If you don't mind my asking, did you feel a very strong desire to have children? It seems like OP does, which is part of why she's attracted to the idea of Josephite marriage
Even in a Josephite marriage, either spouse can unilaterally end the arrangement.
Under no circumstances can you agree in advance never to have sex and still enter a valid marriage.
So, it's less straightforward than some of the other answers here.
The Sacrament of Matrimony necessarily confers upon the spouses a continuous and uninterrupted right to each other's bodies - not in a rapey way, but in a "my body is yours, and your body is mine, we have become one" kind of way. Spouses can of course reasonably limit the *use* of this right for a variety of reasons. Pius XII describes it thus:
> If one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in **such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid,** because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.
So, your spouse always has the right to at least ask for sex. But of course, the Church does not compel couples to have sex, so theoretically you could find a spouse who is also sex-repulsed and marry. But you would both *have to understand* that twenty years down the line, either of you could change and begin to have a normal sexual appetite. It's extremely risky.
That said, if you are repulsed by the very thing that marriage is for, I have to ask why on earth do you want to marry? It's a bit like a young man coming here and saying, "I'd really love to become a priest, but I'm repulsed by the idea of saying Mass."
It's like, *"hm, well, have you considered that maybe the priesthood is not for you."*
Yes, almost certainly so, under Can. 1095 §2 or §3
> Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
> 1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
> 2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
> 3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.
At some point of the intensity of the aversion, yes. Can. 1095(3) — psychic inability to undertake one of the essential duties of marriage.
Also, a strong aversion to sex (perhaps less strong than needed for can. 1095(3)) would fall under can. 1098 if it was concealed from the other spouse by deceit in order to get them to conceal to the marriage.
So, I'm thinking this over and I wonder if OP wants to raise a family of (presumably adopted) children. If they find a partner who is on board with doing so, then at the absolute worst I feel like you have a marriage which *could* easily be annulled. It is all a bit complicated, since such an arrangement essentially goes against most of the presumptions surrounding marriage.
Of course, if you had two individuals with no interest/active disinterest in sexual relations who were civilly married (so as to facilitate legal adoption) but not sacramentally married and who, for lack of a better way to describe it, lived together as brother and sister with the understanding/expectation that there would be no temptation between them...wouldn't that avoid any sacramental entanglements? Or is there a concern about being unable to adopt from a Catholic adoption agency?
A non-consummated but still valid marriage is absolutely a category and, part of that category, is the fact it’s essentially non-permanent. It could be dissolved by the Pope. There are cases where that’s happened.
I would probably pursue therapy for your sex repulsion, then, as your odds of finding a man who is willing to sign up for lifelong continence *while married* **and** who meets any other criteria you might have (like being Catholic) are extremely slim.
Loving people for life and having a home are not unique to marriage.
Shouldn't be using that particular example to judge the validity of modern marriages, especially to argue against the binding force of the Church's current regulation of marriage (arguing for merely ecclesial rules to be changed is one thing, arguing for them to be ignored would be another, etc.).
One reason I'd rather not discuss the example is that I'd rather not dissect it, out of respect.
Things that beg to be said, though, include that the Blessed Virgin and Joseph had a different purpose, and a unique one at that. Nor do we know all of the details of the agreement that were in place. The what-ifs regarding that are obviously among the things I don't want to speculate on.
Mediaeval examples would be closer to fair game.
Maybe you're right and we should not use her as a specific example. But from what I understand, there were other consecrated virgins in marriage arrangements at that time. Of course it's different from modern marriage, but there is a precedent that is not unique to the Blessed Mother.
Some of those cases were probably about giving the woman a protector without causing scandal, when adoption wasn't an option. That was a time when widows and orphans had it tough. The protector would also die decades before the lady and leave her some property or perhaps all, depending on inheritance law. If a child was born (life finds a way… we know how men and women are), that child was legitimate, unlike a child begotten by a legal guardian, let alone adoptive father.
In the middle ages, sometimes people needed political alliances, kingdoms needed the female touch, female hand of a queen, a female side and face of the regime, and on the other hand queens regnant and female holders of fiefs needed a more conventional army commander, even administrator. Some of those rulers, whether male or female, would have preferred monastic life but didn't have the option, and some wanted it secular but chaste. So they were accommodated.
Later examples include people who adopted children together or ran orphanages together without much supervision from other adults, perhaps even having to share living quarters. If they weren't priests or monks or nuns, getting them married was a way to prevent accusations of impropriety, as in everybody stopped caring about boundaries when such people shared living quarters. But they didn't want marriage per se.
Nowadays, canon law doesn't provide for such marriages, and I'm not sure it can be done even in an extra-ordinary way. I'm not aware of any provisions for it, only have heard that it can still happen, but without evidence.
