Is refusal to consumate marriage a mortal sin

[RonWI]

1 Cor 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.

Gen 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…

Gen 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.

Why would a spouse withhold his/her body and not fulfill God’s commands?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’ll re-answer the main thread after a clarification:

Can 1056. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; In Christian marriage they aquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament.

essence and nature get at the same thing: What all marriages have in common.

        unity : Not yet specified is the kind of unity.

indissolubility : The spouses wish to stay together.

The sacramental oath makes the marriage temporally permanent. An oath can be remitted, but that is out of scope for this thread…
While something is a marriage it cannot be dissolved.

Can 1057:
A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons …

The manifestation is not yet specified, but no one else can arrange your wedding. It must be the marriage partners themselves who manifest the consent.

The next sub-canon shifts from the word marriage to the word matrimony. (The word means the duty of the mother with respect to children !) Marriage is brought into being by the consent to have children!!
(Which means the will to have conjugal relations…)

$Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant…

This next canon shows a practical necessity for the purposes of justice. Assume the full marital consent is present. (As I do when I hear the word marriage.)

Can. 1060: Marriage enjoys the favor of law. Consequently in doubt the validity of marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

This is the sticky point:
In all we have discussed, the marriage was assumed to have come into existance … e.g. There was consent to have children through an unspecified ‘manifestation’. Part of that manifestation is the public wedding ceremony. But I hold that the public ceremony is only sufficient for juridical purposes.

Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

§2 If the spouses have lived together after the celebration of their marriage, consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

§3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

Consummated: means the conjugal (sexual) act has occured, --not the bearing of children.

A ‘valid marriage’ is one which has been agreed to (ratified) but not consummated (the sexual act).
The canon does not specify why the marriage is valid and sacramental here because it already has.

The will to have sexual relations open to the procreation of children is manifest

E.G. perfect contrition → baptism of desire → the analogy would be matrimony of desire.

Mt:
"… for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not tear asunder.”

Notice that canon law states that the conjugal act, in itself constituted the becoming one flesh. A child is a public manifestation of this private unity. The will (desire) to do so mutually expressed in an oath is sufficient for a valid marriage.

And last point of all:
Putative: Applies to an INVALID marriage. hence they are not really married - and don’t need to be ‘dissolved’ by the holy see! Although, a declaration of nullity may be needed since there is NO MARRIAGE.

I have not addressed cases such as Mary and Joseph, but… back to thread topic.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My original comment still stands, but I would clarify it by saying that if there is no conjugal relations, or desire for it, then there is no marriage in the sense of ‘let no man seperate’.

When the saints choose to give up the good of marriage mutually – for the sake of the kingdom –
that is not a sin as St. Paul writes.
Furthur, if the spouses are not subject to temptation, there is no violation in remaining celebate.
( Mary & Joseph , etc. )

It is wrong for one spose , unilaterally, to deny conjugal relations to the other spouse.
That is where the sin would lie in the case presented.
However, I see no evidence of that sin.

 

[RonWI]

Where did Paul write that?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

1 Corinthians 7:5

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[RonWI]

1 Corinthians 7:5

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

There is a difference between depriving each other for a time and never consumating a marriage to begin with. Paul’s statment does not support a married couple not consumating a marriage. Earlier in the chapter, Paul says “3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.” Fulfillment is not consistent with celebacy. If the chapter is read as a whole, Paul’s instructions are clear: those who are not tempted should not marry.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

RonWI:

There is a difference between depriving each other for a time and never consumating a marriage to begin with. Paul’s statment does not support a married couple not consumating a marriage. Earlier in the chapter, Paul says “3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.” Fulfillment is not consistent with celebacy. If the chapter is read as a whole, Paul’s instructions are clear: those who are not tempted should not marry.

I mostly agree, but you are over-reading Paul and me – are only the weak to marry?

There is no absolute prohibition against marrying if one is not tempted, nor of abstaining perpetually.
See verse (6)? “I say this as a concession not a command.”

Go on to verses 25-28. These are quite explicit on the subject of the virgins marrying. They do not sin.
There is nothing about them being passionate?

