If a marriage was never consummated, would that be valid grounds for annulment?

-- Dee (none@sorry.com), May 19, 2003

Answers

I believe so.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 19, 2003.

You know, a marriage unconsummated would still be a marriage; provided neither spouse denied the other the rights. It is merely grounds for an annulment if and when the spouse seeking that wants to leave the marriage. The idea of an annulment just BECAUSE consummation hasn't been carried out has no legal basis. The marriage is binding anyway; as long as there is consent. This is an answer, as it turns out, to a frivolous remark someone made a few days ago. Mary and Joseph, the post said, would have ''grounds for annulling the marriage'' in our day. Considering that Mary remained ever Virgin within the married state.

It's the unwillingness of a spouse to live without consummating, which causes an invalid marriage; not the failure to carry through. If I have this wrong, everyone will quickly refute me. But, I really don't see how.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

consummate - 1) a. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude: consummate a business transaction.
1) b. To realize or achieve; fulfill: a dream that was finally consummated with the publication of her first book.
2) To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.

By definition, without the consummation, the marriage is incomplete anyhow.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 19, 2003.

Annulment is more properly called "declaration of nullity", and means that there never was a valid marriage. In the case of non-consummation, the marriage is valid, but the Pope has the authority to dispense the bond.

Canon 1697: The parties alone, or indeed one of them even if the other is unwilling, have the right to seek the favor of a dispensation from a ratified and non­consummated marriage.

Canon 1698.1 Only the Apostolic See gives judgment on the fact of the non­consummation of a marriage and on the existence of a just reason for granting the dispensation.

Canon 1698.2 The dispensation, however, is given by the Roman Pontiff alone.

My understanding is that Eugene is wrong. Outside of virgin birth, a "marriage" where both parties intend never to procreate through sexual cooperation is just as invalid as an open "marriage" where both parties intend to have sex with other people after the ceremony.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Mark:
You aren't allowing there is certainly a sacramental bond. If not; then Mary couldn't be the spouse of Saint Joseph. I brought that point up to set the ''consummation'' aspect into proper perspective. A matrimonial bond without consummation is valid; or else the dispensation for nullity wouldn't be required.

If a spouse declares out of that bond, because of non- consummation, doesn't the Church make a judgment? But, if the two spouses never consummate, and neither wishes to split, there is a true matrimonial bond till death separates them. It is valid.

I realise that we speak of something extraordinary; i.e., the matter of Mary's virginity within the marriage bond. It won't be likely in any other case; it's unique.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Mark and Eugene.
I believe that you are right, Gene, though I hope that Father Michael Skrocki will notice this thread and weigh in here.

Mark, the canons you quoted are helpful, but we have to look at two other canons as well. I think that you will see that the first one actually refers to a marriage that has not yet been consummated as a [putatively] "valid marriage" -- which is the thrust of Gene's claim.

Canon 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

Canon 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

So, while an unconsummated marriage can be referred to as valid, it seems to be assumed that consummation will occur. I know, from my work on the saints, though, that numerous pious married couples (in the course of Church history) did not consummate their marriages, but lived continent lives, usually joining religious orders. In these cases about which I have read, one or both later became venerated as saints. I therefore find myself unable to say that a mutual decision permanently not to consummate a marriage renders the union invalid, with a false, sinful, or feigned consent. I hope to read something more authoritative on this though, because I am only able to speculate myself.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.

John,

As you point out, it is important to distinguish between the following cases: (1) A couple that intends to consummate their marriage, but have not gotten around to it yet; and (2) A couple that intends to live together in chastity.

The canons that I quoted (Canons 1697, 1698) most aptly address the first case. For example, if the bride and the best man run off just after the wedding ceremony, the groom would likely be able to avail himself of dispensation of the (perfectly valid by Canon 1061.1) marriage bond by the Holy Father.

From what I understand, the second case is against God's intentions for matrimony. Excluding sex within marriage is just as contrary to the laws of God as is sex outside of marriage. God made marital sex, and it is good. The idea that marital sex is a necessary evil just tolerated by God, and that a marriage that excludes sex is somehow more holy than one that includes sex, is a heresy.

