Valid Marriage

[Dodge_pursuit]

Suppose a couple were married, then never consummated the marriage. Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the church?

What if a couple was married, had sex one (1) time, then began to abstain. Several years later, is this a valid marriage?

There are no children involved, they are not separated, there has been no infidelity.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Suppose a couple were married, then never consummated the marriage. Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the church?

What if a couple was married, had sex one (1) time, then began to abstain. Several years later, is this a valid marriage?

There are no children involved, they are not separated, there has been no infidelity.

There are so many factors to consider, but the short answer based on the very limited info you gave is yes it is a valid marriage.

Assuming,

Both baptized
Both understood sacramental nature of marriage
The marriage was otherwise valid (ie no previous marriages)

 

[1ke]

Suppose a couple were married, then never consummated the marriage. Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the church?

What if a couple was married, had sex one (1) time, then began to abstain. Several years later, is this a valid marriage?

There are no children involved, they are not separated, there has been no infidelity.

Yes an unconsummated marriage is valid, as is the second situation you describe.

Assuming of course all other requirements for a valid marriage are present.

 

[1ke]

Assuming,

Both baptized
Both understood sacramental nature of marriage
)

This is not correct. The unbaptized also contract valid marriages. Validity and sacramentality are two different things.

If both are baptized the valid marriage is also a sacrament, by its nature. The couple need not understand marriage as a sacrament in order for it to be a sacrament or be valid.

 

[Corki]

Suppose a couple were married, then never consummated the marriage. Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the church?

What if a couple was married, had sex one (1) time, then began to abstain. Several years later, is this a valid marriage?

There are no children involved, they are not separated, there has been no infidelity.

Consummation is not required for validity. However, consummation makes a valid marriage indissoluble,

 

[aemcpa]

Suppose a couple were married, then never consummated the marriage. Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the church?

What if a couple was married, had sex one (1) time, then began to abstain. Several years later, is this a valid marriage?

There are no children involved, they are not separated, there has been no infidelity.

Consummation is not required for validity. The distinction between a marriage that has been consummated vs. one that has not is that the latter may be dissolved by the Pope under certain circumstance, whereas the former is indissoluble by divine law.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

Thanks for the replies.

Jon S: I’m sorry my question made you “angry,” according to your choice of message flag.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks for the replies.

Jon S: I’m sorry my question made you “angry,” according to your choice of message flag.

Hmm. That was apparently an error. Is there a way to unflag ? Working on my iPhone…big thumbs.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Suppose a couple were married, then never consummated the marriage. Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the church?

What if a couple was married, had sex one (1) time, then began to abstain. Several years later, is this a valid marriage?

There are no children involved, they are not separated, there has been no infidelity.

A marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church until it declared invalid by the Church. In deciding whether to grant an annulment the Church will need a lot more info.
I can envision circumstances where your first scenario might be considered a valid marriage by the Church. I can also envision circumstances where your second scenario could be determined to be invalid by the Church.

 

[Hail_Linus]

The distinction between a marriage that has been consummated vs. one that has not is that the latter may be dissolved by the Pope under certain circumstance, whereas the former is indissoluble by divine law.

In the Catholic Church a marriage can never be dissolved. This applies to the consummated marriage as well as the unconsummated marriage. In either case the Church may declare a valid marriage never occurred (annulled).

 

[Corki]

In the Catholic Church a marriage can never be dissolved. This applies to the consummated marriage as well as the unconsummated marriage. In either case the Church may declare a valid marriage never occurred (annulled).

aempca is correct:

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.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

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.

 

[1ke]

In the Catholic Church a marriage can never be dissolved. This applies to the consummated marriage as well as the unconsummated marriage. In either case the Church may declare a valid marriage never occurred (annulled).

This is incorrect.

Corki has already posted the canons relevant to a valid, unconsummated marriage-- it can be dissolved by the Pope.

A marriage involving an unbaptized party or parties can also be dissolved:

Can.* 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.

§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without aVront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

 

[Hail_Linus]

aempca is correct:

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.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

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.

I was using the term “dissolution of marriage” in the contemporary sense which is the equivalent of divorce. Sorry about the confusion.

In regards to the dissolution of a consummated marriage, I assumed we were talking about sacramental marriages. The non-sacramental marriages described in Can. 1142 can indeed be dissolved even if consummated.