Are most marriages null?

[ConstantineTG]

Nope, marriage enjoys the favor of the law. From the Canon:

“Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.”

I was thinking about this and I have a hard time believing in this. So ignorance is bliss in this case? If you don’t now its invalid, therefore its valid? That seems inconsistent with all the other 6 Sacraments. If you were ordained by a lay person who’s pretending to be a Bishop, is your ordination valid if you didn’t know he wasn’t a real Bishop? If some other clear liquid is poured over you on your Baptism, are you still validly baptized? If rice flour is used instead of wheat flour and no one else knew it was rice flour, even the baker who mistaken it for wheat flour, is the Eucharist still valid? Why is it when it comes to marriage, we assume it to be valid when in fact it is not?

Honestly, I’m starting to fear if my own marriage is valid. I have no intentions to seek an annulment, I do not have a problem with my spouse. But what if despite the best of intentions, we didn’t fulfill one of the precepts that makes a marriage valid? Have we unknowingly lived in sin all these years? Why is that okay just because we assume something to be real?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

With all the annulments being granted seemingly at the drop of the hat, I have to ask…

Are most marriages null?

I don’t know stats, but isn’t the more logical conclusion here that most people who find themselves seeking divorce (and annulemt) have a null marriage.

It’s not up to us to really judge marriages as invalid/valid. I admit - at first I was very ashamed at how many people I saw getting out of marriages in the Catholic church. But when I laid my pride aside and realized that people confess things to tribunals that I have no idea of (and shouldn’t, since it’s none of my ding-dong business) that God ordained these people to decide - not me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know stats, but isn’t the more logical conclusion here that most people who find themselves seeking divorce (and annulemt) have a null marriage.

It’s not up to us to really judge marriages as invalid/valid. I admit - at first I was very ashamed at how many people I saw getting out of marriages in the Catholic church. But when I laid my pride aside and realized that people confess things to tribunals that I have no idea of (and shouldn’t, since it’s none of my ding-dong business) that God ordained these people to decide - not me.

I’m not worried that annulments are just another term for divorce. I believe that those that are annulled really had problems with being a valid marriage in the first place. My worry here is that how marriage is defined in the Roman Catholic Church and that the possibility of many defects given the rate of annulments today, my own marriage could have its own defects but just because I’m not questioning it before a tribunal then I’m blissfully unaware of its invalidity. I’m not satisfied with the answer that until its proven invalid it is valid, because such is not the case with the other Sacraments. Shouldn’t we all test our marriage to prove that it is valid?

 

[dans0622]

I was thinking about this and I have a hard time believing in this. So ignorance is bliss in this case? If you don’t now its invalid, therefore its valid? That seems inconsistent with all the other 6 Sacraments. If you were ordained by a lay person who’s pretending to be a Bishop, is your ordination valid if you didn’t know he wasn’t a real Bishop? If some other clear liquid is poured over you on your Baptism, are you still validly baptized? If rice flour is used instead of wheat flour and no one else knew it was rice flour, even the baker who mistaken it for wheat flour, is the Eucharist still valid? Why is it when it comes to marriage, we assume it to be valid when in fact it is not?

Honestly, I’m starting to fear if my own marriage is valid. I have no intentions to seek an annulment, I do not have a problem with my spouse. But what if despite the best of intentions, we didn’t fulfill one of the precepts that makes a marriage valid? Have we unknowingly lived in sin all these years? Why is that okay just because we assume something to be real?

Hello ConstantineTG,

Either a marriage is valid or not. It’s not our own “knowing” one thing or another that makes it valid or invalid. When a wedding is celebrated according to whatever law the parties are bound, we have to presume that it is valid. Regarding all the other Sacraments, if they are celebrated and all the externals look right, we would presume that the Sacrament is valid. How could we do anything else? To presume invalidity is completely unworkable.

But if, as you said, it was actually brown, rice bread, then of course that is invalid matter. Yet, until that fact was established with certainty, everyone would continue to rightly and justly presume that the matter was valid. If it was obvious that something external was wrong (vodka instead of water for baptism), people would immediately see and know that this is not baptism. No presumption of validity would arise.

In your other post, you said “Shouldn’t we all test our marriage to prove that it is valid?” You can, if you want–at least in private. I think we all should examine our marital intentions and actions regularly. If, through personal reflection and examination, you find something that was gravely lacking or wrong in your marital consent, bring it to a priest and talk it over. If there is truly something out of order, you can fix it. But, at a certain point, you’ll have to conclude that you have consented to marriage. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck in a feedback loop.

Finally, a person can’t “unknowingly live in sin.”

Hope this makes sense. Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello ConstantineTG,

Either a marriage is valid or not. It’s not our own “knowing” one thing or another that makes it valid or invalid. When a wedding is celebrated according to whatever law the parties are bound, we have to presume that it is valid. Regarding all the other Sacraments, if they are celebrated and all the externals look right, we would presume that the Sacrament is valid. How could we do anything else? To presume invalidity is completely unworkable.

