Marriage Never Consumated

  • Thread starter Thread starter dianaballein
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dianaballein

Guest
How does the Church view a marriage that has never been consumated?
 
I highly doubt this is in any way a thorough exposition of the topic but the Catholic Encyclopedia under Divorce had this to say (far down the page):

Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority.
  1. Dissolution by Solemn Profession
The fact that religious profession causes the dissolution of the marriage bond, provided the marriage has not been consummated, is distinctly taught in the Extrav. Joan. XXII(tit. VI, cap. unic.), and was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent (Sess, XXIV, can. vi). The reason why this dissolution takes place is a theological question. The definition reads: “If anyone shall say that a marriage contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of either one of the parties to the marriage, let him be anathema.” The expression, by the solemn profession, is important. Neither the mere entrance into a religious order, nor life in the novitiate, nor the so-called profession of simple vows, even though they be for life, as is customary in modern congregations, is capable of dissolving a previous marriage. The simple vows which are pronounced in the Society of Jesus, either as vows of scholastic or as vows of formed coadjutors, do not dissolve a marriage which has been contracted and not yet consummated, though they cause a diriment impediment in regard to any future marriage. The question as to how and for what reason such marriage is dissolved by solemn religious profession is answered by some by pointing to an immediate Divine right, as if God himself had so ordained immediately. Others, however, ascribe it to the power which the Church has received from God, and to its ordinance. The first opinion is defended by Dominic Soto, Thomas Sanchez, Benedict XIV, Perrone, Rosset, Palmieri, and others; the second by Henry de Segusia (commonly called Hostiensis), Francisco Suárez, Laymann, Kugler, the Würzburg theologians, Wernz, Gasparri, Laurentius, fahrner, and others. The tradition of the Christian Church for centuries bears witness that Christian marriage before consummation has not the same indissolubility as a consummated marriage. Scholars, however, are not unanimous about the limits of its dissolubility. Many facts from the lives of the saints, of St. Thecla, St. Cecilia, St. Alexius, and others, such for example as are narrated by Gregory the Great (III Dialog., xiv, in P.L., XXXIII) and by the Venerable Bede (Hist. Angl., xix, in P.L., XCV, 201 sqq.), are proof of the universal Christian conviction that, even after marriage had been contracted, it was free for either of the married parties to separate from the other in order to choose a life of evangelical perfection. Now this would be a violation of the right of the other spouse if in such circumstances the marriage bond were not dissolved, or at least could not easily be dissolved under certain conditions, and thereby the right granted to the other to enter upon another marriage. The precise conditions under which this dissolution of the marriage bond actually took place, and stil takes place, can only be decided with certainty by the authentic declaration of the Church. Such a declaration was made by Alexander III, according to III Decretal., xxxii, 2: “After a lawfully accorded consent affecting the present, it is allowed to one of the parties, even against the will of the other, to choose a monastery (just as certain saints have been called from marriage), provided that carnal intercourse shall not have taken place between them; and it is allowed to the one who is left to proceed to a second marriage.” A similar declaration was made by Innocent III, op. cit., cap. xiv. From this latter declaration we learn that religious profession alone has this effect, and that therefore those who wished to practise a life of higher perfection in any other manner could be obliged by the other spouse either actually to choose the religious state or else to consummate the marriage. Under earlier ecclesiastical conditions, no long delay was imposed upon the other party before entering upon another marriage, because religious profession might be made without a long novitiate. The introduction of a novitiate of at least a year by the Council of Trent, and the time of three years prescribed by Pius IX and Leo XIII for simple vows before the solemn profession, and the general restriction of solemn profession by the establishment of simple profession, which does not dissolve the marriage bond, have rendered difficult the dissolution of unconsummated marriage by religious profession. So that now it seems practically necessary that if one of the married parties should choose the state of evangelical perfection before the consummation of the marriage, the marriage bond should be dissolved by papal authority.
  1. Dissolution by the Pope of Marriage not yet Consummated.
The pope’s authority as supreme head of the Church to dissolve Christian marriage not yet consummated is proved on the one hand from the words of Christ to Peter, Matthew 16:19 (see above, under B, 2), and on the other, from the dissolubility of such a marriage by religious profession, inasmuch as this profession must be solemn, for according to the declaration of Boniface VIII (III Sexti Decretal., xv, c. unic.), solemn vows as such depend entirely upon the ordinance of the Church – “voti solemnitas ex solâ constitutione Ecclesiæ est inventa”. Hence it follows without a doubt that the dissolution of a marriage by solemn profession could never take place without the exercise of the Church’s authority. Now if the Church can cause such a dissoltuion according to a general law, a fortiori she can do this in single cases – not indeed arbitrarily, but for grave reasons – because this power has been granted by God to dispense in matters of Divine right, and a delegated authority may not be exercised without a sufficient reason (cf. Wernz, “Just decretal.”, IV, n. 698, not. 39). The actual exercise of this power on the part of the popes, which has become constant and general, is a further proof of its propriety and its actual existence. Clear instances occur during the pontificates of Martin V (1417-31) and Eugene IV (1431-47). St Antoninus tells us that he had seen several Bulls of the popes which granted such a dispensation of a dissolution of a marriage that had not been consummated, so that thereafter they might proceed to a new marriage. (Summa theol., III, tit. i, c. xxi). We can find traces of such a practice even in much earlier times. A decretal of Alexander III, namely, IV Decretal., xiii, 2, seems, according to a probable interpretation, to refer to a possible concession of such a dissolution. Perhaps the decision of Gregory II to St. Boniface, in 726 (see above under A. 4) might possibly be explained in the same sense, though it is very uncertain, for it seems to refer neither to the dissolution of a consummated marriage, as some supposed, nor to the dissolution of a real marriage that had not been consumated, but rather to a declaration of invalidity. For several centuries the exercise of this power of dissolving such marriages has belonged to the ordinary functions of the Holy See, and is exlusively papal, for the work of the Roman Congregations in such cases is only preparatory. However, exceptional instances occur when it has been delegated to bishops (Wernz, op. cit., n. 698, not. 41). The judicial procedure in such cases was exactly prescribed by Benedict XIV in his Bull of judicial procedure (“Dei miseratione”, 3 November, 1741 (section 15), obligatory on the whole Latin Church. Any uncertainty about this ecclesiastical power (cf. Fahrner;Geshichte des Unauflöslichkeitsprincips, p. 170 sqq.) was removed bythis Bull; for if this power did not belong to the Church, then the Bull in question would have approved and originated an institution against all good morals. It is, however, inconceivable that the pope could issue an attack on morality and could formally sanction bigamy in certain cases. Several of the older canonists, especially those of Bologna, brought forward some special reasons which are supposed to justify the dissolution of a marriage before consummation. If thereby they wish to assert the right of dissolution by private authority, then they erred. If they intended to speak of a dissolution that could be granted by the Church, that is, by its supreme head, and the permission for a new marriage, then they had merely collected the cases in which such a dissolution might take place in virtue of the papal authority just spoken of, but they had not given a new title to such dissolution. Some held the erroneous opinion of private dissolubility, because they regarded such a union as no real marriage, but simply as betrothal, and therefore they treated it according to the juridical principles in regard to betrothal. This theory of marriage, however, was not often defended, and has long dissapeared from theological schools; neither does it deserve any consideration at present, because it is in conflict with established Catholic dogmas.
 
