Failure to understand Marriage Sacrament

[farronwolf]

Not to derail another thread running about Biden and his not adhering to Catholic teaching, or rather his opponent thinking that he wants to hurt God, hurt the Bible, or whatever nonsense was spewed by someone who has no idea of what it means to be a christian, I am bringing this over here.

Mind you there may be some things that need some further explanation in this post.

By my understanding, the Church presumes a marriage which takes place outside the Church itself to be valid, or not depending on whether the two person are catholic or not.

Catholics who exchange vows in the presence of ministers from other religious traditions or civil officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church views all true marriages with respect. It presumes that they are valid. Thus, it considers the marriage of two Protestant, Jewish or even non-believing persons, any of whom marry according to their own tradition, to be binding in the eyes of God.

So the Church must convalidate a marriage which has taken place outside the Church for someone who either is or becomes Catholic.

Yet the marriage in the Church is only presumed valid, because at a later date a tribunal may decide that the marriage wasn’t valid. The people could go through marriage prep, have the priests blessing, be married for decades, have children, bring them up in the Church and then at a later date be declared null, which doesn’t really mean it was null, just that it didn’t meet the requirements for a valid marriage. (this is a cop out in my opinion).

The children aren’t illegitimate, the couple wasn’t engaging in sinful activity by engaging in sex while not in a valid marriage, and on and on.

The people are then free to do the same thing again (get married within the Church) with the Church’s blessing. Is there a limit on the number of annulments a person can get? I have one sister who has had two of them. Sarcasm here, she is now very righteous.

What I have trouble reconciling is if one person entered the marriage with a lie or whatever to make it invalid, how does that get the other person off the hook? The requirements and vows are not incumbent on the other doing what they say they will do. Each person takes the vow themselves. How is the person who caused the marriage to be invalid not guilty of living a life of sin during the time they are married.

This seems like a case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. You can’t have both. If the marriage is declared invalid, then it never was any better of a marriage than one which the Church would not have recognized for not being in the proper form in the first place.

Maybe folks who are smarter than me can explain this in a fashion which makes sense.

 

[Rau]

How is the person who caused the marriage to be invalid not guilty of living a life of sin during the time they are married.

They might be if deception was involved. Or they might not be in other circumstances.

 

[farronwolf]

What other circumstances? If they aren’t free to marry the priest should not marry them. If they aren’t capable of giving their consent, the priest shouldn’t marry them. The priest witnesses their free exchange and determines there are two witnesses.

That leaves 4 and 5 which if they are lying about it, they are lying to God when they make their vow and would in turn be living in sin.

1. the spouses are free to marry;
2. they are capable of giving their consent to marry;
3. they freely exchange their consent;
4. in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children;
5. they intend the good of each other; and
6. their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister.
   Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by Church authority.

 

[otjm]

By my understanding, the Church presumes a marriage which takes place outside the Church itself to be valid, or not depending on whether the two person are catholic or not.

Nope. It is by examining intent, which is presumed to be correct unless and until proven otherwise, as of the date of the marriage.

So two atheists could contract a natural marriage of one man and one women, intending it to be permanent. That in essence would suffice.

 

[farronwolf]

The Catholic Church views all true marriages with respect. It presumes that they are valid. Thus, it considers the marriage of two Protestant, Jewish or even non-believing persons, any of whom marry according to their own tradition, to be binding in the eyes of God.

Catholics who exchange vows in the presence of ministers from other religious traditions or civil officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

 

[Usige]

Is there a limit on the number of annulments a person can get?

Yes and no. There is no defined number, but if someone has multiple declarations of nullity there is a good chance that they might have a monitum (warning) or even a vetitum (prohibition) in more extreme cases. These don’t limit new declarations, but impact contracting a new marriage.

 

[farronwolf]

Yes and no. There is no defined number, but if someone has multiple declarations of nullity there is a good chance that they might have a monitum (warning) or even a vetitum (prohibition) in more extreme cases. These don’t limit new declarations, but impact contracting a new marriage.

But then all prior relationships (marriages) would have been sinful, correct (assuming they were typical marriages where couples engage in sex)? If the annulment indicates that the marriage wasn’t a valid sacrament, and having sexual relations outside of a valid sacramental marriage is against Church teaching, ie a sin.

 

[Wesrock]

farronwolf:

The Catholic Church views all true marriages with respect. It presumes that they are valid. Thus, it considers the marriage of two Protestant, Jewish or even non-believing persons, any of whom marry according to their own tradition, to be binding in the eyes of God.

