Culpability in possibly invalid marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter constantconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

constantconvert

Guest
For the sacrament of marriage to be validly conferred, both the bride and groom must be capable of giving valid consent to fidelity, fruitfulness, and lifelong commitment.

Let’s say Mary and Joe get married. Then Joe begins to practice his faith, he learns that none of the conditions for a valid marriage were present when they got married. Mary didn’t want to get married, was having an affair at the time and told Joe she did not want any kids. (why Joe wanted to marry her is another post 😉 )

Before he knew what constituted a valid marriage he was only objectively sinning, but not culpable. Now that he realizes none of the conditions were present he is really worried he may be living in sin. He does not want to divorce Mary. He only wants to make sure he isn’t sinning. What, if anything, should he do?
 
They (or at least for starts he) should be directed to see his Pastor…etc
 
Of course he should speak to his pastor, but…

If the form of the marriage was valid and neither party was already married at the time of the vows, than the marriage is presumed valid. No matter what information about the state of mind of the participants emerges after the fact, the marriage does not automatically become invalid until an official declaration of nullity has been requested, investigated and granted. Therefore it is never sinful to continue in good faith in the marriage relationship, even if you suspect your spouse’s state of mind may have invalidated the marriage.

(Although your hypothetical Mary apparently didn’t want to get married – if she was actually forced against her will to marry, then a crime has been committed rather than a wedding, and the above advice does not hold. If she was merely indifferent or unsure, but was not coerced, the above stands.)
 
constantconvert said:
For the sacrament of marriage to be validly conferred, both the bride and groom must be capable of giving valid consent to fidelity, fruitfulness, and lifelong commitment.

Let’s say Mary and Joe get married. Then Joe begins to practice his faith, he learns that none of the conditions for a valid marriage were present when they got married. Mary didn’t want to get married, was having an affair at the time and told Joe she did not want any kids. (why Joe wanted to marry her is another post 😉 )

Before he knew what constituted a valid marriage he was only objectively sinning, but not culpable. Now that he realizes none of the conditions were present he is really worried he may be living in sin. He does not want to divorce Mary. He only wants to make sure he isn’t sinning. What, if anything, should he do?
Click to expand...
You said sacrament so it means both are baptized (but only one must be Catholic for these canons to apply). But a Catholic must marry with approval of the Church, and they check for conditions to be present. If marriage was not with approval of the Church then the sacrament of matrimony does not exist.

Once Joe knows he is sinning, he must separate to avoid grave sin, even if desiring to receive the sacrament of matrimony.

Not making the effort to find out what the Church teaches regarding matrimony increases our culpability, and also it is no excuse when we do not try to form our conscience based on divine law as revealed in Scripture and by the Church. That is a sin also.

See: CCC 1859-60, 1783-5, 1792, 2039.

They must both freely give consent to grant the natural conjugal act, moral and under reasonable conditions, proper to the production of children (even if not fertile), and the covenent must be perpetual and exclusive. Sometimes non-Catholics do not have that idea of matrimony, even though baptized.

Yes, they must be capable of the covenant and according to CIC:

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.
 
Vico said:
You said sacrament so it means both are baptized (but only one must be Catholic for these canons to apply). But a Catholic must marry with approval of the Church, and they check for conditions to be present. If marriage was not with approval of the Church then the sacrament of matrimony does not exist.

Once Joe knows he is sinning, he must separate to avoid grave sin, even if desiring to receive the sacrament of matrimony.

Not making the effort to find out what the Church teaches regarding matrimony increases our culpability, and also it is no excuse when we do not try to form our conscience based on divine law as revealed in Scripture and by the Church. That is a sin also.

See: CCC 1859-60, 1783-5, 1792, 2039.

They must both freely give consent to grant the natural conjugal act, moral and under reasonable conditions, proper to the production of children (even if not fertile), and the covenent must be perpetual and exclusive. Sometimes non-Catholics do not have that idea of matrimony, even though baptized.

Yes, they must be capable of the covenant and according to CIC:

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.
Click to expand...
I read the question as assuming church approval was granted, and no problems were clearly evident at the time of the marriage, but it has since come to light that the wife never intended to have children or something similar. In this case, the presumption of validity stands until one of the parties requests a decree of nullity, and Joe is not sinning in any way by choosing to remain faithfully married, regardless of his wife’s understanding of the sacrament.
 