It is without a doubt that those who are incapable of sex, i.e. those who are impotent, cannot marry; this is true even if their potential partner is agreeable to a sexless marriage, or even if their potential partner is also impotent. Canon 1084.1: Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage. If a sexless marriage was a valid option, there would be no need or use for this canon.

Similarly, Canon 1088 states: Those who are bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage. This is separate from Canon 1087, which relates to those who are in sacred orders.

Coupled with Canon 1096, I believe the invalidity of second case is given by Canon 1101.2: If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Eugene,

I don't know how any of my post relates to Mary and Joseph. As you say, they are a very special case.

Hopefully, Father Michael will give us a definitive answer.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Mark, I know it would never enter your mind to question the true marital union of Mary and Joseph, from the holy aspect; united in God in the Holy Family.

This is an intellectual question. Yet, it bears on everyday Catholic marriage, in an a way. The sacrament of matrimony is not administered by the priest at the wedding. He stands witness for Christ and His Church. The bride & groom administer the sacrament one to the other. God blesses their union. The marital act confirms once more (every time it is repeated) the sacramental union. However, that sacramental union is bonded before God and the Church well before the act of love. The two are made one as they take vows. God witnesses and blesses their vows, and sheds grace upon the new union.

From there onward it is simpler to see; and to determine when a valid marriage has begun. The consummation leaves no more question. but the vows are before any consummation. They are binding already; before the lord.

Care to add anything? Anyone else?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

Eugene,

Sorry for not being clear. I don't question the marital union of Mary and Joseph at all. It is just that because of all the special circumstances of their unique situation, some aspects of their marriage do not appear to provide a particularly good role model for the rest of us to try to follow.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

Just when I had expected we would get somewhere>

The HOLY FAMILY, not such a good ''role model''------???

Who said we had to remain virgins, in order to emulate Mary & Joseph? That's quite a stretch.

Saint Joseph is the ultimate role model for all husbands. A just, competent, faithful and --chaste in his love for Mary and the Holy Child Jesus-- husband and (foster) father.

Mary, ever- Virgin, mother of Jesus, and faithful spouse in the world of Joseph; pure beyond words; holy, and the greatest creature of all in the sight of God.

The lone missing ingredient is sex. But missing in the way of self-denial; sacrificed for God's glory. Not given up for fastidiousness, or prudish distaste. That's far from the revealed truth. We must face what's so obvious; Mary and Joseph are the most holy matrimony that ever lived!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2003.

Eugene,

You appear to be reading a lot of things into what I have written that I do not mean to say. I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding.

>> The lone missing ingredient is sex. But missing in the way of self-denial; sacrificed for God's glory. Not given up for fastidiousness, or prudish distaste.

My only point is that if you try this today under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, what you get is an invalid marriage, the exact opposite of most holy matrimony. Anyone who enters into a marriage intending to permanently exclude sex, for whatever reason (including self-denial), invalidly contracts marriage.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

Just remember, Mark. A matrimony takes place in the presence of God. It hardly matters in His presence whether Canon Law is observed. If a bride and groom were to die leaving the church after their wedding, (an accident--) they would die as man and wife, not as an invalid union. The vows before God are holy. If the matter ever came before a court of Canon Law, this would surely be the judgment. Why? Because no cause had been brought forward to challenge the validity of the marriage! Both spouses are dead with no consummation; only the sacrament! Let's be practical.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2003.

I didn't address your last words: Anyone who enters into a marriage intending to permanently exclude sex, for whatever reason (including self-denial), invalidly contracts marriage.--

So; we can assume their vows were not properly taken? And there was no sacrament, only the bad intention?

I would hesitate to judge. It would be an interesting case, before a court of Canon Law. I DON'T think it is an open and shut case. Laws have exceptions.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mark and Eugene.

