Question On Marriage

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Can somebody offer references Pro and Con for the answer this question please? #3 cannot be changed or wished away.

#1 A man has two Children from a previous marriage

#2 His wife dies giving birth to a third child.

#3 He and another women decide to get married, but both know that they will NEVER and I mean NEVER have sexual relations to consumate their marriage even though they physically can. I repeat they ABSOLUTLEY KNOW with certanty they will not have sexual relations.

#4 The father has decided to adopt a daughter and he and the women will not have any more children.

#5 The woman and man will raise the fathers adopted child together.

Can they be validly married in the Church, and if not why?

 

[JRKH]

Can somebody offer references Pro and Con for the answer this question please? #3 cannot be changed or wished away.

#1 A man has two Children from a previous marriage

#2 His wife dies giving birth to a third child.

#3 He and another women decide to get married, but both know that they will NEVER and I mean NEVER have sexual relations to consumate their marriage even though they physically can. I repeat they ABSOLUTLEY KNOW with certanty they will not have sexual relations.

#4 The father has decided to adopt a daughter and he and the women will not have any more children.

#5 The woman and man will raise the fathers adopted child together.

Can they be validly married in the Church, and if not why?

I would say that yes they can be validly married in The Church. Regardless of what you say about # 3, the fact remains that they are both physically capable of intercourse and, should they ever decide to consumate the marriage the can.

Peace
James

 

[davidv]

Can somebody offer references Pro and Con for the answer this question please? #3 cannot be changed or wished away.

#1 A man has two Children from a previous marriage

#2 His wife dies giving birth to a third child.

#3 He and another women decide to get married, but both know that they will NEVER and I mean NEVER have sexual relations to consumate their marriage even though they physically can. I repeat they ABSOLUTLEY KNOW with certanty they will not have sexual relations.

#4 The father has decided to adopt a daughter and he and the women will not have any more children.

#5 The woman and man will raise the fathers adopted child together.

Can they be validly married in the Church, and if not why?

All I know for sure is that #1, 2, 4 and 5, have no bearing on the answer to the question.
The real answer would require that the couple discuss with their parish priest so all of the pertinant facts could get reviewed. #3 is not the complete picture.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I would say that yes they can be validly married in The Church. Regardless of what you say about # 3, the fact remains that they are both physically capable of intercourse and, should they ever decide to consumate the marriage the can.

Peace
James

Question #3 is non-negotiable. They will never, NEVER, have intercourse. The question is will the Church allow them to be married?

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

All I know for sure is that #1, 2, 4 and 5, have no bearing on the answer to the question.
The real answer would require that the couple discuss with their parish priest so all of the pertinant facts could get reviewed. #3 is not the complete picture.

This is an exercise in thought and I would like references for my own education. For your answer they sit down with the Priest and emphatically swear they will NEVER, EVER, have intercourse, can he marry them? If yes or no why?

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

They way I currently understand this Christ is saying that not all people are meant for married life (11-12). The citation seems to allude that you can be excluded from married life by a willful act, or sacrifice, or by birth defect, or maybe by somebody else, but a eunuch, someone incapable of consummation, either willfully or not, cannot get married.

This would make me believe that consummation is necessary to be completed to have a valid marriage, but then later in CCC 1623 (in the Latin Rite) only the two people are needed to confer the Sacrament marriage, or is this like a kinda married until consummation?

So back to my original posting is consummation a part or requirement as MATT 19:11-12 reads, or can two people be married IAW 1623 ignoring MATT 19:11-12? Is there some other citation I am missing? (Probably) :banghead:​

**1618 **
Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

MATT 19: 11-12 (I added verse 11 to the CCC citation)"11 But he said the them "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

1623
According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.

 

[NHInsider]

If these two people have taken vows of celibacy, why are they marrying? Why would they ask the Church for the sacrament?

Is the question whether or not you can enter into a contract of marriage without receiving sacramental marriage and remain in a state of grace?

 

[tee_eff_em]

They way I currently understand this Christ is saying that not all people are meant for married life (11-12). The citation seems to allude that you can be excluded from married life by a willful act, or sacrifice, or by birth defect, or maybe by somebody else, but a eunuch, someone incapable of consummation, either willfully or not, cannot get married.

This would make me believe that consummation is necessary to be completed to have a valid marriage, but then later in CCC 1623 (in the Latin Rite) only the two people are needed to confer the Sacrament marriage, or is this like a kinda married until consummation?

I do not follow the train of thought here, but that is irrelevant – Your belief that *consummation is necessary to be completed to have a valid marriage *is mistaken.

cf Canon 1061

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.

Consent makes a marriage (cf Canon 1057). Consummation makes a valid marriage *indissoluble *(cf Canons 1141, 1142, 1697-1706).

tee
Who Is Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[puzzleannie]

#3 is the only question with relevance to the validity of marriage and as stated has no answer, because such absolute knowledge is impossible to have. If by that you mean they intend to avoid relations forever with the explicit intent to thwart the goods of marriage, unless they have received a command from an angel of God to do that it would probably invalidate the marriage from its inception. I don’t mean that failure to consummate would invalidate the marriage, I mean full consent would be lacking from the beginning.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Can somebody offer references Pro and Con for the answer this question please? #3 cannot be changed or wished away.

#1 A man has two Children from a previous marriage

#2 His wife dies giving birth to a third child.

#3 He and another women decide to get married, but both know that they will NEVER and I mean NEVER have sexual relations to consumate their marriage even though they physically can. I repeat they ABSOLUTLEY KNOW with certanty they will not have sexual relations.

