Civil marriage for Catholics who can't marry

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
With respect FrDavid96 the pastoral issue at hand is whether couples must confirm that beforehand.
And so they must. As I said earlier:
Yes, it is universal that both potential spouses must be capable of the marital act in order to enter into a valid marriage. That’s a fact. It is universal.
You have previously opined this is universally required in all dioceses around the world.
Wrong!

I did not “opine” I stated a FACT.
In fact this is not explicitly practised (though the opportunity is there if other red flags are evident) - and intentionally so I suggest.
Nonsense.

Your ignorance of a fact does not make it untrue.

No country or diocese is exempt. In fact, it is not even possible to dispense from this requirement.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
 
Ok, its Cannon Law. Cannon Law could in theory be changed because it is not a doctrine or dogma, correct? Or am I wrong on that also, haha
Only matters of discipline can be changed. What marriage is about is doctrine and yes Canon Law contains doctrine, such as the one I quoted to you.
 
Ok, thanks Thistle. Guess i did not realise Cannon law is the same as doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Ok thanks Father, learned something new today. I did not realize Cannon Law was the same as doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Father, I agree you should always be honest, especially in a serious situation like this. Maybe bummer was the wrong word to use. What I was trying to say was that i feel bad for someone who in the original example got injured serving his country and now can’t marry the person he loves. I understand it is Church teaching/Cannon law and I accept that. I understand the reason why, the fruit of marriage is children. I don’t believe in condoms or birth control because of that.
However, I don’t think it is wrong to feel bad for that person though. I will try and use a better choice of words next time ☺️

P.S.
I do a bit of amateur apologetics, I say amateur because I am sure there are a lot of people on here, you included father, that are a lot smarter than me on this kind of stuff, lol ☺️ I read a lot of books and phamlets by Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating, books from Catholic Answers and San Jaun Catholic Seminars and others on apologetics and church history to improve my knowledge, but I still get stuff wrong at times and have to seek answers from others. I’ve only defended about our faith to family members and friends that question the Catholic Church and if I am not sure I tell them I will try and find the answer for them. No one ever asked me marriage question like this one, lol. Usually it is the typical Mary, Saints, Eucharist, bad popes and Peter as head of church/first pope type questions. I try to never shy away about teaching the truth, i may try to find a to do it woth love and respect but with honesty.

I recently learned something new today and I thank you father and everyone else that corrected my ignorance on this matter 😉
 
Last edited:
FrDavid,
In your experience, are priests during the pre-Cana preparation, explicitly clear to couples as to what is expected of them sexually to be sure that they can get married?

The reason I ask this is due to the questionnaire that Phemie posted. It’s quite vague and I can see a couple, left to their own understanding, may not get what what is being sexually asked of them?

Thank you for your insight.
 
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.
Does the procedure in most European countries require or even expect the civil ceremony to be followed by a church marriage? In France, for example, the state does not require a church marriage for the civil ceremony to be valid.
 
Does the procedure in most European countries require or even expect the civil ceremony to be followed by a church marriage? In France, for example, the state does not require a church marriage for the civil ceremony to be valid.
No, the civil authorities do not concern themselves with a religious wedding. They only require the civil ceremony.

The Church, OTOH, doesn’t consider the marriage valid until the Church wedding takes place, unless one of the parties was not Catholic and they had a dispensation for a civil marriage only.
 
It would be an invalid marriage whether civil or sacramental. So, it would be illegal.

Living together is fine under Church teaching as long as there is no sex (aka… cohabitation).
 
Yes, but living together won’t guarantee any rights such as inheritance, health benefits, etc. I just don’t see why such a couple (the subject of this thread) can’t get married civilly, not have sex (because they can’t anyway), all along even realizing that it isn’t a valid marriage since it’s merely civil. In their eyes, they are merely exercising “friendship with certain rights.”
 
Agree. Some sort of at least civil union.,legally, to help protect rights like inheritance, medical, etc etc.

Its very problematic otherwise
 
It’s cruel and marginalizing.
And I still want to know if, during the pre-Cana sessions, it is made explicitly clear to them what is expected of them when it comes to sex.

I want to know if there are priests out there who spell it out, clearly.
 
There is coverage for Vets who are not disabled.
It is on a first come, first serve basis, and it is not the same type of coverage. It doesn’t cover everything, and it’s not all encompassing. It’s very limited.
 