DhuAlQarnayn said:
I read the question as assuming church approval was granted, and no problems were clearly evident at the time of the marriage, but it has since come to light that the wife never intended to have children or something similar. In this case, the presumption of validity stands until one of the parties requests a decree of nullity, and Joe is not sinning in any way by choosing to remain faithfully married, regardless of his wife’s understanding of the sacrament.
Click to expand...
In that case Mary would have been simulated consent (unless the priest did not instruct first and there was ignorance) through a Church approved marriage. Assume that is the case, then I think what you said is correct. It would be presumed valid by the Church until it was known certainly to be invalid, which I have read, also means provable.

Since the original poster wrote “Let’s say Mary and Joe get married. Then Joe begins to practice his faith,…” I thought the Church was not involved.

What if you wife turns out to be too close of a relation, but you did not know?
 
So if two people have only been married once, then later one spouse thinks the marriage may not be valid, s/he is not sinning if s/he presumes the marriage is valid despite his/her misgivings?
 
If there is reasonable doubt as to the validity of the marriage, he should investigate with the help of his pastor. But since the Church would presume validity until proven otherwise, he could have marital relations without scruples. However, he is obliged to seek advice in dispelling these reasonable doubts - so he should not delay in getting advice from his pastor. To delay clarification indefinitely is essentially to ignore his conscience.
 
No, if you suspect it is not valid for reason of lack of proper intent or lack of proper understanding of the sacrament, you are not sinning if you remain in the marriage. If neither of you wishes to seek an annulment, you can remain married forever even if your spouse’s lack of desire for children never changes. If you suspect it is not valid for lack of form – i.e., one of the spouses was baptized Catholic but you married outside the church with no dispensation, or you discover that your wife is actually your half-sister – the situation is different.

If both form and intent are lacking – you married in good faith to a Catholic partner outside the Church, but now know that she is not open to life, you would need to have the marriage convalidated, which could be difficult since now you know that your wife lacks the proper intent to be married. As in all cases, you would need to speak to your priest.
 
DhuAlQarnayn said:
No, if you suspect it is not valid for reason of lack of proper intent or lack of proper understanding of the sacrament, you are not sinning if you remain in the marriage. If neither of you wishes to seek an annulment, you can remain married forever even if your spouse’s lack of desire for children never changes.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Intent is the issue.
 
Properly contracted marriages are presumed valid unless proven otherwise and it has been made clear that the internal forum (i.e. Confession) is not the venue for determinations of nullity. I would say the spouses should benefit from this presumption until determined otherwise by the external forum.

I would also think part of the reason for this legislation is to avoid the kind of anguish now suffered by the husband.
 
DhuAlQarnayn said:
No, if you suspect it is not valid for reason of lack of proper intent or lack of proper understanding of the sacrament, you are not sinning if you remain in the marriage. If neither of you wishes to seek an annulment, you can remain married forever even if your spouse’s lack of desire for children never changes. If you suspect it is not valid for lack of form – i.e., one of the spouses was baptized Catholic but you married outside the church with no dispensation, or you discover that your wife is actually your half-sister – the situation is different.

If both form and intent are lacking – you married in good faith to a Catholic partner outside the Church, but now know that she is not open to life, you would need to have the marriage convalidated, which could be difficult since now you know that your wife lacks the proper intent to be married. As in all cases, you would need to speak to your priest.
Click to expand...
CIC Can 1061 §3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

It could not be convalidated, if proper consent does not now exist.

Simple convalidation:

CIC Can. 1157 The renewal of consent must be a new act of will consenting to a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was invalid from the beginning.

Retroactive convalidation:

CIC Can. 1162 §1 If consent is lacking in either or both of the parties, a marriage cannot be rectified by a retroactive validation, whether consent was absent from the beginning or, though given at the beginning, was subsequently revoked.
 
If this is not purely hypothetical one should see their priest.
 
constantconvert said:
So if two people have only been married once, then later one spouse thinks the marriage may not be valid, s/he is not sinning if s/he presumes the marriage is valid despite his/her misgivings?
Click to expand...
The spouse ( and everyone else, including the CHurch) actually have an obligation to presume the marriage is valid.

Even a marriage tribunal operates under that principle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top