#4 The father has decided to adopt a daughter and he and the women will not have any more children.

#5 The woman and man will raise the fathers adopted child together.

Can they be validly married in the Church, and if not why?

The answer lies in the reasoning behind #3.
WHY do they know they won’t consumate the marriage? Is it because they have merely made a choice not to do it? That is unacceptable: All married couples must be open to “life”.

Or, is it because there is some physical impediment to consumating their marriage. In that case it may be okay to still marry.

But you cannot just arbitrarily choose to close yourselves off to the possibility of life for no other reason than personal choice.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In order for an attempted marriage to be the valid Sacrament of Marriage, there must be both consent and consummation (and proper form, but that is another issue). If a man and woman have consent, but never consummate the marriage, then there is no Sacramental bond. This is clear because nothing but death can dissolve the Sacrament of Marriage. Yet the Council of Trent infallibly taught that a marriage with consent, but without consummation, is dissolved if one person join a religious order and takes vows.

CANON VI. If any one saith, that matrimony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by one of the married parties; let him be anathema.

So without consummation, the marriage is not the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I posted in haste.

Consummation makes a valid marriage *indissoluble *(cf Canons 1141, 1142, 1697-1706).

NB I ought to have written: Consummation makes a -]valid/-]sacramental marriage *indissoluble *(cf Canons 1141, 1142, 1697-1706).


tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

In order for an attempted marriage to be the valid Sacrament of Marriage, there must be both consent and consummation (and proper form, but that is another issue).

This is mistaken.

Canon 1057 says that consent makes a marriage (all other issues aside).

Canon 1055 says that marriage between the baptized is necessarily sacramental.

And, as previously noted, Canon 1061 notes that a valid marriage between the baptized need not be consummated.

tee
Not a Canon Lawyer, but it seems plain enough

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Can somebody offer references Pro and Con for the answer this question please? #3 cannot be changed or wished away.

#1 A man has two Children from a previous marriage

#2 His wife dies giving birth to a third child.

#3 He and another women decide to get married, but both know that they will NEVER and I mean NEVER have sexual relations to consumate their marriage even though they physically can. I repeat they ABSOLUTLEY KNOW with certanty they will not have sexual relations.

#4 The father has decided to adopt a daughter and he and the women will not have any more children.

#5 The woman and man will raise the fathers adopted child together.

Can they be validly married in the Church, and if not why?

No, a Marriage cannot be entered into validly if there is a attitude of excluding the possibility children on the part of either or both.

 

[Bookcat]

No, a Marriage cannot be entered into validly if there is a attitude of excluding the possibility children on the part of either or both.

yes the marriage can be valid. They would exchange the right to the marital act…but do not have to act on it.

It will be a marriage…not consummated…but a marriage.

Now if one of the parties decides later that they want to consummate the marriage …then they have this right.

Though the other party may seek to have the marriage dissolved since it has not been consummated yet…

this sort of marriage has had a long historical linage …though it is rare…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

yes the marriage can be valid. They would exchange the right to the marital act…but do not have to act on it.

It will be a marriage…not consummated…but a marriage.

Now if one of the parties decides later that they want to consummate the marriage …then they have this right.

Though the other party may seek to have the marriage dissolved since it has not been consummated yet…

this sort of marriage has had a long historical linage …though it is rare…

If either person intentionally excludes the possibility of children from the beginning, they put in place an impediment to a valid Marriage.

Can. 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.

Can. 1101~1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the
signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

~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.

 

[Bookcat]

If either person intentionally excludes the possibility of children from the beginning, they put in place an impediment to a valid Marriage.

Can. 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.

Can. 1101~1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the
signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

~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.

still valid.

They are not ignorant of the fact

and they are not excluding the essential property…they know and accept that marriage is ordered to the procreation of children (as does a sterial couple who marry knowing they will never have children…)

they would exchange the right to the marital act but choose not to exercise it…

it would be a valid but non consummated marriage. such have existed in the Church for centuries…some of which have chosen later to consummate and have children…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

still valid.

They are not ignorant of the fact

and they are not excluding the essential property…they know and accept that marriage is ordered to the procreation of children (as does a sterial couple who marry knowing they will never have children…)

they would exchange the right to the marital act but choose not to exercise it…

it would be a valid but non consummated marriage. such have existed in the Church for centuries…some of which have chosen later to consummate and have children…

Well we will have to wait and see if a Canon Lawyer will answer. It is my understanding that a Marriage entered into with the intent to exclude the possibility of children is invalid and can be decreed Null.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

If either person intentionally excludes the possibility of children from the beginning, they put in place an impediment to a valid Marriage.]

Can. 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.

“That is interesting so the church requires some form of sexual cooperation?”

Can. 1101~1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the
signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

“But the premise is still that they will NEVER perform the act even though they can.”

~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 guess looking at your first and last posts that sexual cooperation is required so it would be considered an essential property? Then one must determine what sexual cooperation is"

These make me wonder even if no disability existed, but both parties KNEW with certainty that they would never consummate the Sacrament, that regardless of capabilty the actual act must be performed.

**1618 **
Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

MATT 19: 11-12 (I added verse 11 to the CCC citation)"11 But he said the them "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Does this mean that an act must occur? Why talk about eunuchs if it does not matter?

 

[NHInsider]

MATT 19: 11-12 (I added verse 11 to the CCC citation)"11 But he said the them "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Does this mean that an act must occur? Why talk about eunuchs if it does not matter?

Why would you assume that someone who “made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom” would enter into marriage? Is being celibate within marriage somehow more likely than celibacy for a single person?