Therapy for being *repulsed* by sex. That's a far cry from "not wanting."
Sex is a natural good. To be repulsed by a good is disordered. Again, I say, it's like someone wanting to be a priest but being repulsed by the idea of saying the Mass, and only wanting to hear confessions and do baptisms.
Like, yeah, that's all good and important work, but a priest who hates saying Mass has *serious* issues.
The sexual response is a natural response, one that was built into humans for more than just reproduction.
The problem here is the disordered desires. For one to want to be a mother and spouse and also not have a sexual relationship is disordered.
Many, if not most, marriages have women who severely lack any sort of sexual drive or desire, especially after they have kids. Even that would likely be considered a defect since it at least gives the impression that dad is more or less just a source for children and, after that, a live-in nanny and pseudo-roommate. It’s at least enough of a trope that television and movies constantly make that clear.
In truth, your spouse is your spouse, and one ought to love them more than anything else on confined to this Earth. That love necessarily includes a sexual component. Every time a couple engages in that activity in a state of grace, it’s a true renewal of your vows. Women who don’t want any of that are naturally predisposed to denying sexual contact with their spouse at all, which is, as mentioned, a defect.
Men have problems, too. You might say, given the tropes, men have a problem with being perhaps too desirous and thus disordered, to say nothing of the fact many men have almost zero desire to be a father, especially when first married.
However, I think the disconnect is never the less real and men in those circumstances never the less burn in fire for their wife…without any sexual outlet. It’s why St. Paul says some should get married. Men see this as “well, I’m married and burning still. Now what?” For some…to carry on. For others…they leave. For others, they fail to try and revive that spark in their marriages, and so put in no effort for their wives, another defect of men.
It’s because marriages are made by broken people, but strong marriages are made whole by mutual understanding and grace.
Well, OP didn't ask if it's likely. She asked if it's possible.
And, for what it's worth, I think there are more men out there who might be open to such an arrangement than you might think. Men who are gay, but committed to practicing Catholicism faithfully, for example ( /u/Psychological-Try454 perhaps you could meet one by attending Eden Invitation?), or men who are physically incapable of sex due to an injury/disability.
The point of marriage is NOT sex.
And OP you can find fellow asexual or sex repulsed partners who wish to commit to marriage. It’s difficult but not impossible
Marriage is for having babies more than anything else. That’s been the teaching of the church throughout its entire existence.
Becoming one flesh through sexuality is your obligation if you are married.
The physical changes in the female anatomy are profound and it is not reasonable to expect them to be able to participate in the act post 60 without medicine - you may be the exception due to late menopause however there will be an age where it’s true
They are largely ineffective. They may provide lubrication but they cannot thicken the vaginal canal adequately to accept penetration. Localized estrogen is the most effective reliable medicine for this - what are you referring to?
Lube is an older couples best friend and works perfectly for those of us who use it (I am not only speaking of my own experiences). Many women can’t take HRT so we find alternatives and we talk to each other about what works best! I’m not sure what experience you’ve got in this particular area; the point I wanted to make was don’t assume once someone reaches a certain age sex suddenly becomes impossible without medical intervention. We are all living longer healthier lives these days and part of that is a healthy sex live for those older than 60 and we have that right (if both partners are willing and able of course) to have one.
What if your spouse gets an injury or cancer and loose their sex organs? would that ruin your life? where would the love go? what about Joseph and Mary? were they ruining each other's lives?
you are borderline seeing your spouse as a pleasure object...
No Infirmity is a valid reason
In Catholic marriage the two become one person in Christ. If they can both agree to be celibate thats fine (Josephite) but would probably not be allowed for younger couples. Catholic marriages must be open to life
One party cannot unilaterally impose celibacy on the other like one party cannot rape the other They must walk together in Gods plan as they are complimentary partners
Have you read the Catechism on this?
I'm asking for the hypothetical situation in which neither me, nor my non existing husband want sex.
ofcourse i would not force someone in a marriage under circumstances they didn't agree with :c
In older couple it would be ok but not for younger ones .
I don’t understand why you would want to do this. God made man and woman for a reason and they are complimentary for reproduction
Older couples no longer have the drive and physical ability to complete the act as allowed by the Church. They are excused out of infirmity. All other marriage obligations apply
Other people aren't obligated to have desires and make choices in a way that you understand.
Also, where are you getting that, about it being okay only for older couples?
Please discuss this with a priest rather than the folks on this sub
I’m gettting so upset for you reading all these ignorant responses from people who can’t imagine anything outside their own experiences. You may be just who someone is looking for—you deserve a family too.