I wasn’t asking about divorce. How does the Church view a married couple who is not divorcing but who have never consumated their marriage? Is this a sin?
 
A marriage HAS to be consummated at least once in order to be considered a marriage or else it is not truly a marriage. That is why an impotent man cannot marry validly in the Church. If one cannot consummate, one cannot marry. I will go now and consult my Catechism to try to come up with some sources to back up this statement (though I’m sure someone well versed in the Catechism could come to my aid in the meantime).🙂
 
dianaballein said:
I wasn’t asking about divorce. How does the Church view a married couple who is not divorcing but who have never consumated their marriage? Is this a sin?
Click to expand...
Why would they have married if they weren’t going to consummate it?

It seems to me that if the couple were deliberately not consummating the marriage, it would point to a serious problem that existed before the marriage took place- one serious enough to call the validity of the marriage itself into question.

Did they lie about the physical ability to consummate the marriage? Did an accident occur before it could take place?

In other words, without knowing the WHY, it’s impossible to answer your question regarding the sinfulness of the situation.
 
Ah, so your questions is perhaps even more clearly stated: Is it a sin for a married couple to never have sex?

Well, if they are murdered on their wedding day, there is no sin there, so objectively there can be no sin. Basically most of the additional factors that could make it sinful would show that there was no actual marriage in the first place in God’s eyes.
 
Canon 1084, 1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage.
 
It would be in Canon law, not the Catechism.

A marriage that has not been consummated is not a marriage and can be annuled.

However, the couple could theoretically have good intentions in deciding to live as brother and sister. St. Therese of Lisieux’s parents lived in such a matter for a year after the wedding before the parish priest advised them to go ahead and consummate the marriage. Her parents will soon be beatified.

So, no, not consummating the marriage would not necessarily be a sin, depending on the intention.
 
dianaballein said:
I wasn’t asking about divorce. How does the Church view a married couple who is not divorcing but who have never consumated their marriage? Is this a sin?
Click to expand...
If it is a sin or there was a problem with it then Mary and Joseph had a disordered marriage and lived in this sin all their lives.

