Sterility and Impotence
The Canons of the Catholic Church state:
I suggested in a previous post that this was inconsistent. This suggestion was wrong. The explanation is given in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:
'In matrimonial consent the spouses exchange the perpetual and exclusive right to conjugal acts per se apt for the generation of children, not the right to have children'.
But I don't know how far this right goes: it clearly extends to at least one such act -- if one's spouse refuses to engage at least once in a 'conjugal act per se apt for the generation of children' then the marriage is not consummated (in the eyes of Rome) and may legitimately be dissolved. But suppose one's spouse consented only during the so-called 'safe period', thus not allowing children to be generated, has the spouse then fulfilled the other's rights?
Can. 1084 ß1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
ß2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.
I suggested in a previous post that this was inconsistent. This suggestion was wrong. The explanation is given in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:
'In matrimonial consent the spouses exchange the perpetual and exclusive right to conjugal acts per se apt for the generation of children, not the right to have children'.
But I don't know how far this right goes: it clearly extends to at least one such act -- if one's spouse refuses to engage at least once in a 'conjugal act per se apt for the generation of children' then the marriage is not consummated (in the eyes of Rome) and may legitimately be dissolved. But suppose one's spouse consented only during the so-called 'safe period', thus not allowing children to be generated, has the spouse then fulfilled the other's rights?
posted by Daniel Hill | 5/24/2006 08:11:00 am
10 Comments:
Have you read "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage" by Jay Adams? It deals very well with what constitutes marriage.
Thanks very much for this recommendation, Tim -- I haven't read it. I have found it on Amazon, and one can browse a bit in it there.
Adams certainly says that Adam and Eve were married. He doesn't seem, however, to pronounce on whether they had sexual intercourse before the Fall. The general tenor of his remarks suggests, however, that he thinks that they did.
Fundamentally when a couple covenant together to live as husband and wife, they have married. They ought to enjoy conjugal relations, but if they don't, it doesn't annul the marriage. If they separate, then they have divorced, whether there were conjugal relations or not.
Adams deals with all this in his book. I think it is a must for any serious-minded believer. I presume that you know that within the area of ethics and counselling that Adams is greatly reverenced within Reformed circles, whether Presbyterian or Baptist.
The RCs are like the Pharisees of old who twist the Word of God to fit in with their traditions, and thus make void the commandments of God.
"[Y]ou have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matt. 15:6-9)
The questions raised by this post can arise in pastoral counselling. Rather than focusing solely on the dogmatic theory regarding a couple who marry but subsequently do not have conjugal relations, some thought should be given to the emotional effect this state of affairs has on the willing partner.
A refusal to enter properly into conjugal relations must have a devastating effect on the person thus refused. I am certain that this could be cited as legal grounds for the annulment of a marriage, rather than a divorce per se, particularly if the refusal is over a prolonged period, and where there is no physical impediment.
What I would say is that the marriage is not annulled, but that a legitimate divorce has taken place (if they have followed the correct Biblical procedures).
The Bible forbids divorce between two believers, except on the grounds of sexual infidelity, but it doesn't stop there. If a professing believer is rejecting conjugal relations, then they are being disobedient to Scripture. If after following Matt. 18:15-19 (not excluding pastoral counselling), the sinner is still not penitent the Church treats them like a unbeliever. The rules regarding divorce between a believer and unbeliever then come into play. Please see Adams for more.
Marriage does not occur at the point of first intercourse. It occurs at the time of covenant-making.
Jay Adams is not the only notable Christian writer on the subject of divorce. It may be worth considering, Jesus and divorce by Gordon J. Wenham and William A. Heth; Carlisle : Paternoster Press, 1997, ISBN 1842271318.
Earlier editions (1985) had the sub-titles, Towards an evangelical understanding of New Testament teaching and The problem with the evangelical consensus.
Aside from the dogmatics, let's not forget that sterility and impotence are not the same thing, nor the fact that there are many causes of impotence, and that it can often be successfully treated in modern medicine.
It may be needful also to distinguish between a marriage that has not been consumated, and a consumated marriage in which some time afterwards one partner has refused his/her spouse (unilaterally).
Post a Comment
<< Home