Kinds of impotence and their effect

516. What impotence is and when it excuses. Both physical impotence excuses from restitution, when the debtor does not have and cannot afterward have the means from which to restore, and moral impotence, when restitution cannot be made without grave damage which would arise from this to the debtor or to a third person. Hence impotence of restoring, or rather a just cause of delaying restitution, is considered to be present:

1. If by restoring the debtor would fall into very grave or grave necessity.

2. If by restoring the debtor would fall from his justly acquired state, for example, from the state of merchant to the condition of a worker.

Justly acquired: for he who acquired his state unjustly (by frauds, deceits, things of another) cannot licitly delay restitution because otherwise he would lose his state; for by restoring he does not lose his state, but rather returns to his own state.

3. If by restoring the debtor would suffer grave damage in goods of fortune which by delaying restitution he would avoid, as if a farmer by restoring would have to deprive himself of grain necessary for cultivating fields, or if a merchant would have to sell "obligations" with great detriment.

4. If restitution cannot be made without grave damage in goods of a higher order, for example, without danger of sin, or of life, or of reputation.

517. Whether entrance into religion excuses from restitution. 1. If the debtor has not yet entered religion, one must answer with a distinction. Where he has hope of paying debts within a short time, he is bound to delay entrance, because creditors are reasonably unwilling that, because of a slight spiritual damage, he not satisfy his temporal obligations. But if the debtor would have to remain in the world for a long time in order to pay, considering natural law he can licitly enter religion, because the creditors cannot be reasonably unwilling that with such great loss in spiritual goods he not satisfy his temporal obligations.

2. If the religious is a debtor, whether because he entered religion burdened with debts or because he contracted debts in religion, these things must be held.

a. Religion does not free from the obligation of paying debts except insofar as it renders payment impossible; but neither is the prelate bound to pay the debts from the goods of the monastery, unless he had received the debtor in bad faith or the religious contracted the debts in his name.

b. Therefore the religious debtor is bound to labors suitable to his state and condition, so that he may earn those things by which he can pay, if the prelate has given permission; but he is not bound to extraordinary labors not suitable to his state, even if the superior had given permission.

The prelate who denies permission for ordinary labors does not injure justice, because he himself owes nothing and has a right in the labors of his subject; yet he seems to injure charity if he denies this permission without a just cause.

c. If the religious debtor acquires goods for the monastery, whether by inheritance, donation, or stipend of his labor, for example, by teaching, after expenses have been deducted, debts must be paid from these: for these goods are acquired for the monastery with that burden which they would have had annexed if they had remained in the ownership of the religious debtor.¹

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 3, n. 220; Lacroix, l. 3, pr. 2, n. 441 ss.; Reuter III, n. 362; Lehmkuhl I, n. 1039.

571. Definition. Impotence is incapacity for perfect copula, that is, copula per se apt for the generation of offspring. Now three things are required in order that copula be per se apt for generation: a. on the part of the man, at least one testicle; b. on the part of the woman, at least one ovary; c. on the part of copula, that the virile semen can be mingled with the female ovule, and therefore in the man a penis, by which semen is ejaculated into the vagina of the woman, and in the woman vagina and uterus, and communication between these, so that the semen can be received into the uterus and mingled with the ovule.

a. Sterility must be distinguished from impotence; it is incapacity for actual generation, although perfect copula can be had, as happens in the aged. The essential difference between sterile persons and impotent persons is clear: for sterile persons are incapable of generating only because of an accidental defect; impotent persons, however, because of a substantial defect. Therefore old men are sterile, but eunuchs and spadones (castrated men) are impotent;¹ for these are entirely without semen, and without semen natural copula cannot be had; but those are not without virile semen, although because of old age or some other cause it may not be prolific. Perfectly castrated women are impotent; old women are sterile: for the former lack ovaries, but the latter do not lack ovaries, although because of old age they do not elaborate ovules. Causes of sterility on the part of the man, besides old age, are especially various diseases by which the testicles are affected; in women sterility can arise from an ill disposition of the ovaries and of other organs serving generation.

b. Impotence of generating must be distinguished from impotence of coeundi. The former exists when the elements necessary for generation are lacking, namely in the man testicles and therefore semen, in the woman ovaries; the latter is incapacity for having copula of itself suitable for generation.

