Marriage refused because children not wanted

[pazdziernik]

The pastor of my parish recently refused to wittness the marriage of a couple because they told him that they did not want to have children. The mother of the woman began telling everyone about this. I’m certain that the priest kept the matter confidential.

I’m sure that the pastor did the right thing at least in conscience, all things being equal. I’m looking for a specific Canon Law or other reference that would cover this impediment. Would Canon 1084 under “Specific Diriment Impediments” apply?:
“Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man of the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

 

[JCPhoenix]

Rather, Natural Law applies, and this is Catholic morality:

I’m sorry I don’t have the specific references, but if I were that priest, knowing what I know, he was right to refuse to witness the marriage on moral principles:

• according to the CCC, # 1601, which defines marriage:

“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a parternership of teh while of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

• by this definition, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, in accordance with God’s will.
• by this couple stating they do not want to have children, they are openly refusing to adhere to God’s will.
• the only way they can guarantee they will not conceive a child is to use contraception, which is immoral.
• the use of contraception causes one spouse to say to another, “I give you myself…except for one thing.” This closes God out of the relationship and binds God from bestowing his blessings upon them.
• the ability and willingness to remain open to life is the fulfillment of the covenant, therefore is sacramental.
• if they are not willing to be open to God’s will, they cannot possibly fulfill the covenant and therefore should not be entered into such a binding contract.

This is all according to the CCC and natural law ethics.

Anyone, please tell me if I posted something here incorrectly. I am not married and I have struggled with this issue as well so I am by no means an expert…but this is my logical synopsis of the definition as I was taught in my ethics class in a Catholic College. Many moons ago.

 

[JCPhoenix]

Rather, Natural Law applies, and this is Catholic morality:

I’m sorry I don’t have all the specific references, but if I were that priest, knowing what I know, he was right to refuse to witness the marriage on moral principles:

• according to the CCC, # 1601, which defines marriage:

“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a parternership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

• by this definition, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, in accordance with God’s will.
• by this couple stating they do not want to have children, they are openly refusing to adhere to God’s will.
• the only way they can guarantee they will not conceive a child is to use contraception, which is immoral.
• the use of contraception causes one spouse to say to another, “I give you myself…except for one thing.” This closes God out of the relationship and binds God from bestowing his blessings upon them.
• the ability and willingness to remain open to life is the fulfillment of the covenant, therefore is sacramental.
• if they are not willing to be open to God’s will, they cannot possibly fulfill the covenant and therefore should not be entered into such a binding contract.

This is all according to the CCC and natural law ethics.

Anyone, please tell me if I posted something here incorrectly. I am not married and I have struggled with this issue as well so I am by no means an expert…but this is my logical synopsis of the definition as I was taught in my ethics class in a Catholic College. Many moons ago.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JCPhoenix:

• by this definition, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, in accordance with God’s will.
• by this couple stating they do not want to have children, they are openly refusing to adhere to God’s will.
• the only way they can guarantee they will not conceive a child is to use contraception, which is immoral.

There is still the possibility that the couple was not intending to contracept, but was still intent from the beginning on not having children, and were going to try their darndest to bring that about through NFP regardless of other circumstances. I doubt it, but it’s a theoretical possibility. But even this would be an abuse of NFP and marriage (I don’t think it would be valid without that openness to life, though) because NFP may only licitly be used with sufficient reason - finances, undue physical or emotional strain, etc. I don’t want children doesn’t fit the bill.

 

[Catholic2003]

pazdziernik:

Would Canon 1084 under “Specific Diriment Impediments” apply?:
“Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man of the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

No, impotence is the inability to have sexual intercourse. This is different than a decision not to have sexual intercourse, and even more different than a decision to have sexual intercourse in a manner which avoids children.

The canons you want are:

Canon 1101 §2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

and

Canon 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

and perhaps

Canon 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

but see also

Canon 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; in christian marriage they acquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament.

