty of private persons against the impotent lust of those who are in high place is defended by the Fathers. A marriage contracted against the will of the parents is called impious.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of the Sa…, A.D. 726

n. ¶1268.

Cf. Canon XXI of the second Council of Orleans, A.D. 533. When we were writing Thesis XIII (which cf.), it seemed probable to us that this was the decree of Gregory to which Celestine III appeals in the chapter Laudabilem, On the Frigid, because among the genuine epistles of Gregory, whether the second or the third, this one decree alone is extant, to which Celestine seemed not undeservedly to have been able to appeal, and we presumed that the Pontiff had appealed to genuine documents. But because already in collections of canons made before Celestine there occurred a canon under the name of Gregory establishing that same thing more precisely which Celestine decreed (in the decree of Gratian, C. XXVII, q. 2, c. 39; Ivo, p. VII, c. 177; Burchard, L. IX, c. 40), which canon certainly can be genuine, and interpreters judge that Celestine had before his eyes this canon, other than ours, we do not wish to contradict the common opinion.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Responses of Step…, Otherwise II, which, While Dwelling in Francia, He Gave to the Britannic o…, A.D. 754

n. ¶1360.

Stephen does not dissent from these. He does indeed deny that it is lawful for others to separate them, certainly against their will; but he does not deny that the same persons can, if they wish, separate themselves from each other and marry others. For which reason, in the decretals, Book IV, Title XV, chapter 2, there exists a response of the Roman Pontiff on this matter conceived in this manner: Although the Roman Church has not been accustomed to divide those legitimately joined on account of natural frigidity, nor on account of other malefices, nevertheless, if the general custom of the Gallican Church has it that a marriage of this sort is dissolved, we will patiently tolerate it, if, according to that custom, you shall have granted to the same woman the faculty of marrying in the Lord whom she wishes. For just as a boy, who cannot render the debt, is not apt for marriage, so also those who are impotent are by no means reckoned apt for contracting marriages.

n. ¶1361.

Here you have the doctrine of the Roman Church clearly expressed: that the impotent are not apt for contracting marriage, and therefore that among them there cannot exist a conjugal bond. For which reason the society which is permitted to them cannot be conjugal, otherwise than Pontius judged. Cf. the last Thesis, part II.

n. ¶1362.

But the sense of this response of Stephen is perhaps restricted more, namely so that the discourse is not about impotence preceding or accompanying the contract, but about that which afterward really supervened, and therefore the discourse is manifestly about simple separation, which, except in the hypothesis of those infirmities, deservedly is not permitted.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of Stephe…, Otherwise III, to Charles …, Kings, A.D. 770

n. ¶1416.

But Charles the Great did not comply with the Pontiff and accepted as wife the daughter of Desiderius, whom nevertheless after a year he repudiated, "it being uncertain for what cause," says Eginhard; because she was unfit, that is, impotent, says the Monk of St. Gall. There are those who think that the marriage had already been entered before the letters of the Pontiff had been received, and, when these were received, was dissolved by Charles; and for that reason, since those letters were not known to all, Eginhard said: "it being uncertain for what cause." In the same epistle the Pontiff adds other things by which he may deter the Franks from accepting wives from the most base nation of the Lombards. But he seems always to speak on the hypothesis that they were already coupled to another spouse. Read Balan, History of Italy, Book 13, n. 37 and following. Those who defend the cause of Charles in this marriage with the daughter of Desiderius say that he had not yet been coupled to another wife, but only that, from the counsel of his father, another from the nation of the Franks had already been destined, or even betrothed, to him, as also to his brother; and this indeed does not cohere sufficiently with the quoted words of Stephen. It coheres, however, to speak the truth, with the words of Eginhard, who would not have said that it was uncertain for what cause Charles repudiated the daughter of Desiderius, if he had brought her in over a former wife while she was living. Cf. Baronius and Pagi at A.D. 771.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 1 passage (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Tr. XVIII, Ch. VI, Art. II, § II. On Impediments in Particular