Confused

[AnneElizabeth]

Wow, I’m surprised you have such a low view of non-Catholic Christians.

I’m quite sure the OP did not mean it in that way. The church itself teaches against such types of weddings. I think the author was using dramatics to make his point. Not trying to insult anyone…he said as such in his post.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

You’re conflating a couple of things. Any marriage where there are no impediments with consent is a valid marriage. It is not automatically a sacrament. The Church recognizes a distinction. Two people married in a Baptist church, for instance, may or may not have a sacramental marriage while they do (presumably) have a valid marriage. Note that the ministers are the couple themselves, even in a Catholic marriage rite, and the status of the officiant is irrelevant. The determination of sacramental status is dependent upon baptism of both parties, which makes one a member of the Church (Catholic), even if not in full communion or an imperfect state of membership, so to speak. Thus, why would there be a problem with two non-Catholics getting married and having the Church apply her laws to it in the very same way she applies those laws to her own children?

This is a really helpful post.

My question still remains how do we know What GOD puts together"? Two people agreeing to marriage is GOD putting them together? What if God doesn’t want them together and they have a ceremony anyway…that’s valid? …that’s my question though, not the OPs. I started a thread a long time ago but it got nowhere and I don’t want to hijack this one. Just goes along with the confusion. It makes no sense because the onus is put on the couple to know, but the church turns around and says only they can know for sure if it was a real marriage or not!!!

 

[tee_eff_em]

I don’t disagree with anything you said. My problem is the justice of the attitude that just because two people say I do, means proper and informed consent. (Okay, I know you are going to cite the probability of a decree of nullity in this case, but that isn’t my concern.)

Of course. By Canon 1060 marriage possesses the favor of the law. Would you have it some other way?

My question isn’t aimed at spiritually mature people who recognize the Creator’s intent. It is with those who entered (willingly) into marriages that were doomed to fail, that cannot be annulled because the annulment process cannot always exact the truth due to the anything from the animosity of former spouses who hate the church, to lack of witnesses or defective memories. And I’ve seen too many good people leave the RCC because of just this situation, including two good priests.

Shalom

I expect very few people willingly enter into marriages that are doomed to fail – Why would you? I’m not even sure what a marriage doomed to fail is? I have seen too many associates whose marriages failed when one party *decided *to end conjugal life, rather than maintain it. :twocents:

tee
Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[joeybaggz]

Of course. By Canon 1060 marriage possesses the favor of the law. Would you have it some other way?

I expect very few people willingly enter into marriages that are doomed to fail – Why would you? I’m not even sure what a marriage doomed to fail is? I have seen too many associates whose marriages failed when one party *decided *to end conjugal life, rather than maintain it. :twocents:

tee
Not A Canon Lawyer

A bit of clarity on my point. We believe that God knows the secret of the heart. My “doomed to fail” reference was from the perspective of God’s viewpoint. Not man’s.

How many marriages occur between people who are young and “in love with love” not necessarily with their spouse in a mature sense? This is what I refer to as “doomed to fail” The Almighty knows that from the outset. The parties then divorce after a few years and over time, one or the other matures and remarries, now understanding the true nature of marriage. Kids are born, and this is what Francis is considering an irregular marriage. The parties want to return to the faith and bring up their children in a stable, faith filled environment. * An annulment however is not forthcoming because of conditions I’ve previously cited*. It is this situation that I am questioning. Is the statement of the words “I do” in the first marriage mean they are validly married in the eyes of God?? Unfortunately we cannot ask Him.

Guess I’m advocating for the church to act in accordance with the mercy Christ endowed his Bridegroom with. Not a blind obedience with “the rules.”

Shalom

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Okay. so what is consent? Is it the simple recitation of the two words, “I do” C’mon, when is the last time you’ve been to a wedding ceremony and heard one of the parties say, “No, I don’t,” or something like that?