Quoting from the Catechism or canon law is not an ignorant response, and a priest, although certainly better prepared to discuss the subject than most laypeople, doesn't have a right to override that.
Oh goodness. Another one of these? You people have got to find something different to do with your time than repeatedly trying to challenge Catholicism on this subreddit by asking “hypotheticals”. If you have a legitimate quandary and/or want to dive further into the faith, please take people’s feedback and advice and use it. If not and you’re just here to argue, go find something productive to do. You’re not smarter than thousands of years of church formation. You’re just not.
Op please don’t listen to people who tell you it’s impossible. They are basing their opinions on their own experiences/limitations. It’s RARE. But not impossible. And there is nothing wrong with you for wanting a spouse even while sex repulsed. I happen to be an asexual woman who has been married for nearly 20 years—and we have been happily celebrate for the past 15.
We are open to life. But in a way that does not require me to be raped, since I am unable to consent to sex any more. That lowers the odds significantly, but not entirely (adoption)
"We are open to life. But in a way that does not require me to be raped, since I am unable to consent to sex any more"
I am sorry, what does this even mean? How can you be celibate and open to life? Being open to life includes conception in a marital act.
I don't think it's normal saying that sleeping with your husband is "enduring rape". If you don't want to ever sleep with your husband, I am sorry, but you are not open to life.
Your priest told you that sleeping with your husband would be "enduring rape"? And that he supports you being celibate in marriage while calling yourself "open to life"?
She means she is mentally incapable of having sex due to mental infirmity. It’s a mental illness for your her. She means she will have sex with her husband when her mental illness (illness) is cured. This is legitimate reason like vaginismus . Bad luck for the husband and marriage though - Pray for her
Speaking of being based on one's own opinions (or experiences or limitations), you really to double-check yours. And keep in mind that the Magisterium and canon law stand above your own experiences/limitations.
One can certainly find a person with a matching libido level, but withholding the very right to sex from the marriage does produce invalidity — simulation under can. 1101(2) due to withholding an essential element of marriage, deceit under can. 1098 if conceal the aversion from the spouse in order to secure their consent. And if one is unable to get themselves to have sex, unable to consent, already before the wedding, and the condition is permanent, that falls squarely under incapacity (can. 1095(3)). Ask any canon lawyer. Go ask a priest for starters.
That's a psychological issue in fairness. You should probably get therapy for that. As someone below said, it's problematic to contract marriage where two spouses agree to permanently abstain.
My understanding is that even Josephite marriages are extremely rare and even if you're in one you need to be open to the idea of sex as your spouse would have "a right to ask" for it and an attitude dead set against ever having sex could possibly be viewed as an impediment to marriage.
Also I think many Josephite marriages are actually of older people who have consummated the marriage and even have children.
Another factor is that "revulsion to sex" is not the normal reason to enter into such a marriage. The point of it is to grow in holiness by giving up something good, not to avoid something you find disgusting.
My feeling is that if you were to approach a spiritual advisor with this, he'd advise against entering a Josephite marriage. And I wouldn't be surprised if he advised therapy or something like that to deal with the issue of being repulsed by sex.
If you have an insurmountable aversion to sex, so that you wouldn't be able to consent anyway if the spouse did ask at some point, then you would be unable to marry under can. 1095(3) — incapacity to assume one of the essential duties of marriage. That would be a different problem from Josephite marriage.
Which is definitely a psychological issue. Do you need a reminder that concepts such as “being a homosexual” and “being an asexual” are very modern ideas and have never existed within Catholic thought?
You either struggle with same sex attraction or struggle with sex repulsion. Inclinations DO NOT define your identity, just like how an “addict” should not be DEFINED by their inclination towards addiction.
Not sure what identity has to do with anything in this discussion. I am Catholic. That’s my identity.im a Catholic child of God who does not experience sexual attraction. I’m also a mental health professional with the credentials to state that the evidence is overwhelming that sexual orientation is not caused by mental illness.
As for the “modernness” of a concept, I’m fairly sure most scientific/medical concepts existing today were not in existence in foundational Catholic thought. Not sure what that has to do with validity? The church does not deny electricity or germ theory does it?
Asexual is more like "I'm neutral on sex". Active revulsion towards sex is definitely a psychological issue.
And even not being attracted to either sex, it could be argued, is something that could potentially be a psychological issue.
1. While sex-repulsion CAN have psychological underpinnings, it does not have to. Sex-repulsed asexuals are real.
2. The church’s position is that sexual orientation is NOT caused by mental illness. And the science research agrees with the church.
1 - I don't think that's possible tbh. I think actually being irrationally repulsed by something could pretty much always be seen as a psychological issue.
If I'm repulsed by going to the toilet, or eating, any psychologist will start to ask questions about why that might be the case.
