U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
is refusal to consumate a marriage a sin? mortal? venial? church teaching?
- Status
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
If one freely undertakes a Sacrament, s/he ought to fulfill it. To willingly stop short makes a mockery of the Sacrament.
Of course, the nature of the sin (mortal/venial/none) depends on the disposition of the will at the time. It certinally COULD be mortal if the person *intends *to be deceptive or to make a mockery of the Ceremony s/he participated in.
Of course, the nature of the sin (mortal/venial/none) depends on the disposition of the will at the time. It certinally COULD be mortal if the person *intends *to be deceptive or to make a mockery of the Ceremony s/he participated in.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
There is no marriage without consumation.
So, no it is not a mortal sin because it can’t happen.
Now, there obviously can be many sins associated with going through a marriage ceremony and deceiving someone, but the gravity of the offense depends on what the person does.
Contraception, for example, is simply masturbation.
If someone knowing the gravity of the act did that, it would be a mortal sin.
So there are all kinds of scenarios with different gravities. Do you have a particular one in mind?
So, no it is not a mortal sin because it can’t happen.
Now, there obviously can be many sins associated with going through a marriage ceremony and deceiving someone, but the gravity of the offense depends on what the person does.
Contraception, for example, is simply masturbation.
If someone knowing the gravity of the act did that, it would be a mortal sin.
So there are all kinds of scenarios with different gravities. Do you have a particular one in mind?
S
slinky1882
Guest
First, I would like to say I would hope the marriage preparation would have caught this. Second, if any of the parties enter into marriage planning on not sonsummating the marriage indefinitely, the validly of the marriage would be in question.
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.
Can. 1099 Provided it does not determine the will, error concerning the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent.
Can. 1100 Knowledge of or opinion about the nullity of a marriage does not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent.
Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.
There is what the Canon Law has to say. Hope this helps. If the a spouse lied about their intentions while knowing full knowledge adn consent of the will, the lie could be mortal sin and may really in a sense be scandalous to the Sacrament. Thanks and God Bless.
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.
Can. 1099 Provided it does not determine the will, error concerning the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent.
Can. 1100 Knowledge of or opinion about the nullity of a marriage does not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent.
Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.
There is what the Canon Law has to say. Hope this helps. If the a spouse lied about their intentions while knowing full knowledge adn consent of the will, the lie could be mortal sin and may really in a sense be scandalous to the Sacrament. Thanks and God Bless.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
the reason i ask is because i certain saint (forget the name) was married for 16 yrs before finally consumating the marriage
S
slinky1882
Guest
Which one??? And were they living together as “brother and sister” (i.e. chastely)??? Thanks and God Bless.
J
jprioli
Guest
Huiou Theou:
When the spouses have “performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring,” the marriage is called ratified and consummated (ratum et consummatum).
A marriage ratum tantum that does not survive may be dissolved by the Apostolic See. A marriage that is ratified and consummated may not be dissolved by any human authority.
In short, nullity pertains to the ratification of a putative marriage. Dissolution is a remedy that may be applied in certain circumstances when a ratified marriage is not consummated.
That is not quite accurate, Huiou, at least as far as the law of the Catholic Church. Canon 1061 The marriage comes into being at the exchange of consent. That is, it is ratified (ratum tantum).
When the spouses have “performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring,” the marriage is called ratified and consummated (ratum et consummatum).
A marriage ratum tantum that does not survive may be dissolved by the Apostolic See. A marriage that is ratified and consummated may not be dissolved by any human authority.
In short, nullity pertains to the ratification of a putative marriage. Dissolution is a remedy that may be applied in certain circumstances when a ratified marriage is not consummated.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
You need to distinguish between two cases:
- One spouse refusing to pay the “marriage debt” to the other spouse, who wants to consummate the marriage.
- Both spouses deciding to postpone the consummation of the marriage, either for a while or perpetually.
T
Thal59
Guest
Contrary to modern hedonistic thought, consumation of a marriage is not brought about by sexual interaction between the spouses, it is brought about by childbirth and rearing the child in the faith. (This is why the non-Catholic member of a mixed marriage must agree to raise the children in the Catholic faith.)
A childless couple has a valid marriage, but an unconsumated one. (This assumes the couple both desired and tried to bear children but failed.)
To ask the question in the frame of mind of “refusing” to consumate a marriage means that one or both spouses have no desire to have any children. It would not be likely that both spouses desired children when they were being married, but then shortly thereafter changed their minds.
If the couple had already decided that they did not want children when they married, and I am assuming a Catholic marriage, then they have deceived the church as they certainly were aware that the church generally refuses to marry people who openly profess that they will not have children. (One of the issues against gay marriage.)
If somehow they changed their minds later and agreed after marriage not to have children, they have then reduced their intimate interaction with each other from a consumating action to a mere sexual one that is not worthy of the marital vows.
In a Catholic marriage, consumating the marriage is both desired and expected. The only exception is natural infertility.
Thal59
A childless couple has a valid marriage, but an unconsumated one. (This assumes the couple both desired and tried to bear children but failed.)
To ask the question in the frame of mind of “refusing” to consumate a marriage means that one or both spouses have no desire to have any children. It would not be likely that both spouses desired children when they were being married, but then shortly thereafter changed their minds.
