For Catholic marriage to be valid, couples must be open to children

In a lengthy essay strongly reaffirming the Catholic Church’s teaching on the impermissibility of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also linked the validity of Catholic marriages to the couple’s openness to children – a requirement that, he said, is often sadly lacking in marriages today.  (Source)

The great thing about the whole redefinition business which is going on in society today is that the Church has a chance to recover some of that nasty triumphalism that has garnered bad press in these past number of months.  The fact is the Church is triumphant because Jesus is her Head and Jesus is triumphant.  Why shouldn’t we be happy and glorious?  We’re the champs.  We got the belt…not because of our own deeds but because Jesus has deemed that we wear it.   So we’re gonna wear it…the Wrestler’s Urim and Thummim of sorts.  Check it out:

Anyhow, the great thing about the confusion about marriage is that the Church can step up and actually teach about what marriage is and what it is not.  So decent people can be attracted to her common sense answers among an ocean of really stupid definitions and even worse rationale, not the least of which is sodomy-inspired marriage, polygamy, marriage to a dolphin or a chair.  The depravity of humanity knows no boundaries.

If we get our mojo going, it’s going to be the Champ vs. the Chump, the latter being the dolt we use to see during the wrestling matches who everyone knew was going to lose to the Belt holder.

4 thoughts on “For Catholic marriage to be valid, couples must be open to children

  1. “For Catholic marriage to be valid, couples must be open to children”

    John, do you know if that means that a couple must *always* be open to children for the marriage to be valid? We know that most Catholics contracept, but at some point they wanna have a child or two so they temporarily stop the pills. Is that a valid marriage? Is it only among couples who contracept unti death that the marriage is invalid?

  2. The key, as I understand it, is that the conditions must be present ***at the time*** of the marriage vows. If they decide later to contracept, then that does not change the nature of the marriage, just like adultery would not change it.

    On the other hand, if a couple did not meet the necessary conditions at the time of marriage, they really are not married *sacramentally*. That is, “the marriage” (even if it is a natural one which too may be unlikely) could be dissolved at a later date, if the marriage breaks down. Not exactly a huge issue here, either, because if a couple believes in not having children, they have some kind of relationship, but a marriage it is not…and they are in mortal sin anyway.

  3. So do you think that if a couple, at the moment of their vows, plans on using contraception at least part of the time, that would violate the vows and invalidate the marriage?

  4. No. I said if the couple believed in not having any children, then that would invalidate the marriage. If they planned on using contraception, that would distort and wound the marriage, but it would likely still be valid…although, of course, they would still be in a state of mortal sin.

    It’s not unlike a bad priest. As long as he intends what the Church intends during consecration, the consecration still takes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
26 × 17 =