Civil marriage for Catholics who can't marry

[Pup7]

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!).

You don’t have to “reapply”. And it is indeed first come first serve - meaning if they don’t have the means by which to take you, they don’t have to take you. That is what I meant by limited. It’s the equivalent of space-available care. Once you are in, you are in.

That opened up to the general veteran population in the wake of 9/11 and the sweeping DOD and VA reforms that resulted from that.

I first learned about that in school at Duke University, which has the Durham VA Hospital literally right across the street. The instructors and professors knew I was prior enlisted military (this is before I received my commission), and I was sent to the VA for several of my clinical rotations because of it. It was a great experience.

 

[otjm]

My recollection in early 2000 was that there were 7 or 8 tiers; and I was second to last. That seemed to be no problem getting admitted and getting things moving forward quickly. It appears that once you are in, you are totally in.

 

[Pup7]

It depends on where you live, how many providers they have, how many are ahead of you, what each provider’s empanelment is…

Yes, there is tiered access. That is space-available care. In Durham, they were more limited. I know VA facilities that take no outside care and places that that’s almost all they have.

It’s space-A, and it’s dependent on a multitude of factors. The biggest one is where you live. The more percentaged vets you have receiving care at that facility, the longer the list.

 

[QwertyGirl]

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.

I think she meant she thinks the Church’s definition of marriage is cruel, since in these cases it boils down to if they are able to have sex which potentially leads to bringing children into the world. Most people who are married know marriage is so much more than that. In fact, I believe most people who are married a long time would say the sex part of their marriage isn’t in the top tiers of what matters when it comes to marriage. No proof of that. I just know a lot of people.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

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.

I think she meant she thinks the Church’s definition of marriage is cruel, since in these cases it boils down to if they are able to have sex which potentially leads to bringing children into the world. Most people who are married know marriage is so much more than that. In fact, I believe most people who are married a long time would say the sex part of their marriage isn’t in the top tiers of what matters when it comes to marriage. No proof of that. I just know a lot of people.

It is not merely “the Church’s definition of marriage” it is instead, marriage by its very nature.

Absent the marital act, there exists no indissoluble union of the 2 spouses.

That’s quite different from saying that it must be (to use your words) “in the top tiers.” It isn’t about the partners’ priorities. It’s about whether the marriage even exists.

Of course marriage is “more than that.” No one, not me, not the Church, disputes that. Neither is anyone claiming the contrary. However, to characterize the necessary prerequisite that both partners be capable of the marital act as being anywhere near saying that it must be their only priority is to misrepresent what the Church is saying. Indeed, the Church is very clear in teaching that the “unitive end” of marriage (ie the shared life of the couple) is equally as important as the “procreative end.”

 

[QwertyGirl]

Understood. I guess what some of us don’t understand is why the Church doesn’t understand that a marital bond is possible on a spiritual level only.

 

[Arkansan]

Why is a square not possible with only three sides?

 

[QwertyGirl]

I guess this is why it is good that different organizations have different understandings of what marriage is. Geometry, it is not.

 

[Crusaderbear]

The needs for human companionship go beyond procreation…

 

[FrDavid96]

Understood. I guess what some of us don’t understand is why the Church doesn’t understand that a marital bond is possible on a spiritual level only.

No.

The Church does understand the meaning of marriage.

 

[Tatum]

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.

I have close relationships with many priest I went through Seminary with as a young man.
I can assure you that my way (Australasia) the Church does not explicitly ask these sorts of questions unless other red flags are showing.

Despite FrDavid’s views Canon Law is not being injured by this approach.
Modern technology makes it likely that there are extremely few cases, if any, where some intervention or prosthetic could not cast doubt on claims of perpetual inability. If it cannot be proven beyond doubt (and even the couple themselves may not be in a position to confirm certainty of inability) then it is reason enough not to go there.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have close relationships with many priest I went through Seminary with as a young man.
I can assure you that my way (Australasia) the Church does not explicitly ask these sorts of questions unless other red flags are showing.

Despite FrDavid’s views Canon Law is not being injured by this approach.
Modern technology makes it likely that there are extremely few cases, if any, where some intervention or prosthetic could not cast doubt on claims of perpetual inability. If it cannot be proven beyond doubt (and even the couple themselves may not be in a position to confirm certainty of inability) then it is reason enough not to go there.

I remember when it was popular to have television commercials where the actor would start off by saying:

“I’m not a real doctor, but I play one on TV…”

 

[TheLittleLady]

Simple, Jesus told her “go and sin no more”.

 

[Pup7]

I have close relationships with many priest I went through Seminary with as a young man.
I can assure you that my way (Australasia) the Church does not explicitly ask these sorts of questions unless other red flags are showing.

Despite FrDavid’s views Canon Law is not being injured by this approach.
Modern technology makes it likely that there are extremely few cases, if any, where some intervention or prosthetic could not cast doubt on claims of perpetual inability. If it cannot be proven beyond doubt (and even the couple themselves may not be in a position to confirm certainty of inability) then it is reason enough not to go there.

However, that’s not the Church’s definition of marriage, though, and not its teaching, even though at many levels I agree with you.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Those inquiries are part of the “freedom to marry” process in US Dioceses. Not sure how it is done in other countries.

Thanks to modern medicine, permanent complete impotence is less common than it used to be.

 

[TheLittleLady]

since in these cases it boils down to if they are able to have sex which potentially leads to bringing children into the world.

Sterility is not an impediment to marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Despite FrDavid’s views Canon Law is not being injured by this approach.
…

As I stated earlier: It is the pastor’s responsibility to ensure that any couple who approaches him for marriage is canonically eligible to marry (and that includes being capable of entering into a valid marriage).

As I likewise stated earlier: exactly how this is done will vary geographically and according to the specific issue.

Any pastor who fails to perform his due diligence in this regard is negligent in his pastoral responsibilities.

All of the above applies to the United States, Australia, and everywhere in the world.

 

[Tatum]

That’s not an objective response an objective issue.

Priests in Australasia do NOT customarily explicitly ask the question.
Nor do the enquiry forms.

You may personally believe Canon law is injured by this approach.
Yet the Archbishops and bishops (and a good number of their priests) there do not it seems.

Unless you can quote something Magisterial (other than simply the Canon itself) I think the view of the Australian hierarchy is preferable to your own.

I understand you believe they are somehow mistaken in their understanding/application of Canon Law (rather than yourself) and somehow negligent.

Its fairly clearly a prudential judgement as to what constitutes “due diligence” and Canon Law does not demand what you assert as the only correct application of the Law.

 

[MountCarmel]

Tatum - I would have thought that Germany would have a similar marriage arrangement to the one we have here in England and Wales, that Catholic priests can be licenced to perform the civil ‘wedding’ simultaneously with the religious one. -That in the case of priests [usually among the younger ones] who are not secularly licenced, that a licenced secular representative may be present at the religious nuptials. When my wife and I married {Nuptial Mass] there was a secular representative there. Of the two priests present, one was fresh out of the seminary, and the other priest being an Italian national {actually also the local Italian Consul].

 

[Tatum]

A little off topic I think MC or perhaps I do not understand correctly.

In any case I believe Germany is quite different from Commonwealth countries.
I do not believe that it is easy to do what you suggest in Germany.
The vast majority of couples still get a registry wedding followed by the “real one” at Church some weeks later from my enquiries.

I presume you were you married in Germany by the sound of it.
Was it recently - I believe the law changed in recent times and maybe you took advantage of that?