c. Since through perfect copula there is made a mixture of the semens, as the ancients used to speak, or, as the recent authors speak, of the female ovule and the virile semen, through it the spouses become one flesh. Nevertheless, in order that the spouses become one flesh, it is not required that the semens of each actually be mingled, but it suffices that per se they can be mingled, although accidentally, as in sterile persons and the aged, they are not mingled and therefore a fetus is not conceived.

d. Therefore impotence exists in a threefold case:

a. If the man lacks both testicles; therefore Sixtus V declared eunuchs and spadones impotent;² or if he has undergone vasectomy; or if the testicles suffer from perfect atrophy.

b. If the woman lacks both ovaries or the uterus, or all these together. Indeed today several theologians think that a woman who lacks both ovaries or the uterus, or the ovaries and uterus, is not impotent but sterile; namely, they define impotence not as incapacity of generating, but as incapacity of coeundi. But theoretically the opinion once common seems to have to be retained, because according to the mind of the authors it seems certain that impotence is present where incapacity for copula of itself apt for generation is present.³ The question whether matrimony entered with a woman lacking ovaries and uterus is valid had not hitherto been defined by the Holy See, nor does the Code of Canon Law resolve it, but it only adds this: if the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt of law or by a doubt of fact, matrimony is not to be impeded;⁴ this was the practice of the Holy See observed up to this time.⁵

c. If the power of coeundi is lacking; now this is lacking in a man from physical defect, if his virile organ is so imperfectly formed that he cannot have natural copula; from psychic defect, if because of frigidity he cannot be aroused to copula. It is lacking in a woman if she lacks a vagina, or if the vagina is entirely closed, or if it is so narrow that it can in no way be penetrated.

e. Among the causes of impotence the older theologians and canonists also mention maleficium, by which the devil effects that a man and a woman cannot have intercourse, although otherwise they are not incapable. Now it cannot be denied that impotence can arise from maleficium through the work of the devil and has sometimes in fact arisen;⁶ but likewise it is established that several impediments of intercourse which the ancients attributed to maleficium have their origin from natural causes.

Note. There are persons of frigid nature who are wholly without sexual appetite (Geschlechtstrieb). Natures of this sort are found more rarely among men, but frequently among women. And women can indeed exercise the conjugal act, and even generate offspring, although they suffer from this defect; nevertheless, copula with women of this sort is less pleasing and agreeable to men, because of the lack of sexual love, and for this reason they not rarely seek by adultery with other women the pleasures which their own wife cannot supply to them. But frigid men are for the most part impotent, as being incapable of erection and ejaculation.

¹ Eunuchs are said to be those who were born without testicles; spadones are called those who by art or by accident have been deprived of testicles.

² In the constitution Cum frequenter, June 27, 1587.

³ Cf. Antonelli, De conceptu impotentiae et sterilitatis (Rome: Pustet, 1900). The same, Pro conceptu impotentiae et sterilitatis (ibid., 1901). The same, De mulieris excisae impotentia ad matrimonium (ibid., 1903). Against this, Eschbach, Disputationes etc. (Rome: Desclee, 1901), p. 14 ff. Gasparri, n. 513.

⁴ Cn. 1068, 2.

⁵ S. C. de Sacram., April 2, 1909.

⁶ Cf. Tob. 6, 14 ff.; 7, 11 ff.

572. Division. Impotence is:

a. Perpetual or temporal, according as it can or cannot be removed by licit human means that are not gravely dangerous.

Impotence is judged perpetual which cannot be removed without danger of life or of grave illness, namely illness bringing danger of death. Hence if a woman laboring under perpetual impotence underwent a dangerous operation which brought about the desired effect and rendered her potent, either she could pass to other nuptials, or she would have to contract validly with the former husband.

b. Absolute or relative, according as it exists either with relation to any person whatever, or only with relation to a determinate person. Relative impotence can be perpetual, that is, it can happen that there exist no means through which determinate persons become apt for having copula between themselves.

c. Antecedent or consequent, according as it precedes matrimony, or arises only after matrimony has been contracted, as if, after matrimony has already been contracted, both testicles are cut out from the man.

d. Natural or accidental, according as it takes its origin from nature or from the natural constitution of the body, or from an accidental cause, e.g., from disease.

