Catholic Online Forum

The first interactive Catholic Forum on the web
It is currently 24 May 2013 03:09

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2009 19:22 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: 05 Sep 2009 14:36
Posts: 5
Is it a valid marriage if at the time of the vows one or both of the couple intend to postpone having children(though they do eventually want children) by contraceptive means?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2009 19:25 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 20:25
Posts: 3906
Hi Poli,
Can you clarify what you mean by "contraceptive"?

_________________
Mary-Love

Jesus, I trust in You.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2009 19:34 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: 05 Sep 2009 14:36
Posts: 5
Use of a contraceptive: pill, condom, etc.

_________________
Poli C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2009 19:41 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 20:25
Posts: 3906
Hi Poli,
The best person to talk to about this is your priest but I can tell you that the Church does not condone the use of artificial contraceptives such as the pill or condom to regulate births.

This site can give you safe, healthy, effective ways to space children that is in accordance with Catholic teaching:
http://www.ccli.org/

_________________
Mary-Love

Jesus, I trust in You.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2009 20:11 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8553
Location: Northern VA, USA
Poli,

First of all, Mary-Love is right; ask your priest about this matter. He can address the specifics of the situation much better than any of us can. I will, however, give my opinion. Mary-Love is also right to point out that there are natural methods to temporarily postpone having children for a time for serious reasons only, including CCLI's STM method. Note that there should be serious reasons for refraining from being open to children in a marriage. These reasons may include questions about health, ability to raise the child AT ALL, and other serious circumstances. "Wanting to spend time together and enjoy the marriage without children" is not such a serious reason. Another method many find helpful is called NaPro, you can find out more information about it here: http://www.naprotechnology.com/

The use of artificial contraception is seriously sinful. It works against the purpose of marriage and contributes to a culture which does not value every life as a good thing, a gift from God. In fact, it contributes to a culture hostile to life by undermining its intrinsic value in the minds of people.

I could find nothing to indicate that the intent to use artificial birth control to postpone having children does not, in and of itself, render the marriage invalid. I found much to support the position that the intent not to have children at all renders the marriage invalid or is at least grounds for nullity, but nothing about the postponement of children via the serious sin of the use of artificial birth control.

From: http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml
Quote:
A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister.


From: http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catho ... mental.htm
Quote:
However, this does not mean the marriage vows with the condition of limiting children by artificial contraception or natural family planning are invalid. The exclusion of children is certainly a grounds for a declaration of nullity, but only when there is an explicit, provable and positive act of the will to avoid all children, for this is an intention contrary to the substance of marriage itself. The difficulty in such cases is to determine whether it is the obligation of having children which is refused, or whether it is simply the fulfillment of this obligation. (Cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, I, pp. 532, 533)....This is the case of those selfish couples who are determined to limit the size of their family from the beginning of their marriage. They are truly married, although their marriage is not pleasing to God, and they will never be able to communicate to their children generosity, the spirit of sacrifice, the love of the Cross, of souls and the Church.


From: http://www.scdiocese.org/Ministries/Tri ... fault.aspx
Quote:
Partial Simulation: Exclusion of Children: If an individual deliberately excludes an essential element or property of marriage, the consent is invalid (Canon 1101.2). The intention against children has two aspects: one is the intention to exclude the conjugal act; the other is the intention to exclude the effect of this act, that is, children. The right to the conjugal act binds at all reasonable times. The use of this right is not required when the duties of responsible parenthood indicate otherwise. The right to the conjugal act has no limitation in time. The right to the conjugal act includes the obligation of not impeding procreation. If one party intended to have intercourse in a natural manner but also intended to always use artificial contraception or to practice abortion, that person would be marrying invalidly. A temporary exclusion of children for legitimate reasons can and often does become permanent as a marriage deteriorates.


However, Canon Law indicates that a marriage is not consummated until artificial birth control is NOT present, presumably because the proper intent of full self-giving is not present in such marital acts.
From:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
Quote:
Can. 1061 ยง1. 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.

An unconsummated marriage is not invalid, but it is dissolvable (by the Pope).

In my opinion, such an intent does not render the marriage invalid. It is, however, seriously sinful and dangerous to the success of the marriage.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2009 22:25 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 22 Sep 2008 13:40
Posts: 251
Location: Springwood, Queensland, Australia
Poli
Jeff is correct.

So, the intent of the objectively grave sin of contraception does not invalidate the marriage, but it is not consummated until intercourse open to life takes place.

Contraception is a lie in marriage, and is totally inane as, for serious reasons given to you, Natural Birth Regulation is 99% effective and fosters love between husband and wife as it requires what Christ requires -- self-control, an essential part of life.

You have no choice but to forget contraception. There are some half-educated, unfaithful priests that might tell you "follow your conscience", without telling you that it has to be formed by following the teaching of Christ through His Church. So make sure that you consult a faithful priest.

God bless

_________________
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2009 06:06 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 12:15
Posts: 11425
Location: State of Michigan, USA
In the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, regarding whether a marriage is consummated by the marital act which is not open to life, and taking into account long canonical history, the following is written:

Quote:
Since this revision seems to have been unintended and has not been followed in the practice of the Holy See, canon 1061, 1 should be emended so that the mind of the legislator is expressed clearly in language consonant with the canonical tradition.


The revision referred to is adding "suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring," to specify the conjugal act by which consummation occurs. The 1917 CIC used the phrase to qualify the perpetual and exclusive right to the body that was considered the object of matrimonial consent -- i.e. it meant the right to non-contraceptive sexual relations, although not the conjugal act by which the marriage is consummated.

Therefore, it is not likely that a marriage remains unconsummated until a conjugal act open to life is completed.

Also, to put it more positively, an unconsummated marriage is a "ratified" marriage, and a "ratified" marriage is always valid and sacramental, although it can be dissolved for a just cause.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group