Should a married couple refrain from sex if they have questions about the validity of their marriage?

[WannabeSaint]

I’m not talking about people who are divorced and remarried or are in some adulterous relationship. I’m talking about people who had a normal wedding.

They begin to wonder and discover some questionable things about their disposition during their vows, etc.

Should they abstain from sex until they gain moral certainty on the matter?

 

[otjm]

Since they are neither theologians nor Canon lawyers, they should speak with their priest. Making decisions on their own is known as the blind leading the blind.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Canon 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Anyone who questions the validity of their marriage should talk to their priest and probably get some help for scrupulosity.

 

[umamibella]

I’m not talking about people who are divorced and remarried or are in some adulterous relationship. I’m talking about people who had a normal wedding.

They begin to wonder and discover some questionable things about their disposition during their vows, etc.

Should they abstain from sex until they gain moral certainty on the matter?

They should talk to their priest

 

[tuffsmurf]

What things about their disposition during their vows would lead them to believe that they were invalidly married?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

When the Catholic Church marries a couple, the Church presumes a marriage valid.

Unless this couple committed some blatant fraud in order to get married (such as covering up a past marriage), there’s no basis for them to be sitting around thinking they’re invalidly married based on their “disposition during their vows”. It sounds like some kind of weird scrupulosity. They need to go talk to their priest and stop making these types of decisions on their own.

 

[F_Marturana]

I think the only time that would be necessary would be if there was an impediment for the marriage actually taking place, like consanguinity. The couple suddenly finds out that they were related too closely to marry.

I don’t think it happens too frequently.

Fraud, I guess as well. One of the spouses lied about themselves. I knew someone years ago who married a conman. He assumed someone else’s identity, and ended up not even being Catholic, and then abandoned the wife.

 

[AlbMagno]

I find your last sentence aggresive. I will ask you to edit it, as it is sometimes done here.

Also, see Canon Law 1055

If a presummed natural marriage is validated just by the Baptism of one or the two spouses, and Baptism can be done with no records of Marriage, how can it be invalid?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Also, to those saying “scrupulosity” - why is it that those with sincere questions here are always charged with scrupulosity? I find it tedious.

A question being motivated by scrupulosity doesn’t mean it’s insincere. But unless someone can point to an actual good reason to be concerned about validity, sitting around wondering if your wedding was legit strikes me as the kind of thing a scrupulous/overly anxious person would do.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Also, to those saying “scrupulosity” - why is it that those with sincere questions here are always charged with scrupulosity? I find it tedious.

Because given the presumption of validity for marriage, not to mention the fairly long prep process the Church has for marriage, it sounds very scrupulous to wonder if you’re somehow not really married. It’s not a normal concern unless, as has been posted, you lied to the priest or just found out you might be siblings.

As for you finding it “tedious,” you’re quite free to skip reading those posts.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Not a day goes by that someone asking a question here is charged with scrupulosity.

And very many of those questions are asked by people who are genuinely scrupulous.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Do you know them personally to judge their spiritual state?

No, of course not. But if you don’t perceive a ton of obviously scrupulous questions on this board daily, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s plain as day.

I mean, what percentage of “is this a sin?” questions are clearly people with scruples? I’d say it’s 80% at least.

 

[umamibella]

Welcome to forums - passive aggression is the order of the day, unfortunately.
Also, to those saying “scrupulosity” - why is it that those with sincere questions here are always charged with scrupulosity? I find it tedious.

It is the way a question is asked that can ring bells. If the issue is suspected scruples we are told on this forum to flag it and not engage. There is also a priest who comes on sometimes who advises people to stop answering because it wont help. Search his posts, edwardgeorge I think .

 

[Gorgias]

If a presummed natural marriage is validated just by the Baptism of one or the two spouses, and Baptism can be done with no records of Marriage, how can it be invalid?

Because baptism is different than marriage, I guess?

Strictly speaking, a natural marriage between a baptized Christian and an unbaptized person doesn’t get validated at the baptism of the spouse. After all, it’s already valid. Rather, it merely becomes sacramental at the point that it’s a valid marriage and between two baptized persons.

So… a clandestine exchange of vows wouldn’t be a good idea at all, and shouldn’t be something suggested as a solution.

