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

[Gorgias]

Now cases occur when at least one party to the marriage wrongly believes it to be valid, so it is putative.

Hang on a second, though. (Here’s the point where, during my coursework, my brain was spinning.)

c. 1063 is speaking about an invalid marriage. Therefore, it’s speaking about a marriage which later went through the nullity process and was declared null. That marriage, looking backward, can be called ‘putative’ for its duration.

However, if a couple remains married, and they’re uncertain about its lack of impediment at the point of the wedding, then at that point they’re not in “an invalid marriage”, and therefore, their uncertainty does not cause the marriage to be called “putative.” Right?

In these cases, though, if there is a known defect which can be proven, then either a convalidation ceremony or sanation is possible. It’s not the case that, if I think that my spouse didn’t consent properly, I can ask for a sanation. Or, if I thought that it was my consent that was defective, then I should affirm my consent privately to my spouse; and, if they’re unwilling to go through another exchange of consent, then I can ask for sanation.

Right?

 

[Canvas]

Or, if I thought that it was my consent that was defective, then I should affirm my consent privately to my spouse; and, if they’re unwilling to go through another exchange of consent, then I can ask for sanation.

Right?

If you think your consent was defective

§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.

Canon 1159

I take this to mean if you think something was missing on your wedding day, you can renew your consent without even telling your spouse! All you have to do is give your consent to a Catholic marriage.

 

[1ke]

Or, if I thought that it was my consent that was defective, then I should affirm my consent privately to my spouse; and, if they’re unwilling to go through another exchange of consent, then I can ask for sanation.

Right?

No. You just have to consent yourself, your spouse does not have to be involved.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Now cases occur when at least one party to the marriage wrongly believes it to be valid, so it is putative.

Hang on a second, though. (Here’s the point where, during my coursework, my brain was spinning.)

c. 1063 is speaking about an invalid marriage. Therefore, it’s speaking about a marriage which later went through the nullity process and was declared null. That marriage, looking backward, can be called ‘putative’ for its duration.

However, if a couple remains married, and they’re uncertain about its lack of impediment at the point of the wedding, then at that point they’re not in “an invalid marriage”, and therefore, their uncertainty does not cause the marriage to be called “putative.” Right?

In these cases, though, if there is a known defect which can be proven, then either a convalidation ceremony or sanation is possible. It’s not the case that, if I think that my spouse didn’t consent properly, I can ask for a sanation. Or, if I thought that it was my consent that was defective, then I should affirm my consent privately to my spouse; and, if they’re unwilling to go through another exchange of consent, then I can ask for sanation.

Right?

For consent that seems to be correct. There are other problems, however, besides lack of proper consent, for example a missing dispensation. Lately, some have discovered that a baptism that was received was invalid, so the later Catholic marriage was also.

 

[redcatholic]

The church wouldn’t even be able to investigate the validity.

 

[lwest]

I asked this question once a different forum/different site and was told that if the couple went through marriage prep, were honest, were married in the Church that the assumption is that it’s a valid marriage. What is important is at the time of the vows, were the conditions met? I think scrupulosity can play a part here…we start nitpicking. But, sure, run it by a priest, if you want.

And since a few of my posts have been flagged and removed for ‘violating community standards’ and I never seem to get an answer when I ask what exactly violated community standards…if anyone is reading this and is prompted to flag it, would you please do me the courtesy of explaining why first? I certainly don’t intend to violate community standards. I would think that would fall into ‘Catholic charity’ to instruct the ignorant. Thank you in advance.

 

[tuffsmurf]

I don’t really understand in what kind of real life scenario these questions would be relevant.

 

[otjm]

Oh, let’s take a crack at a “What if”.

Couple meet and start dating. Female briefly relates a “bad experience” with a prior individual and will not expand. Male wonders what was so bad that he observed the reaction and the “shutting down”, but continues to date without questioning further.

The couple marries after the usual process. Later, the issue of abortion comes up in a general discussion; F clearly is uncomfortable discussing the matter.

M thinks back to one time comment about the prior individual and wonders if F had had an abortion; and if so, if F perhaps has an attitude about openness to children (qualified).

Does this scenario lean towards defective consent? Does it lean if in fact F had had an abortion? F clearly dos not want to discuss the matter.

Caveat - I am no Canon lawyer, and I don’t know the range (if there is any) within which the Church might consider defective consent in regards to openness to children. E.g. “i am open to having a child, but if I find it tests positive for down syndrome, I will abort”.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Her having an abortion in the past doesn’t effect the validity of the marriage. Being okay with aborting a baby in the future, as serious a sin as it is, doesn’t invalidate marriage either.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

M thinks back to one time comment about the prior individual and wonders if F had had an abortion; and if so, if F perhaps has an attitude about openness to children (qualified).

