The Church teaches that a valid (and, between the baptized, sacramental) marriage exists even in the absence of consummation. (cf. Canons 1061 and 1142).
tee
We must read the canons very carefully.
**Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated;
it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.**
Ratum tantum means
ratified only. We presume validity, because we presume that it will be consummated and that if it’s not consummated, it would be because of some very legitimate reason.
The most famous case that I can remember of a marriage that was “rantum tantum” was that of Catherine of Arragon and Prince Arthur.
When we read section 2 we see something else under the onion skin.
If a marriage were indissoluble, from the moment that the vows are made, then there is no need examine if it was ever consummated. Validity is assumed.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
We must also look at another canon.
**Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.**
1057.1 is pretty self-explanatory. No one can consent for another person.
1057.2 has something that in Roman law must be properly nuanced. It tells us that the couple give and accept
in order to establish marriage
Hence it is ratified only. Because all we have is the consent and we assume the good faith of the partners to consummate the marriage. This leads to Canon 1142.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage . . .
Observe that it says “non-consummated”. Once it’s consummated, even the Pontiff cannot dissolve it. The marriage bond is sealed in the consummation, provided there is no canonical impediment to the marriage. It’s important to observe that Can 1142 calls it a “non-consummated marriage” not a valid marriage or sacramental marriage. The canon refers to the marriage by what it is not. It makes no assumption of validity. Why not? Because it if were valid just by the vows, would the pope have the authority to dissolve a valid marriage?
If memory serves me correct, Henry tried to argue that he and Catherine were not validly married, because she was his lawful sister-in-law, which would make their marriage incestuous. The Church did not accept this. She came to Henry a virgin, which meant that she only appeared to be his sister-in-law. Her marriage to Arthur was only ratified, never consummated. She and Henry were free to enter into a marriage. A marriage between in-laws is incest, even today. They were not in-laws.
We must also be very careful when we try to teach about marriage using only Canon Law alone. Because Canon Law does not apply to the all Catholics. Let’s look at Canon 1
Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.
Since we cannot always depend on Canon Law to speak for the universal Church, we must look to another authoritative sources that speak for and to the universal Church. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read.
2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.
**1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, **
Then we read
1662 Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love.
What we’re seeing is the Church ratifies the marriage as valid at the time of the exchange of assuming that there is every intention to consummate the marriage to the extent that it’s possible. The logical conclusion is that the Church requires consent (vows) and consummation for validity. She trusts those making the marriage vows and only ratifies the marriage as valid. Once it’s consummated, the deed is done and even the Bishop of Rome cannot undo it. It is ratified and consummated.
I’m not a canon lawyer, so don’t take this stuff to the bank. I’m only applying the methods of reading canon law that we were taught in the seminary. In addition, I have never read the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches. I think it would be interesting to see what that code says about marriage. I don’t mean doctrinally. The dogma on marriage is universal. I’m referring to the legal aspects of marriage.
Thank you for your attention and for putting up with my rambling above. I have not done this in a long time. As I said, I’m not a lawyer. I’m a superior. My area of Canon Law is everything about consecrated life and societies of apostolic life.
