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.
posted on 07/31/2007 12:56:59 PM PDT
(If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
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?
posted on 07/31/2007 1:22:09 PM PDT
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson