Consummation of sacramental marriage

[thistle]

Using a contraceptive does not consummate the marriage.

Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

CONSUMMATED MARRIAGE. A marriage in which after the matrimonial contract is made husband and wife have marital intercourse. Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage. (Etym. Latin consummare, to bring into one sum, to perfect.)

 

[Gorgias]

If your interpretation is correct, wouldn’t we have to assume that the vast majority of Catholic marriages, at least in the West, are in fact invalid, or at least not consummated?

Actually, no. First off, this is not a question of the validity of the marriage, so it’s not helpful to muddy the waters by questioning validity. A valid marriage is a valid marriage, wedding night activities notwithstanding.

Consummation, on the other hand, is a different matter. When a married couple cohabits, the law presumes that they have consummated the marriage; if, for some reason, someone asserts that the marriage isn’t consummated, the burden is on them to prove the assertion.

While the vast majority of couples are open to life (as in, they do intend and want to have children), it is without a doubt very likely that the majority of even Catholic couples contracept during the early stages of marriage…including on the wedding night.

Be that as it may, this presumption wouldn’t hold up without proof. (And, after all, who is it that we are positing who would wish to prove this assertion? )

 

[Gorgias]

A couple who never consummate their marriage, in agreement, are validly married, only they can, either one of them, annul,…later on, …correct?

Not precisely. A couple with a valid marriage cannot obtain a decree of nullity – after all, nullity says that a valid marriage never existed, and that’s not the case here. However, if the marriage was never consummated, it could be dissolved.

It may seem that I’m nit-picking here, but nullity and dissolution are two distinct issues, and the distinction is rather important, theologically speaking…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

For a sacramental marriage to become indissoluble, it must be physically consummated. What if, as I am sure is, today, often the case, the couple is using some form of artificial birth control on their wedding night? Have they truly completed the act?

I have seen it argued (by either a theologian or bishop; can’t remember which) that blocking methods (e.g., condoms) could be construed as not consummating the marriage, as the man’s sperm is not entering the woman’s body. It was also noted by this person that it would be difficult to have a marriage dissolved on this basis, and that he was not aware of any cases attempting to dissolve a marriage on this basis.

Also, the “permanent intention against children” was not brought up in the discussion. If a party does use contraception 100% of the time, that type of information can be used in an annulment case, but that is a discussion separated from what the OP is asking.

 

[Phemie]

This was not an assumption that the couple in the original question had no intention to have children, ever.

I’m asking, WHAT IF “a couple” behaved as I described, being married but only having sex one time before deciding to live as brother and sister and they have NO INTENTION of having children?

The Church can grant permission for a Josephite Marriage, that is one which is never intended to be consummated. When permission is given it’s with the understanding that if one party changes his/her mind later, the other has to consent to do his/her conjugal duty and accept children if they are so blessed.

But as long as they married with the intent to consummate the marriage but to never have children, in my opinion, that marriage was invalid. But I don’t sit on the Tribunal so my opinion is not worth much.

 

[twf]

So the consensus seems to be that until such time that the couple finally does decide to have kids and engage in non-contraceptive intercourse, the marriage could be dissolved if push came to shove.

What if the couple had used contraceptives, but then conceived? Would the marriage be consider indissoluble? I would think so as the physical act occurred which was, contrary to their intent, “apt” for the generation of life. So it seems this becomes a very grey area. There could be countless dissoluble, yet valid, sacramental marriages out there, based on what has been argued on this thread, but it would be near impossible to prove it.

 

[Gorgias]

So the consensus seems to be that until such time that the couple finally does decide to have kids and engage in non-contraceptive intercourse, the marriage could be dissolved if push came to shove.

Except for two things: first, consummation is presumed where there is marital cohabitation, and second, it would be necessary to prove the lack of consummation (not just assert that it is so).

What if the couple had used contraceptives, but then conceived? Would the marriage be consider indissoluble? I would think so as the physical act occurred which was, contrary to their intent, “apt” for the generation of life.

Interesting question. I’ve never had to face that question (nor, I hope, will I ever have to!). One thought comes to mind: one has to consent to the consummation for it to ‘count’, so to speak. In other words, if a spouse is raped on the wedding night, or is drunk/passed out, such that s/he cannot consent to the consummation, then the marriage is not consummated in that act. In either of these cases, it is possible that the particular marital act could be procreative, and yet, it would not imply that consummation had taken place in the context of that act.

There could be countless dissoluble, yet valid, sacramental marriages out there, based on what has been argued on this thread, but it would be near impossible to prove it.

Ok… strictly speaking, this is false. There is the presumption that a marriage in which the couple has attempted to follow form (and in which there is consent and a lack of impediment) is a valid marriage. Likewise, there is the presumption that a valid marriage, in which the spouses cohabitate, has been consummated. Therefore, it is not the case that that there are “countless dissoluble valid sacramental marriages out there.” Rather, there are valid, indissoluble marriages “out there.”

