Is it ever okay to consummate a marriage one knows is invalid?

[OraLabora]

The Church presents us with a worthy and lofty ideal to try to attain and live up to.

The reality is that life is a lot messier than that ideal and at that point we have to rely on Christ’s mercy. He after all is the one who came to redeem us for our sins.

This is a situation that requires a very pastoral approach. The idea is to get the couple on the road to mending things, without discouraging them to the point where they leave it or worse, simply leave the Church.

Imposing a burden on them that is too black-and-white and too heavy to bear would not, IMHO, work to serve the the loftier ideal of bringing a couple to Christ in full communion with the Church and her teachings.

Many modern priests vary in their approach. One I know says it is impossible to correct a long past outside the Church overnight, and he does not deny the sacraments to those who are on the road and are making serious efforts to regularize irregular situations. It’s not always easy especially when the other spouse, and I will use the word spouse here, is not cooperative. Most of you here won’t agree with his approach, but, there you are, it is what it is and I suspect he is not alone.

I find that these kinds of forums can be very hurtful to people struggling with really serious issues, where people who are earnest but are by no means formally trained in pastoral care try to give very black-and-white answers to very difficult and serious issues, and then leave the person struggling bewildered and hurt.

I would advise anyone with such issues to stay away from posting them here, and instead consult with your priest. The priest in question has probably seen a lot more complex situations and the real-life impacts, than the wannabe theologians on this forum. His answers will therefore necessarily be far more nuanced.

 

[Spirithound]

If annulment means no marriage ever existed what does a declaration of nullity nullify?

This is why “annulment” is the incorrect term. In “declaring nullity”, “declare” is the verb, not “nullity”. Nothing is being nullified.

 

[Spirithound]

This is a situation that requires a very pastoral approach. The idea is to get the couple on the road to mending things, without discouraging them to the point where they leave it or worse, simply leave the Church.
… …
Imposing a burden on them that is too black-and-white and too heavy to bear would not, IMHO, work to serve the the loftier ideal of bringing a couple to Christ in full communion with the Church and her teachings.
… …
I find that these kinds of forums can be very hurtful to people struggling with really serious issues, where people who are earnest but are by no means formally trained in pastoral care try to give very black-and-white answers to very difficult and serious issues, and then leave the person struggling bewildered and hurt.

Certainly there is advice of a pastoral nature to be given, like how to cope with the situation, how to relate with your soon-to-be-spouse, how to put all this in the context of Christ, but that doesn’t change basic Catholic teaching.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… Nothing is being nullified.

And there you go, proof there is a serious flaw in the logic used. If you spend some time on it you will find something is indeed nullified

 

[Joe_5859]

Texas Roofer, I think you and I are writing on different wave lengths here, so I’m not entirely sure I understand your questions or why the answers are pertinent to this discussion. Nonetheless, I will try to answer them and, in doing so, hopefully come to a better understanding of your point of view. (I don’t want you to feel ignored! )

Could you document “good faith” and “for the good of the children” as the base for the priest’s and nun’s teaching?

I don’t really think I can “document” this as I wasn’t there. These are basically concise summations of what was implicit in the OP (with my commentary in red):

So last week she went to a local priest who listened to her complicated story, and then later a nun from her church came to her home to speak with her, and they both had separately advised that since her husband-by-law has put himself out to make the step to annul, all for her, not for himself, then she should put herself out a bit [in “good faith”] and allow the marriage to be consummated. Because of give and take. Yes, its not valid yet, but its going to be valid, since he has now agreed to work toward it by working toward annulment. They argue that the two are in a marriage now, a legal one, and two years as brother and sister is a strain on the marriage, just not healthy, and for the sake of the family “for the good of the children”], she needs to give a little, as her husband is giving by saying he will annul now.

Could [you] answer whether unity exists in this couple?

I can reasonably speak to the absence of sacramental unity based on the details given. As far as any other types of unity (emotional attachment, etc.), no, I cannot speak to that. Since the sacramental aspect is the main point of consideration regarding whether or not this would be sinful, I don’t think I need to know any more details.

Is Jane simply choosing between groups of mortals sins?