Setting aside the fact that M and F should have had these big, deep discussions before getting married, I’m not seeing how someone’s past abortion, if indeed they had one, would affect either

• their consent to be married or
• their openness to children going forward.

There are plenty of women in the world who had an abortion but went on to have one or more children later.

Furthermore, if the couple are presumably having sex (given that the topic of the thread is whether they should refrain from sex), I would think that a lack of openness to children would have manifested itself in F’s behavior well before the couple got around to having a discussion.

In addition to that, it’s pretty creepy that M would be focusing on defective consent/ marital invalidity, rather than on the fact that his beloved F had some kind of trauma in her past that is clearly upsetting to her and can he as a loving husband do anything to help her to feel better.

 

[Gorgias]

No. You just have to consent yourself, your spouse does not have to be involved.

Wow… I must’ve slept through that part of it, in class. Giving consent internally, without actually exchanging it? Umm… ok.

Setting aside the fact that M and F should have had these big, deep discussions before getting married, I’m not seeing how someone’s past abortion, if indeed they had one, would affect either

• their consent to be married

If one participated in an abortion (not just F, mind you, but M, as well!), and the other were so entrenched in the pro-life movement that they would never marry anyone who’d had an abortion (that is, that this would be a genuine condition on their consent)…

…then, if that info were withheld, it could rise to the level of being a cause for nullity, if the other spouse left the marriage and divorced because of it.

their openness to children going forward.

Yeah, I’m not seeing that, exactly, either.

 

[whatistrue]

Giving consent internally, without actually exchanging it?

If only one had an issue (or possible issue) at the time of the marriage, then only they would need to renew consent, so yes.

 

[1ke]

Wow… I must’ve slept through that part of it, in class. Giving consent internally, without actually exchanging it? Umm… ok.

Yes. You must have.

See canons 1158.2 and 1159.2 which say exactly that. And see also accompanying details in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (pages 1382 and 1383). “This consent can be an internal act of the will with no additional external manifestation”. See also accompanying explanation on page 1384.

 

[TotvsTvvs]

I would definitely say that they should speak to their Priest.

 

[otjm]

I’m not seeing how someone’s past abortion, if indeed they had one, would affect either

• their consent to be married or
• their openness to children going forward.

I agree with you about conversations; when they do not go forward, at least one party if not both are at risk.

However, I think you either missed my last comment.

I don’t know the range (if there is any) within which the Church might consider defective consent in regards to openness to children. E.g. “i am open to having a child, but if I find it tests positive for down syndrome, I will abort”.

I grant that having an abortion does not in and of itself mean that the woman cannot amend, and in the future be open to children.

But what I posited is not what you answered.

In a perfect world, both parties will be completely open to their thoughts and attitudes to any and all issues, including having children. The OP asked a question; I am giving an example, since the OP did not, of what potentially could be an issue.

Really, does the Church define “openness to children” to include “except if they are found to be seriously disabled while in the womb”?

Having an abortion, with all of what surrounds that particular choice at that particular time, does not in and of itself indicate that in the future, the woman will not be open to having children. Neither does it indicate an “openness to children”.

I am simply positing an example that might indicate an issue. I qualified the matter of the original abortion with my last statement. Feel free to respond to that if you wish.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In a perfect world, both parties will be completely open to their thoughts and attitudes to any and all issues, including having children.

Of course, and if you marry someone who has been less than open or whose position you aren’t reasonably sure of, then you’re taking a big risk.

 

[Gorgias]

See canons 1158.2 and 1159.2 which say exactly that.

Well, they talk about “in private”. Given that it’s consent between spouses, I would have thought that it was private but between them! Thanks for the reference to the Beal and Coriden… I’ll have to take it down off the shelf and reacquaint myself with those details!

 

[redcatholic]

Would the abortion question affect validity if the party were under excommunication for abortion at the time of the wedding?

 

[PeterT]

I asked this question once a different forum/different site and was told that if the couple went through marriage prep, were honest, were married in the Church that the assumption is that it’s a valid marriage. What is important is at the time of the vows, were the conditions met? I think scrupulosity can play a part here…we start nitpicking. But, sure, run it by a priest, if you want.

And since a few of my posts have been flagged and removed for ‘violating community standards’ and I never seem to get an answer when I ask what exactly violated community standards…if anyone is reading this and is prompted to flag it, would you please do me the courtesy of explaining why first? I certainly don’t intend to violate community standards. I would think that would fall into ‘Catholic charity’ to instruct the ignorant. Thank you in advance.

To the best of my knowledge and experience on this forum, it’s any post that makes too many people reading it uncomfortable. The post can be polite, non-personal, non-attacking, accurate and on topic, but for whatever reason if it touches the nerve of too many people, it will get deleted.

 

[lwest]

You’d think the moderators would have the courage to stick up for Catholic Teaching. That’s all I’ve done here. But thanks for the insight.