Marriage Never Consumated

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m learning that I was wrong. Keep reading further posts as my education evolves.

I think I’ve got it that a couple may or may not choose to exercise that aspect of married life. If they choose to do so, they must be open to life. If they choose not to do so, and both agree, that is then a Josephite marriage and is still a sacramental marriage. However, if one party cannot actually make the choice (due to physical inablity) then they may not get married in the Church. I think I’ve got it. I am open to correction if I am wrong.
.

I think you’ve got it.

VC

 

[SwizzleStick]

I think you’ve got it.

VC

All right! Thank you for all of your help!

 

[dianaballein]

What if her husband refused to set foot in any Church? What are her options?

 

[francesca_gen]

If both parties agree to not have sexual relations then the Church says nothing negative about it. If one party says they are unhappy about the situation, that they married expecting sexual activity and it never happened then the Church will annul the marriage.

Only if the Tribunal believes you, though. (Spoken from personal experience.)

 

[jmcrae]

What if her husband refused to set foot in any Church? What are her options?

She needs to talk to a very holy priest, and get advice on what to do next. She has put herself into a very bad situation, and she needs a lot of individual help to work out the details.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You want to consult the code of canon law. The Catechism in treating the issue is drawing from the code as the law of the Church.

This is just not correct. Valid marriage is established by the proper manifestation of consent by parties who are qualified to marry (see canon 1057).

(It is true historically that there had been a difference of opinion until the 13th century in which some believed consent created marriage and others held that consummation created marriage. The issue was resolved by Pope Alexander, and consent has been the efficacious cause of marriage since those days.)

Even marriage between the baptized can be valid without consummation. In that case it is called a ratified only marriage (see canon 1061).

Consider the legal effects of a non consummated marriage, too. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, would invalidly attempts marriage (canon 1085 §1). Were non consummated marriages intrinsically invalid, that impediment would not exist as it is written.

The case of an inability to consummate presents a different situation than one in which the parties do not consummate for other (volitional or accidental) reasons. The impediment of impotence is a condition that cannot be remedied (perpetual). In other cases, the condition of non consummation can be remedied by consummation.

Contrary to one earlier post, unconsummated marriages are subject to being “annulled” (declared null would be the correct term) simply on that basis by itself. Instead, they can be dissolved (or technically dispensed). See canon 1697 and following.

It is not unheard of that a non consummated marriage might be examined by a tribunal for nullity, but that would have involved other factors that presented the grounds of the canonical process.

I’m sorry, but I overlooked your post earlier.

To recap (because this is new to me and I’m pretty sure I’ve got it but reviewing is a good thing to aid in learning):

Consent makes marriage. When two people consent to marriage in a marriage ceremony, then the marriage bond is formed.

Consummation of the marriage cements the bond and makes it indissoluble, but a marriage that was contracted with consent but is not consummated is open to being dissolved.

An impotent person is impeded from marriage because he/she cannot consummate. It is not the same as when a couple contracts marriage and then both choose to not consummate for whatever reason, forming a “Josephite marriage.” It comes down to being able to choose or not.

…Even marriage between the baptized can be valid without consummation. In that case it is called a ratified only marriage (see canon 1061)…

So, a “Josephite marriage” is the same as a ratified only marriage?

 

[Starwynd]

[SIGN1]Please don’t feed the troll.[/SIGN1]

Never assume a person is a troll just because they say something you don’t like to hear.

This is what I’ve been taught all my life. Because all the rules pretty much state that any kind of stray though is a sin of lust. Not to mention the other rules of having sex which is explained below.

Masturbation is a mortal sin as an example. And just looking and thinking of women is a sin of lust. We are not allowed to appreciate an attractive woman because just thinking about having sex with her, even if one never plans to act on those thoughts, is a sin.

Then there’s all these kinds of rules that state that any and all sexual acts is forbidden unless the act ends in copulation with a woman. A blowjob is considered a mortal sin. It’s like the Monty Python song says, every sperm is sacred.

And then all the rules state that any kind of birth control is forbidden because it leads to an abortion, and one can only rely on NFP if one wants to avoid kids, as the only method of preventing pregnancy.