But if, as you said, it was actually brown, rice bread, then of course that is invalid matter. Yet, until that fact was established with certainty, everyone would continue to rightly and justly presume that the matter was valid. If it was obvious that something external was wrong (vodka instead of water for baptism), people would immediately see and know that this is not baptism. No presumption of validity would arise.

In your other post, you said “Shouldn’t we all test our marriage to prove that it is valid?” You can, if you want–at least in private. I think we all should examine our marital intentions and actions regularly. If, through personal reflection and examination, you find something that was gravely lacking or wrong in your marital consent, bring it to a priest and talk it over. If there is truly something out of order, you can fix it. But, at a certain point, you’ll have to conclude that you have consented to marriage. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck in a feedback loop.

Finally, a person can’t “unknowingly live in sin.”

Hope this makes sense. Thanks for your time.
Dan

My point is that those who get married are presumed to be validly married. But only when you start to question the marriage do you find out there are defects. If there is a defect to begin with, then the marriage is invalid to begin with. There’s no getting around that. We don’t really know if there is a defect until we question its validity. I am uncomfortable with that.

In the East, a marriage is Sacramentalized by the priest. There is nothing a man and his wife can do to make it defective.

 

[Corki]

I was thinking about this and I have a hard time believing in this. So ignorance is bliss in this case? If you don’t now its invalid, therefore its valid? That seems inconsistent with all the other 6 Sacraments. If you were ordained by a lay person who’s pretending to be a Bishop, is your ordination valid if you didn’t know he wasn’t a real Bishop? If some other clear liquid is poured over you on your Baptism, are you still validly baptized? If rice flour is used instead of wheat flour and no one else knew it was rice flour, even the baker who mistaken it for wheat flour, is the Eucharist still valid? Why is it when it comes to marriage, we assume it to be valid when in fact it is not?

Because marriage is the only Sacrament where the spouses confer the Sacrament on each other. With all of the other Sacraments, a priest or Bishop, acting in persona Christi effects a change. So the Sacrament of marriage has a completely different type of validity.

I believe theologically it falls under the teaching of “ecclesia suppla” - “the Church supplies” if the couple has no knowledge of a factor that kept their marriage from being valid.

Honestly, I’m starting to fear if my own marriage is valid. I have no intentions to seek an annulment, I do not have a problem with my spouse. But what if despite the best of intentions, we didn’t fulfill one of the precepts that makes a marriage valid? Have we unknowingly lived in sin all these years? Why is that okay just because we assume something to be real?

You can’t unknowlingly live in sin. Sin requires intent and knowledge. It’s ok because the Church recognizes that if you did everything you could to make your marriage valid at the time it was contracted, you are free of culpability.

 

[Corki]

My point is that those who get married are presumed to be validly married. But only when you start to question the marriage do you find out there are defects. If there is a defect to begin with, then the marriage is invalid to begin with. There’s no getting around that. We don’t really know if there is a defect until we question its validity. I am uncomfortable with that.

In the East, a marriage is Sacramentalized by the priest. There is nothing a man and his wife can do to make it defective.

Since you are an Eastern Catholic, why should it concern you then. It is part of the difference in spiritual practice that functions as the two lungs of the Church.

 

[dans0622]

My point is that those who get married are presumed to be validly married. But only when you start to question the marriage do you find out there are defects. If there is a defect to begin with, then the marriage is invalid to begin with. There’s no getting around that. We don’t really know if there is a defect until we question its validity. I am uncomfortable with that.

In the East, a marriage is Sacramentalized by the priest. There is nothing a man and his wife can do to make it defective.

Hello again,

From the other perspective, if (for whatever reason) we know of no defect why would we question the validity of a marriage? Speaking personally, I freely said the vows, knew what I was saying and meant it. There. Done. There are only so many ways a person’s consent can be such that the marriage is invalid. If you are concerned, you can cover them all in a couple minutes, at most.

I would have to disagree with your final comment. In Eastern Catholic Churches, there are still the same basic canons on matrimonial consent: cc. 818-826 of the CCEO. The blessing of the priest is necessary for validity. Yet, Eastern Catholic still has to consent to marriage in basically the same way as a Latin counterpart.

Dan

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because marriage is the only Sacrament where the spouses confer the Sacrament on each other. With all of the other Sacraments, a priest or Bishop, acting in persona Christi effects a change. So the Sacrament of marriage has a completely different type of validity.

Only in the Eucharist does a priest act in persona Christi. Also, baptism can be conferred by anyone, even a non-Christian.

Also, this understanding of marriage is unique to the West. In Eastern Churches, the priest also Sacramentalizes marriage.

I believe theologically it falls under the teaching of “ecclesia suppla” - “the Church supplies” if the couple has no knowledge of a factor that kept their marriage from being valid.