Catholics who exchange vows in the presence of ministers from other religious traditions or civil officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

If they obtain the appropriate dispensation they can be validly married that way. And my understanding is that the dispensation isn’t usually withheld.

 

[Wesrock]

Usige:

Yes and no. There is no defined number, but if someone has multiple declarations of nullity there is a good chance that they might have a monitum (warning) or even a vetitum (prohibition) in more extreme cases. These don’t limit new declarations, but impact contracting a new marriage.

But then all prior relationships (marriages) would have been sinful, correct (assuming they were typical marriages where couples engage in sex)? If the annulment indicates that the marriage wasn’t a valid sacrament, and having sexual relations outside of a valid sacramental marriage is against Church teaching, ie a sin.

You are only culpable for sin if you deliberately act in knowledge that it is a sin (or you were willfully negligent in obtaining knowledge when it can be reasonably done).

The intent of marriage prep is to weed out those who are not suited and to educate so people don’t enter marriage lacking knowledge about what it’s about.

The act can be evil without the couple being culpable for it, and if they’re not culpable they haven’t mortally sinned. Their lack of culpability doesn’t make the act in itself morally good or neutral.

If one member of the couple intentionally engaged in deceit they are obviously a culpable party for that.

 

[farronwolf]

So one of the spouses could be committing sin, but the other one not. I get that if one entered into the marriage under deceit or other false reasons.

So this is where is doesn’t jive with me. Two folks enter into marriage, one with all the criteria for a valid marriage, the other without. The one who entered into it validly would not be committing sin because they aren’t culpable. But when the annulment is granted, the marriage is found not to meet the requirements of a sacrament, yet that person is released from the vow they took which was valid, since their vow was not incumbent on the other person keeping their vow.

It isn’t, I will do this as long as they do it too. It is I will do this, end.

 

[Wesrock]

So one of the spouses could be committing sin, but the other one not. I get that if one entered into the marriage under deceit or other false reasons.

So this is where is doesn’t jive with me. Two folks enter into marriage, one with all the criteria for a valid marriage, the other without. The one who entered into it validly would not be committing sin because they aren’t culpable. But when the annulment is granted, the marriage is found not to meet the requirements of a sacrament, yet that person is released from the vow they took which was valid, since their vow was not incumbent on the other person keeping their vow.

It isn’t, I will do this as long as they do it too. It is I will do this, end.

Neither vow was valid. The deceived partner could not properly consent because they were mislead. But the deceived partner did not have knowledge that their marriage was invalid and so is not culpable for what amounts to fornication.

 

[otjm]

Catholics who exchange vows in the presence of ministers from other religious traditions or civil officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

There is a presumption that two Catholics marrying in front of someone other than a priest is invalid; however, a bishop could grant permission.

and then at a later date be declared null, which doesn’t really mean it was null, just that it didn’t meet the requirements for a valid marriage. (this is a cop out in my opinion).

No it i not a cop out; it is a lack of understanding of what a sacrament is - specifically marriage, Short of a priest being given the ability to read souls, such as Padre Pio had, the priest takes the couple at face value, having spent a few hours out of their lives with them. And surprise of surprises, people lie - not only to others but also to themselves concerning their intents, as well as other issues related to impediments and defects of consent.

the couple wasn’t engaging in sinful activity by engaging in sex while not in a valid marriage,

They may or may not have been - either one of them or both.

The people are then free to do the same thing again

A decree can include a prohibition to marry until sufficient evidence that the grounds of the first marriage no longer apply.

Rather than replying at length to the rest of your questions, I would make a couple of observations.

The vast majority of Ctholics are not taught the full extent of the sacramental theology of marriage, just as they are not taught the full extent of the theology or the rest of the sacraments. And you are absolutely by no means alone in not understanding the issues behind decrees of nullity. My comments are not meant to denigrate; simply to try to respond.

Rather than try to get into a long dialogue, I would suggest that you invest in one (or more) of the following books on the matter: Annulments and the Catholic Church, by Edward Peters; Annulment The Wedding That Was, by Michael Smith Foster, and/or Annulment by Terrence E. Tierney.

All three are Canon lawyers. Smith is a Monsignor in the Archdiocese of Boston and in 2002 was accused of sexual abuse; within about 76 days the falsity of the allegation was shown (and he is not the first priest to be falsely accused; I bring up the allegation lest it sidetrack the conversation).