Welcome to forums - passive aggression is the order of the day

Also, to those saying “scrupulosity” - why is it that those with sincere questions here are always charged with scrupulosity?

Because the inquiry raises the question “if the Church sees your marriage as ‘valid’, why are you questioning that stance?”

And the reason I find it so is because I place myself in the shoes of a young Christian trying to understand their faith and being met with that

Right. So, the situation is explained, so that the misunderstanding might be cleared up. Beyond that, though, if the doubt lingers – and perhaps, continues to linger, even after talking to a priest – well, then…

To my mind, the part of the question that says “should we refrain from sex?” is the part that leans toward ‘scrupulosity’. If it were “should we go to our priest and ask him about it?”, then it would seem less likely to be coming from a position of excessive anxiety…

 

[Vico]

…
They begin to wonder and discover some questionable things about their disposition during their vows, etc.
…

Do you mean by disposition, the willing covenant of marriage, such as these?

• Are you consenting to this marriage freely, without force, fear, or doubt of any kind?
• Do you intend a life-long marriage, totally faithful to your spouse?
• Do you intend to give each other the normal marital rights necessary to have children?

CIC
Can. 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

 

[Gorgias]

CIC
Can. 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Sure, but “becoming certain of its nullity” is something that happens as a result of a nullity proceeding by the Church. One doesn’t become “certain of nullity” merely by sitting down and thinking about it, or by talking with one’s spouse.

And, since the Church normatively will not even consider opening a nullity proceeding unless and until the couple divorces civilly, therefore the practical upshot is that a couple who remains married will never “become certain of [the marriage’s] nullity.” Full stop.

 

[1ke]

Among other things, clandestine weddings are forbidden and invalid. Thanks for trying.

It isn’t a “clandestine wedding”. It is the renewal of consent privately, which is directly provided in canon law as simple convalidation in some cases:

Can. 1156 §1. To convalidate a marriage which is invalid because of a diriment impediment, it is required that the impediment ceases or is dispensed and that at least the party conscious of the impediment renews consent.

§2. Ecclesiastical law requires this renewal for the validity of the convalidation even if each party gave consent at the beginning and did not revoke it afterwards.

Can. 1157 The renewal of consent must be a new act of the will concerning a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was null from the beginning.

Can. 1158 §1. If the impediment is public, both parties must renew the consent in canonical form, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

§2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.

Can. 1159 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of a defect of consent is convalidated if the party who did not consent now consents, provided that the consent given by the other party perseveres.

§2. If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret.

§3. If the defect of consent can be proven, the consent must be given in canonical form.

 

[1ke]

If a presummed natural marriage is validated just by the Baptism of one or the two spouses, and Baptism can be done with no records of Marriage, how can it be invalid?

A natural marriage isn’t “validated” by the baptism of the spouses. A natural marriage is already valid. It becomes a sacrament upon baptism of both parties. Sacramentality and validity aren’t the same thing.

 

[Gorgias]

It is the renewal of consent privately, which is directly provided in canon law as simple convalidation in some cases

Right. The implication is interesting, though, don’t you think?

• if the impediment is something that can be proven (and therefore, something that could lead to a declaration of nullity, if that should come to pass), then the renewal of consent must be “in canonical form”, or at least publicly. (In other words, a person wouldn’t be able to declare at a later date “the original marriage was invalid, and therefore, I want a declaration of nullity.”)
• if the impediment is something that cannot be proven, then it’s not the case that it would ever rise to the level of being the grounds for a decree of nullity. Therefore, private renewal of consent suffices. (In other words, even if there’s the claim that the private renewal never happened, it wouldn’t be the case that the person would be able to get a decree of nullity on the grounds of that impediment!)

 

[Vico]

Vico:

CIC
Can. 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Sure, but “becoming certain of its nullity” is something that happens as a result of a nullity proceeding by the Church. One doesn’t become “certain of nullity” merely by sitting down and thinking about it, or by talking with one’s spouse.

And, since the Church normatively will not even consider opening a nullity proceeding unless and until the couple divorces civilly, therefore the practical upshot is that a couple who remains married will never “become certain of [the marriage’s] nullity.” Full stop.

Sure. Now cases occur when at least one party to the marriage wrongly believes it to be valid, so it is putative. A radical sanation has been used as a remedy in such cases.