Invalid marriage without children?

[NoAvailableName]

According to usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml, in order for a marriage to be valid, a couple must be “open to children”.

It is my understanding that:

1. to be “open to children”, you cannot use any form of birth control (even NFP unless you have a very good reason like not having enough money).
2. couples that are invalidly married are committing a mortal sin every time they have sex

I know plenty of Catholics who openly use birth control pills or are probably using birth control due to their lack of children. Are these couples validly married? Should they be allowed to receive communion?

 

[Trishie]

Validity is determined at time of marriage, not subsequently

Canon 1057.2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

Following are some conditions that make marriages invalid

Consanguinity
Psychological state precluding ability to consent
No intention, when marrying, to contract a lifelong relationship (simulation of consent)
No intention, when marrying, to have children
Deception of one party by the other in order to obtain consent, and if the partner had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to marry
Abduction with the intent to compel marriage (known as raptus), constitutes an impediment as long as he/she remains in the kidnapper’s power. (The abduction of a man constitutes an impediment in the Eastern Church but not in the Latin church.)
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages, such as clandestinity
Impediment of Crime, bringing about physically (or through moral cooperation) the death of one’s own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage
Undispensed defect of form, form being marrying in the presence of a priest or deacon and according to the required form of words.

We can never assume that anyone is deliberately refusing to have children. Infertility is increasing.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

According to usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml, in order for a marriage to be valid, a couple must be “open to children”.

It is my understanding that:

1. to be “open to children”, you cannot use any form of birth control (even NFP unless you have a very good reason like not having enough money).
2. couples that are invalidly married are committing a mortal sin every time they have sex

I know plenty of Catholics who openly use birth control pills or are probably using birth control due to their lack of children. Are these couples validly married? Should they be allowed to receive communion?

I don’t have much to add to the original topic, but I really would like to address the bolded text.

This is an incredibly painful judgement to make of your bretheren. You do NOT know which of these “probably” catholics are infertile! As a woman who is struggling with fertility issues, I face this judgement a lot. And it only serves to twist the knife of childlessness. PLEASE be careful when trying to judge who is contracepting and who is not…and careful generally means just plain don’t do it. Accusing someone of contracepting who is sterile hurts them more than you can ever really know unless you are there.

 

[grandfather]

According to usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml, in order for a marriage to be valid, a couple must be “open to children”.

It is my understanding that:

1. to be “open to children”, you cannot use any form of birth control (even NFP unless you have a very good reason like not having enough money).
2. couples that are invalidly married are committing a mortal sin every time they have sex

I know plenty of Catholics who openly use birth control pills or are probably using birth control due to their lack of children. Are these couples validly married? Should they be allowed to receive communion?

Couples who marry when one or both never intend to have children are invalidly married. The Church would annul such a marriage if requested. A decree of nullity is a statement that says there never was a marriage.

Couples who practice artificial contraception or NFP when they intend to never marry are engaging in sin and should not receive Communion until they repent. They may or may not be validly married. It depends on their intentions when they got married.

The moral law applies to everyone, Protestants and Catholics alike. God did not make a separate set of rules for one group or another. If it is sinful for a Protestant to tell a lie or steal, it is also sinful for a Catholic or an atheist. Evil is evil. People may disagree about what is moral, but the moral law has nothing to do with what we think about it. It is what it is, just like physical laws. Gravity does not go away if we do not believe in it. We can not vote about it.

There are consequences to violating the moral law. So when we see an epidemic of divorce, or promiscuity or perversion, there is a reason for it, whether we know what it is or not. Suppose two people married, had a ceremony, got a license and both believed fidelity was not necessary to a marriage. They agreed it was ok to be unfaithful. Suppose this became a popular notion and the people who believed it knew the Church condemned the behavior, but they do not accept the teaching. What would happen to marriage and family in society?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

According to usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml, in order for a marriage to be valid, a couple must be “open to children”.

It is my understanding that:

1. to be “open to children”, you cannot use any form of birth control (even NFP unless you have a very good reason like not having enough money).
2. couples that are invalidly married are committing a mortal sin every time they have sex

I know plenty of Catholics who openly use birth control pills or are probably using birth control due to their lack of children. Are these couples validly married? Should they be allowed to receive communion?