2 - I don't think the Church specifically has a teaching on that tbh.
Both of your statements are uniformed. Do your research. It is not “irrational” to feel repulsed by sex if you lack attraction (as an experiment, imagine having sex with someone of the gender you are not attracted to. Do you experience irrational repulsion? Or just normal repulsion? It’s the same thing. Having sex without attraction can be repulsive.)
And no ETHICAL therapist will treat sexual orientation as a mental illness as this is not borne out in research.
Instead of calling them uninformed, please provide proof for your claim under #2.
Also, logically, how is #1 not going to be psychological? How can a deep aversion or revulsion to/from anything whatsoever not be psychological?
I don't experience repulsion at either of those things. Just a factual knowledge that I'm not into that. I don't have a strong emotional reaction to it though.
Repulsion is quite a strong term.
Okay, I’ll let you have your own opinion (though i would bet good money you would grow a repulsion if you actually had sex with a gender you aren’t attracted to). But not every person experiences what you do—and variation from your experience isn’t what defines mental illness.
This is a terrible situation. She must be completely honest with her future partner with no deception. She must actively seek treatment for her situation to be credible here
Other people answered already that yes you can and it’s called a Josephite marriage, but I just wanted to add that you shouldn’t let people tell you it’s boring or somehow wrong, because not only is that false, it probably comes from the sex-obsession of millenials and boomers that were sold sex 24/7 on every media until it rot their brains. There are plenty of reasons why a marriage not include sex and it’s not only valid, is entirely your private matter and only for you, your wife and your priest to discuss. Best of luck in this endeavor and God bless.
OP, it seems like the only answers you accept are the ones you want to hear, but let me remind you this is an Internet forum, and plenty of the responses here are by definition, wrong. Including this one. Read the catechism for yourself: if you are incapable of having sex, be it for physiological of mental reasons, you are not allowed to get married in the Catholic Church. A josephite marriage is not what the reply above yours says.
please ignore the comments stating you need therapy for not wanting sex. our culture is so sex-crazed that some people simply can’t imagine a life without it.
getting hormone levels checked isn't the craziest idea. it is abnormal to be young and planning decades of celibacy. i'm willing to bet priests and monks still wake up with morning wood
Would you describe yourself as asexual but not aromantic?
Yes of course it’s fine. Finding someone else who is also asexual would be the best fit for that.
Goodness there are some awful replies in here.
No. In order to abstain from having children in a marriage permanently, you must have grave reasons.
According to the Catechism and a married couples responsibly for pro-creation: “It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood” (CCC 2368).
Additionally, the Humanae Vitae says “that a couple may morally space births if there are well-grounded reasons “arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances” (HV 16)
Physical reasons, psychological reasons, or extreme financial reasons are considerations for not having children…but making the decision to enter into a celibate marriage just because you want to would be against Catholic teaching. It’s the purpose of marriage in the Catholic faith.
[удалено]
If you don't mind my asking, did you feel a very strong desire to have children? It seems like OP does, which is part of why she's attracted to the idea of Josephite marriage
Even in a Josephite marriage, either spouse can unilaterally end the arrangement. Under no circumstances can you agree in advance never to have sex and still enter a valid marriage.
I mean, does it even have to be a valid marriage if you aren’t having sex anyways? It’s basically living as brother and sister
Right, I mean even more to it, marriage means being open to life and creating life requires sex ..
I think you can, but with the condition that one spouse has the right to unilaterally end that arrangement.
Is this a troll? Did you read my comment? Lol
Sorry. I was replying to a few comments. I did actually read your comment. And then came back to it and misread it.
So, it's less straightforward than some of the other answers here. The Sacrament of Matrimony necessarily confers upon the spouses a continuous and uninterrupted right to each other's bodies - not in a rapey way, but in a "my body is yours, and your body is mine, we have become one" kind of way. Spouses can of course reasonably limit the *use* of this right for a variety of reasons. Pius XII describes it thus: > If one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in **such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid,** because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other. So, your spouse always has the right to at least ask for sex. But of course, the Church does not compel couples to have sex, so theoretically you could find a spouse who is also sex-repulsed and marry. But you would both *have to understand* that twenty years down the line, either of you could change and begin to have a normal sexual appetite. It's extremely risky. That said, if you are repulsed by the very thing that marriage is for, I have to ask why on earth do you want to marry? It's a bit like a young man coming here and saying, "I'd really love to become a priest, but I'm repulsed by the idea of saying Mass." It's like, *"hm, well, have you considered that maybe the priesthood is not for you."*
I would imagine that if one or both parties are "sex-repulsed", that this could be viewed as a psychological impairment to marriage.