I’m still not sure what these “groups of mortal sins” would be. On the one hand, there is the grave sin of engaging in sexual relations outside the context of marriage. What is the other “group” she would be choosing if she opts to remain celibate for now?

As what is mentioned earlier the primary issue is a lack of understanding of marriage NOT whether any sacramental marriages were discussed. If you look at all of catholic teachings you will have a great deal of problems finding guidance on the case of a couple who live together, have children, promised marriage in some form ( did they enter a covenant with god?) and now wish to consider themselves single via celibacy. It does not work this way, and there is no direct teaching on such. They are parents, they have responsibilities which result from their actions (covenant?, children, bonding, unity?) Please by all means show a Church teaching which relieves them of these responsibilities, they are not single.

No one here is advocating that Jane abandon Joe nor that either of them shirk their responsibilities as parents. Obviously, this is a very sensitive situation that needs to be resolved. I would encourage them to resolve it as quickly as possible so that they can be validly married. However, simply because the situation is difficult doesn’t mean that we can forgo moral teaching.

Oh can I add another question just for your thoughts?
If annulment means no marriage ever existed what does a declaration of nullity nullify?

A declaration of nullity doesn’t nullify anything (hence the use of the word “declaration”). It is a declaration of the Church that no valid marriage ever existed between two parties (i.e., that it was “null”). The Church is not taking an action; the Church is merely formally observing a metaphysical fact.

 

[OraLabora]

Certainly there is advice of a pastoral nature to be given, like how to cope with the situation, how to relate with your soon-to-be-spouse, how to put all this in the context of Christ, but that doesn’t change basic Catholic teaching.

Right.

And it is not up to either you or I to give it.

 

[Eliza10]

Excellent reply, Joe!

 

[Eliza10]

Right.

And it is not up to either you or I to give it.

Yes. But when advice is given that goes against basic Catholic teaching, when what is not true is taught as true in official capacity by an official of the Church, Catholics should be personally offended.

“The truth sets you free”, scripture tells us. And clearly the opposite is true: falsehoods enslave you. Just like Joe’s family member was enslaved with an unsettled sense of not being right with God and lingering regret for 30 years as a result of following false advice given by a Church officials.

 

[Joe_5859]

The Church presents us with a worthy and lofty ideal to try to attain and live up to.

The reality is that life is a lot messier than that ideal and at that point we have to rely on Christ’s mercy. He after all is the one who came to redeem us for our sins.

This is a situation that requires a very pastoral approach. The idea is to get the couple on the road to mending things, without discouraging them to the point where they leave it or worse, simply leave the Church.

Imposing a burden on them that is too black-and-white and too heavy to bear would not, IMHO, work to serve the the loftier ideal of bringing a couple to Christ in full communion with the Church and her teachings.

Many modern priests vary in their approach. One I know says it is impossible to correct a long past outside the Church overnight, and he does not deny the sacraments to those who are on the road and are making serious efforts to regularize irregular situations. It’s not always easy especially when the other spouse, and I will use the word spouse here, is not cooperative. Most of you here won’t agree with his approach, but, there you are, it is what it is and I suspect he is not alone.

I find that these kinds of forums can be very hurtful to people struggling with really serious issues, where people who are earnest but are by no means formally trained in pastoral care try to give very black-and-white answers to very difficult and serious issues, and then leave the person struggling bewildered and hurt.

I would advise anyone with such issues to stay away from posting them here, and instead consult with your priest. The priest in question has probably seen a lot more complex situations and the real-life impacts, than the wannabe theologians on this forum. His answers will therefore necessarily be far more nuanced.

You have given some good food for thought. There certainly are limitations to using internet message boards as sources of advice.

However, we cannot side-step the moral teaching of the Church in the name of being “pastoral”. Veritatis Splendor clearly reiterates the long-standing moral teaching of the Church: “It is not licit to do evil that good may come of it” (VS 79-83; cf. Romans 3:8).

Being “nuanced” can be good in certain respects, but we must be cautious not to let it lead us firmly into the clutches of moral relativism. It has it’s place, but it also has it’s limitations.

I’m all for being pastoral. I know I don’t always succeed, but I really do try to be as pastorally sensitive as I can here at CAF (even if I am just a “wannabe theologian” ). But we cannot do so at the expense of the truth.

