On another thread the question of marriage for the impotent was raised, and the general concensus is that impotent people cannot marry, or live together as a couple if marriage is refused them as this may cause scandal.
I am appalled at this, and have brought it to you for a more official ruling.
As it has been explained to me, a sterile couple may marry, as they must be open to the possibility of child bearing, and a miracle may happen and they get pregnant. (If sex is for the procreation of children only, and not love, then these people are not lawful, as they are incapable of creating life. But they have to give sex to their partners, even though it is known they are incapable of creating life.)
An impotent couple cannot marry, even though they would love to be able to have sex, are perhaps capable of conceiving, and a miracle might happen and they regain their sexual capabilities? And they cannot live together because nasty minds may conjure up a scandal that perhaps they are having unlawful sex outside marriage?
So, those loving second marriages I see every day, between lovely elderly folk who I know are past it, are not lawful? The love, mutual support, companionship and help are not lawful? When the priest meets with an engaged couple in their 80’s does he ask if they are capable of having sex?
What is marriage in this Church? A Catholic breeding program? Where is the provision for mutual love and caring between people who have no other impediment to marriage - they are widowed, annulled or single? Mary and Joseph married and lived without having sex - this is a church teaching. They presumably were capable of having sex but chose not to - this is against church teaching. But to be unable to have sex, but want to, renders you unable to be married, whereas being able to have sex but abstaining is allowable? Where is the logic?