So the only conclusion to all of that package is that marriage is only for procreation and only married couples can have sex. Absolutely anything else is a sin.

 

[Nan_S]

What if her husband refused to set foot in any Church? What are her options?

Hoo boy. Bitterness is a tough pill to swallow.

First, she doesn’t need the second husband’s cooperation to get the annulment of the first marriage. She should proceed with that regardless, because it can take easily 18 months.

Second, she needs to get actively involved in her church and in her faith. The more devoted she is to God, the more she knows what God wants and sincerely tries to live it, the happier, more peaceful, and more loving a person she is going to become.

Third, she seriously needs to witness her faith to her current husband by her actions. Remember the saying “Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.”

The witness of her life, and regular prayer, will bring him around. He won’t be able to ignore the positive change in her life. It just may work out that the time the annulment comes through will coincide with the husband being willing to have the marriage blessed.

 

[dianaballein]

Thank you for your opinion Nan. I will talk to her. She already does what you suggest and while he is happy for her happiness, he has expressed numerous times that there is no way he will ever go, and not to even try to make him. She tries not to rock the boat because her kids are in a safe and secure and, for the most part, a loving environment. The kids do not know that the adults are not “romantic”. They see them go to bed each night, in the same room…the same bed. They assume its normal.
Everyone gets along great, no one yells or argues, and they are a solid parental unit. It’s good, but not. Am I making sense?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So, a “Josephite marriage” is the same as a ratified only marriage?

Just chiming in here again. I could conceive a ratum et consummatum marriage that *later *became “Josephite” in a certain sense, or at least celibate. I think St. Therese’s parents had contemplated doing that, but I’m not sure. Anyone know?

VC

 

[jmcrae]

Just chiming in here again. I could conceive a ratum et consummatum marriage that *later *became “Josephite” in a certain sense, or at least celibate. I think St. Therese’s parents had contemplated doing that, but I’m not sure. Anyone know?

VC

I’m amazed that anyone knows the first part, quite frankly. I can’t see how it could possibly have been anyone else’s business, for them to mention it.

 

[Spirithound]

I’m not labeling. I am stating what I was taught, and asking the group to educate me otherwise so I don’t talk about this subject with ignorance.

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. But now you can use my words to answer someone else who asks you about the “status” of out-of-wedlock children in the Church.

 

[Nan_S]

Thank you for your opinion Nan. I will talk to her. She already does what you suggest and while he is happy for her happiness, he has expressed numerous times that there is no way he will ever go, and not to even try to make him. She tries not to rock the boat because her kids are in a safe and secure and, for the most part, a loving environment. The kids do not know that the adults are not “romantic”. They see them go to bed each night, in the same room…the same bed. They assume its normal.
Everyone gets along great, no one yells or argues, and they are a solid parental unit. It’s good, but not. Am I making sense?

Keep praying. She’s on the right track with continual prayer and Christian witness.

One of the messages the kids are getting, and it’s a bad one, is that it’s OK to ignore God. If “Dad” has no need of God or Church, this must be an acceptable alternative for them also.

Sounds like her husband has some serious issues. A husband who truly loves his wife, though, will bring those issues to closure so that they no longer plague his life. He will do what is right for them as a couple and for the kids he is fathering, and not just right for himself.

Eph 5:28-33 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I’ve met people with deep-seated resentments against the Church. Those resentments are often associated with either a failed previous marriage, or with a childhood scandal/crisis that has scarred them. One way with coping with these life tragedies is to shut them off and refuse to discuss them, even though it scars and handicaps them. Despite what he told her, this lady’s husband may have been married before. He may also be scarred by homosexuality or sexual abuse.

Others simply have a rebellious spirit and refuse to follow any authority except themselves. These typically become athiests or independent “bible christians” and re-define God according their own desires. That kind of relationship has its own special challenges.

I need to echo what jmcrae said:

She needs to talk to a very holy priest, and get advice on what to do next. She has put herself into a very bad situation, and she needs a lot of individual help to work out the details.

 

[dianaballein]

Rebellious spirit. That’s him.

 

[Nan_S]

Rebellious spirit. That’s him.

Apparently I was editing the post as you were reading it.

