Failure to understand Marriage Sacrament

[farronwolf]

If they become Catholic must it be convalidated.

If they remain outside the Church I am certain they could care less what the Church says.

 

[Wesrock]

If they become Catholic must it be convalidated.

If they remain outside the Church I am certain they could care less what the Church says.

Convalidation makes an invalid marriage valid. Two non-Catholics (as in, people who had never been Catholic) can enter a valid marriage. If they had a valid marriage and convert, their marriage is still valid. It doesn’t need to be made valid.

Note that if the non-Catholics had divorced and remarried before becoming Catholic that can be an impediment. However, a conversion to Catholicism doesn’t require a valid marriage to be convalidated.

 

[Rau]

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

You seek to remove the vow from the context. The vow is in the context of a marriage.

 

[1ke]

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

Well, if a marriage is invalid it’s invalid.

A person might be the innocent spouse, not at fault for the defect or impediment. That person could, theoretically, be married to different people, receiving a decree of nullity for more than one marriage.

If a person is found to have a psychological or some other impediment that makes them incapable of contracting marriage validly the tribunal usually places a vetitum in their file. They can’t remarry unless the invalidating impediment ceases.

I have one sister who has had two of them.

It is certainly possible. I can imagine situations in which that could happen.

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 may be, depending on the situation. If they have lied or committed fraud, yes certainly.

 

[1ke]

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.

If the priest is aware of an impediment he cannot marry them.

The priest witnesses their free exchange and determines there are two witnesses.

And the validity of that is taken at face value. Evidence may come to light later that shows otherwise.

I recommend the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. I think it might help you understand what a decree of nullity is and isn’t.

 

[otjm]

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 deacon has gone through at least 5 years preparation and has been reviewed by multiple people on that journey. A couple might meet - in a group possibly of other couples - for maybe an hour every once in a while maybe over a 6 month period. And yet you qualify these as the same.

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

You were the one who mentioned your sister, and if I recall, two decrees of nullity. I find that… interesting.

I will reiterate; if you want to actually increase your knowledge of the issues surrounding a decree of nullity, I would urge you to buy one or more of the books I noted and read it.

 

[1ke]

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

Two Catholics cannot be dispensed from form.

But, the Church witness need not be a priest, it could be a deacon or an appointed Catholic lay person in accordance with canon law.

Not sure which you meant, what you wrote isn’t clear.

 

[otjm]

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.

You are assuming that all of the issues which could result in an invalid marriage are intentional, They are not, go read the books I noted.

 

[otjm]

Yeah, I miss-stated that one. I know better… haste makes waste. Thanks for catching that. I meant one Catholic (oops. Finger in gear, brain slightly disengaged).

 

[1ke]

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

A marriage is always a marriage if it’s a valid one. A priest is always a priest if he’s validly ordained.

A marriage isn’t a marriage at all if it’s invalid. A priest isn’t a priest if his ordination is invalid.

It is possible for any of the seven sacraments to be found invalid if lacking proper form or matter, or if an impediment is present.

What is required for validity depends on the sacrament.

 

[farronwolf]

You were the one who mentioned your sister, and if I recall, two decrees of nullity. I find that… interesting.

I simply used that as an example. The first two marriages should never have happened.

The deacon has gone through at least 5 years preparation and has been reviewed by multiple people on that journey. A couple might meet - in a group possibly of other couples - for maybe an hour every once in a while maybe over a 6 month period. And yet you qualify these as the same.

Maybe more time should be spent in preparation for this particular sacrament. I am pretty certain we spent more time than you noted, but that has been nearly 3 decades ago so my memory may be weak on that. However in our case both deacons, (one of which we preferred to do the marriage, but wasn’t allowed to) who prepared us for marriage, had known me for my entire life and the other for the majority of it. They were familiar with my wife for 4 years prior to our marriage.

 

[1ke]

they become Catholic must it be convalidated.

NO. This is incorrect!

A validly married couple is validly married, period.

