Marriage Never Consumated

[dianaballein]

Originally Posted by Nan S

I'm presuming one or both of the spouses are Catholic. If they weren't that would change a few answers, because they would not be bound by Catholic canon law.

You said the wife was divorced. I hope she got an annulment before this marriage. Perhaps the reason they have not consummated the marriage is because the annulment is still pending and they can not yet be validly married in the Eyes of the Church, yet they went ahead and got a marriage recognized by civil law so as to obtain the protections of civil law.

The wife was not Catholic when she married the Father of her children and they never married in a Church. She is Catholic now.

[SwizzleStick]

Originally Posted by Verbum Caro

Swizzle,

You're close, but not quite right. Pre-existiing perpetual inability to consummate a marriage is an impediment to marriage, however it is only the ability that is required, not that one make use of the ability.

A marriage that is never consummated is still a valid sacramental marriage (ratum). It is, however, subject to dissolution until consummated (ratum et consummatum).

VC

I admit that I don't quite understand. I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage? That is why some marriages can be annulled and others cannot and why impotence/frigidity would be grounds for annulment. So, would a priest go ahead with the Sacrament of Matrimony if he knew one of those two conditions existed and the marriage could not be consummated? Say the man has a spinal cord injury and just couldn't consummate? Are you saying that he could still marry validly in the Church? If so, that contradicts a lot of what I understand the Church teaches and what I've read on many EWTN Q&As.

Just when I think I understand something. Just goes to show there is much to learn and know about our Faith. I think I need to think on this a bit more and read more to understand and be clear. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you. But, I do need to educate myself more.

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by dianaballein

The wife was not Catholic when she married the Father of her children and they never married in a Church. She is Catholic now.

She still needs a Declaration of Nullity for the first marriage before entering into any new relationships.

There is a pervasive myth that non-Catholic marriages are not valid, but this is a mistake - it is only when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic without a dispensation that the marriage is of doubtful validity - non-Catholic with non-Catholic is always assumed to be a valid marriage, though.

[dianaballein]

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick

I admit that I don't quite understand. I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage? That is why some marriages can be annulled and others cannot and why impotence/frigidity would be grounds for annulment. So, would a priest go ahead with the Sacrament of Matrimony if he knew one of those two conditions existed and the marriage could not be consummated? Say the man has a spinal cord injury and just couldn't consummate? Are you saying that he could still marry validly in the Church? If so, that contradicts a lot of what I understand the Church teaches and what I've read on many EWTN Q&As.

Just when I think I understand something. Just goes to show there is much to learn and know about our Faith. I think I need to think on this a bit more and read more to understand and be clear. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you. But, I do need to educate myself more.

....and since I am learning too, doesn't an annulment make children "bastards", or is that antiquated information......

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick

I admit that I don't quite understand. I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage?

If a marriage is prone to dissolution, what is it that is dissoluble? A thing that does not exist cannot be dissolved.

tee

[catharina]

Originally Posted by dianaballein

....and since I am learning too, doesn't an annulment make children "bastards", or is that antiquated information......

Children's rights as legitimate heirs remain recognized by the Church.

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by dianaballein

....and since I am learning too, doesn't an annulment make children "bastards", or is that antiquated information......

No, children do not become disinherited when their parents receive an annulment from their previous marriage, any more so than by the divorce itself (which usually eats up any inheritance that they may have received, anyway).

The concept of "bastard" itself is completely antiquated - most people today would not think of disinheriting their children, if they had anything to give them, regardless of the status of their relationship with their child's other parent.

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by dianaballein

....and since I am learning too, doesn't an annulment make children "bastards", or is that antiquated information......

That is antiquated information. Canon Law (1137) makes explicit that children of a putative marriage are legitimate.

tee

[dianaballein]

Originally Posted by jmcrae

No, children do not become disinherited when their parents receive an annulment from their previous marriage, any more so than by the divorce itself (which usually eats up any inheritance that they may have received, anyway).

The concept of "bastard" itself is completely antiquated - most people today would not think of disinheriting their children, if they had anything to give them, regardless of the status of their relationship with their child's other parent.

I never viewed the term "bastard" as having anything to do with inheritance or financial gain. I believe the definition is a child born out of wedlock. If their parents marriage is annulled, doesn't that mean that it never existed in the first place, therefore creating this lable for their offspring?

[Verbum Caro]

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick

Just when I think I understand something. .

I hear you. Sometimes I feel the same way.

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick

I thought if a marriage is subject to dissolution, then it was never a valid marriage?

Not quite. A valid sacramental marriage becomes indissoluble when consummated. Of course, just because it is subject to dissolution doesn't mean that the parties would seek that.

We can see how a valid sacramental marriage takes place before consummation: aren't the couple married on their wedding day, in the Church? Consummating later cements the bond that has already taken place, and makes it permanent.

Thus, after consummation, the only way a marriage ends is through annulment (finding no marriage to begin with) or death.

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick

impotence/frigidity would be grounds for annulment.

Only if it was pre-existing. Preexisting (and perpetual) impotence is an impediment to marriage.

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick

So, would a priest go ahead with the Sacrament of Matrimony if he knew one of those two conditions existed and the marriage could not be consummated?

No, a priest wouldn't marry someone who could never choose to consummate.

In a marriage, the couple are given rights to one another's bodies. But the couple can choose to not exercise the right (such as in a Josephite marriage). What is important is that the couple could exercise the right if they chose to.

In a Josephite marriage the couple give each other the gift of their bodies, but they choose to give the gift back to each other, or perhaps to continue the analogy, they choose never to unwrap the gift.

Thoughts?
VC

[dianaballein]

This sort of goes along with what I asked a few posts above. What if one spouse decides to take away the gift from the other, after the marriage and the consumation?

[Verbum Caro]

Originally Posted by dianaballein

This sort of goes along with what I asked a few posts above. What if one spouse decides to take away the gift from the other, after the marriage and the consumation?

You couldn't lawfully do so unilaterally and capriciously -- there would have to be valid reasons. Of course, if they are both in agreement that would be a different matter.

VC

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by dianaballein

I never viewed the term "bastard" as having anything to do with inheritance or financial gain.

That's what it is, though - or rather, was. It no longer exists in North America, I don't think.

I believe the definition is a child born out of wedlock.

At one time, the status of "bastard" (disinherited) was given to children born out of wedlock. Today, there is no legal difference between a child born out of wedlock, a child of divorced parents, and a child born to married parents.

If their parents marriage is annulled, doesn't that mean that it never existed in the first place, therefore creating this lable for their offspring?

No - and I don't think it ever did, since under civil law, the parents were thought to be married, and their children would never have received that status, anyway. The State doesn't really take into account the Church's ruling, one way or the other, of the validity of a marriage, so the State would never declare a child of parents that the State had considered to be married, to be a "bastard" even if that designation still existed.

The Church itself has never recognized the idea of "bastards" - the teaching of the Church has always been that all human life is sacred. In the days when there were children who received this status, the Church was at the forefront of helping these kids get a good education, providing them with safe places to live, and doing its best to take care of their spiritual needs.

This was the work of Mother Teresa in Calcutta, for example.

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by jmcrae

The Church itself has never recognized the idea of "bastards"

I do not believe that is correct. As recently as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I think, bastardry was an impediment to Holy Orders. (It is not such, however, under the 1983 Code)

tee

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by tee_eff_em

I do not believe that is true. As recently as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I think, bastardry was an impediment to Holy Orders. (It is not such, however, under the 1983 Code)

tee

More because of the lack of education and opportunities for work experience (which is no longer the case) than because of the marital status of the parents, though, if I understand the situation correctly.