Is it a valid, sacramental marriage if

[JMJ_Theresa]

I’m sure that this has been addressed, but I’m stealing time from my six kids so maybe someone could help me out? If the marital act is required to have a valid marriage, but the couple has been using contraceptives from day one, is the marriage valid, sacramental? If I understand this correctly, the actual act is considered separate from the sin of contraception?

I’m new to the forums, and learning a lot. I hadn’t realized how fuzzy my thinking is on so many doctrines. Thanks!

 

[Ham1]

One could probably make a case that with barrier contraceptives a conjugal act has not occured. But, it seems that generally the Church does regard contraceptive conjugal acts as still fulfilling the requirement that a marriage be consummated. I don’t have any specific references, but this seems to be the way it is treated.

 

[1ke]

It may be or it may not be. A permanent intent against children and a refusal of non-contracepted sex could be grounds to declare a marriage invalid. This is not something that can be speculated on in general terms-- it would require a specific investigation by a tribunal or other compentent authority and based on testimony and facts of the specific case.

 

[patientone]

I have a friend that had their marriage annuled because the spouse was not open to life. I don’t know the details of contraception but the marriage was not considered consummated without being open to life. A Catholic non consummated marriage is still considered valid but is an impediment to the sacrament and a classic example why the Church has annulments.

 

[vluvski]

According to Christopher West, the **marriage IS NOT consumated ** if all acts of sex have involved any form of contraception- the pill, barrier methods, etc… The only exception would be a previous surgical sterilization that has been sacramentally confessed.

However, the marriage is not invalid, per se, but it is not indissoluble, not to mention the couple is living in a state of serious sin, which IMO is the more serious issue here. Not indissoluble, meaning the vows have not been confirmed with the act that seals them. A recent thread in Ask an Apologist addresses the issue of consumation quite succinctly.

The reasoning is that contracepted sex acts are morally comparable (though not equivalent) to mutual masturbation in that they frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act.

 

[vluvski]

patientone:

A Catholic non consummated marriage is still considered valid but is an impediment to the sacrament and a classic example why the Church has annulments.

I’m not sure this is correct. I was my understanding that a non-consumated marriage does not require an annulment, but needs only be dissolved. I could be wrong, though, since I don’t have firsthand knowledge. I hope I haven’t been propogating false information!

 

[vluvski]

The covenant/contract analogy is generally a very poor one, but in this case it works.

A marriage that is annulled would be like a contract that is thrown out on some technicality, like a loophole or something that incapacitated the people signing to invalidate their signatures.

A marriage that was never consumated would be like a contract that was never signed, but both parties were just going through the motions as if the contract were law.