Advice on how to approach brother and SIL who have invalid marriage

[Giannawannabe]

I have a dilemma weighing heavily on my heart. My 36 y.o brother and his wife have been married 10 years. They decided not to have children when they married. They live a decidedly pagan lifestyle–drinking, partying, video games, staying out late and sleeping until 2 or 3 pm on weekends. They are easy to get a long with for the most part, but if you bring up anything that they think might be criticizing their lifestyle, they become defensive and angry. I’ve learned recently that since they are contracepting with no plans on having children, their marriage is considered invalid. They do not go to church at all and are extrememly anti-religion and anti-God. How can I let them know about the state of their marriage without completely losing them in the process? I’m sort of considered the “religious” one in the family and generally I’m not taken seriously. However, I seem to be the one with the best relationship with my brother. Any suggestions would help. There must be some way to reach these type of people. I pray for them all of the time and offer many masses for them. Both were raised Catholic and attended Mass t/o their childhoods—brother was an altar boy.

God Bless
Giannawannabe

 

[Catholic2003]

Giannawannabe:

I’ve learned recently that since they are contracepting with no plans on having children, their marriage is considered invalid.

I’m afraid you learned wrong. Here is the canon law:

Canon 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Now, should they divorce, it may or may not be the case that they could obtain an annulment based on intention against children. But until a Church tribunal issues a decree of nullity based on this ground, it is premature for anyone to assume this.

 

[puzzleannie]

welcome to my world, of 6 kids raised by good Catholic parents, 12 yrs of Catholic schools, one is married in the Church and still practicing the faith. One is single, one divorced, 3 married non-Catholics in civil ceremonies. Of those, 2 are blatantly in-your-face anti-Catholic, and one sends his kids to Catholic schools and wife wants to have marriage blessed but he does not because a priest ticked him off 20 years ago.

 

[atsheeran]

Giannawannabe:

I’ve learned recently that since they are contracepting with no plans on having children, their marriage is considered invalid.

Catholic2003 is correct in regards to Canon 1060.

Even if that Canon did not exist, however, the validity of the marriage depends upon the mindset and intention of the spouses when they entered into the marriage.

Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

Openness to procreation is an essential element of marriage.

 

[Giannawannabe]

atsheeran,

If they were open to children when they first got married, they would then have a valid marriage? I’m pretty sure they contracepted from beginning (prior to marriage also). Would that make a difference? I guess there are lots of issues with them too. However, this one is pretty serious. I feel like I HAVE to do something.

God Bless
Giannawannabe

 

[rayne89]

Gianna by the information you have given about them I think it would be fruitless to even bring up the subject because they really won’t care whether you or the church believes their marriage to be invalid.
I would pray for them everyday and hope for a time when they are more open to accepting the authority of God and his church in their lives, if you do it now you may close that door forever.

 

[Tietjen]

Catholic2003:

I’m afraid you learned wrong. Here is the canon law:
Now, should they divorce, it may or may not be the case that they could obtain an annulment based on intention against children. But until a Church tribunal issues a decree of nullity based on this ground, it is premature for anyone to assume this.

Jim Blackburn answered the question like this in “Ask an Apologist”.

]
One of the essential elements of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring. If this element is willfully excluded, the marriage is invalid. Code of Canon Law (CIC) states, “If… either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly” (CIC 1101 §2).

Original question which resulted in this response.

As for how a person would go about approaching a brother and telling them that his marriage of 10 years is invalid, you just do it with love and tact. You need to realize that should you go there, you may lose any relationship with your brother and his wife that you currently have. There is NO easy way to tell them and if this is what you are compelled to do, you should pray that God gives you the least offensive way to convey your announcement. Pray also that God will open their hearts and be receptive to His will.

God bless.

 

[dreater]

Frankly, I don’t think it makes much sense for you to be focusing on whether their marriage is valid or not.

As you said, they don’t go to Mass. They are anti-Church and anti-God. They evidently want nothing to do with Christianity at all.

This is their choice, albeit a bad one. Deliberate rejection of the faith – a faith they were both raised in – is a much more basic problem than whether their marriage is valid because they contracept.

Christian witness to them, though, should not focus on one particular facet of their lives that is “invalid.” It should focus on the basic, saving message of Christianity.

Pray for them. Witness the faith by the way you live your life. Talk to them – to your entire family – about the things your faith does for you, how God’s grace enhances your life. Don’t preach to them about what they should be doing; witness about what God is doing in your life.

If they can find their way to faith, overall, I suspect that the validity of the marriage will not be an issue. But the marriage isn’t the problem here; it’s the rejection of the faith that is the basic issue.

God Bless!

 

[kaymart]

The only advice I could give is prayer. They have free will and made these choices. Maybe through your prayers and of others they will change. (may be they are not practicing conception because reports that infertility is link to drug and alcohol abuse and maybe it is a blessing in disguise that a child is not brought into this crazy lifestyle at this time.) All, in all to confront them will problems at this time. Be there in case they need help, and again pray that they grow up and find their way back to Our Lord.

