Convalidation and Consummation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miserissima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miserissima

Guest
If a civilly married couple finally get their marriage convalidated, but have not consummated their marriage vows, are they truly married in the eyes of the Church yet?

Seems to me that the civil marraige was society just sanctioning living in sin; now that they have the go-ahead from the Church to be intimate, they’re not! What irony is this?
 
Miserissima said:
If a civilly married couple finally get their marriage convalidated, but have not consummated their marriage vows, are they truly married in the eyes of the Church yet?
Click to expand...
Validity does not hinge on consummation. Indissoluability does-- a marriage that has not been consummated can be dissolved by the Holy See:

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.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
 
Miserissima said:
If a civilly married couple finally get their marriage convalidated, but have not consummated their marriage vows, are they truly married in the eyes of the Church yet?
Click to expand...
If the couple have already been intimate during their civil marriage, does that count as consummation?
 
Miserissima said:
If a civilly married couple finally get their marriage convalidated, but have not consummated their marriage vows, are they truly married in the eyes of the Church yet?

Seems to me that the civil marraige was society just sanctioning living in sin; now that they have the go-ahead from the Church to be intimate, they’re not! What irony is this?
Click to expand...
A marriage that has not been consummated is not valid. That is why impotence is a bar to a Catholic getting married. An infertile Catholic can marry but not an impotent one.
Only an invalid marriage can be dissolved.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
 
thistle said:
A marriage that has not been consummated is not valid. That is why impotence is a bar to a Catholic getting married. An infertile Catholic can marry but not an impotent one.
Only an invalid marriage can be dissolved.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Validity does not require consummation. See the canon cited in Post #2. A valid marriage ratum tantum, meaning unconsummated, may be dissolved per canon 1142.

“Invalid marriage” is really an oxymoron. A marriage is either valid or it is no marriage at all. One may invalidly attempt to marry but no marriage results from the attempt. One cannot dissolve a “marriage” that never happened.

JSA+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top