Using birth control pills, or intending to do so when you get married does not invalidate a marriage. Open to children is talking about marriages made where children are intentionally excluded from the union at the time of the marriage.

 

[diggerdomer]

According to usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml, in order for a marriage to be valid, a couple must be “open to children”.

It is my understanding that:

1. to be “open to children”, you cannot use any form of birth control (even NFP unless you have a very good reason like not having enough money).
2. couples that are invalidly married are committing a mortal sin every time they have sex

I know plenty of Catholics who openly use birth control pills or are probably using birth control due to their lack of children. Are these couples validly married? Should they be allowed to receive communion?

1. nope
2. nope

 

[NoAvailableName]

Whitacre,
Sorry to hear about your infertility issues and I wish you the best of luck. I too know of couples with infertility issues and can only imagine how frustrating this must be.

All,
It still isn’t clear to me if “open for children” means “is willing to have at least one child when married” or “never plans on using birth control contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings” It seems the majority of the responders tend towards the second choice, but from my internet research I would guess the first.

The main reason I am asking is because I may become engaged to a Catholic girl soon who wants to get married in a Catholic church. We plan to have kids after marriage, but will likely be using some form of birth control in opposition to the Catholic church’s teaching on birth control because she (like most Catholics) disagrees with the Catholic church’s stance on birth control. Since we are not poor, it seems to me that a strict interpretation of Catholic doctrine would not even allow us to practice NFP to avoid having children. But neither of us is interested in having tons of children, even if the Catholic church believes that is what we should be doing.

So would our marriage be considered valid or would we be considered liars at the altar?

 

[camerong]

It still isn’t clear to me if “open for children” means “is willing to have at least one child when married” or “never plans on using birth control contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings” It seems the majority of the responders tend towards the second choice, but from my internet research I would guess the first.

Being open to children, as a prerequisite for a valid marriage, means being willing to have kids. The only way to violate this is if a couple says, before getting married, “we’re never ever going to have kids.” As I understand it, this is not violated if the couple says “we want to wait” or even if the couple says “we will use contraception,” because the couple is still open in general to children–just not quite yet. IMO, it is a very poor interpretation of Catholicism that says a couple cannot use NFP to put off children for financial reasons.

However, artificial contraception is a sin, just not something that can invalidate a marriage. If you use contraception after getting married, you did not lie on the alter, for you never promised to never sin–that would be impossible, of course.

That said, I strongly, strongly recommend you obtaining and reading a book called Holy Sex!. You are both taking opposition to Church’s teachings on sex, when, by your own admission, you don’t fully understand them. I too was once very much in your position. Please consider reading the above book, and then you both can have a better understanding of what is allowed in strict Catholic marriages, and can make a much more educated decision as to whether you want to follow the Church on these issues.

Good luck.

 

[grandfather]

Being open to children, as a prerequisite for a valid marriage, means being willing to have kids. The only way to violate this is if a couple says, before getting married, “we’re never ever going to have kids.” As I understand it, this is not violated if the couple says “we want to wait” or even if the couple says “we will use contraception,” because the couple is still open in general to children–just not quite yet. IMO, it is a very poor interpretation of Catholicism that says a couple cannot use NFP to put off children for financial reasons.

However, artificial contraception is a sin, just not something that can invalidate a marriage. If you use contraception after getting married, you did not lie on the alter, for you never promised to never sin–that would be impossible, of course.
Good luck.

That is an accurate explanation of the situation being discussed. Sex is a gift and it is holy. All gifts of God are holy, and good. We misuse His gifts and they become corrupt.
A couple joins with God in the creation of another being with an immortal soul, with an eternal destiny to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity. The angels can not do this. Humans do it. It is very holy if we can see it through the eyes of faith. When we take some chemical to reject God’s gift we act immorally and when we act immorally there are always consequences. The epidemic of divorce and spousal hostility in our time is the consequence of sin in marriage. People who are not aware of what is moral or not, are not immune from the consequences. You may not know that smoking causes cancer, or not believe it, but you will still suffer the consequences.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…All,
It still isn’t clear to me if “open for children” means “is willing to have at least one child when married” or “never plans on using birth control contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings” It seems the majority of the responders tend towards the second choice, but from my internet research I would guess the first.