 

[dans0622]

So the consensus seems to be that until such time that the couple finally does decide to have kids and engage in non-contraceptive intercourse, the marriage could be dissolved if push came to shove.

What if the couple had used contraceptives, but then conceived? Would the marriage be consider indissoluble? I would think so as the physical act occurred which was, contrary to their intent, “apt” for the generation of life. So it seems this becomes a very grey area. There could be countless dissoluble, yet valid, sacramental marriages out there, based on what has been argued on this thread, but it would be near impossible to prove it.

Hello,

I would not concur with that “consensus.” Reference was made to the CLSA commentary on this topic. It’s worthwhile to point out that the author of that passage admits that the Code Commission (those who put the 1983 Code together) as well as how the Holy See puts the canon into practice (i.e., in non-consummation cases actually presented for possible dissolution) disagree with his interpretation of what the canon means. So, I doubt there would be any emendation of the canon since those who wrote it and apply it don’t make it mean what Fr. Beal says it might mean.

In other words, basing itself on the traditional practice and the intent of the Code Commission, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will consider a non-consummation case involving artificial contraception if there was always some physical barrier which prevented the man’s ejaculate from being deposited in the proper place. It is the physical barrier that is considered to prevent the act from being “per se apt” for the generation of offspring. Chemicals that mess with the woman’s cycle are not considered.

It is worth remembering that even a man who is otherwise “functional” but has had a vasectomy can be considered potent. So, he is able to consummate a marriage.

Dan

 

[twf]

Hello,

I would not concur with that “consensus.” Reference was made to the CLSA commentary on this topic. It’s worthwhile to point out that the author of that passage admits that the Code Commission (those who put the 1983 Code together) as well as how the Holy See puts the canon into practice (i.e., in non-consummation cases actually presented for possible dissolution) disagree with his interpretation of what the canon means. So, I doubt there would be any emendation of the canon since those who wrote it and apply it don’t make it mean what Fr. Beal says it might mean.

In other words, basing itself on the traditional practice and the intent of the Code Commission, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will consider a non-consummation case involving artificial contraception if there was always some physical barrier which prevented the man’s ejaculate from being deposited in the proper place. It is the physical barrier that is considered to prevent the act from being “per se apt” for the generation of offspring. Chemicals that mess with the woman’s cycle are not considered.

It is worth remembering that even a man who is otherwise “functional” but has had a vasectomy can be considered potent. So, he is able to consummate a marriage.

Dan

This is helpful and makes sense to me. I could understand a physical barrier being an issue…but chemical birth control seems to grey to me and does not in any way impact the actual physical act of the marriage embrace.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Interesting question. I’ve never had to face that question (nor, I hope, will I ever have to!). One thought comes to mind: one has to consent to the consummation for it to ‘count’, so to speak. In other words, if a spouse is raped on the wedding night, or is drunk/passed out, such that s/he cannot consent to the consummation, then the marriage is not consummated in that act. In either of these cases, it is possible that the particular marital act could be procreative, and yet, it would not imply that consummation had taken place in the context of that act.

I disagree with this line of thinking. The consent comes with the marital vows (unless the vows were defective). The spouses do not necessarily need consent afterwards.

Should there be consent after the vows are exchanged? Yes; relations should not be forced. But I don’t think a forced action after valid vows = non-consummation.

 

[Gorgias]

I disagree with this line of thinking. The consent comes with the marital vows (unless the vows were defective). The spouses do not necessarily need consent afterwards.

Sorry – perhaps I was being unclear. I’m not talking about marital consent; I’m talking about consenting to the sex act at the time it happens. Substitute another word for ‘consent’ (‘approval’, ‘assent’, whatever), if that makes it more clear that I’m not talking about consent in the context of validity of marriage.

Should there be consent after the vows are exchanged? Yes; relations should not be forced. But I don’t think a forced action after valid vows = non-consummation.

See Lawler’s Marriage and the Catholic Church: Disputed Questions, p. 80, for a brief discussion of this question. He alludes to the fact that, prior to Vatican II, the Canon Law Digest (Vol 5) says that mere copulation in the absence of assent to the act was sufficient; but, that the subsequent sub-commission dealing with reviewing the canons on marriage opined that this “was hardly consonant with [the teaching] of the Second Vatican Council on marriage, and specifically with its teaching concerning the marital act.” Lawler also admits that there is no established criterion which might allow for a decision on whether an act was assented to or not. Therefore, effectively, there is no way to enforce the question; yet, it seems that the mind of the Church is that the marital act that consummates the marriage should be voluntary and conscious on the part of both spouses.

 

[Gorgias]

Good reminder for us.

The 1985 Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by the Canon Law Society of America says: “The consultors who discussed the canons favored the notion that natural sexual intercourse constituted consummation and that the use of contraceptives did not prevent true completion of the act as long as the device did not interfere with the physical act of intercourse”.

