Marriage Never Consumated

[jmcrae]

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).

This sounds to me like a Josephite marriage, where the couple have come together for protection, rather than for sex and children.

If I were in that situation, I would want to consult with a very holy priest. I certainly wouldn’t take the advice of an internet forum, but maybe that’s just me.

Another possibility might be to consummate the marriage during a non-fertile time, and then proceed with the original plan after that, if they still wanted to do that.

 

[dianaballein]

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.

Here is another scenario, after reading the above…what if a married couple has a decent sex life but then one of them changes the rules a few years into it and begins to deny the other spouse? Aren’t there marital obligations? Would this signify one spouse not honoring their husband or wife?

 

[dianaballein]

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.

How is it any different than couples who are unhappy and unfulfilled but stay married? Children grow up thinking that what they see is the norm for marriage, thus perpetuating an unhealthy cycle of expectations.

 

[Starwynd]

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.

Yes, life is such a precious gift that it must never be refused under any circumstances.

 

[dianaballein]

That does not constitute a catholic marriage, the legal issues are under civil law not church law.

So is their marrying for those reasons a sin?

 

[dianaballein]

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.

MARRIAGE IS NOT FOR LOVE? You have got to be kidding me. Sex is for procreation. If marriage isn’t for love, we would marry the guy or girl sitting next to us at work just because they aren’t married to anyone else. It does a huge disservice to our children to show them a marriage where love does not reside.

 

[Nan_S]

I’m presuming one or both of the spouses are Catholic. If they weren’t that would change a few answers, because they would not be bound by Catholic canon law.

You said the wife was divorced. I hope she got an annulment before this marriage. Perhaps the reason they have not consummated the marriage is because the annulment is still pending and they can not yet be validly married in the Eyes of the Church, yet they went ahead and got a marriage recognized by civil law so as to obtain the protections of civil law.

 

[dianaballein]

How romantic

I agree. That statement totally lit a flame under my burner, and not in a romantic sort of way.

 

[Catholic90]

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.

How sad you feel marriage is not for love. Why in this country at least would you not love the person you were marrying?

As for your statement regarding married people may only have sex for procreation only is blatantly false and is in no way supported by the Catholic Church.

They must be OPEN to life, yes, but it is perfectly fine to not always plan to conceive a baby everytime they do the act. Otherwise, people in menopause or otherwise unable to conceive would never do it. The whole idea behind NFP is to know when fertile and infertile times are so plans can be made!

 

[cameron_lansing]

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).

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.

 

[dianaballein]

I’m presuming one or both of the spouses are Catholic. If they weren’t that would change a few answers, because they would not be bound by Catholic canon law.

You said the wife was divorced. I hope she got an annulment before this marriage. Perhaps the reason they have not consummated the marriage is because the annulment is still pending and they can not yet be validly married in the Eyes of the Church, yet they went ahead and got a marriage recognized by civil law so as to obtain the protections of civil law.

The wife was not Catholic when she married the Father of her children and they never married in a Church. She is Catholic now.

 

[SwizzleStick]

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

I admit that I don’t quite understand. I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage? That is why some marriages can be annulled and others cannot and why impotence/frigidity would be grounds for annulment. So, would a priest go ahead with the Sacrament of Matrimony if he knew one of those two conditions existed and the marriage could not be consummated? Say the man has a spinal cord injury and just couldn’t consummate? Are you saying that he could still marry validly in the Church? If so, that contradicts a lot of what I understand the Church teaches and what I’ve read on many EWTN Q&As.

Just when I think I understand something. Just goes to show there is much to learn and know about our Faith. I think I need to think on this a bit more and read more to understand and be clear. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you. But, I do need to educate myself more.

 

[jmcrae]

The wife was not Catholic when she married the Father of her children and they never married in a Church. She is Catholic now.

She still needs a Declaration of Nullity for the first marriage before entering into any new relationships.

There is a pervasive myth that non-Catholic marriages are not valid, but this is a mistake - it is only when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic without a dispensation that the marriage is of doubtful validity - non-Catholic with non-Catholic is always assumed to be a valid marriage, though.

 

[dianaballein]

I admit that I don’t quite understand. I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage? That is why some marriages can be annulled and others cannot and why impotence/frigidity would be grounds for annulment. So, would a priest go ahead with the Sacrament of Matrimony if he knew one of those two conditions existed and the marriage could not be consummated? Say the man has a spinal cord injury and just couldn’t consummate? Are you saying that he could still marry validly in the Church? If so, that contradicts a lot of what I understand the Church teaches and what I’ve read on many EWTN Q&As.

Just when I think I understand something. Just goes to show there is much to learn and know about our Faith. I think I need to think on this a bit more and read more to understand and be clear. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you. But, I do need to educate myself more.

…and since I am learning too, doesn’t an annulment make children “bastards”, or is that antiquated information…

 

[tee_eff_em]

I admit that I don’t quite understand. I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage?

If a marriage is prone to dissolution, *what *is it that is dissoluble? A thing that does not exist cannot be dissolved.

tee

 

[catharina]

…and since I am learning too, doesn’t an annulment make children “bastards”, or is that antiquated information…

Children’s rights as legitimate heirs remain recognized by the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

…and since I am learning too, doesn’t an annulment make children “bastards”, or is that antiquated information…

No, children do not become disinherited when their parents receive an annulment from their previous marriage, any more so than by the divorce itself (which usually eats up any inheritance that they may have received, anyway).

The concept of “bastard” itself is completely antiquated - most people today would not think of disinheriting their children, if they had anything to give them, regardless of the status of their relationship with their child’s other parent.

 

[tee_eff_em]

…and since I am learning too, doesn’t an annulment make children “bastards”, or is that antiquated information…

That is antiquated information. Canon Law (1137) makes explicit that children of a putative marriage are legitimate.

tee

 

[dianaballein]

No, children do not become disinherited when their parents receive an annulment from their previous marriage, any more so than by the divorce itself (which usually eats up any inheritance that they may have received, anyway).

The concept of “bastard” itself is completely antiquated - most people today would not think of disinheriting their children, if they had anything to give them, regardless of the status of their relationship with their child’s other parent.

I never viewed the term “bastard” as having anything to do with inheritance or financial gain. I believe the definition is a child born out of wedlock. If their parents marriage is annulled, doesn’t that mean that it never existed in the first place, therefore creating this lable for their offspring?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just when I think I understand something. .

I hear you. Sometimes I feel the same way.

I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage?

Not quite. A valid sacramental marriage becomes indissoluble when consummated. Of course, just because it is subject to dissolution doesn’t mean that the parties would seek that.

We can see how a valid sacramental marriage takes place before consummation: aren’t the couple married on their wedding day, in the Church? Consummating later cements the bond that has already taken place, and makes it permanent.

Thus, after consummation, the only way a marriage ends is through annulment (finding no marriage to begin with) or death.

impotence/frigidity would be grounds for annulment.

Only if it was pre-existing. Preexisting (and perpetual) impotence is an impediment to marriage.

So, would a priest go ahead with the Sacrament of Matrimony if he knew one of those two conditions existed and the marriage could not be consummated?

No, a priest wouldn’t marry someone who could never choose to consummate.

In a marriage, the couple are given rights to one another’s bodies. But the couple can choose to not exercise the right (such as in a Josephite marriage). What is important is that the couple *could *exercise the right if they chose to.

In a Josephite marriage the couple give each other the gift of their bodies, but they choose to give the gift back to each other, or perhaps to continue the analogy, they choose never to unwrap the gift.

Thoughts?
VC