573. The impediment of impotence consists in this, that matrimony entered between those who are incapable of copula apt for generation is null: for matrimony cannot be valid in which the first and principal end of matrimony cannot be obtained.¹

1. Perpetual and antecedent impotence dirimently impedes matrimony, if it is absolute, with any person whatever; if it is relative, with that person with whom perfect copula cannot be had.

2. Neither temporal impotence nor consequent impotence dirimently impedes matrimony: not the former, because it does not make one simply unfit for generating, but only for a time; not the latter, because it supervenes upon a valid matrimony, which is indissoluble.

a. To the question whether there is an obligation of removing impotence detected after matrimony, one must respond thus: if it can be removed without danger of life or of grave illness, even if not without grave inconvenience and pain, there exists an obligation of removing it; for the woman is held to undergo grave inconvenience in order that she can render the right which the man acquired by the matrimonial contract, because this is judged an ordinary means. But if it cannot be removed without danger of life or grave illness, she is not held, because she cannot be obliged to undergo so great an inconvenience that the right of the husband may be preserved (unless one must say that in this case the matrimony is invalid), because this is judged an extraordinary means.

b. Nevertheless St. Alphonsus (n. 1009) judges this opinion very probable, that a woman is not held to undergo incision if from shame she would abhor with her whole soul submitting herself to the eyes and hands of a surgeon. But the mode of feeling and acting in our time in this matter differs widely from the mode of feeling and acting in the times of St. Alphonsus. Wherefore let it suffice to have mentioned this opinion.

c. To the question whether matrimony is valid if the woman has been made potent through an operation, the answer must be given thus: if the operation was dangerous, the matrimony is invalid and must be convalidated through renewal of consent; whether in the prescribed form or only privately will be said below. If the operation was not dangerous, the matrimony is valid. If there is doubt concerning the danger, consent must at least as a caution be renewed privately. Moreover, it is sufficiently renewed by this, that the spouses, conscious of the doubtful value of the matrimony, continue conjugal life.

3. This impediment is of natural law: for the object of the matrimonial contract is the right over the body as it is apt for perfect conjugal copula; but where the essential object is lacking, the contract from the nature of the thing is null.

Note 1. According to the opinion of more recent physiologists, which rests on experience, for generation it is not absolutely required that virile semen be sent within the female vessel, but it suffices that it be poured at the mouth of the vagina. Hence the question arose whether the impediment of impotence is present if the vagina of the woman, because of narrowness, absolutely cannot be penetrated. There are those who deny that absolute impotence is present, although the vagina of the woman absolutely cannot be penetrated, because generation is not absolutely impossible. But one must altogether assent, it seems, to Eschbach, Lehmkuhl, Wernz, who judge that those are impotent for matrimony who, from any cause whatever, cannot have copula with penetration of the female vessel, because they are incapable of furnishing those things which are essentially required for natural copula. For absolute impotence for matrimony seems to have to be affirmed where absolute impotence for natural copula exists, although accidentally generation could be had. Practically in this case the impediment would have to be held as doubtful, and the declaration of the Holy See would have to be sought.

Note 2. One who contracts matrimony while laboring under temporary impotence, which he thinks will soon be removed, does not sin; but one who contracts matrimony while laboring under temporary impotence that will last a long time, and does not reveal it to the other party, sins in two ways, because he deceives the other party concerning a necessary quality and because he exposes that party to the danger of incontinence.

4. One who before matrimony doubts concerning perpetual impotence cannot licitly contract matrimony until, after the matter has been diligently investigated, he has laid aside the doubt: otherwise he exposes the sacrament to danger of nullity and the other party to danger of deception in a necessary quality. But if after investigation the doubt endures, one positively doubting can licitly contract matrimony, provided he warns the other party concerning the doubt, and use matrimony until the impediment becomes certain.

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 natural law itself, Cn. 1068, 1. Sterility neither dirimently impedes nor impedes matrimony, Cn. 1068, 3.