I added the part about the kids getting the message they could ignore God. That’s probably the most important reason that this be resolved, with the assistance of a priest.

I hope she finds peace, and her children find their commitment to God.

 

[bbentrup]

This is what I’ve been taught all my life. Because all the rules pretty much state that any kind of stray thought is a sin of lust. Not to mention the other rules of having sex which is explained below.

Every stray thought? Hardly.

Masturbation is a mortal sin as an example. And just looking and thinking of women is a sin of lust. We are not allowed to appreciate an attractive woman because just thinking about having sex with her, even if one never plans to act on those thoughts, is a sin.

Sorry, I have to correct several points here. Masturbation is a serious sin, not necessarily a mortal one. To be mortal requires full knowledge and full consent of the will. Looking and thinking of women can be a holy experience - it is not a sin of lust. Lusting after women is the sin of lust. Women have done great things for our society and God created them most wondrous in our sight. Such contemplation when acknowledging everyone’s right relation to God is most fruitful. We can appreciate attractive women - give glory to God for the gift of beauty! Men and women’s bodies reflect their Creator. Desiring women for selfish reasons that do not reflect their dignity is a sin, as you point out.

Then there’s all these kinds of rules that state that any and all sexual acts is forbidden unless the act ends in copulation with a woman. A blowjob is considered a mortal sin. It’s like the Monty Python song says, every sperm is sacred.

You can think of it as a negative command if that’s most helpful to you in avoiding sin, but the Catholic Church is a church of the ‘yes’. It would rather teach the proper way to love - “no blowjob - which is selfish” is better taught in its moral positive “love unselfishly - make a total gift of yourself to your sacramental spouse which invokes a communion with God.”

And then all the rules state that any kind of birth control is forbidden because it leads to an abortion, and one can only rely on NFP if one wants to avoid kids, as the only method of preventing pregnancy.

Actually birth control used for true medical necessity (when the intent is to protect life)is ok, and not all birth control is an abortificient. Birth control in general is a great, great evil because it takes God and the Creative element out of the marriage act and makes it nothing more than a glorified act of mutual masturbation. Instead of completely giving yourself, you withhold something - which is not true love - and thus rejects God.

So the only conclusion to all of that package is that marriage is only for procreation and only married couples can have sex. Absolutely anything else is a sin.

Marriage is not only for procreation - you can’t take out the unitive meaning of marriage and have a full understanding of the sacrament. There is a slight preference for the procreative aspect, nothing more.

Sex is one of God’s greatest treasures - let no man diminish it.

 

[blldg13]

People who don’t plan to consummate their marriage should never have gotten married in the first place. Marriage is not for love, it is for procreation only, and only those who are married may have sex, as long as it is for procreation only.

Can you provide where you got that marriage is for procreation only…this is not what the Church teaches.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I’m amazed that anyone knows the first part, quite frankly. I can’t see how it could possibly have been anyone else’s business, for them to mention it.

I’m just trying to learn what the Church actually teaches because I thought I knew, but I was in error. You are correct that the subject is quite personal and as regards a particular couple, it is really between the couple, their confessor and God and nobody else unless they (or just he/she) have/has chosen to share with someone else, as with the OP. Beyond that, though, it is personal and nobody has any right to question a couple about it.

 

[bbentrup]

I’m just trying to learn what the Church actually teaches because I thought I knew, but I was in error. You are correct that the subject is quite personal and as regards a particular couple, it is really between the couple, their confessor and God and nobody else unless they (or just he/she) have/has chosen to share with someone else, as with the OP. Beyond that, though, it is personal and nobody has any right to question a couple about it.

Rights? No.
Moral right to inform? Perhaps yes. If any couple in sin is open about their situation where it could cause scandal, then the perhaps becomes a “definite yes”.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Rights? No.
Moral right to inform? Perhaps yes. If any couple in sin is open about their situation where it could cause scandal, then the perhaps becomes a “definite yes”.

We are in agreement. Obviously, we are discussing this because the OP knows a couple where it has been discussed openly by someone or else nobody would know to possibly cause scandal.

In general, though, I would think the status of that aspect of most folks’ marriage is not open to discussion. But, I could be wrong. This thread proves that, yes? (Me being wrong.)