Just another eason the Catholic church PISSES ME OFF so bad. Sweet Jesus, smack some sense into these people. Do they not understand the concept of "our" God??? He is ALL loving, ALL forgiving. It's so ridiculous. So why are these folks so bent? Oy.

You and Nutsy make some valid points. Can you sue the church for discrimination?

Surprisingly (to me anyway) the problem isn't about having children at all - it's about the nature of the contract of marriage: in the RC view this gives the woman the right to full sexual relations with the man. If the man is permanently physically incapable of sex, then such a contract is impossible to fulfill.

But, according to the Summa Theologica, if the woman knows before the marriage that the man is physically incapable of sex, and still freely enters into the contract of marriage, then this shows that she "seeks some other end from the contract, and the contract stands" (see here). So it should be okay to marry, given informed consent.

Note that the sort of impotence that is seen as a problem isn't just something which is temporary: it is a permanent, physical disability which prevents vaginal intercourse. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "No one is presumed impotent once he has reached the legal or real age of puberty; consequently, no one, except eunuchs, can be prevented by authority from marrying". So, assuming the man had his sexual organs in place, it seems odd that the marriage was blocked.

The Encyclopedia goes on to say, "The different classifications of impotency, absolute or relative, antecedent or subsequent, perpetual or temporal, to be met with in various treatises, are of no practical importance now. Only perpetual antecedent impotency is a cause of nullity; nowadays it is seldom necessary to examine too closely into this matter, as all cases arising from it are treated as far as possible under the form of dispensations of non-consummated marriages".

So why was the marriage blocked? The English-language source of this story is AFP, whose report is lacking in detail. I don't read Italian so I can't dig any further back to see if there is other information which might explain this decision. My top two theories are: either there are important details missing from the AFP report; or the Bishop involved is a bureaucratic plonker who delights in saying "no" - you get these in any large organisation.