Birth control and invalid marriage

[TravisandJill]

Is a marriage invalid because you used birth control at the start of marriage to delay children? I read somewhere (EWTN) that this would invalidate it.

My husband and I were not Catholics and we did use the pill and condoms at the start of our marriage and now wonder if this was an impediment and how I can rectify this if it is.
We were just told our natural marriage became sacramental at my baptism and nothing else

 

[e_c]

The “intention against children” is only grounds (for an annulment, which is an investigation of the validity of the marriage) by the use of contraception if the union is over and has produced no children at that time.

Be at ease.

 

[1ke]

Is a marriage invalid because you used birth control at the start of marriage to delay children? I read somewhere (EWTN) that this would invalidate it.

NO.

Using contraceptives at some point during a marriage and a permanent intention against children are NOT the same thing.

Perhaps you misunderstood what you were reading on EWTN. It is also possible someone misspoke on there.

My husband and I were not Catholics and we did use the pill and condoms at the start of our marriage and now wonder if this was an impediment and how I can rectify this if it is.
We were just told our natural marriage became sacramental at my baptism and nothing else

No it is not an impediment. No you do not have an invalid marriage. No you do not need to do anything.

 

[1ke]

The “intention against children” is only grounds (for an annulment, which is an investigation of the validity of the marriage) by the use of contraception if the union is over and has produced no children at that time.

Be at ease.

It’s not the use of contraception or whether or not children exist, per se. It is the determination of the will against children, permanently. Use of contraceptives could be evidence of the will, but does not in and of itself determine the will.

 

[TravisandJill]

For the record here is where I found it:

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=442404

Perhaps I did misunderstand?

 

[tee_eff_em]

For the record here is where I found it:

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=442404

Perhaps I did misunderstand?

:twocents:

The “expert” has written imprudently.

NB the question revolves around Canon 1061. Read that Canon. Read it out loud. Let me help: *"A

valid

marriage between the baptized is called …"*

Not *A *putative marriage
Not *An *ambiguous *marriage *with no adjectives
But *A

valid

marriage*

The validity of the marriage under consideration can be no clearer.

:twocents:
tee
**Disclaimer: **

Who Is Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[PaulfromIowa]

For the record here is where I found it:

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=442404

Perhaps I did misunderstand?

Answer by Robert J. Flummerfelt, J.C.L. on 6/28/2005:
If the pill is used, the ‘human manner’ portion is fulfilled and the marriage is indeed consummated, BUT this clearly [if done regularly]would INVALIDATE the marriage since there was no openness to children.

I also think that he spoke rather unwisely. A valid marriage must be open to life, but the temporary use of artificial contraception would not prove a lack of openness to life.

 

[Kaliaa]

Please talk to your parish priest to ease your mind over this issue.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It can also be helpful to remember that if you have a valid marriage, nothing you do later can *invalidate *it (So that, IMHO, is a poor choice of words).

Regular and consistent use of artificial birth control can indicate the pre-existing intent against children, but it will have been that intent which has rendered the attempted marriage invalid, not the subsequent use of contraception.

tee
Still Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s not the use of contraception or whether or not children exist, per se. It is the determination of the will against children, permanently. Use of contraceptives could be evidence of the will, but does not in and of itself determine the will.

I think there is some intentional ambiguity on whether mutually agreed unwillingness to have children invalidates a marriage. If it was hidden from one of the parties I think you would be right. But if both agreed I am not fully sure.

The relevant Code 1069 says:

“For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

This does not categorically state that a Mary/Joseph type agreement (leaving aside their unconsummated relationship) invalidates from what I can see.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I think there is some intentional ambiguity on whether mutually agreed unwillingness to have children invalidates a marriage. If it was hidden from one of the parties I think you would be right. But if both agreed I am not fully sure.

The relevant Code 1069 says:

1096

“For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

This does not categorically state that a Mary/Joseph type agreement (leaving aside their unconsummated relationship) invalidates from what I can see.

NB that Mary and Joseph were married according to Jewish customs of the day, not the not-yet-existant Catholic ones. I cannot speak intelligently to such circumstances, but Catholic teaching, in any case, is that *consummation *is not required for validity. (Again: Nothing that happens – or does not happen – after becoming validly married can cause it to become invalid)

tee
IANACL

 

[1ke]

I think there is some intentional ambiguity on whether mutually agreed unwillingness to have children invalidates a marriage. If it was hidden from one of the parties I think you would be right. But if both agreed I am not fully sure.

It isn’t ambiguous at all. The relevant canon is 1101.2 and a permanent intention against children does render an attempt to contract marriage invalid.

The relevant Code 1069 says:

“For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

That is not relevant to a defect of consent by withholding an essential property of marriage. Ignorance of the Conjugal Act is a different situation that Total Simulation or a Partial Simulation Against the Good of Children.

This does not categorically state that a Mary/Joseph type agreement (leaving aside their unconsummated relationship) invalidates from what I can see.

You are looking at the wrong canon.

And a Josephite marriage does not necessarily imply any defect of consent or rejection of an essential property of marriage. That would indeed be investigated prior to the marriage going forward.

And, validity does not depend on consummation as your parenthetical seems to imply. Validity is established at the time of consent.

 

[1ke]

For the record here is where I found it:

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=442404

Perhaps I did misunderstand?

