Church marriage

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Or if 30, 60, 3000 days later, they apply for an annulment, would they receive one?

It is definitely not sacramental until both parties are baptized. It would be what is called a natural marriage (presuming validity) before baptism. After baptism, it would be sacramental.

Whether or not the couple could receive a declaration of nullity depends on if the authorities can determine to a reasonable level of certainty that the original marriage was invalid. If they can so determine, then the Church would rule them free to marry other people. But the tribunal could get it wrong. Presumably that is why it was required in the past to go to the court of second instance or opinion or whatever and have it checked out before being granted. But if memory serves, the pope recently removed that requirement in uncontested cases.

I’m saying the Church declaration is not coextensive with what is actually the case. It is conceivable to me that a truly sacramental marriage might be accidentally declared to not have been valid. For example, if people lied to the tribunal. But that would not change the actual validity of the marriage. And the person who lied would be guilty. To the best of my knowledge.

You kind of contradicted yourself in the beginning. A civil marriage is a valid marriage. Then, at Baptism, the marriage would become Sacrament. The original marriage can’t be considered invalid, if it was a mere civil union. It only takes the civil document to show that.

 

[rcwitness]

Gingersnaps4:

You shouldn’t have to go through pre-Cana if you are already civally married.

That’s not true. It’s something that’s up to the pastor’s discretion.

(Personally, I think the case can be made that, if a Catholic marries civilly and then later approaches convalidation, s/he’s already demonstrated that there’s some sort of lack in understanding of Catholic catechesis, and therefore, a Pre-Cana program would be both good and appropriate! )

If a Catholic couple, married outside the Church, decide to seek convalidation, then that would already be a sign of understanding.

It’s the couples who don’t even realize they should convalidation who don’t understand.

And those parish friends and pastors who know the couple should have an awareness. But that gets difficult when we get changed priests so often. But the laity should give a rat’s pink behind.

 

[Gorgias]

If a Catholic couple, married outside the Church, decide to seek convalidation, then that would already be a sign of understanding.

Or a sign that their mothers were badgering them…

Or a sign that they want to have kids who will be baptized (and think that it won’t be allowed unless they, themselves, are married in church)…

Or a sign that one of the spouses feels guilty, and has convinced the other to go through with it…

etc, etc, etc.

Not necessarily that there’s any real understanding of what Christian marriage is (which, after all, is the whole point of a Pre-Cana program).

 

[Pug]

A civil marriage may not be valid if one party was mentally incompetent, for example. There are impediments to marriage. I meant, assuming there are no impediments. Of course an ordinary civil marriage is valid. But it isn’t if there is an impediment. Even civil law recognizes this type of thing, such as bigamy or consanguinity (marrying your daughter, for example).

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

If a Catholic couple, married outside the Church, decide to seek convalidation, then that would already be a sign of understanding.

Or a sign that their mothers were badgering them…

Or a sign that they want to have kids who will be baptized (and think that it won’t be allowed unless they, themselves, are married in church)…

Or a sign that one of the spouses feels guilty, and has convinced the other to go through with it…

etc, etc, etc.

Not necessarily that there’s any real understanding of what Christian marriage is (which, after all, is the whole point of a Pre-Cana program).

Well that’s definitely true. But if that’s their mentality, then a class probably won’t do much either.

Hey, I’m not against more instruction, though. I am for more attention raised, for sure!

 

[rcwitness]

But if the couple are together, convert and are Baptized, choose to stay together afterwards, then the Sacrament can’t be broken by supposed impediments long before they consented after Baptism.

 

[Rau]

I’m guessing most Catholic divorces result in annulments, no? That alone puts all those in “porneia”. Or do you think most annulments are free of sin, with innocent spouses?

Are you concluding that the determination of an invalid marriage means the parties have committed the sin of fornication all these years? That would be wrong.

I think there are rare situations when there is an innocent spouse. I’m sure it happens, but it has to be very, very rare.

Are you saying both spouses are culpable for divorce? Or are you saying that after the divorce there is invariably remarriage of the one not culpable so both are as bad as each other?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

I’m guessing most Catholic divorces result in annulments, no? That alone puts all those in “porneia”. Or do you think most annulments are free of sin, with innocent spouses?

Are you concluding that the determination of an invalid marriage means the parties have committed the sin of fornication all these years? That would be wrong.

I think there are rare situations when there is an innocent spouse. I’m sure it happens, but it has to be very, very rare.

Are you saying both spouses are culpable for divorce? Or are you saying that after the divorce there is invariably remarriage of the one not culpable so both are as bad as each other?

Yes, the only reason Jesus gives for divorce, is porneia, in which they were never bound by God.

Culpability varies.

 

[Catholicos]

We probably didn’t understand even a generation ago why the Catholic Church makes such a big deal about what a marriage involves. Then same sex marriage comes along and nobody sees just how profoundly it transforms the political, secular and religious landscape.