I am still hoping for some insights from Father, but while waiting we can continue to speculate some more.
The thought of all those saints (married couples) I mentioned keeps returning to me. The Church does not condemn what they did, does not say that they failed to exchange consent, does not say that they were invalidly joined. I don't think that it is a coincidence that the Church will memorialize such a married couple (Sts. Iniuriosus and Scholastica) on May 25.

I think that I may have just had an insight into the problem. I will try to put it into words for you now ...

Mark, concerning a "couple that intends to live together in chastity" (i.e., celibacy/continence, with consummation), you wrote:
"From what I understand, [this] is against God's intentions for matrimony. Excluding sex within marriage is just as contrary to the laws of God as is sex outside of marriage. God made marital sex, and it is good. The idea that marital sex is a necessary evil just tolerated by God, and that a marriage that excludes sex is somehow more holy than one that includes sex, is a heresy."

I would agree that most of what you say is true. However, we cannot assume that the continent couple has always and forever "excluded sex within [their] marriage." We cannot assume that they consider intercourse not to be "good" or to be a "necessary evil [that is] tolerated." Rather, a continent couple would have to consider marital union a great good, which would make their abstinence from it so much the greater sacrifice.

Mark, you also wrote: "Canon 1088 states: Those who are bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage."

This is true, but not relevant. This canon pertains to some of those who have chosen the religious life and who therefore are unable to marry. It does not pertain to those who first marry, but then choose the religious life with the permission of the spouse and the Church.

Mark, you then wrote: "Coupled with Canon 1096, I believe the invalidity of [the case of the continent couple] is given by Canon 1101.2: 'If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.'"
[Canon 1096.1 says: "For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation."

Note, Mark, that 1096.1 does not force a couple to consummate their marriage. It only speaks of that about which they should "not [be] ignorant".
Also note that 1101.2 refers to what must be present to avoid "contract[ing] invalidly." It appears then that a couple cannot enter into a valid marriage after having made a prior agreement to live in continence. However, AFTER exchanging consent -- thus entering into a valid, ratified marriage [Canon 1061.1] -- it appears that they may freely and mutually agree to that way of life. [I believe that I recall reading about how at least one of these married couples (saints) did agree, on their wedding day, indefinitely to delay the consummation of their marriage.] So, I think that each spouse must be willing to consummate the marriage immediately and to live without continence if that is what the other wishes. In addition, if a promise to live in continence is made, it would always have to remain open to being revoked at either spouse's request.

And so, when everything is done properly and at the right time, I believe that none of the canons is violated. Therefore, until I read something authoritative that confirms your belief, I have to withhold agreement with one thing that you told Gene: "... if you try this today under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, what you get is an invalid marriage, the exact opposite of most holy matrimony."
But I can agree with the next thing you told him: "Anyone who enters into a marriage intending to permanently exclude sex, for whatever reason (including self-denial), invalidly contracts marriage."
The reason I can agree with those words of yours is that they do not rule out the possibility of a mutual decision, after the exchange of consent, to delay consummation indefinitely.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.

John,

I agree 100% with your last post, including your correction of my overly strong my comment to Eugene. It is indeed possible to have a valid, contintent marriage, even over a period of decades, until it is ended by death. The key, as you point out, is having the correct attitude about the nature and obligations of marriage, and having the appropriate intentions going into it.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

Thanks, Mark. I am very pleasantly surprised. I didn't feel fully confident that I had come up with a convincing argument!
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.

As regards the marriage of Mary and Joseph, Gail found an interesting tract by St. Jerome entitled "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary". In it, St. Jerome argues that:

That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

I don't think this counts as definitive evidence, but it at least indicates some of the thinking of the time.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 26, 2003.

Are we sure Jerome said putative husband, and not putative father of Jesus? Joseph is called Mary's ''most chaste spouse'' in the Litany of the Saints.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2003.

Eugene,

I don't really know. But Joseph being the putative father of Jesus wouldn't really be that relevant as regards an argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary, but only for the virgin birth itself.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 26, 2003.