Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter juicekman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juicekman

Guest
According the U.N. press release from:

un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/dev2469.doc.htm

“Worldwide, 61 per cent of all women of reproductive age who are married or in a consensual union are using contraception. This percentage amounts to 635 million of the more than 1 billion women aged 15-49 who are married or in union.”

QUESTION: Does this mean that all the marriages that intended to use contraception from the start of the marital union are not valid???
 
It is my understanding that, if a couple marries intending to use artificial contraception and avoid having children at all costs, such a marriage would be invalid. If one of the couple has this intention without the knowledge of the other, I believe there would need to be a witness who could testify that this intention was expressed before the marriage took place.
 
40.png
juicekman:
According the U.N. press release from:

un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/dev2469.doc.htm

“Worldwide, 61 per cent of all women of reproductive age who are married or in a consensual union are using contraception. This percentage amounts to 635 million of the more than 1 billion women aged 15-49 who are married or in union.”

QUESTION: Does this mean that all the marriages that intended to use contraception from the start of the marital union are not valid???
Click to expand...
That is quite possible. Especially if this was intentionally hidden during the Marriage preparation process.
 
But recall, the church assumes all marriages are valid until proven otherwise. I seem to recall that it was the intention of never having children as opposed to abc for a while that invalidated a marriage. Is that correct?
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
But recall, the church assumes all marriages are valid until proven otherwise. I seem to recall that it was the intention of never having children as opposed to abc for a while that invalidated a marriage. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I think you are correct. Use of ABC in order to delay conception of children is gravely wrong - as opposed to NFR for grave reasons, but IMO this does not invalidate a marriage, whereas the intention to never have children does.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
But recall, the church assumes all marriages are valid until proven otherwise. I seem to recall that it was the intention of never having children as opposed to abc for a while that invalidated a marriage. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
This is a rule of thumb that some tribunals may use. However, the actual canonical criteria for invalidity is whether there was a positive intention to exclude children (either permanently or just for a time) that was so strong as to subvert the exchange of marital consent.

The theory behind the rule of thumb is that if the couple plans never to have children, the intention against children must be very strong. Conversely, if the couple plans on having children after a few years, it seems likely that their intention against children isn’t all that strong.
 
I really have a hard time accepting that contraception is “wrong” given what we now know in the 21st century about how children are conceived. I don’t get it.
 
Please stay on topic which in this thread is:

QUESTION: Does this mean that all the marriages that intended to use contraception from the start of the marital union are not valid???
 
Eileen T:
I think you are correct. Use of ABC in order to delay conception of children is gravely wrong - as opposed to NFR for grave reasons, but IMO this does not invalidate a marriage, whereas the intention to never have children does.
Click to expand...
Any Marriage entered into with deception has the potential of being null and void. If either intended to deceive the pastor or each other during Marriage preparation as to their intent regarding children there could be a defect in the Marriage.
 
Any time you mess with hormonal functions of the body…bad things happen. My wife and I have 4 children and do not use artificial means to pregnanacy prevention ala natural. Outside of the immorality of it I would never subject my wife to body system altering chemicals. It is a recipe for neoplasm. I wonder what the breast cancer rate is in the remote cut off from modern societies, like pygmies and aboriginees? I bet it is LOW>
 
I would think it is not a valid marriage because if the couple intends on using ABC to consumate the marriage, then they have not given themselves totally to each other and have not consummated their marriage vows. This was the situation with me and my spouse. Unfortunately, not until we both understood the Theology of the Body and stop using ABC many years after our wedding did we actually consumate our marriage vows.
 
40.png
esr:
I would think it is not a valid marriage because if the couple intends on using ABC to consumate the marriage, then they have not given themselves totally to each other and have not consummated their marriage vows. This was the situation with me and my spouse. Unfortunately, not until we both understood the Theology of the Body and stop using ABC many years after our wedding did we actually consumate our marriage vows.
Click to expand...
You are correct “not until we both understood the Theology of the Body and stop using ABC many years after our wedding did we actually consumate our marriage vows.”

However a non-consumated Marriage does not automatically equate to an invalid Marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top