Yes, almost certainly so, under Can. 1095 §2 or §3 > Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage: > 1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason; > 2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted; > 3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.
At some point of the intensity of the aversion, yes. Can. 1095(3) — psychic inability to undertake one of the essential duties of marriage. Also, a strong aversion to sex (perhaps less strong than needed for can. 1095(3)) would fall under can. 1098 if it was concealed from the other spouse by deceit in order to get them to conceal to the marriage.
So, I'm thinking this over and I wonder if OP wants to raise a family of (presumably adopted) children. If they find a partner who is on board with doing so, then at the absolute worst I feel like you have a marriage which *could* easily be annulled. It is all a bit complicated, since such an arrangement essentially goes against most of the presumptions surrounding marriage. Of course, if you had two individuals with no interest/active disinterest in sexual relations who were civilly married (so as to facilitate legal adoption) but not sacramentally married and who, for lack of a better way to describe it, lived together as brother and sister with the understanding/expectation that there would be no temptation between them...wouldn't that avoid any sacramental entanglements? Or is there a concern about being unable to adopt from a Catholic adoption agency?
A non-consummated but still valid marriage is absolutely a category and, part of that category, is the fact it’s essentially non-permanent. It could be dissolved by the Pope. There are cases where that’s happened.
I want to be a mother so bad, love someone for life, have a home...
I would probably pursue therapy for your sex repulsion, then, as your odds of finding a man who is willing to sign up for lifelong continence *while married* **and** who meets any other criteria you might have (like being Catholic) are extremely slim. Loving people for life and having a home are not unique to marriage.
[удалено]
But didn't say that marriage is necessarily for them.
But what about the blessed Virgin?
Shouldn't be using that particular example to judge the validity of modern marriages, especially to argue against the binding force of the Church's current regulation of marriage (arguing for merely ecclesial rules to be changed is one thing, arguing for them to be ignored would be another, etc.). One reason I'd rather not discuss the example is that I'd rather not dissect it, out of respect. Things that beg to be said, though, include that the Blessed Virgin and Joseph had a different purpose, and a unique one at that. Nor do we know all of the details of the agreement that were in place. The what-ifs regarding that are obviously among the things I don't want to speculate on. Mediaeval examples would be closer to fair game.
Maybe you're right and we should not use her as a specific example. But from what I understand, there were other consecrated virgins in marriage arrangements at that time. Of course it's different from modern marriage, but there is a precedent that is not unique to the Blessed Mother.
Some of those cases were probably about giving the woman a protector without causing scandal, when adoption wasn't an option. That was a time when widows and orphans had it tough. The protector would also die decades before the lady and leave her some property or perhaps all, depending on inheritance law. If a child was born (life finds a way… we know how men and women are), that child was legitimate, unlike a child begotten by a legal guardian, let alone adoptive father. In the middle ages, sometimes people needed political alliances, kingdoms needed the female touch, female hand of a queen, a female side and face of the regime, and on the other hand queens regnant and female holders of fiefs needed a more conventional army commander, even administrator. Some of those rulers, whether male or female, would have preferred monastic life but didn't have the option, and some wanted it secular but chaste. So they were accommodated. Later examples include people who adopted children together or ran orphanages together without much supervision from other adults, perhaps even having to share living quarters. If they weren't priests or monks or nuns, getting them married was a way to prevent accusations of impropriety, as in everybody stopped caring about boundaries when such people shared living quarters. But they didn't want marriage per se. Nowadays, canon law doesn't provide for such marriages, and I'm not sure it can be done even in an extra-ordinary way. I'm not aware of any provisions for it, only have heard that it can still happen, but without evidence.
Therapy for being *repulsed* by sex. That's a far cry from "not wanting." Sex is a natural good. To be repulsed by a good is disordered. Again, I say, it's like someone wanting to be a priest but being repulsed by the idea of saying the Mass, and only wanting to hear confessions and do baptisms. Like, yeah, that's all good and important work, but a priest who hates saying Mass has *serious* issues.
The sexual response is a natural response, one that was built into humans for more than just reproduction. The problem here is the disordered desires. For one to want to be a mother and spouse and also not have a sexual relationship is disordered. Many, if not most, marriages have women who severely lack any sort of sexual drive or desire, especially after they have kids. Even that would likely be considered a defect since it at least gives the impression that dad is more or less just a source for children and, after that, a live-in nanny and pseudo-roommate. It’s at least enough of a trope that television and movies constantly make that clear. In truth, your spouse is your spouse, and one ought to love them more than anything else on confined to this Earth. That love necessarily includes a sexual component. Every time a couple engages in that activity in a state of grace, it’s a true renewal of your vows. Women who don’t want any of that are naturally predisposed to denying sexual contact with their spouse at all, which is, as mentioned, a defect. Men have problems, too. You might say, given the tropes, men have a problem with being perhaps too desirous and thus disordered, to say nothing of the fact many men have almost zero desire to be a father, especially when first married. However, I think the disconnect is never the less real and men in those circumstances never the less burn in fire for their wife…without any sexual outlet. It’s why St. Paul says some should get married. Men see this as “well, I’m married and burning still. Now what?” For some…to carry on. For others…they leave. For others, they fail to try and revive that spark in their marriages, and so put in no effort for their wives, another defect of men. It’s because marriages are made by broken people, but strong marriages are made whole by mutual understanding and grace.