But you can only annul if there is a defect in the first place, which means many marriages that never come into question possibly has defects which makes them null and void.

You can’t unknowlingly live in sin. Sin requires intent and knowledge. It’s ok because the Church recognizes that if you did everything you could to make your marriage valid at the time it was contracted, you are free of culpability.

But an invalid Sacrament is still not a Sacrament. So if one’s wedding has defects, sin or not you don’t receive the graces of Matrimony.

 

[JimG]

I accept that marriage Tribunal’s decisions are accurate. And if that is so, then all those attempted marriages really were null from the beginning.

I can see where that might be of concern, causing couples to think, well, if Jack & Jill can get a decree of nullity after 28 years of presumed marriage and five kids, am I really sure about my own marriage? That may be one of the unintended side effects of the great numbers of annulments granted.

Suppose, six months after the wedding, Jack is discovered to be having an affair with neighbor Brenda. He protests, “What? You mean that’s not ok? You meant for us to be exclusive?” It would be easy to conclude at that point that Jack never intended fidelity to Jill, and his consent was therefore defective and the marriage null.

But suppose the marriage seems fine until 20 years go by, and then he suddenly discovers that he is in love with neighbor Brenda. “I guess I never really meant to be faithful from the start,” he says. That would be a harder thing to prove.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Since you are an Eastern Catholic, why should it concern you then. It is part of the difference in spiritual practice that functions as the two lungs of the Church.

I’m only a recent Eastern Catholic. I’ve been a lifelong Roman Catholic (canonically I still am). I wouldn’t mind if my marriage is declared null, I’ve always wanted to receive the Mystery of Crowning.

 

[x1980x]

I’m not worried that annulments are just another term for divorce. I believe that those that are annulled really had problems with being a valid marriage in the first place. My worry here is that how marriage is defined in the Roman Catholic Church and that the possibility of many defects given the rate of annulments today, my own marriage could have its own defects but just because I’m not questioning it before a tribunal then I’m blissfully unaware of its invalidity. I’m not satisfied with the answer that until its proven invalid it is valid, because such is not the case with the other Sacraments. Shouldn’t we all test our marriage to prove that it is valid?

This is along the lines of my posting intention. How can one look at the high rate of annulments, read the multiple, complex conditions for a valid marriage, and, cognizant of human frailty, ever hope to achieve a valid marriage?

e.g.

“Uh, dear, I think we should go through it again.”
“Why?”
“Well, when I said, ‘I do’, my mind wavered and I had a fleeting fantasy about cheating. Now, I know myself enough to know that I wouldn’t actually follow through, but this thought could have impaired my consent.”
“Oh my, let’s talk to the priest”.

later…

“I think our second try was null too.”
“oh, why?”
“Well, I’m not fully convinced in my mind of the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage bond. I’m willing do obey what the Pope says, but I have a lingering belief that he could change the rules and make divorce legal in the Church.”
“Well, back to the priest we go.”

later…

“uhh, that third time, I had the fleeting thought of adultery and I think we got another null marriage.”
“Why don’t you just go ahead and leave me after the annullment? You clearly aren’t made out for marriage.”

 

[AHapka]

I was thinking about this and I have a hard time believing in this. So ignorance is bliss in this case? If you don’t now its invalid, therefore its valid? That seems inconsistent with all the other 6 Sacraments. If you were ordained by a lay person who’s pretending to be a Bishop, is your ordination valid if you didn’t know he wasn’t a real Bishop? If some other clear liquid is poured over you on your Baptism, are you still validly baptized? If rice flour is used instead of wheat flour and no one else knew it was rice flour, even the baker who mistaken it for wheat flour, is the Eucharist still valid? Why is it when it comes to marriage, we assume it to be valid when in fact it is not?

Honestly, I’m starting to fear if my own marriage is valid. I have no intentions to seek an annulment, I do not have a problem with my spouse. But what if despite the best of intentions, we didn’t fulfill one of the precepts that makes a marriage valid? Have we unknowingly lived in sin all these years? Why is that okay just because we assume something to be real?

I liken it to the criminal concept of innocent until proven guilty. You just don’t know when it comes to what someone is THINKING. In all of the other examples you gave, there is clear defect physically present that could be discovered to any person without question. A person pretending to be a Bishop? That can be found out for sure yes or no (if even later). Rice flour? Not valid matter, no question there. Some other clear liquid? Not valid matter, no question there.

But someone’s thoughts and intentions? Especially if not revealed is known only to them and God.

If you start off by presuming that every marriage is invalid because of what someone may have thought, it’d be pretty easy to prove just about every marriage invalid. What if someone said at one point in their lives ten years before they got married “I never want kids.” But at marriage they say they do. One could ask, did they really change their mind? Were they truthful? That’s the type of thinking that will happen if you don’t presume a marriage is valid until proven OTHERWISE.