Many churches were not prepared. They didn’t know what they allowed, what they didn’t. They couldn’t tell the secular world why their religious marriage was distinct from gay marriages. It made me realize how special marriage was in the Catholic Church, and why it being sacramental is so vital and unlike all marriages. The marriage can really only be with God by it being sacramental. Holy Mother Church always seems to get it right,

 

[rcwitness]

This isn’t true. If two Catholics get married and due to some defect in canonical form or some defect that prevented the spouses from fully consenting, their marriage is invalid. This defect may not be evident at first, and if they also register their marriage civilly, the secular government recognizes their marriage as legal. If they got an annulment later on and do not wish to remain together (which is not sinful at all because an annulment is not a “Catholic divorce” but a declaration that no valid marriage ever existed in the first place), they would also have to get a civil divorce because the government (not caring about sacramental validity) still sees them as legally married. So it is possible to have had a marriage annulment AND a civil divorce, and be free from any guilt in relation to it.
[/quote]

That’s a very legalistic mindset. It’s the priesthood of the couple that joins them Sacramentally.

Are you saying that a Catholic couple can, in good conscience, seek a proper marriage from their pastor, but the pastor make a mistake of form, unknown to them, then later desire to divorce and discover a malpractice that resulted in an invalid Sacrament?

That’s ridiculous, sorry.

 

[Pug]

long before they consented after Baptism.

Consented after baptism? I suspect I am not following you here. The consent that they had all those years ago when they had the civil marriage is the consent that made a natural marriage. When they get baptized, they don’t have to make a new consent for their marriage. The fact that they are baptized and validly married means it must perforce be a sacramental marriage. There is no ceremony required, no “blessing” of a marriage, no convalidation, nothing. Here is CIC 1055

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

 

[rcwitness]

My point, is that if they continue to live as married, it is a consent to the valid marriage. To later decide there was an impediment when they were not Christian even though they continued willingly as Christians, is a silly notion.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Sadly, most consenting adults in 2017 do not understand the implications of marriage. The divorce rate is very high. Also the annulment process is to save people from committing possible adultery. The money, not sure. I would imagine that this process creates work for the people handling it and they need to be paid surely.

 

[rcwitness]

The Church (we) need to make a huge effort in healing our wounds to this Sacrament! Why do some fight for their right to receive the Sacrament of Eucharist, while they harm the Sacrament of Matrimony?

I have harmed the Sacrament. But I am turning from that, with the aid of the Lord of the Sacraments.

 

[Pug]

I agree that a defect of consent would likely remedy itself by the time the two are Christians. I can’t claim that all impediments would remedy themselves. It seems unlikely to me that consanguinity would, but I am no expert.

 

[tradcatman]

My wife and I were married civilly. We were both in our early 30’s - no impediments, kids, divorces, both Catholic; my wife had not been confirmed because her Catholic school in Torrance changed the rules for high schoolers (under Mahoney). NO Church from Orange County to San Diego would marry us. We were married in a civil ceremony by a Presbyterian elder in Balboa Park. I threw in the towel and called our marriage valid until a local monastic told me we would die and go to Hell if we didn’t get married in the Church. The only place to marry us was a Sedevecantist Chapel another state away; which the Bishop’s office in San Diego granted a Radical Sanation. Under Amoris Laetitia; I don’t know what would have happened. Depends on the Diocese. Some would have said not to worry after the first marriage because not one bishop can now speak clearly on the matter. Some even go so far as to say that those in SSA unions are accepted to Communion - The Catholic Sacramental of Marriage is in jeopardy these days if you ask me.

 

[Gorgias]

Well that’s definitely true. But if that’s their mentality, then a class probably won’t do much either.

Hey, I’m not against more instruction, though. I am for more attention raised, for sure!

Three thoughts:

First, if they don’t really have an understanding of what Christian marriage is, we might want to discuss whether valid marriage is even possible! After all, one has to give consent in order for validity to attach. If they don’t know what it is they’re vowing, how could we say that they consent to it?

Second, if they’re poorly catechized (and I would assert that those who need their marriages convalidated are, in fact, in need of formation in the faith), then any attempt to catechize them is a good thing!

Third, it’s literally the pastor’s responsibility to properly form his flock with respect to marriage. Like as in, explicitly in canon law! So, Pre-Cana for convalidating couples really does seem like it should be the rule rather than the exception (unless the pastor does the formation himself).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We probably didn’t understand even a generation ago why the Catholic Church makes such a big deal about what a marriage involves.

Who’s this “we” you mention? I understood it just fine my whole life. The Church makes a big deal because they are trying to weed out/ prevent marriages that might end in divorce.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If your wife’s lack of confirmation was the only issue,why didn’t she just get confirmed?

 

[Catholicos]

Who’s this “we” you mention? I understood it just fine my whole life. The Church makes a big deal because they are trying to weed out/ prevent marriages that might end in divorce.

Yes I know, I think the Church has been right on all the moral issues every step of the way for decades, especially divorce/remarriage as well as contraception and abortion. The low divorce rate of practicing Catholics as compared with the rest of society pretty much shows this.