 

[pazdziernik]

Thanks for the help. It looks like Canon 1101.2 covers this case because “openness to life” is an essential property to marriage. It was what I was looking for. Am I correct in assuming that this “impediment,” if it classified as such, can not be dispensed? I suppose according to Canon 1055 that this can not be dispensed any more than “the covenant between a man and a woman” can de dispensed.

The facts of this particular case, as far as I can tell, are such that the couple can have children but don’t want to. (I understand that sterility is not an obstacle to a valid marriage as long as the couple can perform.) Unfortunately, it seems that the mother of the woman is trying to rally people against the pastor or at least get others sympathetic to her daughter. It looks like poor catechesis is a factor here. When I speak to her I can now have a Canon Law reference in hand.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

pazdziernik:

Thanks for the help. It looks like Canon 1101.2 covers this case because “openness to life” is an essential property to marriage. It was what I was looking for. Am I correct in assuming that this “impediment,” if it classified as such, can not be dispensed? I suppose according to Canon 1055 that this can not be dispensed any more than “the covenant between a man and a woman” can de dispensed.

The facts of this particular case, as far as I can tell, are such that the couple can have children but don’t want to. (I understand that sterility is not an obstacle to a valid marriage as long as the couple can perform.) Unfortunately, it seems that the mother of the woman is trying to rally people against the pastor or at least get others sympathetic to her daughter. It looks like poor catechesis is a factor here. When I speak to her I can now have a Canon Law reference in hand.

I would not hit her over the head with Canon Law. Most Catholics don’t even know what that is. I would instead use the teaching of the Church from the CCC and the other Church teaching documents on Marriage and Family.

 

[pazdziernik]

Br. Rich SFO:

I would not hit her over the head with Canon Law. Most Catholics don’t even know what that is. I would instead use the teaching of the Church from the CCC and the other Church teaching documents on Marriage and Family.

Great advice. I’m sure you realize that many Catholics don’t know what CCC is either. BTW, the mother of the woman in this case has taught Catholic religious education for many years. Canon Law gives me something for confidence that I can use as a “last resort.”

 

[Catholic2003]

pazdziernik:

Thanks for the help.

Glad to be of assistance. Just FYI, the same information that I posted above can be found at this EWTN annulment webpage under “simulation”, to wit:

Partial simulation occurs when the will of one of the parties positively excludes some essential element of marriage, such as the sexual rights and duties, life in common, or the procreation and education of children.

pazdziernik:

It looks like Canon 1101.2 covers this case because “openness to life” is an essential property to marriage.

Correct. Technically, “openness to life” is an essential element; “unity” and “indissolubility” are the essential properties.

pazdziernik:

It was what I was looking for. Am I correct in assuming that this “impediment,” if it classified as such, can not be dispensed? I suppose according to Canon 1055 that this can not be dispensed any more than “the covenant between a man and a woman” can de dispensed.

Correct again. Technically, this is not an impediment (canons 1073 through 1094) but a component of marital consent (canons 1095 through 1107). That it cannot be dispensed is the subject of the following canon:

Canon 1057 §1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.

§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

pazdziernik:

The facts of this particular case, as far as I can tell, are such that the couple can have children but don’t want to. (I understand that sterility is not an obstacle to a valid marriage as long as the couple can perform.) Unfortunately, it seems that the mother of the woman is trying to rally people against the pastor or at least get others sympathetic to her daughter. It looks like poor catechesis is a factor here. When I speak to her I can now have a Canon Law reference in hand.

Good luck with your efforts; I hope they prove effective!