I don’t have a copy of the 1985 Commentary; only a copy of the 2000 “New Commentary”. Does this text show up in the same place as the text I quoted? That is, was the text you quoted above modified and replaced by the text I quoted earlier (thus, showing a change of opinion on the part of the authors/editors)?

 

[Vico]

What is required for consummation is stated by the CDF is that ejaculate is required to be deposited.Finally, on 13 May 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now clearly exercising its doctrinal competence, stated, with the explicit approval of the Roman Pontiff, that the authentic current teaching of the Church is that while impotence is indeed an impediment to marriage, the concept of canonical potency does not necessarily require anything in the ejaculate thathas been produced in the testicles. Asa decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this becomes normative for the whole Church and is of considerable doctrinal authority, although it is, of course, neither infallible nor irreformable.

ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

 

[Gorgias]

What is required for consummation is stated by the CDF is that ejaculate is required to be deposited.

Notice, however, that the subject matter of the document you cite isn’t the consummation of marriage, but validity of marriage. More to the point, the subject matter is, in particular, the question of male impotence and its effect on the validity of marriage. As that document itself states, “the question of precisely what the marriage act implies, on the part of the male partner, will be, to a large extent, the subject matter of this article.”

Therefore, the recourse that the declaration makes to the (1917) CIC is to the canon on marital consent, not the one on consummation (c. 1015). Moreover, the relevant canon on marital consent in the 1983 CIC (c. 1057) does not read in the way that the 1917 canon read (and to which the CDF had recourse in 1977). So, among other things, it would seem that your citation doesn’t really address the particular question at hand.

 

[Vico]

Notice, however, that the subject matter of the document you cite isn’t the consummation of marriage, but validity of marriage. More to the point, the subject matter is, in particular, the question of male impotence and its effect on the validity of marriage. As that document itself states, “the question of precisely what the marriage act implies, on the part of the male partner, will be, to a large extent, the subject matter of this article.”

Therefore, the recourse that the declaration makes to the (1917) CIC is to the canon on marital consent, not the one on consummation (c. 1015). Moreover, the relevant canon on marital consent in the 1983 CIC (c. 1057) does not read in the way that the 1917 canon read (and to which the CDF had recourse in 1977). So, among other things, it would seem that your citation doesn’t really address the particular question at hand.

What was addressed was invalidity due to inability to consummate, and thereby what constitutes consummation was also addressed, which is the subject matter of canons 1015 and 1061. The dubium answered in 1977 by the CDF:**1. Whether the impotence which invalidates marriage consists in the incapacity, both antecedent and perpetual, whether absolute or relative, of completing conjugal intercourse.

1. If affirmative, whether the ejaculation of semen produced in the testicles is necessarily required for conjugal intercourse.

To the first question, the answer is affirmative; to the second, negative**
This clarifies some of what is required for the conjugal act which consummates marriage. The applicable canons on what constitutes consummation are:
*1917 CIC

Can 1015 §1. Matrimonium baptizatorum validum dicitur ratum, si nondum consummatione completum est; ratum et consummatum, si inter coniuges locum habuerit coniugalis actus, ad quem natura sua ordinatur contractus matrimonialis et quo coniuges fiunt una caro.

**1983 CIC

Can. 1061 § 1. Matrimonium inter baptizatos validum dicitur ratum tantum, si non est consummatum; ratum et consummatum,si coniuges inter se humano modo posueruntconiugalem actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum* if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring**, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.*

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Notice, however, that the subject matter of the document you cite isn’t the consummation of marriage, but validity of marriage. More to the point, the subject matter is, in particular, the question of male impotence and its effect on the validity of marriage

What was addressed was invalidity due to inability to consummate

Inasmuch as you mean “invalidity due to inability to consummate on the part of the man”, yes, we agree.

, and thereby what constitutes consummation was also addressed

Only within in the context of the man’s ability to consummate. As the article you cited asserts quite clearly, “in this article we are discussing only the concept of male impotence.”

This clarifies some of what is required for the conjugal act which consummates marriage.

Agreed; yet, the question being asked here has to do with the use of contraception. Inasmuch as that question includes the question of the pill, the article you cite does not attempt to address that question whatsoever.

The applicable canons on what constitutes consummation are:

Thank you. As you might have noticed, these canons have been the subject of the discussion throughout the thread.

 

[Vico]

Inasmuch as you mean “invalidity due to inability to consummate on the part of the man”, yes, we agree.

Only within in the context of the man’s ability to consummate. As the article you cited asserts quite clearly, “in this article we are discussing only the concept of male impotence.”

Agreed; yet, the question being asked here has to do with the use of contraception. Inasmuch as that question includes the question of the pill, the article you cite does not attempt to address that question whatsoever.

Thank you. As you might have noticed, these canons have been the subject of the discussion throughout the thread.

It can be said that the Church teaches that at least some cases of contraception do prevent consummation, per the 1977 dubium and the canon law. I expect that it would not prevent consummation if a woman uses hormones that serve as a contraceptive due to medical necessity.