Contemplating marriage with Evangelical/ Sterilization, validity issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter tominrichmondva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tominrichmondva

Guest
Considering possible marriage with a somewhat ‘low church’ Evangelical woman.

My problem is that she has her “tubes tied.” We’re already dealing with many things that are very difficult for her to accept, such as pursuing nullity for her prior marriage, a process she sees as legalistic and absurd.

I’m not sure she would accept reversing her medical sterilization.

By the time marriage is a real possibility, she will be at least 47 years old, so the chance of childbirth is very low.

My question is, would there be an age beyond which there’s a “presumption” of infertility, such that a woman in this situation would not be required to reverse this medical procedure in order to marry validly in the Church?
 
Sterilization and infertility are not impediments to marriage. Impotency is an impediment, however, tubal ligation does not render a woman impotent.
 
Reversal is never required.

However, psychologically, after learning of the Catholic faith she may find herself in a place where she desires it. It seems to happen frequently in many cases that I know of, even when the woman is older. So while it is not, by any means required, you may want to keep it in the back of your mind or at least have good psychological and spiritual help for her ready if she strugles with this past decision.
 
OK, so sterilization is not an invalidating fact.

I guess the issue then would be, is consent defective if she is not intending to be fully open to life, even if pregnancy is nearly impossible. Wouldn’t she have to accept, at least “morally,” that the marriage be open to life, I suppose by signalling some kind of repentance for having been sterilized? Again, I fear I cannot convince her of the Church’s rationale for insisting on this… even a 70- year old woman who marries has to have at least a theoretical openess to life, right?

Thanks for the advice and comments.
 
tominrichmondva said:
OK, so sterilization is not an invalidating fact.

I guess the issue then would be, is consent defective if she is not intending to be fully open to life, even if pregnancy is nearly impossible. Wouldn’t she have to accept, at least “morally,” that the marriage be open to life, I suppose by signalling some kind of repentance for having been sterilized? Again, I fear I cannot convince her of the Church’s rationale for insisting on this… even a 70- year old woman who marries has to have at least a theoretical openess to life, right?

Thanks for the advice and comments.
Click to expand...
Because infertility (natural or self-inflicted) is NOT an invalidating factor. A woman can marry without a uterus, ovaries or fallopian tube so long as she is a biological female and she has a vagina that can be utilized during sexual intercourse by a man. Even a young woman may had “ovarian torsion” and had to have an ovary–or both–removed.

A man, so long as he can err—“salute”, regardless if his fluids have no “swimmers”

It’s the ability to have sex, not the ability to actually procreate that makes a valid marriage.
 
That’s really the rub. As other have said fertility is not the question, but if one party does not accept procreation is an essential element of marriage it can raise doubts on what they are consenting to. One that outright rejects children as a natural part of marriage are in the same boat as those that accept that you can divorce when marriage is no longer “fulfilling” to one party or the other. We have to remember that the Church has a very clear definition of the purpose of marriage as a “covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring”. To reject any of those elements calls in to doubt if the parties are intending marriage as the Church understands it.

I know when we did marriage prep that we were to note anyone that was not open to children, even in theory. This included couples in their 60s. Ultimately it would be up to the clergy involved in their prep, but any couple that we noted certainly had a longer discussion about what the fullness of marriage involves.
 
tominrichmondva said:
is consent defective if she is not intending to be fully open to life
Click to expand...
What is your source for believing this somehow part of the reqs for a valid marriage?

Married persons are asked “Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

Nothing about being “fully open to life”.

The larger problem is dating a woman who may not be free to marry.
 
If her prior marriage is not null, then she’s a married woman. I would avoid dating a woman who is still married to another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top