574. On Matrimony Entered with an Impotent Party. 1. If antecedent impotence is certain, immediately by the proper authority of the spouses separation as to bed must be made; but complete separation cannot be made without an ecclesiastical judge. Therefore they can indeed sometimes, with the danger of incontinence excluded, cohabit as brother and sister; but ordinarily recourse must be had to the ecclesiastical judge and the impediment must be duly proved. Once this has been done, the judge brings sentence concerning the nullity of the matrimony, and the spouses are separated.

a. In antiquity indeed the practice of separating spouses whose matrimony was null on account of antecedent impotence had not yet everywhere prevailed in the Church; but the putative spouses were permitted to cohabit as brother and sister. But after this license was abolished by Sixtus V, the practice of separating spouses became universal,¹ because danger of incontinence is usually always present. If, however, separation of the spouses is morally impossible, as where civil laws, which do not recognize the impediment of impotence, compel the spouses to remain together, even in our time they are permitted to cohabit after the manner of brother and sister, provided danger of sinning is absent.²

b. If the confessor has noticed that the spouses are in good faith, that is, that they think they are living in legitimate matrimony, and at the same time he has noticed that the impotence is occult and that separation is morally impossible, he can leave them in good faith.

2. If impotence is doubtful (whether the doubt supervenes or preceded), the spouses can licitly use matrimony, even if the semen is poured outside the vessel: for so long as impotence is doubtful, there is always some hope of exercising copula duly. Meanwhile, however, apt remedies must be applied for removing impotence. But if, after remedies have been applied, they profit nothing, and the use of matrimony is recognized as impossible, the matter must be referred to the ordinary for obtaining either separation of the spouses or a declaration of nullity.

a. The new Code agrees with these things: for what Cn. 1068, 2 affirms, "If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt of law or by a doubt of fact, matrimony is not to be impeded," has force also concerning the use of matrimony, so long as the impediment is doubtful.

b. Formerly there was granted by the Church to spouses a triennial experience, during which they could ask and render the debt, so that in this way it might be established whether impotence was truly present. Only when the three years had elapsed, if impotence was established, was the matrimony declared dissolved. According to present practice an experiment of this sort is no longer required, and since the new law is silent concerning triennial experience, it is no longer granted; but a dispensation in a ratified and non-consummated matrimony is granted. For if it is established that the matrimony has not been consummated, there exists an easier and shorter way of dissolving the matrimony, namely by seeking a dispensation in a ratified and non-consummated matrimony, than a declaration of nullity, because antecedent and perpetual impotence can be proved with difficulty.

¹ Constitution Cum frequenter, June 27, 1587.

² S. C. C., December 15, 1877. S. Office, March 8, 1900.

575. In order that the state of the question may be clear, perfect, imperfect, and improperly so-called hermaphroditism must be distinguished.

a. Hermaphrodites (Zwitter) are properly said to be human beings who share in the organs of both sexes and therefore in the work of generation can, at pleasure, act either as male or as female. It is certain today from the laws of physiology that such true and perfect hermaphrodites have never existed and can never exist; but it is ascertained that imperfect and improperly so-called hermaphrodites exist and have existed.

Therefore the doctrine of the ancients concerning hermaphrodites, which St. Alphonsus proposes from Busenbaum in this way: "If one sex predominates, matrimony will be valid according to that sex only; if both are equal, the option is given to them that they may use either, yet in such a way that whichever they have once chosen, they must always retain" - this doctrine, I say, must be held as antiquated.

b. Improperly so-called hermaphrodites are human beings of a determinate sex who nevertheless, besides their proper organs, are endowed with some one of the essential organs of the other sex, e.g., a male with a female ovary or uterus, a female with a male testicle. These indeed are not unfit for completing the work of generation.

c. Imperfect hermaphrodites (Scheinzwitter) are said to be human beings of doubtful sex, who are neither true males nor true females, since their sexual organs are so formed that they can be held as organs of either sex. These are ordinarily unfit for completing the work of generation, since in it they can act neither as male nor as female.² Human beings of this sort must be kept away from the clerical, priestly, or religious state.

¹ A hermaphrodite (Hermaphroditus) is said to be a human being who, born of Mercury (Hermes) and Venus (Aphrodite), shares in both sexes.

² Cf. A. Eschbach, Disputationes physiolog. theolog., 2nd ed., p. 53.

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.

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

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

II. Division. Impotence is distinguished:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Cases of impotence. The following are impotent:

1. A man who lacks the male member.¹

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴ March 21, 1863.

⁵ January 24 and June 22, 1871.

⁶ December 16, 1899.