The EWTN expert gives his opinion, one he readily admits that Rome would not adjudicate the same way.

He is overstating the situation, really didn’t do a good job of distinguishing what exactly renders a marriage invalid via canon 1101.2 which is MORE than simply using contraception. Use of contraception could be evidence of such intent, particularly if one spouse asks for non contracepted sex and the other refuses, contraception is used permanently or one or both are sterilized prior to marriage or even in marriage, conception results in an abortion, or other such evidence of a permanent intention against children.

It is a specific act of the will prior to the marriage, either one spouse or unilaterally, that the couple (or the one spouse) does not want or intend children to be part of the marriage, period. It’s called Partial Simulation Against the Good of Children. If one spouse hid that from the other, then you possibly have other grounds related to conditional consent, fraud, etc.

The bottom line is, just because you used contraception as a Protestant it does NOT mean you have an invalid marriage.

Did you and your husband have a permanent intention against children at the time you exchanged vows and does that carry to the present day without a change in the will?

If the answer is no, put this out of your mind, don’t let random things you read here or anywhere else trouble you so. If you have a sensitive conscience, get under the care of a priest or spiritual director.

 

[TravisandJill]

Thanks, KE

The other thing that bothers me is that when I married I didn’t specifically think my husband would cheat but was quite feminist in my beliefs and had the intention that IF I was ever cheated on I would divorce. We were non practicing Protestants at that time so didn’t know the Catholic view of marriage. Of course we are happily married for 15 years now and no issues.

 

[tee_eff_em]

This really pushes the limits of my non-Canon-Lawyerness.

It is my understanding that unlike the other direction, an objectively *invalid *marriage *can *become subsequently valid, if the impediment ceases and the consent continues. For instance, if an unmarried protestant marries a divorced protestant, their union is objectively invalid, due to the prior bond – But if the previous spouse dies, provided consent continues and other things being equal, the couple “automatically” becomes validly married.

Likewise, I believe, if your misunderstanding about the permanence of marriage has been corrected, and consent continues, your marriage has become valid.

I think. :twocents:

tee
Who REALLY Is Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[TravisandJill]

i hope that is the case Tee. That IF there happened to be an impediment to marriage that the fact that my husband and I NOW want to stay married forever causes the potential impediment to cease.

 

[dans0622]

…
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=442404 …

Yes, that answer could have been better.

Leaving aside the non-consummation part (which, for this thread, is an off-topic can of worms), the statement

If the pill is used, … this clearly [if done regularly]would INVALIDATE the marriage since there was no openness to children.

puts the practical cart before the intentional horse.

If it is true that “(since) there was no openness to children” **then **you can more legitimately say that “this clearly … would INVALIDATE the marriage.” The use of “the pill… [if done regularly]” can be evidence of that “invalidating” intention.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

i hope that is the case Tee. That IF there happened to be an impediment to marriage that the fact that my husband and I NOW want to stay married forever causes the potential impediment to cease.

Hello,

Technically, you’re not talking about an “impediment” but a possible defect in your consent. Regarding the “if he cheats, I divorce” line of thought, that’s not something that necessarily proves that your consent was defective. Even a Catholic can legitimately separate because of adultery.

If you continue to have doubts about your marriage (which I don’t think are warranted, for what it’s worth), talk to a local priest about it.

Dan

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It isn’t ambiguous at all. The relevant canon is 1101.2 and a permanent intention against children does render an attempt to contract marriage invalid.

That is not relevant to a defect of consent by withholding an essential property of marriage. Ignorance of the Conjugal Act is a different situation that Total Simulation or a Partial Simulation Against the Good of Children.

You are looking at the wrong canon.

And a Josephite marriage does not necessarily imply any defect of consent or rejection of an essential property of marriage. That would indeed be investigated prior to the marriage going forward.

And, validity does not depend on consummation as your parenthetical seems to imply. Validity is established at the time of consent.

Can you quote where canon law defines the essential elements of marriage?
I believe there is debate on the issue when it comes to not intending children but I may be mistaken.
Do you accept that Joseph and Mary’s marriage would not be valid if they lived in Catholic times according to your view.

And what of civil marriages…if canon law here merely mirrors natural law (eg same sex marriages everywhere and in any age are not valid marriages) then it seems to impugn Joseph and Mary…which of course cannot be the case.

Obviously I have not been talking about non consummation in this discussion.

 

[1ke]

Can you quote where canon law defines the essential elements of marriage?

CCC 1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (GS 50 § 1).

I believe there is debate on the issue when it comes to not intending children but I may be mistaken.

No, I don’t believe so. It is clearly grounds for a nullity per canon 1101. See here for explanation:
madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/Tribunal/TheGroundsofNullity.aspx

Do you accept that Joseph and Mary’s marriage would not be valid if they lived in Catholic times according to your view.

No, because that’s not true and I clearly stated the opposite in my prior post.

And what of civil marriages…

What of it?

if canon law here merely mirrors natural law (eg same sex marriages everywhere and in any age are not valid marriages) then it seems to impugn Joseph and Mary…which of course cannot be the case.

Canon law does not “merely mirror natural law”.

Obviously I have not been talking about non consummation in this discussion.

Neither have I, except to respond to specific statements about consummation.