Does willful intent to contracept automatically make the marriage vow null?

[deheister]

For a marriage to be valid in the Church, I understand you need three things:

1. Valid form (married in the Church or have approval to marry elsewhere).
2. Valid capacity (each person fully comprehends the commitment one is about to make).
3. Valid consent (each person fully intends to do what one vows to do).

There is a Catholic couple that willfully intended to and did so engage in contraception immediately upon becoming married in the Church. After a few years, their marriage ended.

Questions:

1. Does the willful intent to contracept automatically invalidate their consent, essentially making the marriage null?
2. If neither one of the couple exhibits any interest in petitioning for a declaration of nullity, can I as a third party make that petition on their behalf? (Maybe this would just be some misguided attempt to save them from further compounding their sin, since both are seeking new relationships.)

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[renee1258]

“Willful intent to contracept” would have to mean they were fully aware of the natural family planning options, such as taken a full course on the subject. It is hard to say willing, when so few parishes fully educate young persons and couples on the subject. Most couples only get a tiny brouchure at marriage prep, while they are already cohabitating and contracepting.

 

[masondoggy]

Sadly, if that is true, then most Catholic couples are living in invalid marriages right now.

 

[cameron_lansing]

“1. Does the willful intent to contracept automatically invalidate their consent, essentially making the marriage null?”

The matrimonial covenant is ordered by nature to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children (canon 1055 §1). These are essential elements of marriage. If a party excludes either essential element by a positive act of the will at the time when consent is manifested (i.e. the wedding), the party contracts marriage invalidly (canon 1101 §2).

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, when a doubt exists the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven (canon 1060). Moreover, the law says that the internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or signs used in celebrating the marriage.(canon 1101 §1).

So nothing of this manner operates “automatically.” The exclusion of the bonum prolis (what people commonly call openness to children) would have to be proven through a tribunal process. Otherwise, the marriage properly celebrated by parties who are qualified by the law enjoys the presumption of validity. Beyond that, it should be noted that complex jurisprudence is involved regarding what this kind of intention is and how it is proven.

“2. If neither one of the couple exhibits any interest in petitioning for a declaration of nullity, can I as a third party make that petition on their behalf?”

No. Only the parties, and in certain cases the diocesan promoter of justice, have the standing to impugn the validity of marriage. See canon 1674.

As passing notes,

1. It would be irrelevant whether the exclusion of children was effected by either artificial contraception or natural family planning. At the time of consent, for example, a person could have placed a positive act of the will to exclude children at the time of consent and then permitted relations only during “safe periods.”

If, however, the couple merely intend to regulate the birth of children licitly, through approved methods of natural family planning, then the spectre of exclusion would not be raised.

1. The practice of contraception itself, even when prolonged over several years, may indicate an abuse of the right but not necessarily its exclusion. A tribunal would have to consider the facts carefully. The intention must have arisen from a positive act of the will at the time of the wedding and not later.

 

[mdgspencer]

If this involves a particular person, he or she should see the parish priest to see if their marriage can be annulled.
The question is not whether they use contraception, but whether they intend to never have children. According to my understanding, that would make the marriage invalid.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

For a marriage to be valid in the Church, I understand you need three things:

1. Valid form (married in the Church or have approval to marry elsewhere).
2. Valid capacity (each person fully comprehends the commitment one is about to make).
3. Valid consent (each person fully intends to do what one vows to do).

There is a Catholic couple that willfully intended to and did so engage in contraception immediately upon becoming married in the Church. After a few years, their marriage ended.

Questions:

1. Does the willful intent to contracept automatically invalidate their consent, essentially making the marriage null?
2. If neither one of the couple exhibits any interest in petitioning for a declaration of nullity, can I as a third party make that petition on their behalf? (Maybe this would just be some misguided attempt to save them from further compounding their sin, since both are seeking new relationships.)

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Thanks!

It could very well be seen as an important factor in determining the validity of the Marriage. I do not believe that anyone but the persons involved in the actual Marriage can start an Annulment process. Except maybe a Bishop, who can investigate the validity of any Sacrament celebrated in his diocese.

 

[cameron_lansing]

It could very well be seen as an important factor in determining the validity of the Marriage. I do not believe that anyone but the persons involved in the actual Marriage can start an Annulment process. Except maybe a Bishop, who can investigate the validity of any Sacrament celebrated in his diocese.

In the sense that the diocesan bishop he could try the case personally, he could investigate it as judge (canons 1419 §1, 1420) but normally his tribunal would.

No matter how it was tried though, the diocesan bishop would have to convince the promoter of justice to place the complaint of nullity. Even the diocesan bishop has no judicial standing to impugn the marriage on the basis of canon 1674.

 

[patientone]

Excellent advise Deacon John! Thanks for pointing out the black and white with what tends to be a very grey subject.

 

[masondoggy]

If this involves a particular person, he or she should see the parish priest to see if their marriage can be annulled.
The question is not whether they use contraception, but whether they intend to never have children. According to my understanding, that would make the marriage invalid.

What if one party refused to have more than 1 or 2 kids, even though the other party wanted more than that. Isn’t that kind of an intention from the get-go of withholding your fertility from your spouse?

 

[KCT]

“Willful intent to contracept” would have to mean they were fully aware of the natural family planning options, such as taken a full course on the subject. It is hard to say willing, when so few parishes fully educate young persons and couples on the subject. Most couples only get a tiny brouchure at marriage prep, while they are already cohabitating and contracepting.

We took an NFP course while engaged. Sadly, we learned the ‘how’ but not the ‘why’. So even though we knew NFP, I don’t think we were culpable for later decisions because we were not taught everything we should have been.
—KCT

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

In the sense that the diocesan bishop he could try the case personally, he could investigate it as judge (canons 1419 §1, 1420) but normally his tribunal would.

No matter how it was tried though, the diocesan bishop would have to convince the promoter of justice to place the complaint of nullity. Even the diocesan bishop has no judicial standing to impugn the marriage on the basis of canon 1674.

My train of thought on the last comment is that the Bishop is the authority who determines the validity of Sacraments celebrated in his diocese. In the case of questionable Baptisms for instance where a priest is making up his own words. It would be the Bishop who would look into the matter and rule on the validity of the Baptisms. Could a Bishop be informed of questionable practices involving the Sacrament of Marriage and investigate the validity of the celebrations of the Sacrament by a certain priest, or deacon. Such as allowing couples to write their own vows which might not contain the necessary Form.

 

[cameron_lansing]

My train of thought on the last comment is that the Bishop is the authority who determines the validity of Sacraments celebrated in his diocese. In the case of questionable Baptisms for instance where a priest is making up his own words. It would be the Bishop who would look into the matter and rule on the validity of the Baptisms. Could a Bishop be informed of questionable practices involving the Sacrament of Marriage and investigate the validity of the celebrations of the Sacrament by a certain priest, or deacon. Such as allowing couples to write their own vows which might not contain the necessary Form.

His investigation of repeated questionable practices of a cleric would be separable from the determination of validity in a particular marriage. The former involves his executive authority and the latter would involve his judicial authority exercised through the tribunal. If he determined that the repeated practices of a given priest or deacon resulted in things that vitiated the required canonical form, he could discipline the priest. Quite likely, he would issue radical sanations to validate the marriages on his own initiative since the issue was the legal manifestation rather than the consent or qualification of the parties to marry. Otherwise the discovery of such a practice in an individual case would be part of the tribunal’s process after one of the parties or the promoter impugned the marriage.