Marriage Consummation

[Phemie]

Tee, I know you guys know what you’re talking about but that just seems so wrong to me.

I have often seen people on here post the “only Catholics” as far as salvation and we know now the Church says that non-Catholics do have the possibility of salvation outside the Church. They are just posting the old version, so to speak. Could that be happening with this or does it still hold??

This still holds, the current Canon Law dates back only to 1983. But, unless there is certainty that impotence is permanent, the marriage can be celebrated. If it’s discovered afterwards, unless they petition for a decree of nullity nobody will ever know.

 

[BSHoop96]

This still holds, the current Canon Law dates back only to 1983. But, unless there is certainty that impotence is permanent, the marriage can be celebrated. If it’s discovered afterwards, unless they petition for a decree of nullity nobody will ever know.

While I have a problem with this I also don’t think “winning on a technicality” is great either. If I were in the situation I would feel “guilt” at trying to “fool the Church”. Glad I’m not in the situation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh my gosh…I’m shocked. I didn’t know this. You mean that, for example, an older widow and widower, faithful Catholics but unable for health or age, whatever, to consummate their marriage cannot validly be married in the Church? Or someone with a spinal cord injury that is incapable couldn’t be married in the Church? Can one receive a dispensation for this?? This makes me sad.

Well, in both instances yes that is the case. See the Catechism #1601 that procreation is one of the “ends” of marriage. That doesn’t mean that every couple must have children or they aren’t married (of course not), but it does mean that the possibility of children is necessary for a sacramental marriage. In cases of people who are sterile, “there’s always hope” for children so long as they are able to engage in the marrital act; without that though, a sacramental marriage just isn’t possible.

 

[BSHoop96]

Well, in both instances yes that is the case. See the Catechism #1601 that procreation is one of the “ends” of marriage. That doesn’t mean that every couple must have children or they aren’t married (of course not), but it does mean that the possibility of children is necessary for a sacramental marriage. In cases of people who are sterile, “there’s always hope” for children so long as they are able to engage in the marrital act; without that though, a sacramental marriage just isn’t possible.

What would practicing Catholics do in situations like that? Would the choice come down to never being able to marry or leaving the Church? I’m not comfortable with the “just don’t tell” part as God would know. I don’t know why this bothers me so much. I don’t even know anyone in this situation. Can they marry in a non-sacramental marriage and still be in good standing with the church? If two elderly people marry there’s no hope for children anyway.

 

[FrDavid96]

What would practicing Catholics do in situations like that? Would the choice come down to never being able to marry or leaving the Church? I’m not comfortable with the “just don’t tell” part as God would know. I don’t know why this bothers me so much. I don’t even know anyone in this situation. Can they marry in a non-sacramental marriage and still be in good standing with the church? If two elderly people marry there’s no hope for children anyway.

Yes, it can be difficult to accept at times, but we have to keep in mind the “ends” of marriage so a marriage without ANY possibility of children can’t be a marriage.

They can’t enter into a “non-sacramental” marriage and still be in good standing with the Church because if so, they’ve engaged in something which pretends to be a marriage but isn’t.

Elderly people can (and DO) marry. It’s not the likelihood of children, but the ability for the “act” which the Church says must exist; from that, “there’s always hope” (we have a good example in Elizabeth and Zacheriah).

As for “just don’t tell” if that’s done before the ceremony then at least one of the couple is being deceptive when the priest inquires. If it’s discovered after the ceremony, then there’s no obligation on their part to make it known, but it would still be grounds for a petition for nullity if one would choose that path.

 

[tee_eff_em]

While I have a problem with this I also don’t think “winning on a technicality” is great either. If I were in the situation I would feel “guilt” at trying to “fool the Church”. Glad I’m not in the situation.

What would practicing Catholics do in situations like that? Would the choice come down to never being able to marry or leaving the Church? I’m not comfortable with the “just don’t tell” part as God would know.

There is no *“fool[ing] the Church” *about it.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Despite the assertions I see many times in this forum, and the ability of some to quote the Canons, few if any persons here* (let alone in your real life) can tell you authoritatively that your marriage is null.

• not the parties to the marriage themselves
• not your priest**
• not your mom
• not a friend of a friend
• …

Only the tribunal can render such judgement. Unless and until it does, the validity of every marriage must be upheld.

And the tribunal will not render judgement unless it is petitioned to do so, nor will it even consider a petition before a civil divorce is obtained.

As [user]FrDavid96[/user] notes: Impotence discovered only after the ceremony would provide *grounds *for a petition. But unless a petition is persued, that marriage is, by law, valid.

(* Least of all: Yours truly)

(** Well, my priest can, but that is because he sits on the local tribunal)

tee

 

[BSHoop96]

Yes, it can be difficult to accept at times, but we have to keep in mind the “ends” of marriage so a marriage without ANY possibility of children can’t be a marriage.

They can’t enter into a “non-sacramental” marriage and still be in good standing with the Church because if so, they’ve engaged in something which pretends to be a marriage but isn’t.

Elderly people can (and DO) marry. It’s not the likelihood of children, but the ability for the “act” which the Church says must exist; from that, “there’s always hope” (we have a good example in Elizabeth and Zacheriah).

As for “just don’t tell” if that’s done before the ceremony then at **least one of the couple is being deceptive when the priest inquires. ** If it’s discovered after the ceremony, then there’s no obligation on their part to make it known, but it would still be grounds for a petition for nullity if one would choose that path.

If one or both are intentionally deceptive is the marriage still valid though? I mean in the eyes of God? I would feel guilt that I didn’t have a valid marriage if I can lied to the priest. Or am I splitting too many hairs?

 

[BSHoop96]

There is no *“fool[ing] the Church” *about it.

tee

tee…what I meant was that if you lied to the priest (even if by omission) and they married you it must have some effect on the sacramental marriage in the eyes of God I would think. And I myself would feel guilt if I was the person that deceived the priest to “obtain a sacrificial marriage”. I’m not talking about how it appears to everyone else. Does that make sense?