[adiaireton8]

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

[sitetest]

Dear adiareton8,

Someone who is sterilized with just cause, it is my understanding, is free to marry if he or she isn’t impotent. A woman who has a hysterectomy because she has uterine cancer, or her ovaries removed because of cancer, is, to my understanding, still free to marry.

I have actually known Catholic women who have validly married who have had these surgeries for legitimate medical reasons.

Similarly, if a man were to receive medical treatment that incidentally rendered him infertile, but not impotent, it is my understanding that he could still marry.

I don’t know what would happen to someone made sterile for the purposes of avoiding procreation, i.e., a man who voluntarily received a vasectomy strictly to avoid procreation.

The canons don’t seem to suggest any differentiation between natural sterility and sterility imposed by human action.

sitetest