Civil marriage for Catholics who can't marry

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree, and I don’t think that civil marriage is somehow completely worthless in all cases.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
78% of those baptized as Catholics have turned their back on the faith.
Click to expand...
From which study do you quote this statistic?
Click to expand...
Extrapolation from Pew Research data.

Edited to say: “turn back on faith” Those who have left for another faith (or non-faith option) plus those who don’t attend Mass weekly. Based on figures cited as to weekly mass attendance compiled by diocese/USCCB.
 
Last edited:
BIG source, can you direct me a little bit to which studies you used from PEW?
 
PEW figures on total number of U.S. Catholics in 2010. With figure of 22,000,000 million attending mass in last survey divided by the number of Catholics in 2010, 75,380,000 gives 29%. In the last eight years the percentage of non-affiliated, agnostic, and atheist has risen by approximately 5%, and I believe the Catholic population has decreased by about 4 to 6%. The 78% figure is something I remember reading in a publication, (I believe it was a recent edition of First Things). If the percentage is off a bit, oh well. But the figure is well above 60/70%.
 
Last edited:
What if 2 elderly people 70"s or 80’s want to marry for companionship , both have already raised their families and lost their spouses , would not be able to marry ? I realize you are supposed to procreate but their times have passed! The Church would not marry them?
 
So I am a bit surprised about some of the responses. I understand the part about the church not being able to marry them, makes sense no problem there.

However saying that it would be immoral for them to receive a civil union seems a bit off to me. If they live together and function in a family environment I see no moral reason they could not civil union for legal reasons. (Ex: for property rights and such). They cannot commit fornication and would be living together at least physically as brother and sister. The church does not condemn kissing before marriage so that’s not an issue. I see no moral reason why they could not gain a civil union in the eyes of the state. It is not to defraud the state as they are living together as a united couple in every way that they could.
 
One might well not presume that the couple would be turned away from marriage in the Catholic Church. What is envisioned Canonically is not always congruent with actual pastoral practice. Indeed.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
I do not disagree, Father. What of circumstances where the intent isn’t necessarily marriage but to establish a next of kin relationship? Or perhaps enter into a joint guardian role of the dependent children of another (a widow, perhaps, maybe one who herself is also impotent due to some later accident)?

Is that trying to imitate marriage, necessarily, if they went into it with non-sexual affection for each other and know that no sexual actions of any type should be untertaken and they maintain separate bedrooms? What if the state allowed such all inclusive contracts but distinguished it from marriage? It seems like a gray area for discernment, assuming the partners in the contract all properly understood and agreed with the Church that they are not married and can’t be married.
Click to expand...
Such situations would NOT be a problem, but with the qualification that other conditions would have to apply.

For example, allowing 2 graduate students who just happen to be sharing an apartment to be considered a “family-like unit” for legal purposes would not pose a problem as far as moral or sacramental theology is concerned. That’s just an obvious example.

It only becomes a problem when such situations are called “marriages” or are treated as being the equivalent of a marriage.
 
Any attempt at invalid marriage is always morally wrong. Nothing changes that.
Click to expand...
FrD I was seeking a Magisterial source for this view.
Have you been unable to find one yet?

The reason I ask is because I think it is always risky to make universals like this even if true in most cases.

One might attempt to say the same about a Civil Divorce (which purports to make one free to remarry) yet we know there are exceptional circumstances which do allow this.

For example, in Germany, due to State opposition, couples must first be Civilly Married by the State before they can have a Church Wedding. Usually there is a significant time lapse between the two events ranging from weeks to months.
 
Last edited:
Tatum said:
Any attempt at invalid marriage is always morally wrong. Nothing changes that.
Click to expand...
I don’t need to provide a “magisterial source.”

Any attempt at an invalid marriage is morally wrong.

That’s hardly something I need to prove, so I’m not going to waste time listing the thousands of ways that I could prove it if needed to be done.

When people in Europe get a civil marriage certificate in preparation for being married in the Church, they are not “attempting an invalid marriage” but are merely following the procedure defined by the state and Church. If they marry in a civil-only ceremony without intending a church marriage, then they are attempting marriage invalidly.
Click to expand...
 
I have never found it helpful myself to assert universals in this way.
I mean those which, when applied to concrete reality, no longer seem to be the helpful universal’s they started out being. They turn out to be little more than semantic tautologies.

Its a bit like saying all killing of the innocent is morally wrong.
If by “innocent” we simply mean “somebody who does not deserve to be killed” what have we learnt?

Your response re the German situation is more helpful than this universal. But then it also means the universal is not actually a universal afterall because the universal is perhaps poorly worded and in fact intention to later marry is not included in the universal.