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

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

⁹ December 16, 1905.

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

¹¹ April 2, 1907.

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

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

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

1. The effects of certain perpetual impotence are:

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

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

2. The effects of doubtful perpetual impotence are:

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

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

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

¹ Cf. chapter 5, de frigidis et maleficiatis.

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

150. 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

1. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

1. 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).

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.

It is defended especially by these arguments:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

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.

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.

Will you say with a certain author that the impotence of an old woman is accidental? Rather, it is to be called natural in the highest degree, while it is more accidental that a woman be deprived of her ovaries. And to what purpose is this distinction here? She who is impotent accidentally is accidentally unable to enter marriage.

Moreover, what of the fact that, from Holy Scripture itself, the conception of an aged wife, although miraculous, is held out in these most familiar words of the Angel: "And behold Elizabeth, thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren, because no word shall be impossible with God" ³⁴?

³⁴ Gospel of St. Luke 1:36.

3. While a certain impotence essential to marriage endures, copulation would logically have to be prohibited, as Bucceroni concludes ³⁵. But during pregnancy, impotence for a new generation is morally certain. Therefore, during pregnancy, the use of marriage would logically have to be prohibited by the patrons of this opinion; yet no one has previously prohibited it. Palmieri admits the consequence ³⁶.

³⁵ Institutiones theol. mor., vol. 4, no. 1065.

³⁶ Opus theol., vol. 6, no. 865, note.

Note well. In a moral matter, a slight doubt is disregarded. Hence even the death of a former spouse must be established only morally.

4. This opinion seems capable of being reconciled only with difficulty with the five replies of the Holy See cited above.

The evasions that have been attempted instead generate a presumption contrary to that same opinion.

For some say that the reply was given in this way because, since the cause had not yet been decided, the Holy Office judged that the impediment was only probable. "If it is sufficiently probable that a diriment impediment does not exist, it is not established that a woman does something prohibited by divine and natural law if she enters and uses marriage; but if it is not established, it will be lawful for her to enter marriage." In the work De mulieris excisae impotentia (appendix), Antonelli borrows these words from Father Lehmkuhl, written in an article in the Ecclesiastical Review, 1902.

Let this explanation pass. For although Palmieri ³⁷, with several others and with Father Lehmkuhl himself in his Moral Theology ³⁸, wrote: "If that which is doubtful is an impediment of natural or divine law, it is clear that it is not lawful to contract with such a doubt; for the marriage would always remain doubtful, nor could the spouses in good faith ask for and render the debt; and the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity"; although several affirmed that this held for doubtful impotence (compare Rosset, no. 1437), nevertheless in canon 1068 of the new Code the opinion prevailed which then permits marriage. For the sacraments are for men, and the common good requires that men not be compelled, without evident necessity, unwillingly and without a voluntary cause, to observe perpetual continence. But those who reply in this way at the same time admit that the opinion opposed to them appeared solidly probable; and that the decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council which they themselves adduce are ineffective for their own opinion.

³⁷ Opus theol., vol. 6, no. 600. Compare also St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 902.

³⁸ Vol. 2, no. 956.

Note well. When it is a question of impotence whose fact is doubtful and otherwise incapable of resolution, this other rationale can be adduced for permitting the marriage, after the other party has been warned: for then the very experience of marriage becomes a means of resolving the doubt. Compare also Rosset, no. 3037.

Others reply: The answer was given in this way because it was not altogether established that the ovaries had been completely excised. By this reply the patrons of this opinion again abandon received principles and customary rules in a remarkable manner. For the potency essential to marriage must be at least probably present ³⁹; an impediment is not doubtful unless the doubt is prudent ⁴⁰, unless there is good reason to doubt ⁴¹.

³⁹ St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.

⁴⁰ Wernz, Ius Decretalium, book 4, no. 216, VIII.

⁴¹ Ballerini-Palmieri, vol. 6, no. 887.

Moreover, the moral law is constant, which St. Alphonsus recalls in the place cited and in the question of impotence, that doubt obliges one to investigation, to diligent examination.

Come now, in the five cases resolved, the Holy Office asked about the manner of the operation only once; and it was content with the simple assertion of one physician. Therefore, unless you say that the accepted rules of prudence were neglected by the Sacred Congregation, it cannot be that, because of a doubt of fact not seriously examined, it decided these most grave causes. Furthermore, in the last case proposed, according to Father Ferreres, who adduces the authentic letter of the physician-surgeon, the total removal of the uterus and of both ovaries was certain.