 

[pianoplayingmom]

Canon 1101 §2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

I tried using this Canon to petition the Marriage Tribunal for an annulment. The fact is that I was on the Pill when we got married. Over the course of 27 years of living together (26 married), we artificially contracepted for 17 of those years, we were open to having children for 7 and the last 3 we were abstinent. The tribunal wouldn’t hear my case based on those grounds. They said mortal sin does not invalidate a sacrament (which is true). They said that the fact that we had 4 children during the 7 years we were open to having children showed that we were indeed open to children “at some point”. The canon lawyer I consulted told me that it was just good parenting to space children out. (Horrifying, isn’t it?) The auditor declared that if they were to declare my marriage invalid, based on contraception, they’d have to declare 90 percent of all marriages invalid then. I have a very hard time with this mentality. The Church states that every act of intercourse is to be open to procreation. We were not doing that in our marriage. And, I believe contraception is much more than a mortal sin, regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony. Contraception invalidates marriages because it goes against what God has ordained for marriage. I was told no tribunal in the US would buy my argument and it would also be true of Rome. What has this world become? It’s all very sad to me. I am divorced (because it was a requirement for application for nullification of marriage) and yet the Church declares my marriage to be valid. Apparently, according to the Church, I am to live out my life alone, even though I know with moral certitude I do not have a valid marriage. The Church demanded I get a divorce, then told me I am married. It makes no sense to me. I can see how people leave the Church over this issue. I refuse to do that. Jesus is too important to me. I resolve to live in obedience, even if that obedience has to be to sinful people who get to decide our lives for us.

 

[pazdziernik]

pianoplayingmom:

Contraception invalidates marriages because it goes against what God has ordained for marriage. I was told no tribunal in the US would buy my argument and it would also be true of Rome.

The act of contraception does not invalidate marriage. Many married couples who are otherwise “open to life” use contraception to avoid “unwanted children.” It hurts marriage and the relationship between the man and the woman but does not invalidate it. In a similiar way adultery does not invalidate a valid marriage.

pianoplayingmom:

What has this world become? It’s all very sad to me. I am divorced (because it was a requirement for application for nullification of marriage) and yet the Church declares my marriage to be valid. Apparently, according to the Church, I am to live out my life alone, even though I know with moral certitude I do not have a valid marriage. The Church demanded I get a divorce, then told me I am married. It makes no sense to me. I can see how people leave the Church over this issue. I refuse to do that. Jesus is too important to me. I resolve to live in obedience, even if that obedience has to be to sinful people who get to decide our lives for us.

Thanks for the obedience. It’s courageous to do the right thing even when it hurts or when we can’t understand why.

“This Rock” (February 2005) recently addresses the “divorce issue” you mention. I have always had the same question as you:

"The Church does not officially require a civil divorce before accepting and annulment petition. But canon lawyer Edward Peters explains that virtually every tribunal in America requires proof of civil divorce because 'many tribunals apparently fear that they can be sued by irate spouses for ‘alienation of affection’ '. Peters thinks this reason is ‘quite unsatisfying’, but holds that ‘a civil divorce is a practical way of determining that there is no realistic hope of reconciling the parties, something tribunal judges are required to verify as part of every tribunal case.’ (Peters, Annulments and the Catholic Church, 50). Note that the Catechism states ‘If a civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.’ (CCC 2383). "(p46)

 

[puzzleannie]

the priest and the couple know the whole story, we do not, only hearsay. the priest heard enough in his interviews with the couple to determine that their marriage would not or could not be valid, so he quite properly in canon law refused to marry them. any other second-guessing is futile.

 

[pazdziernik]

puzzleannie:

the priest and the couple know the whole story, we do not, only hearsay. the priest heard enough in his interviews with the couple to determine that their marriage would not or could not be valid, so he quite properly in canon law refused to marry them. any other second-guessing is futile.

We are not trying to “second guess” the priest in this situation. It’s true that we don’t know “all the facts” of this particular case. So we can only discuss a “case” in which a couple wants to get married in the Catholic Church but does not want children.

I hear others often speak about “those crazy church rules” in regard to the Sacrament of Matrimony. Those “crazy church rules” actually make sense when we learn what the Church actually teaches about Matrimony, it’s nature, purpose, essential elements and properties etc. What we learn we can pass along to others. In this way we can avoid hearsay in what the Church actually teaches. This thread has been a big help to me in identifying the Canons which govern Matrimony.