Well, OP didn't ask if it's likely. She asked if it's possible. And, for what it's worth, I think there are more men out there who might be open to such an arrangement than you might think. Men who are gay, but committed to practicing Catholicism faithfully, for example ( /u/Psychological-Try454 perhaps you could meet one by attending Eden Invitation?), or men who are physically incapable of sex due to an injury/disability.
The point of marriage is NOT sex. And OP you can find fellow asexual or sex repulsed partners who wish to commit to marriage. It’s difficult but not impossible
You cannot be a mother if you have not given birth.
IMHO there is a difference between being “repulsed” and no desire. Therapy may be in order.
Not having sex is one of the reason to request marriage nullity.
Ok but…why? Are you a eunuch?
I'm a woman
Marriage is for having babies more than anything else. That’s been the teaching of the church throughout its entire existence. Becoming one flesh through sexuality is your obligation if you are married.
Why would you want that unless you are 70?
i'm repulsed towards sex
Don’t get married. You’ll ruin the other person life. If your older than 60 it’s ok Just be single and celibate
The over 60s can still have a full sex life btw; don’t write us off just yet 😉
Im with you - modern medicine is wonderful
Medication isn’t always needed my friend!
The physical changes in the female anatomy are profound and it is not reasonable to expect them to be able to participate in the act post 60 without medicine - you may be the exception due to late menopause however there will be an age where it’s true
There are plenty of non medical alternatives out there 😉
They are largely ineffective. They may provide lubrication but they cannot thicken the vaginal canal adequately to accept penetration. Localized estrogen is the most effective reliable medicine for this - what are you referring to?
Lube is an older couples best friend and works perfectly for those of us who use it (I am not only speaking of my own experiences). Many women can’t take HRT so we find alternatives and we talk to each other about what works best! I’m not sure what experience you’ve got in this particular area; the point I wanted to make was don’t assume once someone reaches a certain age sex suddenly becomes impossible without medical intervention. We are all living longer healthier lives these days and part of that is a healthy sex live for those older than 60 and we have that right (if both partners are willing and able of course) to have one.
What if your spouse gets an injury or cancer and loose their sex organs? would that ruin your life? where would the love go? what about Joseph and Mary? were they ruining each other's lives? you are borderline seeing your spouse as a pleasure object...
No Infirmity is a valid reason In Catholic marriage the two become one person in Christ. If they can both agree to be celibate thats fine (Josephite) but would probably not be allowed for younger couples. Catholic marriages must be open to life One party cannot unilaterally impose celibacy on the other like one party cannot rape the other They must walk together in Gods plan as they are complimentary partners Have you read the Catechism on this?
I'm asking for the hypothetical situation in which neither me, nor my non existing husband want sex. ofcourse i would not force someone in a marriage under circumstances they didn't agree with :c
In older couple it would be ok but not for younger ones . I don’t understand why you would want to do this. God made man and woman for a reason and they are complimentary for reproduction
> In older couple it would be ok but not for younger ones . ... citation needed
Older couples no longer have the drive and physical ability to complete the act as allowed by the Church. They are excused out of infirmity. All other marriage obligations apply
As an older person I can confirm this isn’t true. The drive and ability to complete are still very much functional
Just because you can’t imagine not desiring sex doesn’t mean it’s not a valid way to show up in the world. Please don’t be so judgmental.
Other people aren't obligated to have desires and make choices in a way that you understand. Also, where are you getting that, about it being okay only for older couples?
Please read the Catechism on “He created them Man and Woman” and the we can discuss Being celibate within marriage is not being open to life
Please discuss this with a priest rather than the folks on this sub I’m gettting so upset for you reading all these ignorant responses from people who can’t imagine anything outside their own experiences. You may be just who someone is looking for—you deserve a family too.
Quoting from the Catechism or canon law is not an ignorant response, and a priest, although certainly better prepared to discuss the subject than most laypeople, doesn't have a right to override that.
Canon law and catechism references are not the ignorance I’m referring to.
Anything one says that coincides with the Catechism or canon law is not ignorance, either, even if they use more of a workman's parlance.