The passage context says ‘because of immorality’ that is why there is a duty. ( That is not the only reason in reality, but only in the passage, for at the time of Jesus a child was the support of his mother in her old age. )

But Paul does not say WHEN they must NOT abstain in relation to when they were married.
There is nothing to say it can’t begin before the consumation – ( See the book of Tobit, where he abstains for prayer on his wedding night! That is OT, but none the less illustrates the practice. )

Should one spouse die (as Tobit was expected to), there would have been no consumation at all.

I think Paul’s passage does support the position.
However, it is by mutual consent not by unilateral refusal.

 

[Steven_Merten]

I heard of a couple that could not get pregnant. Both were tested and found fertile. The Doctor asked how often they had sex. They replied every six months. I had to laugh. Why not adopt and avoid the “unpleasantries”?

Why get married in the Church if you have decided not to have sex?

If you are just going to get married to get an alien friend nationalized, take out a bigger loan on a joint income, or utilize a good friends company medical benifites, why not just get married by civil authorities and leave the Church and sacraments out of it? As long as you do not have sex in a civil marriage there is no sin committed.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Steven Merten:

I heard of a couple that could not get pregnant. Both were tested and found fertile. The Doctor asked how often they had sex. They replied every six months. I had to laugh. Why not adopt and avoid the “unpleasantries”?

Why get married in the Church if you have decided not to have sex?

If you are just going to get married to get an alien friend nationalized, take out a bigger loan on a joint income, or utilize a good friends company medical benifites, why not just get married by civil authorities and leave the Church and sacraments out of it? As long as you do not have sex in a civil marriage there is no sin committed.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Oh, you would rather they NOT be given the grace of the sacrament? I don’t know. I seem to remember something about a Catholic marrying outside the church being against church teaching.
Am I wrong?

 

[Thal59]

Okay, Huiou Theou…

I have read your quotes from canon law. Allow me to throw something else into the mix. This is a portion of a similar argument from a Jewish forum board…

Onah obligates a husband to sleep with his wife even if she is sterile, pregnant etc. I reiterate my basic argument, that the fact that there is not even a hint of procreation in the Sheva Brachot - which is supposed to sum up the message to the Jewish Bride and Groom - that procreation is NOT the CENTRAL element in marriage. The Chumash does not say that Eve was created so that Adam could procreate - but rather to be his life partner. Marriage is about sharing: experiences happy and sad, the pleasures of lovemaking, growingtogether - or in the words of Hazal: Ahava Achva Shalom ve-Reut - Love, friendship, peace and companionship. Not to mention Gila, rina, ditza and Cheva - boundless Joy.

Aryeh Frimer<<

Okay, just for the sake of debate, lets say that consumation has nothing to do with children; that the marriage is consumated in the sexual act whether procreation occurs or not.

How then, using this reasoning, is it possible to deny validity to gay marriage? If they have been legally married, as is the case in some states, and they have engaged in the sexual act, procreation notwithstanding, how does one insist that the union of the two same-sex partners is not valid and consumated?

Please don’t give me anything about scripture says this, or health experts say that…

The question is valid and consumated union between two people who have mutually consented to be each others partner. Or in the words of Aryeh: “Ahava Achva Shalom ve-Reut - Love, friendship, peace and companionship.”

Which of these is not possible within a same-sex union?

Thal59

 

[Steven_Merten]

Steven Merten:

If you are just going to get married to get an alien friend nationalized, take out a bigger loan on a joint income, or utilize a good friends company medical benifites, why not just get married by civil authorities and leave the Church and sacraments out of it? As long as you do not have sex in a civil marriage there is no sin committed.

Huiou Theou:

Oh, you would rather they NOT be given the grace of the sacrament? I don’t know. I seem to remember something about a Catholic marrying outside the church being against church teaching.
Am I wrong?