I’m sure that the priest and nun who counseled my family member 35 years ago believed that they were being “pastoral” and “nuanced” in their approach to her marital situation. But their advice directly led to 30+ years of moral and spiritual confusion that is only now being remedied. The full impact that this in turn had on her children is incalculable. That approach, however well-meaning, can backfire with disastrous consequences. I don’t think people consider that possibility nearly as often as they should.

 

[lizaanne]

It is interesting how people MAKE their lives gray when really there is only black and white. Either the couple is free to be married — or they are not. It is in no way more complicated than that. If they are not free to be married then they see if they can rectify the situation via the Tribunal processes. If they will never be free to marry then they don’t, they aren’t, and they won’t be (until/unless the spouse outside the couple in question is deceased).

Really - it is that simple. It is one’s desire to not hear and accept the Truth that makes things gray. The Truth of the Church is never gray.

~Liza

 

[Joe_5859]

Right.

And it is not up to either you or I to give it.

Perhaps. But since fools walk where angels fear to tread, here we are. I’m usually one of the first to point out the limitations of using CAF as a “Dear Abby” service, but I’m also usually one of the first to post when someone comes seeking advice.

I guess I just can’t help myself trying to help other people.

I suppose I figure that when someone comes here seeking advice, they’re prepared to be discerning about what advice they receive. Some of it might help and some of it might not.

In any case, looking past all the details, this thread asked a general moral question: “Is it ever okay to consummate a marriage one knows is invalid?” The answer to that question is a simple “No.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer, I think you and I are writing on different wave lengths here, so I’m not entirely sure I understand your questions or why the answers are pertinent to this discussion. Nonetheless, I will try to answer them and, in doing so, hopefully come to a better understanding of your point of view. (I don’t want you to feel ignored! )

Thanks Joe I would say the opposite we are close in wavelength thus the others who made bold statements are waiting for you to carry the issue away. Your statements are not bold thus the questions make no sense to you

I don’t really think I can “document” this as I wasn’t there. These are basically concise summations of what was implicit in the OP (with my commentary in red):

And there you go, i was not there either, so why are people making bold statements about what was said and what was thought?

I can reasonably speak to the absence of sacramental unity based on the details given. As far as any other types of unity (emotional attachment, etc.), no, I cannot speak to that. Since the sacramental aspect is the main point of consideration regarding whether or not this would be sinful, I don’t think I need to know any more details.

I think they call that “bingo”. On the issue of sacraments there is clear teaching. On the issue of marriages outside the catholic church there is clear teaching on the “favour” of the marriage sacrament.

I’m still not sure what these “groups of mortal sins” would be. On the one hand, there is the grave sin of engaging in sexual relations outside the context of marriage. What is the other “group” she would be choosing if she opts to remain celibate for now?

What did she vow before god? I was not there but I am rather unwilling to tell her to break that vow. Second she has children and a husband though catholic teaching instructs on these issues under the assumption of a valid sacramental marriage I again do not wish to advise these teaching are greatly erred in the absence of a sacrament

No one here is advocating that Jane abandon Joe nor that either of them shirk their responsibilities as parents. Obviously, this is a very sensitive situation that needs to be resolved. I would encourage them to resolve it as quickly as possible so that they can be validly married. However, simply because the situation is difficult doesn’t mean that we can forgo moral teaching.

These are 2 issues not 1. Absolutely all agree that correcting the problems should be done. however many, many Catholics used to espouse that she must move out to prevent “scandal” so who is to say they are wrong?

A declaration of nullity doesn’t nullify anything (hence the use of the word “declaration”). It is a declaration of the Church that no valid marriage ever existed between two parties (i.e., that ***it ***was “null”). The Church is not taking an action; the Church is merely formally observing a metaphysical fact.

Think about “it” Joe you cannot declare “nothing is null” there certainly are physical and metaphysical things being annulled. It is easy to see what is annulled however it is difficult to look at what is annulled and extend that authority where some claim it goes, and that is a problem for them.

hope that helps

 

[OraLabora]

It is interesting how people MAKE their lives gray when really there is only black and white. Either the couple is free to be married — or they are not. It is in no way more complicated than that. If they are not free to be married then they see if they can rectify the situation via the Tribunal processes. If they will never be free to marry then they don’t, they aren’t, and they won’t be (until/unless the spouse outside the couple in question is deceased).