The main reason I am asking is because I may become engaged to a Catholic girl soon who wants to get married in a Catholic church. We plan to have kids after marriage, but will likely be using some form of birth control in opposition to the Catholic church’s teaching on birth control because she (like most Catholics) disagrees with the Catholic church’s stance on birth control. Since we are not poor, it seems to me that a strict interpretation of Catholic doctrine would not even allow us to practice NFP to avoid having children. But neither of us is interested in having tons of children, even if the Catholic church believes that is what we should be doing.

So would our marriage be considered valid or would we be considered liars at the altar?

Congratulations on your possibly up-coming engagement!

During your engagement you will likely fill out a registry for gifts you hope to recieve in your marriage. The Church calls children the "supreme gift of marriage."Marriage is the start of a new family–which begins with a husband and wife. The gift of a child flows from the love between the spouses. God generally gives a couple one child at a time. Don’t worry at the present time about God giving you too many–so far you don’t even know for sure that He will give you one.

Contraception is very pervasive in this society. Despite it’s common acceptance, the Catholic Church teaches that contracepting is a serious sin that misuses sexuality. That doesn’t mean contraceptive use automatically invalidates a marriage. You might want to discuss this further during your marriage prep with the priest or deacon who will be performing the ceremony.

Your brought up “strict interpretation of Church doctrine”. The Church teaches that couples can validly use NFP if they discern there is a “just” reason to avoid pregnancy. Poverty is not the only “just reason.” The church does not define for couples what constitutes a “just reason” but encourages us to examine our reasons to make sure we aren’t motivated by selfishness.

From the Catechism 2368 "A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasos, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality…"

The phrase “objective criteria of morality” relates to the issue of contraception.

People in our society–many Catholics included-- seem to accept the “secular dogma” that contraception is okay. Look objectively at what happened to marriage in our society after the wide-spread acceptance of contraception. I strongly encourage you and the Catholic woman whom you are considering marrying to learn more about NFP and why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong. While use of contraception alone will (likely) not invalidate a marriage, contraception is not good for marriage!

 

[Alindawyl]

The main reason I am asking is because I may become engaged to a Catholic girl soon who wants to get married in a Catholic church. We plan to have kids after marriage, but will likely be using some form of birth control in opposition to the Catholic church’s teaching on birth control because she (like most Catholics) disagrees with the Catholic church’s stance on birth control. Since we are not poor, it seems to me that a strict interpretation of Catholic doctrine would not even allow us to practice NFP to avoid having children. But neither of us is interested in having tons of children, even if the Catholic church believes that is what we should be doing.

So would our marriage be considered valid or would we be considered liars at the altar?

Use of artificial birth control at the time you get married does not in and of itself invalidate the marriage. But as has been said by more than one poster, it’s still a sinful act.

My wife and I also used artificial birth control after getting married. Once we found out that the pill acted as an abortifacient, we discussed the matter and decided that maybe the Church knew what she was talking about after all and went to NFP classes. Best decision ever. My wife is now a staunch supporter of NFP, and she’s not even Catholic.

The next confession I had after that was probably the worst one I’ve even experienced. Having to confess to possibly killing (through ignorance, but killing nonetheless) an unknown number of my own children during the time I consented to my wife’s decision to use the pill wasn’t a pleasant experience. You owe it to your possible future wife to ensure she never has to experience such a confession.

The Church doesn’t “want” you to have a specific number of children. The Church only wants you to be open to life and willing to hear what God says on the subject. It’s his call, not the Church, and if you are only called to have one or two children or even none at all, then who are we to judge? Maybe you should adopt. Maybe children would somehow be an impediment to your salvation. Maybe God wants the two of you to devote a great deal of time to a specific ministry and you should forego having more than one or two children because of that.

Pray about such things together, and be open to hear what God wills for you. One of the best aspects of using NFP instead of artificial birth control is you can ask the question again every cycle and take action immediately if/when you feel called to have a child.