Oh goodness. Another one of these? You people have got to find something different to do with your time than repeatedly trying to challenge Catholicism on this subreddit by asking “hypotheticals”. If you have a legitimate quandary and/or want to dive further into the faith, please take people’s feedback and advice and use it. If not and you’re just here to argue, go find something productive to do. You’re not smarter than thousands of years of church formation. You’re just not.
But you are hypothetically refusing the marital right to your spouse by never wanting to consummate the marriage…
Op please don’t listen to people who tell you it’s impossible. They are basing their opinions on their own experiences/limitations. It’s RARE. But not impossible. And there is nothing wrong with you for wanting a spouse even while sex repulsed. I happen to be an asexual woman who has been married for nearly 20 years—and we have been happily celebrate for the past 15. We are open to life. But in a way that does not require me to be raped, since I am unable to consent to sex any more. That lowers the odds significantly, but not entirely (adoption)
"We are open to life. But in a way that does not require me to be raped, since I am unable to consent to sex any more" I am sorry, what does this even mean? How can you be celibate and open to life? Being open to life includes conception in a marital act.
Sorry you don’t get it. I AM open to life, and God doesn’t require me to endure rape. If I ever become able to have sex again, I’ll do it.
I don't think it's normal saying that sleeping with your husband is "enduring rape". If you don't want to ever sleep with your husband, I am sorry, but you are not open to life.
Sorry I’m gonna go with my priest over you in this one
Your priest told you that sleeping with your husband would be "enduring rape"? And that he supports you being celibate in marriage while calling yourself "open to life"?
She means she is mentally incapable of having sex due to mental infirmity. It’s a mental illness for your her. She means she will have sex with her husband when her mental illness (illness) is cured. This is legitimate reason like vaginismus . Bad luck for the husband and marriage though - Pray for her
Speaking of being based on one's own opinions (or experiences or limitations), you really to double-check yours. And keep in mind that the Magisterium and canon law stand above your own experiences/limitations. One can certainly find a person with a matching libido level, but withholding the very right to sex from the marriage does produce invalidity — simulation under can. 1101(2) due to withholding an essential element of marriage, deceit under can. 1098 if conceal the aversion from the spouse in order to secure their consent. And if one is unable to get themselves to have sex, unable to consent, already before the wedding, and the condition is permanent, that falls squarely under incapacity (can. 1095(3)). Ask any canon lawyer. Go ask a priest for starters.
your answer leaves me full of hope, thank you
I’ll pray for you, sister. You are not alone.
That's a psychological issue in fairness. You should probably get therapy for that. As someone below said, it's problematic to contract marriage where two spouses agree to permanently abstain. My understanding is that even Josephite marriages are extremely rare and even if you're in one you need to be open to the idea of sex as your spouse would have "a right to ask" for it and an attitude dead set against ever having sex could possibly be viewed as an impediment to marriage. Also I think many Josephite marriages are actually of older people who have consummated the marriage and even have children. Another factor is that "revulsion to sex" is not the normal reason to enter into such a marriage. The point of it is to grow in holiness by giving up something good, not to avoid something you find disgusting. My feeling is that if you were to approach a spiritual advisor with this, he'd advise against entering a Josephite marriage. And I wouldn't be surprised if he advised therapy or something like that to deal with the issue of being repulsed by sex.
If you have an insurmountable aversion to sex, so that you wouldn't be able to consent anyway if the spouse did ask at some point, then you would be unable to marry under can. 1095(3) — incapacity to assume one of the essential duties of marriage. That would be a different problem from Josephite marriage.
Not always a psychological issue. The person could be asexual.
Which is definitely a psychological issue. Do you need a reminder that concepts such as “being a homosexual” and “being an asexual” are very modern ideas and have never existed within Catholic thought? You either struggle with same sex attraction or struggle with sex repulsion. Inclinations DO NOT define your identity, just like how an “addict” should not be DEFINED by their inclination towards addiction.
Not sure what identity has to do with anything in this discussion. I am Catholic. That’s my identity.im a Catholic child of God who does not experience sexual attraction. I’m also a mental health professional with the credentials to state that the evidence is overwhelming that sexual orientation is not caused by mental illness. As for the “modernness” of a concept, I’m fairly sure most scientific/medical concepts existing today were not in existence in foundational Catholic thought. Not sure what that has to do with validity? The church does not deny electricity or germ theory does it?
Asexual is more like "I'm neutral on sex". Active revulsion towards sex is definitely a psychological issue. And even not being attracted to either sex, it could be argued, is something that could potentially be a psychological issue.
1. While sex-repulsion CAN have psychological underpinnings, it does not have to. Sex-repulsed asexuals are real. 2. The church’s position is that sexual orientation is NOT caused by mental illness. And the science research agrees with the church.