If I recall correctly, Saint Therese’s parents who are being considered for canonization began their marriage by remaining celebate, but I priest convinced them to have children, thank God.

Marriages of people who are married and do not engage in sex are referred to as Josephite marriages, for obvious reason.
 
Feedmysheep said:
Why would they have married if they weren’t going to consummate it?

It seems to me that if the couple were deliberately not consummating the marriage, it would point to a serious problem that existed before the marriage took place- one serious enough to call the validity of the marriage itself into question.

Did they lie about the physical ability to consummate the marriage? Did an accident occur before it could take place?

In other words, without knowing the WHY, it’s impossible to answer your question regarding the sinfulness of the situation.
Click to expand...
Background history on the couple in question: Wife was a divorce Mom with two children. Husband never married, age 46, no children. Spouses are good friends, providing two parent household for the children. Husband did not want his property to go to his biological family for personal reasons so wanted to insure that if anything happened to him, it would go to his friend (i.e. wife).
 
grandfather said:
If it is a sin or there was a problem with it then Mary and Joseph had a disordered marriage and lived in this sin all their lives.

If I recall correctly, Saint Therese’s parents who are being considered for canonization began their marriage by remaining celebate, but I priest convinced them to have children, thank God.

Marriages of people who are married and do not engage in sex are referred to as Josephite marriages, for obvious reason.
Click to expand...
Great point about Mary and Joseph’s marriage. 😃

I think that it is odd for people to say that a married couple who choses not to have sex, are sinning. Especially in light of the number of people who have premarital/extramarital sex - something that is definitely sinful, it doesn’t seem right to say that it is sinful to abstain.

To me, marriage is about committing yourself wholly to another person, and that doesn’t have to necessarily include sex. It all just depends on the couple and on the situation.
 
true_believer said:
…To me, marriage is about committing yourself wholly to another person, and that doesn’t have to necessarily include sex. It all just depends on the couple and on the situation.
Click to expand...
Not to be contrary, but in order to commit yourself wholly to another person, you must unite in body with that person. The Church says marriage MUST include sex. A perpetually impotent man or perpetually frigid woman cannot marry in the Church.
 
dianaballein said:
Background history on the couple in question: Wife was a divorce Mom with two children. Husband never married, age 46, no children. Spouses are good friends, providing two parent household for the children. Husband did not want his property to go to his biological family for personal reasons so wanted to insure that if anything happened to him, it would go to his friend (i.e. wife).
Click to expand...
This situation is so unusual that it’s unknown to me. What this couple has done could have been accomplished by that old legal document known as The Will. Being a pretend-couple who are pretend-spouses investing in pretend-mutual-parenting is way too much PRETEND, imo. The best advice or judgment regrding such a relationship would have to come from a Marriage Tribunal although I’m rather certain the tribunal would say that no marriage exists. Also, any parish priest would very likely say the same. Because I’ve worked with children all of my life, I’m going to say that this pretense of a marriage cannot be healthy for them. Pretending a sacred covenant exists (when that’s a lie) is horrible for everyone involved in the pretense.
 
dianaballein said:
Background history on the couple in question: Wife was a divorce Mom with two children. Husband never married, age 46, no children. Spouses are good friends, providing two parent household for the children. Husband did not want his property to go to his biological family for personal reasons so wanted to insure that if anything happened to him, it would go to his friend (i.e. wife).
Click to expand...
That does not constitute a catholic marriage, the legal issues are under civil law not church law.
 
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.
 
Starwynd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, the marital act is unitive AND procreative. A couple may “celebrate their sacrament” simply to be unitive, but they must also always be open to life.
 
SwizzleStick said:
Not to be contrary, but in order to commit yourself wholly to another person, you must unite in body with that person. The Church says marriage MUST include sex. A perpetually impotent man or perpetually frigid woman cannot marry in the Church.
Click to expand...
Swizzle,

You’re close, but not quite right. Pre-existiing perpetual inability to consummate a marriage is an impediment to marriage, however it is only the *ability *that is required, not that one make use of the ability.

A marriage that is never consummated is still a valid sacramental marriage (ratum). It is, however, subject to dissolution until consummated (ratum et consummatum).

VC
 
Starwynd said:
… Marriage is not for love, …
Click to expand...
How very sad that you think this. It is simply not true.

I love my husband and he and I practice NFP. At this point in our lifes, we use it to avoid conceiving another child. God may have other plans for us and we will certainly embrace that if it happens (though I admit I’d be pretty scared at my age, but would try to trust and accept His plan for us). But, right now, when we “celebrate our sacrament” we are simply reaffirming our marriage vows, thus the marital act is unitive AND open to life since we are doing nothing to prevent conception. There is definitely love in our relationship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top