The answer to your question, at least the way you phrase it, would be the same regardless of whether the woman was born barren or whether she had her ovaries removed. Â Obviously, we recognize that undergoing an operation to remove ovaries is a sin according to the Church, but your question does not regard the nature of that act, but rather that of a woman with no possibility for childbirth to procure a marriage.
The answer to your question is no, a sterile woman may still marry, regardless of whether the sterility was caused by nature or by human act. Â The reason is that the husband and wife are still ordering their sexual relationship towards procreation, even if procreation is in itself impossible, because the marriage is still a fertile union even if the individual members of the union are not. Â The union of a man and a woman is a fertile union regardless of the fertility of the individuals in that marriage.Â
To understand this, perhaps an analogy can help. Â If software and hardware are the required components of a computer, if you have software and a broken piece of hardware, you still have a computer. Â It may be a computer that does not function perfectly, but it still is a computer. Â This is completely different than having two pieces of hardware and no software, or vice-versa, which is not a computer at all. Â
The proof of this comes from the Churchâs acceptance of NFP. Â If the Church can say that an individual act of sex is still ordered towards procreation even if the couples involved are deliberately trying to reduce the likelihood of having a child by having intercourse during infertile periods, then certainly a sterile woman may be able to order her sexuality towards procreation. Â If âtemporary infertilityâ is no barrier to intercourse then permanent infertility is not either.
And once she enters marriage, is sex always illicit since there is absolutely no way she could have a freak pregnancy, and therefore she would always be having sex with 100% positivity that she would not conceive and therefore 100% unopenness to life? And if not, what is the logic? Because openness to life is not limited to individual acts but to the attitude of the marriage as a whole? But why are fertile couples not afforded this logic? Is it because openness to life is not about openness specifically to conception? Again, why are fertile couples not afforded this logic?
An openness to life means giving the totality of ourselves over to our spouse, not holding anything, including our fertility, back. Â But it would be ludicrous to say that a woman (or man) is holding her fertility back because she has none to give. Â It would be like claiming that a man was being uncharitable because he was not giving money to the poor, when he himself was poor and had no money to give. Â A woman who suffers from infertility needs our love, not our condemnation. Â
This is completely different from a couple who is fertile, who uses contraception, because that is not ordering their sexuality towards procreation. Â
And if she is at all allowed to marry, why? Is it because the procreative aim of marriage applies to the institution as a whole and not to each specific couple? Then why do we treat each and every individual sexual act according to its capacity for procreation, and why do we bar impotent men from marriage?
We bar impotent men from marriage, (not necessarily in all circumstances, I should note, in some circumstances a dispensation might be granted) because impotency prevents the conjugal union, not just procreation. Â From bloggerpriest: âThe pivotal difference between infertility and impotency is that the mechanics of the marital act remain the same. It is still the type of act that naturally can result in children and to which the male and female bodies complement each other. Such cannot be said where male potency has been compromised and oral or digital manipulation is pursued.â
And if the procreative aim and purpose of marriage is a universal truth, why are there apparent exceptions? Is it all relative? Is morality *not* about individual behaviors, but instead about general societal conformity and uniformity?
I hope I have demonstrated how the apparent exceptions are not truly exceptions.
If civil marriage is an institution based on the begetting of children, and not an institution based on the public health and wellness associated with monogamy, mutual support, decreased liability, increased happiness, ease of property ownership and increased wealth and productivity, then why are couples seeking to be civilly married not required by law to sign a document declaring their commitment to giving society children? If thatâs what all the benefits and tax write offs are for? And if traditional marriage has always been understood as primarily aimed at providing children, why do traditional marriage vows not reflect this? Why are do our commonly understood definitions of marriage revolve around caring for and supporting one another in good times or bad, and not about teaming up to procreate?
Because for the longest time procreation was seen as a good thing. Â It was understood that all of what you mentioned would be in addition to procreation. Â Itâs only recently in our culture that procreation is seen as a bad thing and steps have been taken to eliminate it. Â But, in the Christian tradition there has always been an emphasis on procreation. Â The bible even says âBe fruitful, and multiply.â Â
But, what is the primary reason monogamy and mutual support are features of marriage? Â Because they create the two parent families which are most conducive to raising a family. Â If no one could determine the parentage of children, and no one felt an obligation to their children or their spouses which is the result of a polygamous and sexually licentious society, these children would not be cared for and society would fall apart. Â So truly I say to you, even if it is not explicitly stated, procreation and child rearing is still at the centre of civil marriage.
And when your logic falls apart and you see you have to make an exception in one area in order to make another area make sense, like shifting âopenness to lifeâ to a broad sweeping concept rather than an individual, instantive one in order to excuse the marriages of the sterile (the logic of which would allow contraception in marriage), and when you realize that history is not on your side and that your sexual prohibitions and marital definitions canât be found in scripture, do you admit your error? Or is humility one of those matters of âprudential judgmentâ?
As you can see, I did not shift openness to life to a broad sweeping concept, and I continue to insist that all individual sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation, my arguments do not require me to accept contraception in marriage, and I have maintained a consistent worldview. Â In Christian love and charity, I humbly submit this response to you, so that you may come to better understand the Churchâs teachings on this matter. Â