 

[stbruno]

Right before the actual exchange of marriage vows, the priest or deacon approaches the couple and asks them individually a couple of questions. One of which is whether they are open to life.
His words to them are since it is your intention to enter matrimony freely and without reservation, please approach to exchange your vows.

How can a couple before God declare that they are open to life, while in fact they have publicly stated to the priest that they are not? It would be improper for the priest to ignore this very important part of the rite as well, or ignore the validity of this question. it would be hypocrisy on both the priest or the couple if they overlook this. Kudos to the priest who had to make this difficult decision, I am sure.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

This is an interesting question… I was under the impression that the priest could not deny the sacraments to those who asked for them, as long as they were eligible. So if there is some objective impediment (like if one person is already married) the priest has to refuse to do the marriage. But intent to not have children is something a little fuzzier, in that it can change at any time. Anyway… good discussion!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You said it right here.

Here is your quote, I have bolded the part that answers your question.
Bobby Jim:

This is an interesting question… I was under the impression that the priest could not deny the sacraments to those who asked for them, as long as they were eligible. So if there is some objective impediment (like if one person is already married) the priest has to refuse to do the marriage. But intent to not have children is something a little fuzzier, in that it can change at any time. Anyway… good discussion!

If you are not open to life then you are not eligible for the sacrament of marriage.

Just like someone who approachs and requests to be baptized but who has no intent to live life as a Catholic.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bobby Jim:

This is an interesting question… I was under the impression that the priest could not deny the sacraments to those who asked for them, as long as they were eligible. So if there is some objective impediment (like if one person is already married) the priest has to refuse to do the marriage. But intent to not have children is something a little fuzzier, in that it can change at any time. Anyway… good discussion!

“I was under the impression that the priest could not deny the sacraments to those who asked for them, as long as they were eligible.”

Actually it goes like this:

The priest could not deny the sacraments to those who asked for them, as long as they were Rightly Disposed and Properly Instructed. One would not be “Rightly Disposed” if they rejected one of the two purposes of the Sacrament. I also would question if they were properly instructed in the theology of the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[Prometheum_x]

I have heard that there are circumstances in which a couple is allowed to be married though they have mutually decided not to consummate the relationship, something akin to the marriage of the Virgin Mary and Joseph. I think this is called a Josephite marriage.

 

[rwoehmke]

My understanding is that if it can be proven that one or both candidates for marriage had no intention of ever having children such a marriage could be declared null,i.e. the marriage would be invalid from the get-go. Intent to contracept for a time is not sufficient. If a priest were aware of this intent of absolutely not having children he would be remiss in allowing the couple to marry in the church.

 

[Catholic2003]

From a blog entry by canon lawyer Pete Vere:

*Second scenario:

1. At the time of marriage, a couple intends on practicing artificial contraception. In fact, they intended on remaining childless. 2. Later, they become faithful Catholics and practice NFP — and have children. Did they have a sacramental marriage initially? If not, did it “become” a sacramental marriage at the later date? If so, how?*

If their intention to remain childless can be proven, and one of the parties wishes to challenge the validity of the marriage, then all other things being equal, the marriage is invalid. This is regardless of whether sacramental (between two baptized) or natural (where only one or neither party is baptized.) This is because marriage is entered into at the time the marital consent is exchanged. Nevertheless, all marriages are presumed valid until the contrary is proven. Therefore, unless one of the parties wishes to challenge the validity of the marriage, which would seem unlikely in this case, the presumption that the marriage is valid stands. Pastorally, couples who rediscover their faith and become more devout in their faith, but still have concerns that their marriage may be invalid despite the presumption of validity, can always approach the priest and request a renewal of consent. This isn’t the most common reason why couples will renew their marriage vows, but it is not an uncommon reason either.