Well , apparently, someone did which is why we have this thread. (I even asked a question to the apologist related to this impotence thing when I first came to Catholic Answers and I’m still waiting for their answer ) This teaching about impotence as an impediment to marriage is something that I still struggle with. I think it is unfair to a man, who through no fault of his own, is unable to consummate the sexual act. I think JimG’s posts made sense, but I also agree with Andrew_11. But I must accept this teaching even though I don’t fully understand it.
I don’t know, but you know what, for once I am appreciative of the work that certain researchers and surgeons are doing to find ways to treat “erectile dysfunction”. (I thought that medical community was wasting its resources just trying to cater to the sex-obsessed modern culture.) I think Fr. Hogan in the EWTN website mentioned that with the advent of modern technology and medicine, practically no physician would attest that impotence is perpetual in anyone, thus lending to doubt as to whether there is an impediment to marriage.
As to this marital debt thing, is Aquinas the only theologian that has pondered on this? Another question related to this: the Church recognizes Josephite marriages as valid but still the couple must be physically capable of consummating the act. These marriages are still valid since the couple “exchange rights to have marital relations” even though they don’t necessarily fulfill those rights. Makes me wonder why people enter into this kind of marriage in the first place if for example one party would someday demand of this “marriage debt” in the course of their marriage. On the other hand, it makes me wonder why the couple would exchange these “rights to marital relations” in the first place if they have committed to not consummating theirmarriage. Does any of this make sense? I don’t think I make sense to myself either