Hello Huiou,

If two people are just using marriage to get a business deal done with no intention of ever living together or having anything to do with sex, do it through civil courts unrelated to the sacrament of marriage. Why would you want to bring the sacrament of marriage in on a business deal? The sacrament of marriage is for people wanting to live together, have sex, have children and live a life together. If these are not the reason for getting married then get married in the civil courts. As long as there is no sexual relationship there is no sin of fornication. The only way a civil marriage becomes a problem with the Church is if you bring sex into it.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[gelsbern]

Thal59:

Okay, Huiou Theou…

I have read your quotes from canon law. Allow me to throw something else into the mix. This is a portion of a similar argument from a Jewish forum board…

Onah obligates a husband to sleep with his wife even if she is sterile, pregnant etc. I reiterate my basic argument, that the fact that there is not even a hint of procreation in the Sheva Brachot - which is supposed to sum up the message to the Jewish Bride and Groom - that procreation is NOT the CENTRAL element in marriage. The Chumash does not say that Eve was created so that Adam could procreate - but rather to be his life partner. Marriage is about sharing: experiences happy and sad, the pleasures of lovemaking, growingtogether - or in the words of Hazal: Ahava Achva Shalom ve-Reut - Love, friendship, peace and companionship. Not to mention Gila, rina, ditza and Cheva - boundless Joy.

Aryeh Frimer<<

Okay, just for the sake of debate, lets say that consumation has nothing to do with children; that the marriage is consumated in the sexual act whether procreation occurs or not.

How then, using this reasoning, is it possible to deny validity to gay marriage? If they have been legally married, as is the case in some states, and they have engaged in the sexual act, procreation notwithstanding, how does one insist that the union of the two same-sex partners is not valid and consumated?

Please don’t give me anything about scripture says this, or health experts say that…

The question is valid and consumated union between two people who have mutually consented to be each others partner. Or in the words of Aryeh: “Ahava Achva Shalom ve-Reut - Love, friendship, peace and companionship.”

Which of these is not possible within a same-sex union?

Thal59

I don’t think you can take procreation completely out of the equation.

Consumation = the Marital Act that is open to the possibility of procreation.

 

[rayne89]

1 Cor 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.

Gen 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…

Gen 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.

Why would a spouse withhold his/her body and not fulfill God’s commands?

Tired, sick, had a really bad day. This goes for myself as well as hubby. I understand God’s command and the meaning behind it, I just thinks this “you are obligated under penetaly of sin” attitude really takes away from the beauty of intimacy. Intimacy is a total giving of oneself to the other. A free giving not just an obligation. I think if sex is purposly withheld for selfish reasons -yes there’s definate sin there. But aren’t ya allowed to be tired once in a while?

I do have 2 friends who suffered sexual abuse as children that have a very difficult time with marital intimacy. I’m glad they don’t have husbands that don’t use this command to lord over them.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi all,
If you read my ugly post on canon law quotes, I am just pointing out how the logic reads.

Rayne, next post is for you.
Gelsbern (yes! exactly.).

The canon about consent hinges on matrimonial consent, which means the INTENTION to have children.
matrimony = children and by natural implication conjugal relations.

This is a sacramental marriage, and one which cannot be dissolved once the attempt is made to have children (the conjugal act).

StevenMerten:
The church does not want secular marriages for business purposes only – for the simple reason that people might decide to consumate and then it isn’t just a business deal … and its outside the church.

Consider your own suggestion of the adoptive parent situation. Could two sterile people join to have a family through adoption? Is sex necessary for a sterile couple? Why not have a sacrament. It is not ‘why should I wish a sacrament on a business deal’ it is why avoid the sacrament?

Thal:
The reason a sacramental Gay marriage is impossible is becase the statement of Jesus on the ‘beginning’ relates to a man and woman becoming ‘one’ flesh. I have never taken children out of the equation (please set my comments on Paul aside for a moment).

The problem is that canon law has to deal with all the twisted situations that people get into.

Yes gays can have ‘happiness’, and all but they can’t perform an → act ← capable of bringing children into the world.

But sterile people can. The act between a man and a woman, is a union of two different genetalia. This is the procreative union, even if one of the genetalia is damaged to any given degree – including sterility.

Br. Rich & Co. have a habit of throwing these exceptional cases into the mix and turning a simple statement into a blog.

Now, everyone is scratching their heads about my point with St. Paul. BUT – One of the things that happens with people is that they change their minds.