But the arguments which they adduce to defend this opinion are not so difficult to answer.

To 1. When they say that matrimony and copulation have from nature an essential order toward generation, they speak either of the institution of matrimony or of the marriages which follow upon the institution. If they speak of the institution, it can be conceded that the order toward generation is essential to such a degree that without that relation matrimony would not have been instituted; although, in Genesis itself, Eve is read to have been given to Adam more as a helper than as the future mother of offspring (compare Genesis 2:18).

Yet this end is not the only one, although it remains the principal one. But if it is a question of individual marriages, I deny that this order is essential otherwise than in its own material beginning, which is present in every copulation performed according to nature. By the material beginning of generation I mean copulation precisely considered, abstracting from the further relation which it has of itself, but not always, toward generation. But because, besides the primary end, there are other ends of matrimony, copulation, when a further relation toward generation is lacking, terminates honorably in some secondary end. This cannot be denied unless you prove that the primary end of matrimony is such that it must be obtained or sought in each of its particular applications. But no one contends this, for it would utterly overthrow the received conclusions concerning the use of marriage. They will indeed insist that the primary end must at least be possible. But why, in the individual applications, must an end be possible which is not to be obtained or sought in each one? On this matter we await an effective proof, which is lacking.

And the different manner in which the ancient authors solve the difficulty drawn from the marriage which the aged can contract demonstrates that they in no way patronize the opinions of the more recent authors.

In order to permit marriage to the aged, the more recent authors appeal to rare cases of fecundity, and then discuss presumed capacity for generation and doubtful incapacity in the manner we rejected above.

The ancient authors, on the contrary, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, simply admit this incapacity of the aged. To the aged, as St. Thomas says, "marriage is granted insofar as it is a remedy, although it is not competent to them insofar as it is in the service of nature" ⁴². "To that which is objected concerning the good of offspring, that matrimony was instituted on account of this, it must be said that it was instituted not only on account of this, but also as a remedy and as a sign; and therefore, although this good is not present there, other goods can nevertheless be present" ⁴³. By these words St. Bonaventure proposes the matter to us more fully and more according to truth. The other goods which are present in marriage are honest ends of marriage. And first of all, even if consideration of concupiscence is excluded, there occurs that mutual completion and assistance which spouses find in their union, by which Christians also signify the union of Christ with the Church. Moreover, by the very use of marriage that love is strengthened.

⁴² Supplementum, III, q. 58, art. 1, ad 3.

⁴³ In IV Sent., dist. 31, art. 1, q. 3, at the end. Furthermore, it is in vain that Dr. Antonelli objects that the remedy of concupiscence is not a natural good of matrimony, since it would not have existed without original sin. It is in vain, I say, both because it would have existed in the state of unelevated nature, and because it is enough that it is now truly present in matrimony, and because even without fecundity there remains in every state of nature a good connected with matrimony, namely, the good of union and mutual perfection.

That regard must be had only for the potency for intercourse is proved also by the interpretation, proposed by St. Thomas ⁴⁴ and St. Bonaventure ⁴⁵ and received by the Gloss, of the woman's words: "I wish to be a mother, I wish to procreate children," which are read both in chapter Requisisti, 2, C. XXXIII, q. 1, and in chapter Accepisti, 1, Concerning the Frigid, etc. (IV, 15). According to them, the woman, because of modesty, used these words to signify this: "I wish to be known by a man." "For a woman," says St. Bonaventure, "cannot be separated from her husband because of a defect of the power for generation, but of the power for intercourse."

⁴⁴ In IV Sent., dist. 34, in the exposition of the text.

⁴⁵ Ibid., in dub. 2.

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.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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."

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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

4. 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

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.

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

1. 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.

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.

You Will Resolve. - 1°. Impotence is not to be confused with sterility, for sterile persons are not impotent for the conjugal act; hence old men who are able to consummate marriage contract validly; likewise women who can receive seed, even if they do not retain it. - Cf. S. Alphonsus, n. 1015.