Surely the word “attempt” then is not quite right. “Attempt” (as in electio) seems more about matters of external observation/compliance than immorality. Later intent is irrelevant.

Therefore the obtaining of a civil marriage by a Catholic couple is in itself already the complete fulfilment of the universal statement above. It makes no difference if they allegedly intend to marry 1 week, one year or 10 years later. They have attempted an invalid marriage full stop.

Perhaps it would have been better to replace the word “attempt” with “directly intend”.
“Any direct intent to procure an invalid marriage is morally wrong”

Its a bit like killing I suppose. “Thou shall not kill” does not mean attempting to kill another is morally wrong (it may be necessary in self defence).
What is morally wrong is directly intending to kill - even in self defence.
 
Last edited:
Tatum said:
I have never found it helpful myself to assert universals in this way.
I mean those which, when applied to concrete reality, no longer seem to be the helpful universal’s they started out being. They turn out to be little more than semantic tautologies.

Its a bit like saying all killing of the innocent is morally wrong.
If by “innocent” we simply mean “somebody who does not deserve to be killed” what have we learnt?

Your response re the German situation is more helpful than this universal. But then it also means the universal is not actually a universal afterall because the universal is perhaps poorly worded and in fact intention to later marry is not included in the universal.

Surely the word “attempt” then is not quite right. “Attempt” (as in electio) seems more about matters of external observation/compliance than immorality. Later intent is irrelevant.

Therefore the obtaining of a civil marriage by a Catholic couple is in itself already the complete fulfilment of the universal statement above. It makes no difference if they allegedly intend to marry 1 week, one year or 10 years later. They have attempted an invalid marriage full stop.

Perhaps it would have been better to replace the word “attempt” with “directly intend”.
“Any direct intent to procure an invalid marriage is morally wrong”

Its a bit like killing I suppose. “Thou shall not kill” does not mean attempting to kill another is morally wrong (it may be necessary in self defence).
What is morally wrong is directly intending to kill - even in self defence.
Click to expand...
It is called at “attempt-at marriage” because if it is not-valid, then it is likewise not-a-marriage.

This is the accepted vocabulary in English when discussing marriage issues (or other sacraments).

There is no such thing (for example) as an invalid Eucharist. If it’s not valid, then it’s not the Eucharist. Therefore we call it an “attempt at.”

No one can enter into an invalid marriage. Because if it’s not valid, then it’s not a marriage. In order to be clear about that point, we say that someone (or a couple) “attempts” an invalid marriage.
 
The Church can’t follow the false mercy of the world but must obey Christ.

The Church will never allow those reforms it’s impossible
 
Last edited:
Crusader30 said:
The Church can’t follow the false mercy of the world but must obey Christ.

The Church will never allow those reforms it’s impossible
Click to expand...
Crusader, you bring up a valid and logical point. I then would ask, why did Jesus save the adulteress from the just punishment of the Mosaic law? Answer, we don’t know. Was Jesus “wrong” in contravening the law? Was it a “false mercy?” I certainly would never claim that. But Jesus did find it merciful and in his perfect sense of justice, right.
I don’t argue for the church to bail on its principles and just cave in to the “false mercy of the world.” (I like that term). I just argue for those in the church who would find mercy and apply it to those who are in circumstances that are “irregular” in the words of our current Holy Father.
 
That is a dangerous assumption to make.

Our Lord would never allow so called “irregular unions or marrages” in the Church since they are by nature adultery and sinful.

St. Pope John Paul II was very clear about this and just because Pope Francis thinks we should do it. Doesn’t mean that we should abandon Our Catholic Faith and Morals.

It is apart of Church Law No Communion for the divorced and remarried without an Annualment.

Nothing will change it and please don’t accuse me of being harsh with Pope Francis.
 
Crusader30 said:
That is a dangerous assumption to make.

Our Lord would never allow so called “irregular unions or marrages” in the Church since they are by nature adultery and sinful.

St. Pope John Paul II was very clear about this and just because Pope Francis thinks we should do it. Doesn’t mean that we should abandon Our Catholic Faith and Morals.

It is apart of Church Law No Communion for the divorced and remarried without an Annualment.

Nothing will change it and please don’t accuse me of being harsh with Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
“It is a part of Church Law…” Yes, and Church Law, if not an Infallible Teaching from the Chair of Peter or Unanimous Council Proclamation can be changed and altered. No where in Scripture do I find any words where Christ himself taught who could “eat His flesh, and drink His blood.” Christ didn’t put limits on his mercy or His gift.

And Crusader, I appreciate your faith and your zeal. I did not accuse you of being harsh with the Holy Father. I don’t see my words in that manner and am sorry you took it that way. I simply said I argue for (support) those who would find mercy…
Shalom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top