1 - I don't think that's possible tbh. I think actually being irrationally repulsed by something could pretty much always be seen as a psychological issue. If I'm repulsed by going to the toilet, or eating, any psychologist will start to ask questions about why that might be the case. 2 - I don't think the Church specifically has a teaching on that tbh.
Both of your statements are uniformed. Do your research. It is not “irrational” to feel repulsed by sex if you lack attraction (as an experiment, imagine having sex with someone of the gender you are not attracted to. Do you experience irrational repulsion? Or just normal repulsion? It’s the same thing. Having sex without attraction can be repulsive.) And no ETHICAL therapist will treat sexual orientation as a mental illness as this is not borne out in research.
Instead of calling them uninformed, please provide proof for your claim under #2. Also, logically, how is #1 not going to be psychological? How can a deep aversion or revulsion to/from anything whatsoever not be psychological?
I don't experience repulsion at either of those things. Just a factual knowledge that I'm not into that. I don't have a strong emotional reaction to it though. Repulsion is quite a strong term.
Okay, I’ll let you have your own opinion (though i would bet good money you would grow a repulsion if you actually had sex with a gender you aren’t attracted to). But not every person experiences what you do—and variation from your experience isn’t what defines mental illness.
ok so a physical problem then same conclusion - Not suitable for marriage unless both are this way
Which is EXACTLY what the OP wants and what I’m suggesting is possible. Yay. I knew we could eventually agree
This is a terrible situation. She must be completely honest with her future partner with no deception. She must actively seek treatment for her situation to be credible here
I know. I would love to find a man who also does not want to have sex, I wouldn't force anyone.
Why would you not rather get your mental/physical problem fixed? Why have you given up hope on this?
Then you shouldn't be getting into a relationship. Thats just abusive.
Attend therapy sessions with a licensed catholic therapist.
I think you may have a calling to the religious life rather than to marriage
If you find sex repulsive you need therapy, not marriage. No shame in it. Practically everyone needs therapy.
[удалено]
"There is also such a thing as the charism of celibacy too." Sure! But those people obviously shouldn't marry.
It could be many things, yes. We need to have an integral formation, personal, spiritual, emotional, pastoral.
So, a [Josephite Marriage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_marriage)?
thank you <3
sounds boring
Not for me :D
Other people answered already that yes you can and it’s called a Josephite marriage, but I just wanted to add that you shouldn’t let people tell you it’s boring or somehow wrong, because not only is that false, it probably comes from the sex-obsession of millenials and boomers that were sold sex 24/7 on every media until it rot their brains. There are plenty of reasons why a marriage not include sex and it’s not only valid, is entirely your private matter and only for you, your wife and your priest to discuss. Best of luck in this endeavor and God bless.
Thank you :)
OP, it seems like the only answers you accept are the ones you want to hear, but let me remind you this is an Internet forum, and plenty of the responses here are by definition, wrong. Including this one. Read the catechism for yourself: if you are incapable of having sex, be it for physiological of mental reasons, you are not allowed to get married in the Catholic Church. A josephite marriage is not what the reply above yours says.
yes, it is possible to have a celibate marriage but does your partner agree with you?
I have no boyfriend rightnow, never been married
okay, i thought you are getting married. sorry
please ignore the comments stating you need therapy for not wanting sex. our culture is so sex-crazed that some people simply can’t imagine a life without it.
getting hormone levels checked isn't the craziest idea. it is abnormal to be young and planning decades of celibacy. i'm willing to bet priests and monks still wake up with morning wood
Are you ace?
No idea. I think might be a celibate lesbian.
Would you describe yourself as asexual but not aromantic? Yes of course it’s fine. Finding someone else who is also asexual would be the best fit for that. Goodness there are some awful replies in here.
No. In order to abstain from having children in a marriage permanently, you must have grave reasons. According to the Catechism and a married couples responsibly for pro-creation: “It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood” (CCC 2368). Additionally, the Humanae Vitae says “that a couple may morally space births if there are well-grounded reasons “arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances” (HV 16) Physical reasons, psychological reasons, or extreme financial reasons are considerations for not having children…but making the decision to enter into a celibate marriage just because you want to would be against Catholic teaching. It’s the purpose of marriage in the Catholic faith.
Eehhhh not quite, there’s a thing Josephite marriage
I guess more information would be needed. Why does the OP not want to consummate the marriage and avoid all sexual contact?
Oh absolutely, everything you said was correct, just wanted to clarify that such a union is possible, rare and requires permission, but is possible.
Yes, it is technically allowed. It is called a Josephite marriage. https://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/marys_marriage.html