2°. Eunuchs or castrated men deprived of both testicles, or who have them crushed, are reputed impotent, as is clear from the Declaration of Sixtus V, in the year 1587, which begins "Frequenter in istis regionibus." But otherwise if they lack only one, because then they can emit true seed. - Cf. Sanchez, lib. 7, disp. 104, p. 17.

3°. In doubt concerning antecedent impotence one must stand for the validity of Marriage, and the spouses must be permitted to try intercourse. Indeed, for this a triennium is conceded to them by canon law, notwithstanding greater probability for perpetual impotence. But for demonstrating impotence there is no need of this three-year experiment when safer means are available for rendering judgment. Safer means of this kind are the depositions of the spouse affirming the impotence of the other, confirmed by suitable testimonies, and the judgment of experts and obstetricians after a physical examination duly performed. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 7, p. 118.

4°. In doubt concerning consequent impotence, likewise, it is licit for the spouses to try intercourse until they are altogether certain that it can in no way be completed. This certainty indeed can very rarely be had, for according to the principles now commonly received in the schools of physicians, although it is necessary that the man pour forth seminal fluid, nevertheless it is not required that he inject it all the way into the inner parts of the female organ; but it is enough that fluid of this kind be applied to the external surface and entrance of the vagina. Cf. Ballerini, note (a), p. 830. - Varceo, vol. 2, p. 357.

By the impediment of impotence is understood impotence of coition, or inability for having perfect carnal intercourse, which is effected by penetration of the female vessel and the pouring forth of seed in it. Thus Reiffenstuel, 1. IV, tit. XV, n. 1; and in nearly the same words Laymann, Schmalzgrueber, Sanchez, Lacroix, Palaus, Pirhing, Tamburini. "The faculty of coition, such as it is conceived in canon law," says Tarquini, "and is held sufficient for marriage, is completed by that act by which seeds are mingled in the natural vessel. For from this the spouses become one flesh, and attain the secondary end of marriage, which is the quieting of concupiscence. But now all these things, the quieting of concupiscence, the mingling of seeds, and conjunction into one flesh, are completed in the vagina itself, so that there is no necessity of penetrating the uterus. Therefore, though the uterus is closed, provided that the vagina is free, the faculty of coition, insofar as it is conceived as separated of itself from the faculty of generation, remains whole." Analecta Ecclesiastica, year 1900, p. 260.

These things having been said, whatever is in no way removable, or removable only with the greatest difficulty, and whether on the part of the man or on the part of the woman renders perfect intercourse impossible, renders the man or woman impotent. But a woman whose ovaries or uterus have been cut out is not unable for perfect carnal intercourse. For her vessel can be penetrated, and seed can be poured forth in it. Therefore, since she is not unable for perfect carnal intercourse, she is not impotent. Moreover the normal scope and function of intercourse is to place male seed in the woman's vessel; for this function the presence of an ovule is not required. The production of an ovule is accomplished independently of coitus, and the production of sperm is made independently of the ovule. Therefore intercourse takes place, whether there is or is not an ovule; this arises from nature, that from free will. It is not within the woman's power to produce an ovum as she wills. In marriage the spouses oblige themselves to an act, that is, to perfect intercourse, which according to the named authors is effected by penetration of the female vessel and the pouring forth of seed in it. If nature completes the rest, by that very fact there will be conception. It is not impotence of generating, but impotence of coition, which dirimently invalidates marriage. The contracting parties mutually hand over to themselves the right to intercourse itself. A woman who has been cut hands over this right just as a woman not cut. Therefore she is not impotent. Besson explains this argument beautifully in Nouv. Rev. Theol., v. 42, p. 193. Add that the parts of a woman in undergoing intercourse consist only in this, that she receives seed in the vessel; by this reception the human act is terminated, whether in one cut or not cut. Intercourse itself is posited in the same way by either woman. Someone says, generation will not follow; to whom you may reply, nor is it required that it follow. Finally, on 3 Feb. 1887, when the doubt had been posed to the Holy Office, "Whether a woman rendered sterile by defect from the cutting out of both ovaries can and may be permitted to enter marriage, or not?" it responded: "The matter maturely and long considered, that the marriage of the woman concerning whom in the case there is question is not to be impeded." "Not to be impeded," it responded on 23 July 1890, even if the uterus also had been removed; again on 31 July 1895; but especially on 2 Apr. 1909, when a response was given repeating the decision of 23 July 1890; which last response the distinguished Ferreres, after his custom, examines most acutely in Razon y Fe, v. 26, pp. 101 sqq. The negative opinion is safe: Eschbach, Disp. Phys. Theol., d. 2, p. 2, c. 3. - D'Annibale, n. 431, note 9. - Genicot, 503. - De Smet, p. 337. - Van de Burgt-Schaepman, p. 241, and others. But the other opinion also has very weighty supporters, who say: Perfect carnal intercourse is intercourse of itself apt for generation; but such intercourse is not had in the case. Therefore it is not perfect intercourse; therefore that woman is unable for such intercourse and consequently is impotent. This is the opinion of Antonelli, De Conceptu Impotentiae. - Bucceroni, n. 994. - Noldin, n. 577. - Sebastiani, n. 561, note. - Bulot, n. 837, and others.