They paid for a license, signed documents and went through a usually public ceremony that becomes part of public record. Generally those things are evidence of consent, unless there is also evidence someone didn’t know what they were doing or were coerced.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t disagree with anything you said. My problem is the justice of the attitude that just because two people say I do, means proper and informed consent. (Okay, I know you are going to cite the probability of a decree of nullity in this case, but that isn’t my concern.)

My question isn’t aimed at spiritually mature people who recognize the Creator’s intent. It is with those who entered (willingly) into marriages that were doomed to fail, that cannot be annulled because the annulment process cannot always exact the truth due to the anything from the animosity of former spouses who hate the church, to lack of witnesses or defective memories. And I’ve seen too many good people leave the RCC because of just this situation, including two good priests.

Shalom

I agree with the points you are making. I also find it confusing.

 

[7_Sorrows]

A bit of clarity on my point. We believe that God knows the secret of the heart. My “doomed to fail” reference was from the perspective of God’s viewpoint. Not man’s.

How many marriages occur between people who are young and “in love with love” not necessarily with their spouse in a mature sense? This is what I refer to as “doomed to fail” The Almighty knows that from the outset. The parties then divorce after a few years and over time, one or the other matures and remarries, now understanding the true nature of marriage. Kids are born, and this is what Francis is considering an irregular marriage. The parties want to return to the faith and bring up their children in a stable, faith filled environment. * An annulment however is not forthcoming because of conditions I’ve previously cited*. It is this situation that I am questioning. Is the statement of the words “I do” in the first marriage mean they are validly married in the eyes of God?? Unfortunately we cannot ask Him.

Guess I’m advocating for the church to act in accordance with the mercy Christ endowed his Bridegroom with. Not a blind obedience with “the rules.”

Shalom

yes, mercy.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

The validity of any sacrament is dependent upon intent to some degree or another. Anyone can baptize if they use water, pronounce the Trinitarian formula, and “intend to do what the Church does”. The Eucharist is consecrated when we have the appropriate matter, form, and intent of the priest. How do we know the priest’s intentions? We trust. How do we know what God has joined? We trust. Also, we remember He empowered the Church to adjudicate any questions that arise.

Excellent question, now that I’ve had time to think about it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How many marriages occur between people who are young and “in love with love” not necessarily with their spouse in a mature sense? This is what I refer to as “doomed to fail”

I’m willing to bet that a percentage of these people actually do grow over time and learn to love their spouses in a “mature” sense. We don’t tend to hear about the ones who stay married because they just quietly go about their business.

The alternative perhaps would be to do what I did which was wait 10 years to marry the man I’m still married to, until I was sure I was mature enough to handle marriage. Based on discussion in another thread on marriage, many posters here would have a problem with that approach because I was shortening my available childbearing years and creating a big risk of fornication. You just can’t win

 

[dans0622]

… Is the statement of the words “I do” in the first marriage mean they are validly married in the eyes of God?? Unfortunately we cannot ask Him.

Guess I’m advocating for the church to act in accordance with the mercy Christ endowed his Bridegroom with. Not a blind obedience with “the rules.” …

Hello,

What more would you want those people, in their “first marriage”, to do, other than say “I do”? Actually, not what would you “want” but what would you have the Church *require *them to do? Looks a little like you would be implementing your own new set of “rules.”

There’s no need to accuse anyone of having “blind obedience” to “the rules.” For the sake of societal stability, a stability which has its foundation in the stability of marriage and family, the Church has the presumption of validity that has been mentioned already in this thread.

Also, I don’t see much “mercy” in a functional presumption of invalidity for vast numbers of marriages among non-Catholics, even fellow Christians. Having seen several hundred, probably nearing 1000, annulment cases involving non-Catholics, I can assure you that even those non-Catholics who have a failed marriage almost never enter into it with obvious defects in their understanding of the basic nature of marriage or their intentions concerning the essential rights and obligations of marriage.

The percentage of people with those kinds of defects, at least among the many cases I’ve seen, is in the low, single digits.

Dan

 

[Phemie]

Same here.