Really - it is that simple. It is one’s desire to not hear and accept the Truth that makes things gray. The Truth of the Church is never gray.

~Liza

Ah, but there I agree, the Truth is never gray.

But the issue is not the truth here is not the Truth. The issue is attaining it. Sometimes, going from black to white isn’t simply a matter of jumping from one to the other. Sometimes it involves a long journey through many shades of gray.

That’s where pastoral care comes in: helping people in difficult circumstances make that walk, holding their hand through it, providing encouragement, and providing spiritual nourishment so that they don’t get discouraged.

It involves teaching what the truth is, telling the couple that “this is where you need to be”, but recognizing it may be a long journey with many baby steps along the way.

Simply saying “tough, this is the truth, you don’t meet the requirements, fix it and get back to me” won’t cut it.

Nor will simply saying “it’s OK because…” (relativism).

What’s needed is “OK. This is where you are today. This is where you should try to get to. It’s complex, and it’s going to be a long walk. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect along your way, but I expect you to try your best. Now let’s work out a plan on how to get there at a pace you can manage”. Not everybody has the same capacity for change.

One also has to recognize that in spite of progress, we may not attain that perfect truth. Very few of us end up as saints on this mortal Earth!

Like I said real life is messy because the Truth is an ideal, and we are all sinners and none of us will ever attain the Truth to 100%.

It’s very easy for those in comfortable situations to say to people who aren’t, that they are wrong and need to jump from black to white. But it isn’t helpful.

 

[Spirithound]

On the issue of marriages outside the catholic church there is clear teaching on the “favour” of the marriage sacrament.

Not if one of them is Catholic.

What did she vow before god?

Nothing. Catholics are not permitted to marry by a JP.

Second she has children

True, but irrelevant when we are talking about sex.

and a husband

False. She has a live-in-boyfriend.

Think about “it” Joe you cannot declare “nothing is null” there certainly are physical and metaphysical things being annulled. It is easy to see what is annulled however it is difficult to look at what is annulled and extend that authority where some claim it goes, and that is a problem for them.

Again, your error is equating “null” with “annul”. If you are “annulling”, then you are acting on a “thing”. If you are “declaring null”, you are making a judgement on an attempt, which is not a “thing”.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not if one of them is Catholic.

I think this is where your problem lies, The catholic bound by canonical law is being disobedient to the church, and that has problems associated with the action. However this disobedience does not undo god’s work nor impose a deity authority inside the laity. Thus the extent to which this person answered god’s call is not something you can determine nor the tribunal. If that were true no marriage in a catholic church would ever be annulled. These annulments occur because the attempts to answer god’s call are often failed attempts. It is not the Church which failed it was the couple’s attempt. Whether the couple succeeds or fails is outside the Church’s control.

Nothing. Catholics are not permitted to marry by a JP.

So you were there and heard these words in person, or read a transcript?

True, but irrelevant when we are talking about sex.

children are never irrelevant nor is covenants with god

False. She has a live-in-boyfriend.

Again the words are “What god has put together let no man put asunder” (matthew 19:6) so please explain how that does not apply to you. The tribunals do not put it asunder they find the man and woman are not together, they are not one flesh.

Again, your error is equating “null” with “annul”. If you are “annulling”, then you are acting on a “thing”. If you are “declaring null”, you are making a judgment on an attempt, which is not a “thing”.

again your stating the tribunal does absolutely nothing which is not the case.

Here is thing so many miss. Many Catholics think they can hear a 5 minute summary of someone’s marriage history and infer judgment of their relationship with god. Further they can ignore these teaching concerning “one flesh” and intervene into these god created relationships with immunity. The fact is they cannot judge these people, nor their relationship with god, nor there answer to god’s marriage call.

hope that helps

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thank you Joe and 1ke for using the info I already gave to help clarify things for Strawberry Jam, and for anyone else that may have been wondering those things. You are both very astute, and explained it well! And yes, no RCIA needed in this case.

Yes, I am much clearer on this now. The church demands that the only people who can petition for the annulment of this guy’s first marriage are either that guy or his first wife.