Question. Must he now be called impotent who has undergone double vasectomy?

Resp. It is all but certain that the impediment is present, but it is not certain. Several grave authors adhere to the affirmative opinion, whose reason is very pressing: he who labors under antecedent and perpetual impotence, absolute or relative to this bride, is unable validly to contract marriage; but the vasectomized man labors under such impotence. For he is impotent for perfect carnal intercourse, which is effected by penetration of the female vessel and the pouring forth of seed in it, because he cannot ejaculate true seed, and he has been cut for inducing this inability.

The negative opinion is proved. In order that there be a diriment impediment, impotence must be perpetual. But it is not certainly established that it is perpetual in the case. For surgeons themselves vary, and there are those who affirm that the cut parts can be joined together and the function probably restored. Moreover, to use the words of Cardinal D'Annibale: it is publicly pernicious to prohibit men from marriages in such a doubtful matter. v. 3, n. 447. If the case occurs, let the confessor refer the matter to the Ordinary.

Note. - Let the confessor most greatly beware lest, in a matter of such grave moment and subject to so many difficulties, he proceed rashly or decide anything by his own authority; but let him refer the case, duly examined with all its circumstances, to the Ordinary, whose role it will then be to establish and determine what must be done in a similar business. Indeed, a prudent and discreet confessor will not question spouses concerning impotence, nor even forewarn those whom he believes impotent; nor will he respond finally to those consulting him on that matter, unless he himself first has consulted the Bishop.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1117, n. 70.

XXVI. QUESTION XII. What is the impediment of impotence? ANSWER. I shall touch upon a few heads with that caution which I can, lest the pen itself be stained by turning over so putrid a matter.

XXVII. Impotence is an ineptitude for exercising conjugal copulation with penetration of the woman's vessel and effusion of seed within it, apt for the generation of offspring. Here one impotence supervenes upon matrimony, another precedes it; one is perpetual, another for a time; one natural and intimate, another accidental and coming from without. Natural impotence is of one kind from a defect of heat in the man, of another from an excessive straitness of parts in the woman. Again, natural impotence is of one kind absolute in respect of all, of another relative — that is, in respect of this woman and not of another. Accidental impotence is of one kind from nature, as in the aged; of another from man, as in the emasculated and in eunuchs; of another from a demon, as in those bewitched.

XXVIII. Absolute impotence is a diriment impediment of matrimony. Similarly that is reputed impotence by which, on account of excessive heat or straitness in the woman, seed can be admitted neither wholly nor in part within the natural vessel, when it can be removed by no remedy at all. And this also induces a diriment impediment of matrimony by natural and ecclesiastical right, as all confess. Whether this impotence be mutual, or in one alone, whether it be known or unknown to the spouses, it dissolves the matrimony, nor can they cede their own right, because the absurdities which would follow thence are known. And they sin mortally who, conscious of impotence, contract matrimony.

XXXII. Impotence supervening upon matrimony, from whatsoever head it proceed, in no way dissolves the matrimony. Impotent persons of this kind cannot attempt intercourse, when there is danger of effusing seed outside the vessel, and they have learned by experiment that they are in truth inept for copulation. It is hard; but such men will suffer the tribulation of the flesh. If on the contrary it happen that seed is not infrequently admitted within the vessel, although sometimes beyond their intention it turn out otherwise, they are not to be prohibited from the conjugal office. There is need nevertheless of prudence.