(continued)

 

[otjm]

(continued)

I understand that your sister has been through two marriages. I have absolutely no desire to get into the “why” and the circumstances of the matters, nor is it any of my business. If you have questions concerning the propriet/reasons/grounds of any decree your sister may have received, that is between you and her, and she may or may not share that with you. And even if she does, that does not mean that you are getting a complete, balanced, fair and unbiased answer.

The Church has the power to bind and to loose, given by Christ. That is what is expressed in its power to examine the matters as of the day of the marriage and is well grounded in its theology of marriage.

Too often, this topic comes up in threads in the forum, and I strongly suspect that those who have a hard time reconciling their feelings with the Church’s authority have, to put it in the vernacular a bit crudely, a “dog in the fight”. They sometimes appear to respond as if they knew the very thoughts and most intimate secrets of their spouse; and I have no doubt that they willingly and properly entered into the marriage and have suffered a tremendous emotional loss. That tends to overwhelm the ability to stand back unemotionally and comprehend what has happened. They feel (not unreasonably) betrayed by their spouse, and they transfer that feeling of betrayal to the Church and specifically the tribunal.

And that works against understanding.

 

[farronwolf]

I am not talking about the fornication. Talking about their promise to love cherish for the rest of their life. No where in the vow is it incumbent on the other.

 

[Rau]

But when the annulment is granted, the marriage is found not to meet the requirements of a sacrament, yet that person is released from the vow they took which was valid, since their vow was not incumbent on the other person keeping their vow.

The person took the vow based on an understood set of (relevant) circumstances, be that due to a deception on the part of the other, or not. Would you hold them to the vow?

And how can it be that vows apply to one but not the other? That would be logically unworkable. “A“ cannot be married to “b” if “b” is not married to “a“.

 

[Wesrock]

I am not talking about the fornication. Talking about their promise to love cherish for the rest of their life. No where in the vow is it incumbent on the other.

So I’ve a question of my own to those better versed in Church law and marriage theology than me.

Does the Church release the couple from their vows on the basis that the marriage is invalid? Or are the vows invalid in themselves because the marriage is invalid (or because they are one and the same)?

 

[farronwolf]

I assure you this has nothing to do with my sister or her circumstances.

This is just the one sacrament that it seems the Church wants a little of both ways on things. A marriage that isnt valid must be convalidated by the Church and yet an invalid marriage must still be annulled.

The priest cannot know the heart of the two parties in the sacrament of marriage, yet a Bishop can know the heart of a deacon when ordaining them a priest.

The marriage may be found to be invalid, yet the priest is always a priest even if laicizesd.

Baptism, confirmation. And holy orders are all for life, but not necessarily marriage.

 

[1ke]

By my understanding, the Church presumes a marriage which takes place outside the Church itself to be valid, or not depending on whether the two person are catholic or not.

In general, yes. A marriage involving at least one Catholic would need to be in Catholic form or have received a dispensation from form. A marriage involving non-Catholics would generally be valid when celebrated civilly or religiously (there are exceptions, such as the Orthodox).

However, Church would not necessarily presume a non Catholic marriage was valid if it involved previously married people, for example.

Catholics who exchange vows in the presence of ministers from other religious traditions or civil officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Unless they were dispensed from form.

So the Church must convalidate a marriage which has taken place outside the Church for someone who either is or becomes Catholic.

No.

Two non Catholics who are validly married would NOT need to or be able to convalidate their marriage.

 

[farronwolf]

Because I didn’t take the vow for my wife, I took it for me and it was a promise I made to both her and God. I am the one who lives with that burden or joy depending on ones marriage. Thankfully mine is the latter.

She took the vow for herself and she must live with her promise.

 

[Wesrock]

I assure you this has nothing to do with my sister or her circumstances.

This is just the one sacrament that it seems the Church wants a little of both ways on things. A marriage that isnt valid must be convalidated by the Church and yet an invalid marriage must still be annulled.

The priest cannot know the heart of the two parties in the sacrament of marriage, yet a Bishop can know the heart of a deacon when ordaining them a priest.

The marriage may be found to be invalid, yet the priest is always a priest even if laicizesd.

Baptism, confirmation. And holy orders are all for life, but not necessarily marriage.

One thing to consider is that the deacon and priest are not the ministers of marriage in the Latin rite. The couple are the co-ministers. When a Bishop confers Holy Orders it is the Bishop who is the minister. In an invalid marriage, it’s because one or both of the ministers had a defect in their role as minister in some way. Consider that for a baptism to be valid, the minister needs the proper form and valid matter. Same for communion. Same for marriage.