Marital Intimacy

[archival_grape]

The man and woman married must be willing to consummate their marraige at the time of the marriage! The end of marriage “procreation and education of offspring,” is completey ignored if a couple is NOT willing or planning to consummate their marriage!

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1652):

The openness to fertility
1652
“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

 

[DJgang]

I will pray for you.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

"In the absence of sexual consummation, there exists a canonical defect rendering it null."**

Can. 1101§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.

It would seem (1) the sexual union is essential to marriage and a right of marriage (2) It would seem that the O.P.'s husband is determined to exclude this essential element from the beginning and at the time of the vows. (3) If this is proven, the marriage was contracted invalidly. Such an intention is also against procreation and children; again if present on the day of the marriage, the marriage is invalidly contracted.

Can. 1095§2*: those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgment of the essential martial rights and obligation to be mutually given and accepted;*

It would seen that the O.P.'s husband suffers from a grave lack of judgment regarding essential martial rights and obligations, not limited to the procreation of children and rights to sexual union, such rights and obligations are solely his own to fulfill. If it could be demonstrated that this lack of judgment was present on or before the marriage, the marriage can be seen to be invalid.

From the above, it would seem that the intention to withhold the consummation of a marriage perpetually and makes the validity of the marriage questionable and if provable, invalid. For certain, the O.P.’s husband is not aware of the essential martial rights unique to the Sacrament.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[For my part, I apologize to the OP that this tangent goes on]

"In the absence of sexual consummation, there exists a canonical defect rendering it null."**

Can. 1101§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.

It would seem (1) the sexual union is essential to marriage

You are begging the question.

Here is yet another canonical citation:

Can. 1681 Whenever in the course of the hearing of a case a doubt of a high degree of probability arises that the marriage has not been consummated, the tribunal can, with the consent of the parties, suspend the nullity case and complete the instruction of a case for a dispensation from a non-consummated marriage; eventually it can forward the acts to the Apostolic See, together with a petition, from either or both of the parties for a dispensation, and with the Opinions of the tribunal and of the Bishop.

See? In the case of a ratified marriage, the tribunal (and parties) can seek to *dissolve *the union rather than persue nullity. I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I imagine this is because the former is a sure thing, being in the hands of legislators, while nullity would still require finding grounds, chancey at best and which non-consummation is not.

tee

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Hardly begging the question (1) Can. 1084 states that *“antecedent and perpetual impotence renders a marriage invalid”. *Impotence, in the male, is the ability to have sexual intercourse, it is not the ability to generate offspring. Since there is a Canon that implies one must have the powers incident to intercourse to validly marry, it stands to reason, that those powers are to be used in marriage.

Hardly begging the question (2): The OP (sadly) tells of a case of a marriage that seems to have on the day of the marriage and beyond an essential element withheld by intention of one of the parties. This essential element is the sexual union (which is licitly reserved only to the married). While proving a case of nullity based on non-consummation is rare to nearly impossible, said case being reserved to the Roman Rota; the intention against children and the intention to withhold the rights of the marriage makes a solid case for invalidity and can be determined at the local level.

The only “essential element” of marriage in the cannon cited (Can. 1101§2) is the sexual union. Everything else related to marriage can be done or shared by brother and sister (cohabitation, raising of children, shared financial resources, co-ownership, etc.) but the “essential element” of this discussion is and can only be the sexual one. This is hardly begging but merely an application of knowledge that is common to the married and the plain language of the text. With respect to all human actions not reserved to the ordained, only the sexual encounter, the so called “martial embrace” is licitly reserved to those who have shared in the Sacrament of Marriage. That is what makes it (the sexual union) an essential element. There are other elements to marriage that are internal (free consent, and other intentions) but limiting the elements to the external, only the sexual encounter is essential or unique to the married.

 

[tee_eff_em]

---

Hardly begging the question (1) Can. 1084 states that *“antecedent and perpetual impotence renders a marriage invalid”. *

Impotence, in the male, is the ability to have sexual intercourse, it is not the ability to generate offspring. Since there is a Canon that implies one must have the powers incident to intercourse to validly marry, it stands to reason, that those powers are to be used in marriage.

It is quite the leap – and I would say a flawed one – to go from the necessity of potency to “sexual union is the essential element of marriage”.

The only “essential element” of marriage in the cannon cited (Can. 1101§2) is the sexual union.

Catechism #1626 says otherwise.

But suppose for a moment that you were correct: Can you please explain why Canon 1061 refers to a valid marriage that has not been consummated? Why Canon 1681 recommends dissolving a bond you would say is null? How a non-consummated marriage, which you claim is null, can impede one from attempting marriage, as noted in Canon 1085?

tee

 

[crazyage3]

Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West beautifully explains Catholic teaching on love and marriage, from the works of Pope John Paul II.

Ah yes that book! Really have to get it, heard it was great!

 

[Grace_Angel]

Where do I find literature on the conssumation of marriage. My husband believes that intimacy or sex within the marriage is impure.

I am sorry darling but you seem to say that you have not consumated your marriage. To all catholic marriages there is the words of covenant and the act of covenant which is the conusmation of marriage. And indeed everytime you make love within marriage you renew your covenant.
Christopher West material is good.
Grace Angel.

 

[Lissla_Lissar]

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. 33 In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

Ever read the Song of Songs? God likes matter a lot. God made it, Christ assumed it. To proclaim matter and pleasure evil is to declare Christ imperfect and God (the Creator) evil.

 

[In_Vino_Veritas]

I will pray for you.

Of all the responses to this thread, this one makes the most sense. The OP didn’t ask --and likely doesn’t care-- about the canonical state of her marriage. She was asking for information about the subject. Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body is one resource. Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est might also be a good one. Pope Paul’s encyclical Humae Vitae would also be worth reading. All of those writings affirm the goodness of sex within the proper context.

 

[Mimi]

The Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West is one of the best books written on this topic. It is a very easy read, setup in a question and answer format.

www.christopherwest.com

I have this, and it IS v v v good. 
It's also good to get Theology of the Body for Beginners.

New is T.O.B. Explained also by C. West.

God bless,
Mimi

 

[havemercy]

What the heck?

Now, either your husband

• has a serious problem with lust and needs to be prayed over; or
• is super-scrupulous; or
• is a Puritan/Calvinist.

You two should see a good and holy priest for counselling. What was he expecting to happen after marrying you? Long nights of Scrabble?

I’ll say a prayer for you both. May you render glory unto God and rejoice in your marriage.
*
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis.*

 

[drafdog]

Let’s leave out Church canons and so forth and cut to the chase. The question is the purity (sinfulness?) of sex in marriage. Let me refer you back to the original, the first commandment. I’ll let you look it up. Research skills are valuable and practice makes perfect. If you are not having sex, you are failing to do marriage according to God’s plan. Far from sex being impure, non-sex is impure according to God’s command. Even if you can quote canon after canon supporting some lawyer’s notion of what is acceptable in marriage, I must refer you back to God. If the Church is the bride of Christ (God) then she must defer to His decission in this matter. God says sex, so sex it is.

Matthew