A couple enters a marriage contract – and then some event happens. The desire for children was there at first, and the couple would be willing to have them, but something happend. I can give several examples, but use some imagination.

Canon law would appear to say that even though they have chosen to abstain for legitimate reasons, they still are married in the sacrament.

If they have never consummated, the case can go either way. They could seperate, but there is no need to seperate. If they don’t seperate and don’t consumate, there is no sin.

I only brought St. Paul into the fray to show that there is not a sin in abstaining, regardless of when, so long as it is not unilateral.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Rayne,

I agree. St. Paul is not talking about short periods of time like one or two days, but about the concern one spouse has for the other. I mean, for the man, to be cut off from sexual relations on a quasi-permanent basis is more than a denial of pleasure. It is the presentation of rejection by the wife and temptation by outsiders.
For a man truly in love with his wife does not merely avert his eyes from the sexual imagery of an outsider, but turns toward his wife and their intamacy. It is a shield against temptation psychologically.
To be denied this intimacy, unilaterally, in a rejecting sort of way, leads a man to the position of turning away from outsiders to nothing – an emptiness and shame.

Men and women are different in how they suffer the effects of the fall of Adam.

I am sorry to hear of your two friends who suffered sexual abuse – and as a man, I am also sorry for any husband who is rejected quasi-permananetly. It is far more common than most people would admit.

 

[rayne89]

Huiou Theou:

Rayne,

I agree. St. Paul is not talking about short periods of time like one or two days, but about the concern one spouse has for the other. I mean, for the man, to be cut off from sexual relations on a quasi-permanent basis is more than a denial of pleasure. It is the presentation of rejection by the wife and temptation by outsiders.
For a man truly in love with his wife does not merely avert his eyes from the sexual imagery of an outsider, but turns toward his wife and their intamacy. It is a shield against temptation psychologically.
To be denied this intimacy, unilaterally, in a rejecting sort of way, leads a man to the position of turning away from outsiders to nothing – an emptiness and shame.

Men and women are different in how they suffer the effects of the fall of Adam.

I am sorry to hear of your two friends who suffered sexual abuse – and as a man, I am also sorry for any husband who is rejected quasi-permananetly. It is far more common than most people would admit.

I’m glad we agree. One question though, I get the impression that you think men are the only ones who have their sexual advances rejected.
My friends who were sexually abuse are intimate with their husbands although certainly not as frequent as their husbands would like, and my friends really don’t get anything out of it for lack of a better term. (Yes us women talk about the darnedest things.) I too feel compassion for men (and women) who are rejected as you put on a quasi-permanant basis.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

rayne, one other comment.

If one of your friends denied their husband sexual relations for say three to four months, and out of pain verbally abused their husband – and the husband asked for sexual relations for reassurance. Would you consider it lording it over for the husband to point out to the wife that she is sinning?

Your description leaves alot to the imagination. Abuse tends to be cyclic.

 

[rayne89]

Huiou Theou:

rayne, one other comment.

If one of your friends denied their husband sexual relations for say three to four months, and out of pain verbally abused their husband – and the husband asked for sexual relations for reassurance. Would you consider it lording it over for the husband to point out to the wife that she is sinning?

Your description leaves alot to the imagination. Abuse tends to be cyclic.

No I would not consider it lording over them. Verbally abuseing someone for what ever reason is not excusable for one thing, and three to four months is a considerably long time to deny intimacy to your spouse.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

post #37 is out of order.

No, I do not think that only men are abused. As a man, however, I see the psychology of the woman from the outside. What causes a woman to ‘get something out of it’ has much to do with peripheral considerations.
Does the man play with the children, demonstratively.
Does the woman feel secure (very difficult for a sexually abused woman).
etc.
Many of these issues appear to be unrelated to the actual relationship of the man to the woman, but rather to tertiary considerations. I don’t know how to explain it better than that.

It is the mismatch in expectations which makes sexual issues so difficult, and why the gravity of the sin either way is hard to judge.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

UKCatholicGuy,

What was the particular reason the saint you mention chose not to consummate the marriage at first?
I’d like to narrow the discussion a little (unless you like the wide discussion).