Annulments

[MichaelFilo]

Cid, the short reply is that a marriage and sex intrinsically (in their very nature) tends towards procreation. Contraception fights the intrinsic nature of sex. However, the marriage is still intrinsically geared towards that end. They must have, as part of the basis of their marriage, a desire to NEVER have sex (withhold duties), or procreative sex (an element) . Then, and only then, would it be to go against the intrinsic nature of marriage. There seems to be no evidence that fighting it or a temporary resistance to procreation is necessary. In fact, contraception, while being immoral, and premarital sex, while being immoral, do not serve as grounds for an invalid marriage anywhere in the canon. However, a couple, or one of the two, must desire to never have children and at the moment of marriage decide to exclude from that marriage all life.

From EWTN

[quote]Simulation

Canon 1101
1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to be in agreement with the words or signs employed in celebrating matrimony.
2. But if either or both parties through a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some essential element or an essential property of marriage, it is invalidly contracted.

When two people stand up before God, the Church and society and exchange vows their words and actions are presumed to be truthful. Truth is the conformity of what the person says or does with what they know and will interiorly. When consent is given falsely and touches on one of the essential elements or properties of marriage that consent is invalid. The person is said to simulate consent.

Marriage itself. Total simulation occurs when one or both of the parties positively intends to not marry. This could be done in order to obtain the sexual rights of marriage, or even to obtain the civil effects of marriage (tax advantages, immigration visa, etc.).

An essential element.

Canon 1055
1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
2. For this reason a matrimonial contract cannot validly exist between baptized persons unless it is also a sacrament by that fact.

Partial simulation occurs when the will of one of the parties positively excludes some essential element of marriage, such as the sexual rights and duties, life in common, or the procreation and education of children.

An essential property.

Canon 1056. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament.

Partial simulation also occurs when an essential property of marriage is positively excluded. Someone who intends to have other spouses or other sexual relations excludes unity. Those who intend to take advantage of divorce and remarriage if they so choose exclude indissolubility.[/quote]

[CatherineM]

Quick pass by as I'm on my way to Calgary for a book signing.

Annulments are given when couples intended from the beginning to use contraception because they didn't intend to completely give themselves to each other. That is a literal and figurative barrier to making a bond. Usually though, there are other issues in those marriages. If a couple is using contraception, that is often a symptom of another issue.

[MichaelFilo]

I agree that is the understanding here in the states, although there is alot of evidence that it is contradictory to what the authors of the canon meant. However, how many annulments are given simply on the basis of contraceptive use?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287664307' post='2181253']
Oh, but see that is irrelevant, because the requirement of the Church is not that you should have proper knowledge of the Church's teaching on contraception. All that matters is that there is an intent to have children. They are two separate things. If you had no intent to have children then you have a dilemma, since it is essential. There is a distinction. There is nothing in the canon that suggests you must never engage in contraceptive use (obviously, in other canons, but they do not pertain to marriage) but rather that the marriage must lead to some attempt to procreate. [b]Catholics wants kids, even if they use contraceptives at first[/b]. If they intended to avoid it their whole marriage, then there is a problem, but I am not convinced any great majority of people have that view.
[/quote]
Really? SO ALL Catholics want kids? I happen to know of at least 2 couples who do not fit that and would consider themselves Catholics and were married in the Catholic church, and have taken steps to avoid having kids.

[MichaelFilo]

Well, surely, if they have no intent to have kids, then it is so. But we cannot explain away 60,000 annulments a year on something that is so mind bogglingly impossible. Even if they take steps to avoid it, at some point they plan to have kids. They understood that marriages make children and they would need to have children. Only if they married with no intention to ever have children would the shoe not fit.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287676645' post='2181317']
Well, surely, if they have no intent to have kids, then it is so. But we cannot explain away 60,000 annulments a year on something that is so mind bogglingly impossible. Even if they take steps to avoid it, at some point they plan to have kids. They understood that marriages make children and they would need to have children. Only if they married with no intention to ever have children would the shoe not fit.
[/quote]

I don't think you're seeing where it's not OK to just say "we are open to life, just not right now" and still have a valid marriage. If you are not intending to have procreative AND unitive sex for the DURATION of your marriage, it's quite possible that there are validity issues. It's similar to someone who gets married while thinking, "oh well, divorce is always an option." Or a couple who marry while expecting to be faithful now but later on to have an "open marriage" with adultery being considered OK between them. A valid marriage is

a. Unitive AND procreative (open to life), from day one
b. A commitment to one person, from day one
c. A commitment the parties intend to keep until death, from day one

It's also not OK to say "all right, we're in our 20s, so we'll be open to life until we turn 30. But I don't want to have a baby in my 30s so I'll use contraception then, until I hit menopause." That's not what marriage is about. If you go into it intending to not fulfill the obligations of marriage (or not understanding the obligations) for whatever period of time, the chances of it being invalid are kinda high.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Maggie

[MichaelFilo]

I agree that it is bad policy, but that has no bearing on validity, as per EWTN. Intending to cheat later on in life is against the life long commitment.

The list, I assume, is your own. From day one is quite the assertion and assertion, especially on the first count. You would never argue a couple has to have sex the first night. Needless to say, it is not found in the canons. However, it is implied on the last two.

The marriage must be ordered towards procreation, not every sexual act, according to the canon. That means any intent to have children is enough for a valid marriage. Now, it is immoral to have non-procreative sex, but that has no bearing on validity.

[quote]Canon 1055
1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;[/quote]

One can attempt to disrupt that order (a marriage at times can be bad for the spouses, say in the case after adultery the marriage might be a cause of anger or hatred) without actually making it invalid. One simply cannot have the intent to go in against the order (e.g. marry with the intent to enslave.) As long as the marriage is intended to be procreative at some point, then so be it. If they intend to get their tubes tied after getting married, or recently before marriage then no marriage. Oral contraception is by it's nature temporary.

Marriage might be immediately harmful (loss of health insurance, benefits, etc) but must be ordered towards the good. It may not even be procreative or unitive immediately. After all, NFP is intended to resist procreation (but is open to it, so is not comparable to the sin of using contraception, but shows a desire to not be procreative.) One would hardly argue a married couple that practices NFP is engaging in an invalid marriage. What if a couple has premarital sex while practicing NFP and then gets married and continues to do so. Would that indicate that they are not entering into a valid marriage?

It's important to note that I am not saying NFP is sinful, only that it shows a desire not to procreate as well, while being open to it (making it not against the nature of the act.) The marriage bond only requires that the marriage be procreative, not every act. Contraception is sinful but is strictly limited to the act and does not indicate the desires for the marriage as a whole.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287679886' post='2181345']
I agree that it is bad policy, but that has no bearing on validity, as per EWTN. Intending to cheat later on in life is against the life long commitment.

The list, I assume, is your own. From day one is quite the assertion and assertion, especially on the first count. You would never argue a couple has to have sex the first night. Needless to say, it is not found in the canons. However, it is implied on the last two.

The marriage must be ordered towards procreation, not every sexual act, according to the canon. That means any intent to have children is enough for a valid marriage. Now, it is immoral to have non-procreative sex, but that has no bearing on validity.



One can attempt to disrupt that order (a marriage at times can be bad for the spouses, say in the case after adultery the marriage might be a cause of anger or hatred) without actually making it invalid. One simply cannot have the intent to go in against the order (e.g. marry with the intent to enslave.) As long as the marriage is intended to be procreative at some point, then so be it. If they intend to get their tubes tied after getting married, or recently before marriage then no marriage. Oral contraception is by it's nature temporary.

Marriage might be immediately harmful (loss of health insurance, benefits, etc) but must be ordered towards the good. It may not even be procreative or unitive immediately. [b]After all, NFP is intended to resist procreation[/b] (but is open to it, so is not comparable to the sin of using contraception, but shows a desire to not be procreative.) One would hardly argue a married couple that practices NFP is engaging in an invalid marriage. What if a couple has premarital sex while practicing NFP and then gets married and continues to do so. Would that indicate that they are not entering into a valid marriage?

It's important to note that I am not saying NFP is sinful, only that it shows a desire not to procreate as well, while being open to it (making it not against the nature of the act.) The marriage bond only requires that the marriage be procreative, not every act. Contraception is sinful but is strictly limited to the act and does not indicate the desires for the marriage as a whole.
[/quote]
The bolded part is incorrect. NFP is an understanding of a woman's fertility, to either postpone [i]OR ACHIEVE[/i] pregnancy. It is not necessarily intended to "resist procreation." It is not even solely taught to people who are currently hoping to postpone pregnancy. I know of people who learned it precicesly to increase their chances of getting pregnant, because they were having difficulty.

Sorry if this is

[MichaelFilo]

Ok, you are right, those who use NFP to not have procreation.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287669047' post='2181265']
Cid, the short reply is that a marriage and sex intrinsically (in their very nature) tends towards procreation. Contraception fights the intrinsic nature of sex. However, the marriage is still intrinsically geared towards that end. They must have, as part of the basis of their marriage, a desire to NEVER have sex (withhold duties), or procreative sex (an element) . Then, and only then, would it be to go against the intrinsic nature of marriage. There seems to be no evidence that fighting it or a temporary resistance to procreation is necessary. In fact, contraception, while being immoral, and premarital sex, while being immoral, do not serve as grounds for an invalid marriage anywhere in the canon. However, a couple, or one of the two, must desire to never have children and at the moment of marriage decide to exclude from that marriage all life.
[/quote]

I would have to disagree with the majority of your response. Sex within marriage is intrinsically tended toward procreation, [b]unless[/b] the act is impeded. As you note, artificial birth control attempts to impede the procreative action of the conjugal act. As you also note, the canons state that a couple must be open to life, which is a necessity for a valid marriage. If a couple desires to use artificial birth control when attempting to contract a marriage, than they are not being fully open to life. To be literal to the canons, it states that a couple must intend to enter a relationship that "intrinsically tends towards" procreation. Or, another way of stating that would be that the relationship is essentially inclined toward procreation, or is inseparably inclined toward procreation. It does not state that the relationship needs to "occasionally tend" toward procreation, or some of the time. It must always be fully open to life. Not just the desire to occasionally be open to life, but must have the intention of always being open to life. If this intention is lacking or misrepresented when a marriage is attempted to be contracted, then I believe it would fall to Canon 1101, 2.

To this, perhaps Canon 1102, 1 would also be relevant.
[quote]Can. 1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.[/quote]The couple in this circumstance would be stating that they will be open to life [b]in the future[/b]. The condition being that both parties are entering marriage under the assumption that they will both be open to life at some future time.


As to your EWTN quotation, that was quite informative. What especially caught my eye was the use of the words "partial simulation." Not recognizing this phrase, I did a search of "partial simulation Catholic Marriage" which brought up a variety of diocesan marriage tribunal FAQ sections. They discuss partial simulation and possible grounds for an annulment. To quote from a few:

[quote]) Intention against Children
One or both parties exclude the right to those marital cts which produce children; one party excludes chilren permanently, or [b]unilaterally reserves the right to determine the time and/or number of children (usually one).[/b][/quote]http://www.cdop.org/pdfs/Grounds.pdf

[quote]3. What is meant by "Total Simulation" or “Partial Simulation” for entering into marriage?
...
An intention against the good of children
...
Whether a particular marriage actually gives rise to children is, in some measure, beyond the control of the spouses. The failure to have children does not in itself invalidate consent, but the exclusion of the right to potentially procreative acts does invalidate consent. Exclusion of marriage’s ordination to the procreation and education of offspring occurs when a spouse reserves to him or herself the right to determine whether, when and under what circumstances conjugal relations will be open to the procreation of children. Usual examples of this include:

The right to acts per se apt for the generation of child is excluded absolutely
[b]The right to such acts is limited, even for a time[/b]
The exclusion of the right, even for a time, is made a condition for marriage
The exclusion of the right is implicit in the exclusion of children from the marriage
The right to conjugal acts is limited to contraceptive acts only[/quote]http://www.dsj.org/being-catholic/marriage-in-the-catholic-church/faqs-about-annulments

[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. [b]The right to the conjugal act includes the obligation of not preventing procreation.[/b] If one or both parties intended not to have children in the marriage, this ground might be used.[u] A temporary exclusion of children for legitimate reasons can and often does become permanent as a marriage deteriorates.[/u][/quote]http://www.scdiocese.org/Ministries/Tribunal/GroundsforNullity.aspx

[quote]Partial simulation, against children (canon 1101, §2) – A positive act of the will at the time of marriage [b]to exclude the right to acts which are by themselves apt for the procreation of children[/b] or to exclude children themselves.[/quote]http://www.catholichawaii.org/staticpages/index.php/20071004154332944


As to further references to Canon Law, I feel that this discussion has surpassed my own, uneducated understanding. I would highly recommend talking to your priest and/or a canon lawyer within your diocese for further explanation. I hope I may have spoken both truthfully and helpfully, as I earnestly intended to do both. I also have access to some commentaries on Canon Law, so if I have some time, I might look through those. If I find anything helpful, I will try and post it.

I am glad that we were able to agree that in certain cases, a marriage is invalidly contracted and can be annulled, such as if one or both partners attempt to contract the marriage while absolutely refusing to have children. While it might not offer much comfort to the sad state of affairs that the preparation for US marriages are in, it does hopefully at least offer some consolation that at least some annulments must be decreed correctly.

Note: Everything I've written is my own uneducated opinion.

Edited October 21, 2010 by CatholicCid

[MithLuin]

Also, I must say that you seem surprised that couples would enter marriage with the intention of never having children. Do you honestly not know any couples who are intentionally childless? Not just 'temporarily' while they get their lives/finances in order at the beginning of marriage, but....long term.

I have an uncle who is not Catholic, but has an annulment because he married a Catholic woman before he married my aunt (also a Catholic woman). His ex-wife's version of the story is that when she married him, she discovered she wasn't really in love with him and just liked him as a friend. His version is that he married this lady, and then she was suddenly a completely different person. One of their issues? She was very adamant about not wanting to have children (or, more specifically, [i]his[/i] children), whereas he did want to have kids. There was no 'someday' in her stance - she didn't want kids, period. They had a miserable honeymoon.

They divorced (clearly), got an annulment, and they have both since remarried. She has a son, and he has a daughter. Just...not with each other.

[CatherineM]

Perhaps I can explain it this way. Think of marriage as a contract. There is a legal term call, "meeting of the minds." When suing to enforce a contract, a judge will try to determine if at the time of making the contract, the parties had a meeting of the mind. That means that they both understood exactly what they were agreeing to. If one party to a marriage intends to use birth control, or one party doesn't want to really raise their kids Catholic, that means that they didn't have a meeting of the minds, and so no valid "contract" or bond occurred. Additionally, if you don't even ask the question about kids, then how can you have that meeting of the minds?

[MichaelFilo]

Cid, to refer to your future condition, that refers specifically to a future condition of the marriage (ie, I will not marry unless he gets a job within the month. ) These used to be allowed, but the Church has taken them out.

Now, to to the quotations:

[quote]) Intention against Children
One or both parties exclude the right to those marital cts which produce children; one party excludes chilren permanently, or unilaterally reserves the right to determine the time and/or number of children (usually one).[/quote]
This one is about unilaterally (alone) reserving the right to determine the time/number of children. Catholics are permitted to use NFP to do this. One cannot do it without the consent of the other which is all that is being said here.

[quote]3. What is meant by "Total Simulation" or “Partial Simulation” for entering into marriage?
...
An intention against the good of children
...
Whether a particular marriage actually gives rise to children is, in some measure, beyond the control of the spouses. The failure to have children does not in itself invalidate consent, but the exclusion of the right to potentially procreative acts does invalidate consent. Exclusion of marriage’s ordination to the procreation and education of offspring occurs when a spouse reserves to him or herself the right to determine whether, when and under what circumstances conjugal relations will be open to the procreation of children. Usual examples of this include:

The right to acts per se apt for the generation of child is excluded absolutely
The right to such acts is limited, even for a time
The exclusion of the right, even for a time, is made a condition for marriage
The exclusion of the right is implicit in the exclusion of children from the marriage
The right to conjugal acts is limited to contraceptive acts only[/quote]

The second line you bolded here refers back to the first, which is to say, it refers to the "acts per se apt for the generation of children," or what we call sex. Sex is apt, per se, to generate children. Even contraceptive sex, by it's nature, is per se apt for generation because the act itself is. Contraception seeks to hinder the generative effect (no contraception is 100%, so you know that the act, per se, is apt for generation.) The second line only means a partner who thinks they have a right to limit the sex act for a time. Also, refer to the paragraph above it for context. "when a spouse reserves to him or herself the right to determine whether, when and under what circumstances conjugal relations will be open to the procreation of children." This, again, is unilateral.

[quote]If one or both parties intended not to have children in the marriage, this ground might be used. A temporary exclusion of children for legitimate reasons can and often does become permanent as a marriage deteriorates.[/quote]
This is the part after your third quotation. Note that there are temporary exclusions of children which are legitimate. It seems the bolded part refers to the exclusion of all children from the marriage.

[quote]Partial simulation, against children (canon 1101, §2) – A positive act of the will at the time of marriage to exclude the right to acts which are by themselves apt for the procreation of children or to exclude children themselves.[/quote]

Again, the act is sex of any sort. Sex is apt for procreation. And again the clause, "themselves" indicates unilateral decisions.



Open to life means not against having children, and this is the basic misunderstanding. Catholic couples use NFP to limit the number of children they have and this is espoused by the Church. Evidently, it is no big deal. The problem is not having sex, or rather, withholding the right to have sex.






To Catherine, I agree. But the expectation isn't even to have an agreement on kids, only to agree to have kids, and not withhold the right unilaterally AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. Like adultery, it is awful outside of marriage, but as long as it was not planned from the moment of marriage it is no grounds for annulment.

[cmotherofpirl]

It seems like the Church interprets its own canons a bit differently than you do.

[MichaelFilo]

It only seems that way because everyone in here has interpreted them that way. The only person external to the discussion was one of the authors who indicated my understanding. Furthermore, definitions and interpretation are a bit different. In fact, since I've tried, I'd like to see some Church source define a marriage as invalid because there was an intent to use contraception after the marriage at the time of marriage.