Seems like forever I’ve been trying to find the answer to what is meant by “what God joins together…”. It says what GOD joins, not two people, or a pastor, or a priest. How do we know what God joined together? A ceremony? A piece of paper? A simple promise? An oath? Seems like there’s got to be something …I dunno… something to show for it, something occurring, other than everyday lust or friendly compatibility love.

I feel like I’m being taught sham marriages are something God put together and can’t be broken. Your marriage can’t be real if you don’t know God or want to follow Him.** A simple agreement for financial reasons, but allowing infidelity on the side, can’t be “what God put together”. **Why would GOD JOIN two together in immorality? (Unless sincerely confessed…even at that…where’s the real bond?)

The example you gave of the infidelity would invalidate the marriage from the start. It would be lacking one of the essentials of marriage, the intent to be faithful. But no one knows that but God and the couple. If they divorced and petitioned for a decree of nullity that agreement would certainly give the Tribunal evidence to declare the marriage invalid.

To make a valid marriage you simply need to be free to marry, come to it freely, intend to be faithful, to accept children, and that the marriage will be until the death of one of the partners. That’s all you need. Two non-Catholic Christians or even two non-baptized are perfectly able to intend all these things.

Even two Latin Rite Catholics marry validly simply by exchanging vows in front of two witnesses if no deacon/priest/bishop or bishop’s lay delegate will be available for an extended period (canon law says 30 days). No church or anything else required. It’s not the norm, of course, but it goes to show that it’s the exchange of consent that creates the valid marriage. The subsequent consummation makes it indissoluble.

A Catholic can also get a dispensation to marry in a non-Catholic church or even at the courthouse under certain conditions if marrying a non-Catholic.

 

[otjm]

(Two non-Catholics have no obligation to have their pending marriage approved by the Catholic Church, and it would be hugely unfair — not to mention, an ecumenical disaster — if the Catholic Church were to say that such a marriage “does not count” in the church’s eyes.)

The above was stated in a Diocesan publication in response to a question about the validity of a marriage.

I’m not looking to argue but the premise of “hurting the feelings” of other denominations seems a questionable logic to me.

The RCC considers marriage a sacrament, an institution created and validated by Christ. Many, if not most in practice, protestant denominations consider marriage nothing more than an ordinance, something that can be dissolved by man at his will. Why is the marriage between two persons who have no belief in marriage as a sacrament; that the words “what God has joined together, no man may divide” are simply something superfluous and antiquated, valid in the eyes of the church?. In my diocese and others in which I have lived, no Catholic can be married by the Church in anything but a RCC building/sanctuary. Two protestants getting married in a gazebo overlook Lake Whatcamacallit by a “preacher” who has his “degree” from preachersareus.com is the equivalen??? And the tradcats agree? I’m stumped; are you telling me that the simple recitation of the words, “what God has joined together, no man may divide” makes it a valid marriage?

Shalom

For starters, the priest who wrote the article did not use the words “hurt feelings”. what he said goes far deeper than that.

In addition, you are taking a borderline libelous approach to your broad sweep as to what other Protestant churches, and their members believe about marriage.

Part of the ecumenical dialogue with Protestant churches revolves around what sacraments mean and what they do. As the priest pointed out in his article, “(the) first marriage was presumed by the church (he means the Catholic Church) to have been valid, and a formal annulment process would be required…”

The Church, for longer than I care to remember, has held that if 2 baptized non-Catholics marry, that is a sacramental marriage. It is not a matter of "hard feelings’; it is a matter of reality. And it would be unfair, to both the husband in the article (non-Catholic) and the wife (Catholic, and now in an irregular marriage) to pretend otherwise. As the wife noted; she had spoken with two priests, and one of them had told her that she could get married in the Catholic Church “since my husband’s prior marriage was not in the Catholic Church”.

The priest writing the article was charitable in not taking one of his fellow priests to task for such extremely wrong-headed advice.

Most Protestants don’t have much of, if any clue as to why we have a tribunal and why we look into the possibility that the first marriage was invalid.

