Marriage after Menopause

With marriage being geared towards unification and procreation and being that after menopause procreation is basically impossible, would The Church marry someone at this age?

If someone loses genitilia function due to injury, The Church will not marry them, so I would assume the same ramifications exist due to menopause?

You need to distinguish between “impotence” and “sterility”

Impotence is an impediment to marriage, sterility is not.

Accordingly a women past menopause (sterile) may still marry. However if a persons loses all ability to function sexually (impotent) due to genital injury, they may not marry.

The rule is that the couple must be able to engage in the marital act so that there embrace is “ordered toward procreation”, not that they must be able to actually procreate.

Yes, absolutely. For as long as the couple can still engage in sexual intercourse, they can validly marry.

If someone loses genitilia function due to injury, The Church will not marry them, so I would assume the same ramifications exist due to menopause?

That’s different, because it’s now permanent and incurable impotence. Such a person cannot marry.

A couple must be able to have sex to marry, not necessarily be able to have children. Impotence is the impediment, not sterility. If the couple is sufficiently advanced in age, the question about accepting children may be omitted from the rite.

I think it’s helpful to understand what the word marriage means. “To cause to meet or ‘fit together’; combine.” That is why impotent people or same sex people cannot marry. Their bodies will not fit together.

Did anyone ask Jesus about these things in the New Testament? :shrug:

And if so what was HIs answer? :confused:

Matthew 19:4; in his answer regarding divorce He does say the following: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The two cannot become one flesh if they cannot join together in the marital act. Marriage is not just an “I like you, you like me” public pronouncement. It is a unifying act ordered toward procreation.

I had never heard of such restrictions to marriage. After 18 years of marriage, I know there’s much more to marriage than sex. Why would the church deny the companionship and love of a partner if they are unable to have sex due to a medical reason? This truly troubles me.

Jesus didn’t mention after or before menopause.

If the Church doesn’t allow seniors to marry…maybe that’s why so many Catholic seniors in Florida are living together without getting married. :confused: :shrug:

What do you mean “The church does not allow seniors to marry?” They most certainly do!
In the first place, do you think seniors cannot have sexual relations? Do you think they are all impotent or all too old? Secondly, any inability to have sex has to be determined to be permanent, I believe. Medical science has had major breakthroughs in restoring sexual function to males who may suffer from ED.

And menopause has nothing to do with it. It does not render a female impotent. It only makes her unable to have a baby.

In all kindness, perhaps you need to educate yourself on some biological information about sex and the Church’s teaching on the matter,

Isaac was conceived when Sarah was 90years old, she was in her menopause for a long time by then.

Prophet Samuel was an infertile woman, but she incessantly pray for a son. God heard her and gave her a son (Prophet Samuel).

It seriously troubles me too. An example; A young Catholic couple is engaged. They plan to marry when he returns from a deployment to a combat zone. He returns with a severe injury, rendering him impotent. They still want to marry, and adopt children. But the church forbids this. The wounded veteran must remain unmarried forever.

This type of restriction is one reason I’m not sure if I want to remain in the church.

Me, too.

I agree.

I think for a lot of us, including me, there’s always at least one church teaching that makes us pause. The solution is to pray, “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.” It is a prayer that priests, bishops, and even the Pope prays occasionally when they pray the Liturgy of the Hours. We must also have the mentality to “believe in order to understand, and to understand, the better to believe”. Sometimes there are things that, in our current state of life, we can’t understand, but we must make that radical leap of faith to God, trusting that God knows what he’s doing.

THE EXODUS 3:14-15:11
(St. Thomas and The Wonders of The Lord)

Lord, You have promised me this
“you shall see Wonders”
help me to see it when You show it
and make my heart believe
when I see it
but then You said
“Happy are those who don’t see but believe”
alright. fine.
then show me how to walk the walk
I do not know where I’m going
my soul wanders around
in this vast desserts of this world
questions are unanswered in my heart
then You said
“Walk My Way, I AM The Way”

Why are you arguing with me :confused: I was answering, casey cates, who said, “It( marriage) is a unifying act ordered toward procreation.” Other posters said the church won’t marry these people.
I did say “IF” the church doesn’t allow seniors to marry & I was being a bit sarcastic. :rolleyes:

I’m 72 years old, so before you tell me to educate myself, you better read a few earlier posts, before you comment on wrong information, that you think you read!

Friendship and companionship is not denied to anyone. But marriage is inherently a sexual union:

*Can. 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

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

Marriage is a great deal larger than companionship. Companionship, love, mutual care - these things are good, but if the relationship is limited to these things - if it is not a one-flesh union - then it is not a marriage as the Church understands marriage.

Should the couple pursue a civil marriage in the circumstances you describe, that act is technically contrary to the canon law, and their marriage would not be recognised as valid (on two grounds I presume - the wrong “form”, and the “impediment” due to permanent impotence). While the question of “form” can be dispensed, I believe it is never done when a civil ceremony is sought. And I believe the impediment of permanent impotence is never dispensed because it is contrary to the “very nature” of marriage (see Canon 1084).

I generally would steer away from this type of discussion for fear the mods think I become too indelicate in this discussion, but because so many have voiced concern over this teaching, I feel compelled to, as “delicately” as possible, address this issue.

First, as Rau so eloquently stated, marriage, let me repeat that “MARRIAGE”, is inherently a sexual union between a man and woman. As Casey pointed out, and I think merits repeating, it is important to understand what the word marriage means. “To cause to meet or ‘fit together’; combine.”

So, that being said, let me get to the indelicate part:

Second, in order to validly marry, a couple must be capable of engaging in the “marital act”. Inability to do so is known as impotence; HOWEVER, that is very RARELY a reason for not recognizing a marriage these days given medical advances, both chemical and mechanical, that make a man’s inability to engage in the marital act almost nonexistent.
Without getting too technical, let me just cite to the following:

The church is certainly not insensitive to the concerns that people face every day. Nonetheless, it is the last bastion against the attacks of secularism upon age old accepted, (and ordained by God I might add) teachings, including the immutable understanding that marriage is:

An indissoluble covenant between one man and one woman ordered toward their own good (unity) AND toward the procreation and education of children.

Now, we could get into a discussion about what “ordered toward procreation” means, but suffice it to say that first, there are innumerable threads already on that issue, and second, in short hand as already said here, it simply means being able to “do IT”.

I hope that is clear without crossing any bounds.

nuff said.

I attended my grandfather’s wedding. Both he and his bride were in their eighties, and it took place in my local Catholic church.

I do not know if the marriage was consummated. None of my business.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit