Posted on 11/23/2013 5:20:34 AM PST by Weiss White
Q: A friend is going to marry a man whose previous marriage was annulled… he says he was able to get an annulment because his wife was against having children and took contraceptives. Does that mean every Catholic marriage is invalid if the couple is contracepting? –Marisa
A: No.
It’s impossible to determine the exact grounds for the annulment of the marriage which Marisa describes, based solely on the information provided here. Nevertheless, we can examine the reasons why contraception might have been a pivotal factor in proving the nullity of this marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...
“i.e. an uncontracepted/unsterilized act”
I would think uncontracepted yes, unsterilized maybe...
What is not discussed in the article was the rhythm method that was used before BC.
If the use of this was unilateral instead of with agreement of both parties, I would think that too would invalidate a marriage.
“i.e. an uncontracepted/unsterilized act”
I would think uncontracepted yes, unsterilized maybe...
What is not discussed in the article was the rhythm method that was used before BC.
If the use of this was unilateral instead of with agreement of both parties, I would think that too would invalidate a marriage.
Part of the marriage vows are to “go forth and multiply” (using the common language in asking the couple if they will bring up ALL children in the Catholic faith.)
How does this affect the original question about contraception? Like you, if they contracepted, then they did not choose to have children, and I would question their intent of even being married.
What about NFP? Which was taught in our pre Cana classes going on ten years ago.
Using your logic, the argument could (and on FR has) been made that all sex outside of the fertile time would not be natural, and if that is the only type of intercourse it could lead to the same place.
I understand what you're saying, redgolum, but your premise is off and therefore your conclusion is not correct.
Your premise is that" all sex outside of the fertile time would not be natural," but that premise is false. It is natural for women to have alternating fertile and infertile phases during the whole time between menarche and menopause. Women are infertile for 3 weeks out of every four; and all through pregnancy; and for 12-18 months after childbirth, if they are nursing the baby enough to maintain the lactational anovulatory phase; and for decades after menopause.
We must conclude that alternating infertility/fertility is part of the "intelligent design" with which Divine Providence created the excellent female body.
For the couple to conduct themselves in sexual harmony with the natural female design, in order to achieve or avoid pregnancy wisely, is holy, and shows respect both for the beloved woman and for God who made her.
To use drugs, devices or surgery to maim her natural healthy physiological function, shows disrespect both for her and for God who made her.
The problem comes in, I think, when people lack sufficient knowledge and respect for the sacredness of the design. We--- all of us --- tend to have a weak --- and as time goes on, a weaker and weaker --- understanding of sacredness.
The idea of sacredness in relation to the bodily sexual design, has disappeared almost entirely from our God-forgetful culture.
I am only saying this to play the devils advocate.
The spirit of anti life is as real in couples using NFP to avoid children for non condoned reasons as it is in those who use contraception. If a couple spends their whole life together only having sex during the non fertile times, or using a condom (note, condom not the pill) is the intention any different?
But really? I've never see it used that way. I think there may be something complex going on here.
First of all, though there are greenie-organic ladies who use NFP for strictly holistic-health, non religious reasons, there aren't very many. It really only "works" in a marriage relationship, where both parties are strongly motivated and both are willing to govern their impulses accordingly. You're not going to find much of that outside of religious circles.
Second, religious people tend to be more open to having a child-rich family, precisley for God-pleasing reasons. So most NFP-ers use NFP for child-spacing, not for total child-rejection.
Third--- and his is just a guess on my part --- I think that real sexual intercourse between a man and a woman --- not chemically perverted, no plugs and rubbers and jellies and jams, no intentional hormonal derangement, but just sheer natural sexual union --- tends to make them want kids more than they thought they would.
A woman who is downright honestly full of a man, wants to be full of his baby. More times than you might expect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.