I have met any number of Protestants who believe that what Christ said about marriage is God’s gospel truth. Many of them take the Gospels directly to heart and try to live out their understanding of what Christ calls them to, including fidelity and permanence of marriage, your overbroad comments to the contrary.

And the purpose of the tribunal is to determine what the individual in the article believes or doesn’t believe about marriage, including but not limited to its permanence. Rather than presuming that the husband didn’t mean the first marriage, the Church starts at the same place as if he were Catholic, and presumes the marriage was valid. And many Protestants hold the same view.

 

[otjm]

By the way, the priest writes a regular column on questions people ask about the faith, and his column is picked up by a number of diocesan newspapers. Because of space, his answers of necessity need to be brief.

 

[e_c]

Hi Joey,

The Church actually does have the right to oversee marriages between the baptized (the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony), but She dispenses with it.

Further, any presumed marriage lacking in one of its essential elements is invalid, even though it has the favor of law.

-e_c

 

[Vico]

A bit of clarity on my point. We believe that God knows the secret of the heart. My “doomed to fail” reference was from the perspective of God’s viewpoint. Not man’s.

How many marriages occur between people who are young and “in love with love” not necessarily with their spouse in a mature sense? This is what I refer to as “doomed to fail” The Almighty knows that from the outset. The parties then divorce after a few years and over time, one or the other matures and remarries, now understanding the true nature of marriage. Kids are born, and this is what Francis is considering an irregular marriage. The parties want to return to the faith and bring up their children in a stable, faith filled environment. * An annulment however is not forthcoming because of conditions I’ve previously cited*. It is this situation that I am questioning. Is the statement of the words “I do” in the first marriage mean they are validly married in the eyes of God?? Unfortunately we cannot ask Him.

Guess I’m advocating for the church to act in accordance with the mercy Christ endowed his Bridegroom with. Not a blind obedience with “the rules.”

Shalom

The Church is not blindly obeying the rules and is why there is a tribunal that will exercise discernment. So if there were to be established a rule that when one of a married couple decides for themselves that the marriage was invalid that it may end, then the new order would become blind obedience with “the rules”. It could be blind because it would be the opinion of only one person.

 

[Gorgias]

Is the statement of the words “I do” in the first marriage mean they are validly married in the eyes of God?? Unfortunately we cannot ask Him.

Fortunately, we don’t have to.

We know they’re married validly if they consent and if there are no impediments and if they follow the form for matrimony required by their church.

In the Catholic Church, the couple sits down with a priest (or deacon), who interviews them. They swear an affidavit, as it were, to tell the truth. Then, the priest or deacon literally asks them the questions we’re discussing here. “Do you intend to enter into a permanent marriage?” “Do you intend fidelity?” “Will you accept children in the marriage?” …and so forth.

Guess I’m advocating for the church to act in accordance with the mercy Christ endowed his Bridegroom with. Not a blind obedience with “the rules.”

I guess I’m left wondering what’s merciful about not taking an adult at their word when they make a vow…

 

[e_c]

I guess I’m left wondering what’s merciful about not taking an adult at their word when they make a vow…

Indeed… And lawlessness is quite unmerciful, is it not?

 

[joeybaggz]

I guess I’m left wondering what’s merciful about not taking an adult at their word when they make a vow…

Nothing. It’s five years later when it is apparent that the vow-taker had no clear understanding of the nature and meaning of the vow, and the other parties life is wrecked by that inability. And no - there is no clear evidence that can be ascertained by a tribunal.

 

[otjm]

Nothing. It’s five years later when it is apparent that the vow-taker had no clear understanding of the nature and meaning of the vow, and the other parties life is wrecked by that inability. And no - there is no clear evidence that can be ascertained by a tribunal.

Maybe, just maybe, the “other party” should have figured this out before the marriage?

And why is there no clear evidence?

 

[Vico]

Nothing. It’s five years later when it is apparent that the vow-taker had no clear understanding of the nature and meaning of the vow, and the other parties life is wrecked by that inability. And no - there is no clear evidence that can be ascertained by a tribunal.

Which? Inability to understand, or lack of understanding?