It’s all too easy to view NFP as nothing more than simply another form of birth control, but it involves more than just determining when a woman is more and less likely to be fertile and abstaining on more fertile days. At first after taking the classes I wondered what all the fuss was about and why anyone would not choose to use NFP, because it’s so logical and reasonable. Then one month we were both “in the mood” on the day that my wife was most likely to conceive that cycle. Logic and reason got to face off with emotion and desire. It really makes you think about whether or not a decision to postpone children is the right one, and if you think it is, evaluate whether or not you have the right motives in doing so. If you’re both willing to abstain despite both having the desire for intercourse, then it’s much more likely you’re making the right decision in postponing children. With artificial birth control, you just engage in intercourse whenever you want without ever asking God the question, “Are we really doing the right thing by not wanting a child right now?”

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Couples who marry when one or both never intend to have children are invalidly married. The Church would annul such a marriage if requested. A decree of nullity is a statement that says there never was a marriage.

And you can imagine the unpleasant surprise of discovering this some time after I began investigating Catholicism. So effectively, I and certain other married Protestants have to consider the pros & cons of joining a church that considers us single. Must we start living under separate roofs?

 

[cfdmpo]

And you can imagine the unpleasant surprise of discovering this some time after I began investigating Catholicism. So effectively, I and certain other married Protestants have to consider the pros & cons of joining a church that considers us single. Must we start living under separate roofs?

Why would the church consider you single? If you were married in a christian church, the Catholic church considers this a valid marriage because neither of you were Catholic at the time. Because of this, if you were to get a divorce, before you you could be remarried, you would need an annulment. Even if you were not Catholic, but wanted top remarry a catholic, you would need an annulment.

Getting married with no intention of having children would be a reason for an annulment.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Why would the church consider you single? If you were married in a christian church, the Catholic church considers this a valid marriage because neither of you were Catholic at the time. Because of this, if you were to get a divorce, before you you could be remarried, you would need an annulment. Even if you were not Catholic, but wanted top remarry a catholic, you would need an annulment.

Getting married with no intention of having children would be a reason for an annulment.

Please pardon me if I’ve misunderstood. So, a Protestant couple that gets married, intending to have no children, is validly married in the Catholic Church’s view?

 

[gardenswithkids]

And you can imagine the unpleasant surprise of discovering this some time after I began investigating Catholicism. So effectively, I and certain other married Protestants have to consider the pros & cons of joining a church that considers us single. Must we start living under separate roofs?

I don’t know if this helps but the Church considers (first) marriages valid until proven otherwise. We don’t presume you to be single. As long as neither spouse challenges the marriage by requesting an annulment, the Church presumes a marriage took place. (If however, one or both of the spouses had a prior marriage followed by divorce and the “ex” is still alive, the Church also presumes that first marriage was valid–and since we don’t recognize bigamy, the second marriage wouldn’t be presumed valid unless the first marriage was investigated and declared null. And if one or both spouses were not Christians at the time of a marriage, the Church may recognize it was a valid civil marriage but not a Sacramental marriage… Marriage laws in the Catholic Church can seem rather complicated, especially since civil marriage laws allow for divorce and re-marriage.)

Also, since the original question asked about marriages without children, I want to mention about couples who marry later in life (after the woman’s fertility has declined or apparently ended.) Even if a couple thinks there is “no way they will have children” because of biology, they can still marry in the Catholic Church. The Bible tells us a few stories about God surprising some elderly couples presumed to be infertile with children.

I hope that helps.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I don’t know if this helps but the Church considers (first) marriages valid until proven otherwise. We don’t presume you to be single. As long as neither spouse challenges the marriage by requesting an annulment, the Church presumes a marriage took place. (If however, one or both of the spouses had a prior marriage followed by divorce and the “ex” is still alive, the Church also presumes that first marriage was valid–and since we don’t recognize bigamy, the second marriage wouldn’t be presumed valid unless the first marriage was investigated and declared null. And if one or both spouses were not Christians at the time of a marriage, the Church may recognize it was a valid civil marriage but not a Sacramental marriage… Marriage laws in the Catholic Church can seem rather complicated, especially since civil marriage laws allow for divorce and re-marriage.)

Also, since the original question asked about marriages without children, I want to mention about couples who marry later in life (after the woman’s fertility has declined or apparently ended.) Even if a couple thinks there is “no way they will have children” because of biology, they can still marry in the Catholic Church. The Bible tells us a few stories about God surprising some elderly couples presumed to be infertile with children.

I hope that helps.

It does, very much. Thanks, GwK.