If the couple had already decided that they did not want children when they married, and I am assuming a Catholic marriage, then they have deceived the church as they certainly were aware that the church generally refuses to marry people who openly profess that they will not have children. (One of the issues against gay marriage.)
If somehow they changed their minds later and agreed after marriage not to have children, they have then reduced their intimate interaction with each other from a consumating action to a mere sexual one that is not worthy of the marital vows.
In a Catholic marriage, consumating the marriage is both desired and expected. The only exception is natural infertility.
Thal59
P
patientone
Guest
This is a saint that I can relate to. Does anyone know about this saint?
1
1ke
Guest
I don’t know about sinfulness category (but believe it is serious enough to be grave matter), but it does invalidate the marriage and is grounds for annulment.
1
1ke
Guest
Documentation, please.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Huiou Theou:
That is not correct. There is such a thing as an “unconsumated Marriage”.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
in the feudal period, among the nobility, it was common for parents to betroth the two children at a very young age. It was also common for parents to send their children to another noble or royal household to be reared and educated, for the various career, social and other benefits that would accrue. Often the girl was sent to be brought up with the family of the boy she was affianced to. Catherine of Aragon was sent to England to be reared in the royal household for several years before her marriage to Arthur (brother of Henry8). Mary Queen of Scots was betrothed to Edward 6 (son of Henry 8 and Jane Seymour) at age 5 and spent some time as a child in the English court. Edward died young so she went on to live out her soap opera life.
Living in the same household before marriage was quite common. in some other European countries the marriage rite could be done, usually through royal proxies, even for young children, who then would live together in the same household for many years until old enough for the marriage to be consummated. During wartime or crusades the husband could be gone for several years, so the marriage would not be consummated until his return, meanwhile his bride and the legal fact of the marriage cemented the political alliance that was the purpose for the betrothal.
also mutual vows of chastity were if not common, blessed by the Church for a period or permanently. Edward the Confessor, king of England made such a vow and is a saint. Louis and Elizabeth of Hungary also made such vows (after they had several children). There are also cases where noble couples made mutual vows of chastity, but went through the marriage to please families for political reasons, but never consummated them. (also I am sure cases where their mutual distaste for each other prevented them from coming together in spite of a political marriage.).
G
gelsbern
Guest
Not only is refusal to consumate a marriage a mortal sin, but so is withholding marital relations after you are married is also a sin.
A spouse should not force him/herself onto the other spouse, but in a good catholic marriage, that situation should never arise as one should also not deny marital relations.
A spouse should not force him/herself onto the other spouse, but in a good catholic marriage, that situation should never arise as one should also not deny marital relations.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Hmmm…
and Br. Rich too.
The second post gave me the impression that the Sacrament was already assumed. I was not talking about a natural/companionship marriage. My apology for the sloppy reply.
To me ‘unconsumated marriage’ is an incomplete ‘marriage’ for ( CCC1652 )
It is the order of procreating (not its success) which constitutes the institution of marriage.
If you wish to split hairs, I will simply say:
On the technical definition of cannonical terms, I stand corrected.
However, let me be lazy and ask a clarification from the lawers. Is the sacrament present before consumation? ( I risk being reamed! )
Thal,
Something is definitely confusing with your assessment. What about barren women? are they not wife to their husband?
E.G. What about Sari, and Elizabeth, prior to childbirth?
and Br. Rich too.
If the marriage does not survive?
The second post gave me the impression that the Sacrament was already assumed. I was not talking about a natural/companionship marriage. My apology for the sloppy reply.
To me ‘unconsumated marriage’ is an incomplete ‘marriage’ for ( CCC1652 )
A nature is something which all objects of the group have in common.
It is the order of procreating (not its success) which constitutes the institution of marriage.
If you wish to split hairs, I will simply say:
On the technical definition of cannonical terms, I stand corrected.
However, let me be lazy and ask a clarification from the lawers. Is the sacrament present before consumation? ( I risk being reamed! )
Thal,
Something is definitely confusing with your assessment. What about barren women? are they not wife to their husband?
E.G. What about Sari, and Elizabeth, prior to childbirth?
S
Sgt_Sweaters
Guest
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Sorry Thal,
You seem to be saying consummate = childbirth, is that it? not childbirth = marriage?
You seem to be saying consummate = childbirth, is that it? not childbirth = marriage?
T
Thal59
Guest
Huiou Theou:
But the theme of the thread concerns those who choose of their own free will not to consumate the marriage. If the women you offered refused from the start, their spouse would have never married them in the first place.
Thal59
The quote from my post applies to the barren women you mentioned. Is it not reasonable to assume that these women both wanted and assumed they would be able to bear children when they married? Their infertility became known to them later and probably as an unhappy surprise to them.
But the theme of the thread concerns those who choose of their own free will not to consumate the marriage. If the women you offered refused from the start, their spouse would have never married them in the first place.
Thal59
T
Thal59
Guest
I am sorry, and I do not wish to offend, but if you wish to understand the meaning of a “consumated marriage” deeper, both as the Jews and early Christians understood it, you will have to do your own homework.
I do not make records of everything I have learned, nor do I have all of the books that I have once read before. I use to supply such requests with much work and documentation, only to see the person who asked for that information take a contrary stand on everything I provided. I decided not to go that route again.
I have proposed something I have learned regarding consumated marriages. If it is of interest to you, you will have to pursue it yourself.
Thal59
- Status