Last edited:
A protestant church will bless your marriage and it would be valid in this situation in a protestant church. Catholics are the only ones with a consummation validity rule. Episcopalians might have a consummation rule too not quite sure though.
 
Last edited:

In your experience, are priests during the pre-Cana preparation, explicitly clear …
Yes. Of course, we are.
The reason I ask this is …
Fair enough. That might need some explaining.

In the U.S. we have standard pre-marriage forms. These will vary by diocese, but they are all essentially the same. A question might be #12 for one diocese and #27 for another. The exact details vary, but the important questions are all asked. If I understand correctly, the same happens in Canada. I don’t know how these questions are posed to the couple in other cultures, especially ones with lower literacy rates. Maybe in some places, it’s all verbal, for all I know.

What I do know, and what I can say with absolute certainty is that it is always-and-everywhere the pastor’s responsibility to conduct a pre-marriage investigation into the status of both parties. He must perform his due diligence. Anything less that that is plain negligence. It is his responsibility to know, for example, if the man has another wife in some other city. He must ask. He must follow whatever procedures and practices are appropriate for the culture and the specific issue to know that both parties are eligible to enter into marriage before he officiates at the ceremony. Now, there are several different ways that can make one or both of the parties ineligible to marry. He must make every reasonable effort to know whether or not any impediments to marry might apply.

In the U.S. we do that by completing forms. Some questions (what is your current address?) don’t require explanation. Some do require explanation. It’s the pastor’s responsibility (even if he delegates the actual preparation to someone else) to make sure that the couple understands the questions. In most circumstances (where some explanation is needed), simply explaining the question suffices. If someone asks “what’s this word ‘conjugicide’ mean?” a simple “did you ever murder your wife?” is enough. Future-groom checks “no” and moves on to the next question.

Moving more directly to the topic at hand: when this question is asked, something like “are you capable of engaging in the marital act?” someone might not catch the meaning at first. A simple and polite explanation then follows.

Remember that the priest doesn’t just hand the couple some forms and tell them to complete them then return them to the office the next day. The pastor himself, or someone who is trained and qualified, walks the couple through the process. That’s essential to know. The couple is not at all “left to their own understanding” as you asked in your question. If that were the case, we would either be getting a lot of wrong answers, or we would have to completely change the forms to include rather lengthy and cumbersome explanations.

So don’t worry about that. We don’t just tell the couple to fill-out some forms. The forms are just one step in the process and a qualified person, whose very job is to provide explanation, is always part of that process.
 
I don’t think we were ever asked if we were able to consummate our marriage - but then Hubby had been married before (marriage was declared invalid) and he had a daughter from that marriage. The primary reason they married was because of their pregnancy with her which was not a planned pregnancy. Father knew this.
 
40.png
FrDavid96:
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.
Does the procedure in most European countries require or even expect the civil ceremony to be followed by a church marriage? In France, for example, the state does not require a church marriage for the civil ceremony to be valid.
Yes.

However, that procedure of obtaining a civil license before being married in a church ceremony does not constitute an “attempt at invalid marriage” (the words I used when I first answered the question). It’s merely the way things are done in Europe.

This is like me saying “it’s illegal to steal money from a bank” and then someone else responds “you’re wrong because it’s not illegal if you fill out a withdrawal slip and take the money out of your own account.” Well, no kidding.

I say “it’s wrong to attempt invalid marriage”
Someone else responds with an example that does not apply to what I said, then tries to say that I’m wrong for saying it. What can I say?
 
It’s cruel and marginalizing.
No. It is not.

If a couple cannot actually get married, then the Church will not conduct a marriage ceremony.

No marriage = no marriage ceremony.

What you want is for the church to conduct a ceremony pretending to marry people, knowing that they will never actually be married. Now that would be cruel indeed.
 
They have dealt with me three times for cancer, so I am not finding it as limited as you seem to think. It may be 1st come, 1st serve; I have no idea if that is so, and if so, what that actually means, but they certainly have not suggested that I need to reapply each time we have a go-around. I have a regular physician as well as a specialist; they also give me eye exams (although that is with an optometrist; my original opthamologist from 60+ years ago is probably spinning in his grace!).

Then, again, the Portland, Oregon VA seems to be one of the better ones around, from stories I have heard elsewhere. some of that may be due to being literally next door to OHSU - I have seen plenty of Residents, as well as some senior physicians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top