 

[Giannawannabe]

kaymart,

I had definitely given them the benefit of the doubt regarding the contraception thing. I even supported them to others by saying that they may have infertility issues and just don’t want to discuss them (my husband and I had that problem ourselves and were judged harshly by others). However, I guess why I am feeling so upset, is that my brother told me recently that they made the decision when they got married not to have children. Again, since I’m the closest to him, I think he confides in me more. I agree that prayer is probably the only thing to be done. They have become hostile to others when even gently questioned regarding some of their lifestyle choices. I fear for my brother especially. He’s already undergone heart surgery and does not take care of himself—he junk foods it continuously and is, in my opinion, an alcoholic.
I appreciate everyone’s responses. I think I may have clarified my own position of prayer, fasting, and sacrificing for them that their hearts will be softened towards God’s will. It would give me comfort to know that you all are praying for them too.

God Bless
Giannawannabe

 

[atsheeran]

Giannawannabe:

atsheeran,

If they were open to children when they first got married, they would then have a valid marriage?

This is my layperson interpretation of the canon law: if they entered into the marriage with the intention to never have children, it would not be a valid marriage. I am not a canon lawyer. Do not rely on this interpretation.

I feel like I HAVE to do something.

The thing to do would be to pray for them. Pray that God will open their hearts to Him and to the sacrament of marriage. I will say a prayer for them as well.

 

[Island_Oak]

Giannawannabe:

They have become hostile to others when even gently questioned regarding some of their lifestyle choices. I fear for my brother especially. He’s already undergone heart surgery and does not take care of himself—he junk foods it continuously and is, in my opinion, an alcoholic.

God Bless
Giannawannabe

Given some of their lifestyle choices…perhaps their hard-heartedness towards children is a blessing in disguise. This is not the way healthy couples (mentally, spiritually and physically) approach marriage and family. Keep close to them in prayer and maintain their confidence in you. You never know when God might soften their hearts. Your strength and faith may be called upon someday to support them whether or not their attitudes about children change. What a sorrow this must be for you–I am so sorry.

 

[Catholic2003]

My point about canon 1060 is that the marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise before a Church tribunal. Thus, it is premature for everyone to be making judgments about whether the marriage is valid or not.

However, if anyone is dead set on usurping the role of the tribunal, here is some added information that may help. From The Invalid Marriage, by Lawrence Wrenn, J.C.D.:

INTENTION AGAINST CHILDREN

…

B. The Right To The Conjugal Act

…

1. The title of this chapter, “Intention Against Children” is a popular and somewhat inaccurate phrase. The right to children is not really exchanged in marriage. When a sterile man marries, for example, he cannot really give the right to children. This, however, does not invalidate the marriage. The right that is exchanged in marriage is the right to the conjugal act, and the sterile man is perfectly capable of that.

…

C. Excluding The Right To The Conjugal Act

…

1. The essential terms of the marriage covenant are not determined by the parties. They are predetermined by God, nature and society. The marriage covenant therefore enjoys a certain constitutional integrity, even a sacred integrity or wholeness. Visually it may be represented by a perfect circle or pie, with one essential piece of the pie being the right to the conjugal act.

1. Generally when a couple enters marriage with an agreement to postpone children for a while, say for two years, their agreement leaves the covenant (the pie) untouched. The covenant remains whole and entire, and the right to the conjugal act (a piece of the pie) is therefore not excluded but exchanged. What the couple does is enter a kind of side agreement, extrinsic to the marriage covenant. At the same time, however, they realize the supriority and prevailing power of the marriage covenant so that in a show-down they would recognize that the rights exhanged in the marriage covenant prevail over their private, subordinate arrangement. If, therefore, one of the parties, say the wife, decided after six months or a year that she wanted children right away, it would be expected that her husband, recognizing that that was her marital right, would acquiesce. Perhaps he would do so reluctantly. Perhaps he would even remind her of their private agreement. But if he eventually acquiesced it would be a sign that he recognized the prevailing power of the marriage covenant (where the right to the conjugal act was granted) over the private agreement of the parties.

It is, at any rate, always presumed that the marriage covenant remained intact, even where there is evidence that the couple had made a premarital agreement to postpone children. Like all presumptions, this one of course cedes to the truth, but in the absense of contrary evidence, the covenant is presumed to have been entered intact, and the marriage therefore entered validly.

1. Occasionally, however, the intent of one or both parties is so firm, intense, inflexible, and non negotiable, that it can no longer be viewed as a side agreement subordinate to the marriage covenant. In such a case the intention of that person invades the heart of the covenant itself, excludes from it the right to the conjugal act (extracts that piece from the pie), and thereby distorts, truncates and intrinsically limits the terms of the covenant. Should a man with such an intention, having entered marriage with the understanding that children would be postponed for say two years, be asked by his wife for a child after only six months, it could be expected that he would see his wife’s request as an illegitimate extension of her rights and something for which he had not really bargained in entering marriage.

This man would have truly excluded the right to the conjugal act and so entered marriage invalidly.

 

[Catholic2003]

atsheeran:

This is my layperson interpretation of the canon law: if they entered into the marriage with the intention to never have children, it would not be a valid marriage. I am not a canon lawyer. Do not rely on this interpretation.

I’m certainly not a canon lawyer either. But I do read a lot of books by canon lawyers, and my understanding of this is a little different. I’ve posted an excerpt from Wrenn’s book above, and it seems like the duration of the intention against children (whether to exclude them forever, or only for a time) isn’t relevant to the validity of the marriage. What matters is whether that intent is superior to the marriage contract, or subordinate to it. Thus, a marriage would be invalid in the case where one spouse was so intent on not having children for the first two years of the marriage that he (or she) would choose divorce if the other spouse should insist on trying to conceive after only six months.

A bit more of my excerpt from Wrenn:

C. 4. Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid. See the decision coram Davino …