P
Phemie
Guest
If bride and groom are baptized non-Catholics, their civil marriages ARE sacraments.
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
Always? Or only if the couple wants it? What if their Church does not permit a mere civil service? Hmmm…rcwitness:
If bride and groom are baptized non-Catholics, their civil marriages ARE sacraments.
And this could be the case of this poster. So we should not assume this relationship is holy.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Assuming nothing prevented it (e.g., a prior marriage, lack of consent, etc), then yes.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Even if their respective Church prohibits a marriage outside the Church, like the Catholic Church does?rcwitness:
Assuming nothing prevented it (e.g., a prior marriage, lack of consent, etc), then yes.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’re talking about requirements of ‘form’. To the best of my knowledge, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have requirements of form. Non-Catholic Christian denominations do not.
Regardless, in the cases we’re talking about, it’s usually the marriage of two non-Catholic Christians, so there’s no “prohibition of marriage outside the Church” that’s in play. Anyway, their marriage in the past would have taken place within the context of their denomination, right?
E
EricF
Guest
I suspect they don’t. My point in asking wasn’t to be contentious, but if someone is going to make such an assertion, it would be incumbent on them to back it with fact, so that those of us reading the thread don’t get the idea that the tribunals are just a shell of what they’re supposed to be. Having gone through the process, I can assert that this is not the case. These cases are taken very seriously.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I see your point.
But you, also, cant speak for all cases. Your case may have been taken seriously.
Others have claimed that it was just giving them money, and telling them what they want to hear.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
The Canon Law Society of America compiles data from most American tribunals and publishes the stats each year.
Dan
Dan
E
EricF
Guest
Thanks, I had no idea.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
I’m glad you think that and must admit that I have not heard anyone say that before.
Dan
R
rcwitness
Guest
So according to this, the chances of the first marriage being a valid Sacrament (assuming they were Bapized Christian) are likely. And we are to assume it was a Sacrament!
So we should not congratulate this present relationship, and be ashamed that the Church and this couple neglected to see this!
So we should not congratulate this present relationship, and be ashamed that the Church and this couple neglected to see this!
P
Phemie
Guest
Ah, but then the fault is that of the petitioner, not the Tribunal that is working with “fake news”, so to speak. If you know that a specific thing will make your marriage invalid and in your petition you lie and say that thing was present, then the Tribunal is not at fault for granting you a decree of nullity, you are for lying.EricF:
I see your point.
But you, also, cant speak for all cases. Your case may have been taken seriously.
Others have claimed that it was just giving them money, and telling them what they want to hear.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes, thats true. And makes me sick to think about.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Yeah…well, maybe this happens from time to time but I would have to disagree, in part, and say that an advocate is not always qualified to determine whether or not a case has merit. Besides, an advocate, by definition, is supposed to assist the person in presenting a case and an argument in support of it, not tell the person he/she has no case.
The “screening process” should happen at the tribunal: a petition for a declaration of nullity can be rejected if it has no foundation and it is apparent that no foundation will be discovered in the course of the trial. This decision would be made by the Judicial Vicar.
As for wasting time, yes, nobody wants to do that.
Dan
G
Gorgias
Guest
No!
There are too many variables to allow us to make that assumption!
People tend to think that nullity proceedings are cut-and-dry! They’re not – there are lots of considerations that go into any single case!
So, the OP can’t just assume it was valid; she has to wait until the tribunal makes every attempt to discover anything that might have made her first marriage and her husband’s first marriage invalid from the beginning.
No assumption: by definition, a valid marriage between two Christians is a sacrament. Period.
That’s generally because the process is generally a ‘black box’. You put in your petition, and wait for the outcome. The fact that these are the only steps that you see doesn’t imply that this is all that goes on. That might be the impression you have, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
(By the same token, I might say – since I’m not in the garage when it happens – that the process of me getting my car inspected is that “I pay my money, and they put a sticker on my car.” That wouldn’t be true, but it would be the entirety of what I witness.
)
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
You are completely contradicting yourself!
The OP’s first marriage should either be assumed to be a Sacrament or not (considering they were Christians)?
The OP’s first marriage should either be assumed to be a Sacrament or not (considering they were Christians)?
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m not seeing what you perceive as a ‘contradiction.’
We can give the marriage the benefit of the doubt, but considering that they’ve entered into the process for declarations of nullity, it might be more charitable to say simply that we don’t know. (If you wanted to state that as, “if the tribunal finds that they have no proof that the marriages weren’t invalid, then we’ll affirm that they are sacramental,” then fine. Still, it’s an “if… then”.)
R
rcwitness
Guest
On what grounds should we assume the girst marriage is invalid was my point.
I would sooner assume the first was valid, until given a reason not to. Simply being divorced and remarried without evidence that a Catholic tribunal would conclude the first null, is unreasonable.
So I am with others asking, “What if the tribunal does not decree the first marriage null?”
That is a ligit question.
I would sooner assume the first was valid, until given a reason not to. Simply being divorced and remarried without evidence that a Catholic tribunal would conclude the first null, is unreasonable.
So I am with others asking, “What if the tribunal does not decree the first marriage null?”
That is a ligit question.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Furthermore, the fact that this couple should live as brother and sister or refrain from Communion, is assuming that the first marriage may in fact be valid.
G
Gorgias
Guest
We don’t. Rather, we let the tribunal do its job and make its determination. Its conclusion will be either “it’s valid” or “it’s invalid” or “we have insufficient information to make a determination, so we cannot declare it invalid.” We wait to see what their conclusion is.
Fair enough. And, in general, we would say that “marriage enjoys the favor of the law.” In the case in which a petition has been accepted by the tribunal, however, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that there is sufficient data to warrant holding off making any assumptions.
From a pastoral perspective, I would say “let’s not put the cart before the horse.” It’s a difficult enough situation for those in this scenario; it’s uncharitable to ask them to let their imaginations run wild with unfounded possibilities.
No… it’s asking them to act prudently. It’s recognizing that marriage enjoys the favor of the law, not an admission of validity.
Last edited:
- Status