So, this woman is out of luck in ever getting this resolved if neither decide to do this.

She ends up in a less than optimal position to be a practicing catholic recieving the sacraments, therefore less of an example to her children, compromising their faith further, and all this because she can’t request that the tribunal review this case for the benefit for herself and her children.

Do I have it right now? So the church would much rather have her in a position like this, with no closure and negative effects out of her control, that will effect others… than to allow her to petition this paperwork cycle.

Absolutely cruel.

 

[Joe_5859]

Absolutely cruel.

It’s not a matter of cruelty but of necessity. The Marriage Tribunal cannot investigate a marriage if neither party is a willing participant. It would be impossible for them to investigate the matter to the degree that they need to if neither is cooperating.

They can do it if only one of the parties is on board. They give the other person every opportunity to give their (name removed by moderator)ut (which can delay the process if they simply ignore all the mailings) but they can go ahead with it with just one person’s approval.

Can you imagine the strain it would pose for Jane and Joe’s relationship if Jane could petition for an annulment without Joe’s approval? And what would that do for Joe’s perception of the Catholic Church? He could feel like he is being railroaded. Better for Joe and Jane to come to this agreement before getting the Church involved.

 

[NeelyAnn]

She absolutely should wait the 12-18 months it takes to get the annulment. If they have been living as brother and sister all this time, why the rush now to stop?

If she begins physical relations with him now, there is no guarantee that he will follow through with the annulment process. If he does not, she will find that instead of strengthening her family by having physical relations, she will DESTROY it. She will come to feel used and cheated by him and she will grow to resent him. There is no way she will not once she realizes that he lied and cheated her.

If he does follow through, she will still feel a heavy burden of guilt in her heart because she knows it is not the right thing to do, even though she may desire to do it. This will not make her happy. It may still cause resentment toward him because she will blame him for putting her in such a position. She will not be able to receive Communion as long as she is having the physical relationship with him and she will not be able to receive a vaild Confession unless she truly intends to stop. This will be a very heavy burden indeed.

For her, or anyone else, to think her situation is unique would be wrong. Many people have gone and are going through similar situations. Some do the right thing and others do not. The ones who do the right thing seem to have the most successful relationships by far. I personally know of some who have been through this. They prepare for the sacramental marriage as if they are being married for the first time (sometimes very privately, and other times more openly). That includes a special outfit (or maybe even a wedding dress), perhaps a small reception or dinner party, a small honeymoon or one night away to consummate the marriage, etc. They treat their sacramental marriage as their real marriage. They honor and celebrate the anniversary of the sacramental marriage each year, instead of the civil marriage.

If she gives in now, she may have momentary happiness now, but it will be short lived. If she does waits, she will be happier in the long run and it will be a longer lasting happiness. Not only will she be able to keep her own self-respect, but she will have the respect and admiration of her husband.

So, my advice, wait until the annulment is complete, get married again in the Church, and then consummate the marriage as if it is the first time you have ever been together.

If he really loves her and really desires to give her a real marriage, then he should have no problem with this. If he does have a problem, his motives should be questioned. This does not mean it will be easy for the him, or her. It won’t be easy, especially if they have both truly come to love one another (I am assuming he now loves her and that is why he wants to get the annulment, etc.). Living int he same household with someone you love but are not free to fully ‘be’ with is never easy.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Did I miss the part where this guy now wants to get the annulment going Neely Ann? I have the impression the guy could care less and does not want to bother with it.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Did I miss the part where this guy now wants to get the annulment going Neely Ann? I have the impression the guy could care less and does not want to bother with it.

StrawberryJam,

In one of the earlier posts, maybe the original post, it was mentioned that he now said he would seek an annulment. That is what brought this whole thing up about the advice from the nun and the priest. Since he said he would seek an annulment (no mention on whether he has actually begun the process), the nun and priest said to go ahead and ‘sleep’ with him. Their advice is unusual, of course. As I said, their circumstances are not unusual. In most cases like this, they are usually expected to temporarily seperate (ONLY IF POSSIBLE) to keep from giving into physical relations, or they are to agree to continue living as brother or sister until the time they receive a sacramental marriage.