Hope this aside doesn’t hijack the thread, but ours is indeed a first marriage, conducted in a Christian church. We never wanted children, though, and would heartily dislike any that darkened our spare bedroom.

If I end up converting, I’ll feel obliged to not take overt measures that stand in the way of conception and risk its fallout. My wife, however, is certain not to convert; she has an exceedingly dim view of both the Catholic Church and its stances on contraception. So children would remain unlikely, though I must confess that even assuming a Catholic attitude towards its possibility inspires a certain crawling of the flesh (one wonders if my sainted mother watched a W.C. Fields movie while I was gestating).

 

[Just_Lurking]

Google “contra bonum prolis” if you wish to see discussion of how openness to children affects marriage validity. For example, see here:

b) Simulation contra bonum prolis: This intention may, but need not, involve an absolute refusal ever to have children. Perhaps more commonly the exclusion might be a matter of one of the parties reserving to him or her self the sole power to determine, without respect to the other party’s rights or wishes, whether or not to have children or unilaterally to limit the number of children. The Church teaches that in a genuine marriage the parties exchange certain rights, and one such right is that of openness to children in the union. An intention in which one partner denies this right of the other is invalidating. A situation in which the two parties mutually agree to limit the number of children or delay having children is not an invalidating exclusion unless that agreement is understood by one of the parties to supersede the right of the other to change his or her mind. Since marriage is ordained not only for the procreation but also for the education of children, the jurisprudence recognizes the invalidating consequences of an intention against the education of children.

Or here:

Contra bonum prolis (sometimes contracted to C.B.P.): Literally means an intention against the good of children. It is a technical term that reflects primarily the notion of an intention at the time of entering marriage excluding the right to non-contraceptive intercourse and its natural consequence.

 

[grandfather]

Maybe you should adopt. Maybe children would somehow be an impediment to your salvation. Maybe God wants the two of you to devote a great deal of time to a specific ministry and you should forego having more than one or two children because of that.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Alindawyl;6082839:

Statistics say the chances of a marriage ending in divorce ar about 50 times greater for couples who contracept. Catholics, like the OP’s fiance who disregard the teaching of their Church, thinking they have the right to do that and still receive the sacraments and all shall be well have an identical divorce rate as the rest of the population. Catholics who follow the teaching of the Church have a divorce rate of 2%.

Coneect the dots. Divorce and breaking up families is devastating. No one intends to do that, but over half do. I know a 35 year old married mother of three facing a double mastectomy and that might not help her. She used the pill off and on since she was 20. 35 is pretty young.

When people willfully disregard the Church the suffering they encounter in this life is real, but nothing compared to what comes next.

I’ll bow to your Catholic background in the matter of the Church’s marriage-related teachings, but your figures don’t really imply that laxity on contraception contributes to divorce, though it may well correlate with it. It seems reasonable that Catholic couples who flout or submit to the Church’s teachings on contraception are likelier to take a parallel tack with other family issues, including divorce. Doesn’t mean that A caused B, nor that the non-contracepting couples are necessarily happier.

And forgive my nitpicking, but by definition, shouldn’t “Catholics who follow the teaching of the Church” have a divorce rate of 0%?

 

[NoAvailableName]

Thanks for the tip “Just Lurking”

I don’t understand where those who think a marriage can be valid if the couple is not planning on following the Catholic church’s stance on family planning are coming from.

From usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

“3. What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage? … in consenting to marry … be open to children”

“19. What is an annulment?.. a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union (see question #3)”

From live.lcdiocese.org/annulments/grounds.htm (talking about grounds for annulment)

“participating in sexual acts that are not open to the procreation of life may be contra bonum prolis”.

From archden.org/tribunal/documents/nullity.htm: (under APPENDIX B: EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS [for annulment])
“that is to say, that from the beginning of this marriage, there was an intentional exclusion to the natural act of procreation.”

It seems quite clear to me that our marriage (and the marriage of most Catholics) would not be considered valid.

And as far as the NFP loophole some here are advocating…

From adw.org/family/natural_family_planning.asp:

“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” (Humanae Vitae, 16)

Since there are no physical or psychological conditions or external circumstances in our case, NFP is not allowed for the prevention of children. I think “grandfather” is wrong when he states “Couples could use NFP for their entire lives never intending to have children.”