Marriage Never Consumated

[dianaballein]

This sort of goes along with what I asked a few posts above. What if one spouse decides to take away the gift from the other, after the marriage and the consumation?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

This sort of goes along with what I asked a few posts above. What if one spouse decides to take away the gift from the other, after the marriage and the consumation?

You couldn’t lawfully do so unilaterally and capriciously – there would have to be valid reasons. Of course, if they are both in agreement that would be a different matter.

VC

 

[jmcrae]

I never viewed the term “bastard” as having anything to do with inheritance or financial gain.

That’s what it is, though - or rather, was. It no longer exists in North America, I don’t think.

I believe the definition is a child born out of wedlock.

At one time, the status of “bastard” (disinherited) was given to children born out of wedlock. Today, there is no legal difference between a child born out of wedlock, a child of divorced parents, and a child born to married parents.

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?

No - and I don’t think it ever did, since under civil law, the parents were thought to be married, and their children would never have received that status, anyway. The State doesn’t really take into account the Church’s ruling, one way or the other, of the validity of a marriage, so the State would never declare a child of parents that the State had considered to be married, to be a “bastard” even if that designation still existed.

The Church itself has never recognized the idea of “bastards” - the teaching of the Church has always been that all human life is sacred. In the days when there were children who received this status, the Church was at the forefront of helping these kids get a good education, providing them with safe places to live, and doing its best to take care of their spiritual needs.

This was the work of Mother Teresa in Calcutta, for example.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The Church itself has never recognized the idea of “bastards”

I do not believe that is correct. As recently as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I think, bastardry was an impediment to Holy Orders. (It is not such, however, under the 1983 Code)

tee

 

[jmcrae]

I do not believe that is true. As recently as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I think, bastardry was an impediment to Holy Orders. (It is not such, however, under the 1983 Code)

tee

More because of the lack of education and opportunities for work experience (which is no longer the case) than because of the marital status of the parents, though, if I understand the situation correctly.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

How about…not labelling people? It gets progressively harder to hug someone if you put them in a series of boxes…

 

[dianaballein]

You couldn’t lawfully do so unilaterally and capriciously – there would have to be valid reasons. Of course, if they are both in agreement that would be a different matter.

VC

So you are saying that a Catholic wife is not allowed to withhold herself from her Catholic husband if he desires sex?

 

[dianaballein]

How about…not labelling people? It gets progressively harder to hug someone if you put them in a series of boxes…

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.

 

[jmcrae]

So you are saying that a Catholic wife is not allowed to withhold herself from her Catholic husband if he desires sex?

Ideally, they should both agree, and sometimes it takes a while to get oneself into “the mood,” but for the good of the marriage and for the good of his soul, she should not put him off for too long.

 

[dianaballein]

Ideally, they should both agree, and sometimes it takes a while to get oneself into “the mood,” but for the good of the marriage and for the good of his soul, she should not put him off for too long.

I, for one, can’t fathom denying a spouse love like that. It boggles the mind.

 

[grandfather]

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.

So what about Mary and Joseph? Can you show us a Church document tht says this?

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.

 

[grandfather]

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.

So married couples where the wife is past the age of fertility should not engage in sexual activity, or be allowed to get married if they are widowed or never were married before?

 

[jmcrae]

So married couples where the wife is past the age of fertility should not engage in sexual activity, or be allowed to get married if they are widowed or never were married before?

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

 

[Nan_S]

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

Did the wife and her new husband get married in the Catholic Church, or have their marriage blessed, according to Catholic marriage laws?

If yes, we can presume her first marriage was annulled, since no priest or deacon would perform the wedding ceremony otherwise. If yes, there is no ordinary religious reason why the marriage could not be consummated.

*If no, *their marriage is NOT recognized by the church. If no, the couple has a very good reason for abstaining from marital relations until the annulment is granted and their marriage is blessed. Depending on the circumstances, that can take a couple of years.

In either event, we’re treading on very personal ground here. I am wondering… why are you asking?

 

[dianaballein]

Because I know this couple and the wife is worried.

The husband is Catholic but non-practicing. They did not get married in the Church.

 

[SwizzleStick]

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.

I knew consummating made a sacramental marriage indissoluble. If not consummating is fine with both spouses, then neither has any reason to seek dissolution. Okay, I’m with you so far.

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.

Still with you.

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

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

So, it comes down to a matter of the couple choosing when and if they want to share that aspect of marriage and they both must agree about the choice, right? I guess the priest would know prior to the marriage that it would be a Josephite marriage, though maybe that would not be required because the vows would not need to be changed? Because at any time later, if they both chose to exercise their marital rights, they would then be open to procreating? Am I still with you, or have I been derailed?

 

[SwizzleStick]

So what about Mary and Joseph? Can you show us a Church document tht says this?

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.

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 I need to set up a signature line to indicate that my posts are my opinions based on what I believe are solid Catholic teachings, but that my views are always subject to correction, teaching and refinement.

 

[dianaballein]

Swizzle, just set up your signature that says “I’m human”. It’s all good.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Swizzle, just set up your signature that says “I’m human”. It’s all good.

That’ll work!

 

[Nan_S]

Because I know this couple and the wife is worried.

The husband is Catholic but non-practicing. They did not get married in the Church.

That being the case, the couple has an invalid marriage and to consummate it would be to commit a sin. Living together as brother and sister is their only choice for now. Living together as brother and sister will allow both of them to participate sacramentally in the church, since the sin of Adultery has not been committed.

There is a major drawback to this. If they truly love each other (and I presume they do) there is a strong risk that temptation will bring them together one night.

If I were in your shoes I would do whatever was necessary to get the wife to see the priest about obtaining an annulment, so that the couple can get validly married in the Church.