Mixed Marriage Question

[PeteZaHut]

If a Catholic is marrying a Protestant, I read that both parties must be instructed about the purposed and essential properties of marriage, which neither party is to exclude.

In other words, does this mean the non-Catholic party has to promise not use birth control?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If a Catholic is marrying a Protestant, I read that both parties must be instructed about the purposed and essential properties of marriage, which neither party is to exclude.

In other words, does this mean the non-Catholic party has to promise not use birth control?

There is probably not any such explicitly stated promise in most pre Cana. Nor in the wedding save the promise to accept children from God.

Though It would probably be a good idea if there were.

Shouldn’t the couple be in agreement on this BEFORE the vows?

 

[Catholic1954]

If a Catholic is marrying a Protestant, I read that both parties must be instructed about the purposed and essential properties of marriage, which neither party is to exclude.

In other words, does this mean the non-Catholic party has to promise not use birth control?

This question should be brought up with the priest; Catholic marriages are required to be open to life.

 

[twf]

This question should be brought up with the priest; Catholic marriages are required to be open to life.

Yes, but most couples who use birth control are ultimately open to life, but simply wish to delay or space children. Of course the use of artificial birth control is objectively sinful, but I don’t think its use, in and of itself, indicates that a couple is not open to life.

To answer the OP, my Protestant wife was simply asked if she intended to have children. Natural Family Planning and the basics of theology of the body were explained to her, but she was not asked to promise to comply. The Church imposes obligations on the Catholic party not on the non-Catholic party. Likewise, the non-Catholic party is informed of the Catholic party’s obligation to raise children Catholic, but makes no promise herself.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

It seems to me that before you marry someone, you should know–in detail–what their views are about children. If, for example, you want to marry a woman who tells you that she intends to take birth control pills and isn’t sure if she wants children at all, I don’t think you can just wash your hands of the situation and say “It’s her decision.” It’s not. It’s your decision too–it’s a joint decision. And if you disagree about something this basic it’s going to come back and haunt you.

On the other hand, if you are already married, and your wife announces that she is going to start taking birth control pills and doesn’t want any children, I think that’s a different story. You might have a good case for an annulment, but is that really the best solution? In this case, I think your marriage vows would trump the birth control thing. I can see people would be on both sides of this one, and a lot would depend on individual circumstances.

 

[1ke]

If a Catholic is marrying -]a Protestant/-] anyone, I read that both parties must be instructed about the purposed and essential properties of marriage, which neither party is to exclude.

Correct.

In other words, does this mean the non-Catholic party has to promise not use birth control?

No.

But you are attempting to ask a “yes” or “no” question to something that is not “yes or no”. This is a **discussion **that the pastor, priest, deacon, or lay person preparing the couple for marriage has with them over the course of preparation. Based on what the pastor/designee discovers during the discussions with the couple, the pastor must make some decisions on suitability for marriage.

 

[Vico]

If a Catholic is marrying a Protestant, I read that both parties must be instructed about the purposed and essential properties of marriage, which neither party is to exclude.

In other words, does this mean the non-Catholic party has to promise not use birth control?

It is more a matter of proper consent, it could indicate the presence of improper consent, although it does not indicate it by itself, yer per Robert J. Flummerfelt, J.C.L.:
If the pill is used, the ‘human manner’ portion is fulfilled and the marriage is indeed consummated, BUT this clearly [if done regularly]would INVALIDATE the marriage since there was no openness to children. Plus, on a moral level, obviously this is objectively wrong not only for inhibiting conception, BUT ALSO in some circumstances since the pill works as an abortifacient.

The marriage may not be consummated through conjugal relations using a condom.

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=442404&language=en

Two key concepts from canon law (CIC) are:

Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

And also per canon law, such as impediments, must be considered:

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.