Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: adiaireton8
Dear adiaireton8,

Here's a cite from Canon Law:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM


sitetest

25 posted on 07/31/2007 12:56:59 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: sitetest
Thanks. Let's clarify. Is it not true that actions such as castration, removal of the ovaries, and hysterectomy, render a person sterile, and also are impediments to marriage, even if the male retains the ability to have an erection. Is that not correct?

Natural sterility is not treated the same as the three actions above. Right?

-A8

26 posted on 07/31/2007 1:22:09 PM PDT by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson