[Lauren BaRecall]

However, the canon law that was in effect until 1983 did specifically state that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.

If the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children, then, according to the cannon prior to 1983, was the marriage of a couple forbidden, if it was known prior to marriage that one or both of the partners could not have children?

For example, if one of the prospective spouses was infertile due to cancer treatments, would they be allowed to marry?

In addition, would it be grounds for annulment if it was discovered after marriage that one of the spouses could not have children? Could not, as opposed to would not?

BTW, I think the previous cannon dated from 1917?

[Maximilian]

If the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children, then, according to the cannon prior to 1983, was the marriage of a couple forbidden, if it was known prior to marriage that one or both of the partners could not have children?

Impotence was a grounds for annulment but not infertility. First of all, the marriage act must be consumated to complete the marriage. Secondly, the possibility of procreation must be present, which would not be true if it was impossible even to complete the marriage act.

However, infertility, perhaps because of an older, less scientific viewpoint, was considered too subjective to be a grounds. How could someone know for sure that they were "infertile"? There were always the examples of Sarah and Elizabeth to remind people that "you never know."