A convalidation is a new exchange of consent that makes an invalid marriage valid.

Non-Catholics in valid marriages do NOT convalidate their marriage if they become Catholic. In fact it isn’t even possible.

 

[1ke]

Note that if the non-Catholics had divorced and remarried before becoming Catholic that can be an impediment.

Which still doesn’t require convalidation.

Non Catholics in remarriage situations who receive a decree of nullity for the prior marriage are then IN a valid marriage with their current spouse.

 

[farronwolf]

If they become Catholic must it be convalidated.

NO. This is incorrect!

That was a question regardless of the bad punctuation.

 

[1ke]

That was a question regardless of the bad punctuation.

Ah.

The answer is no. Non Catholics can enter valid marriages and if they are validly married, and then one or both convert, they remain in a valid marriage.

If the non Catholics are both baptized then their valid marriage is also a sacrament, whether they become Catholic or not.

If the marriage involves one or two unbaptized people their marriage is a valid natural marriage. It would become a sacrament if both become baptized, Catholic or otherwise.

 

[otjm]

A point which few seem willing to concede is that catechesis was far more formal and extensive prior to Vatican 2 than it was after; not because of Vatican 2, but because “progressives” objected to both a doctrinally focused and a rote memorization method of teaching (i.e. the Baltimore Catechism) and wanted to go to a “Gospel based” (i.e. “evangelical” format; and the bishops massively failing to step in to the matter - as well as priests - failed to see that children were receiving a very watered down catechetical upbringing.

Coupled with that was the inroads secularism made into people’s lives, along with the start of the breakdown of the extended family due to a far greater mobility of people post WW2. And the matters above affected not only those in Catholic schools, but the greater majority of children who did not attend those schools, but had a once a week “CCD” training.

the result was that those born a bit before Vatican 2 had weak religious training; and matters got weaker from there on out. Fast forward 50 years and we now have two generations who lknow little about their faith raising the third generation. In 1957 we hit the peak of Mass attendance at aobut 67%, and it gradually has gone down to somewhere around 22 to 23%; and in the age bracket of 18 to 29, it is about 18% (per CARA).

People have a natural tendency, it appears, to try to find fault, as in moral guilt; I leave that to God to deal with, and a confessor should they choose to find one. Much of what a tribunal seeks to determine is not “fault” as it is facts; again, I am not going to outline the multitude of issues which may result in a decree of nullity as they are well outlined in the books I recommend.

Another point that people miss is that it may be the party starting the process for a decree of nullity who is the person who had the impediment or defective consent consent, or it may be the other party, or even possibly both.

Contrary to popular opinion among those who do not understand the actions of a tribunal, the Church is very serious bout the sacrament of marriage; and they take the position that marriage is a whole lot more than simply showing up and saying some words. It goes both to freedom to marry (as in, impediments which would prevent it) and intent- of which there are multiple issues which could be grounds.

 

[Rau]

A point which few seem willing to concede is that catechesis was far more formal and extensive prior to Vatican 2 than it was after; not because of Vatican 2, but because “progressives” objected to both a doctrinally focused and a rote memorization method of teaching

Also the significant reduction in numbers of nuns, brothers.

Another point that people miss is that it may be the party starting the process for a decree of nullity who is the person who had the impediment or defective consent consent, or it may be the other party, or even possibly both.

Often it is whichever party first seeks to marry again in the Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

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?

It is not a vow, but a covenant, and it must be mutual with no impediments.

CIC (Latin Canon Law) See equilavent eastern canon law CCEO 817.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

There are a lot of grounds for annullment.

• Insufficient use of reason (Canon 1095, 10)
• Grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties (Canon 1095, 20)
• Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital obligations (Canon 1095, 30)
• Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1)
• Error of person (Canon 1097, sec. 1) Reasons for Marriage Annulment
• Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
• Fraud (Canon 1098) Reasons for Marriage Annulment
• Total willful exclusion of marriage (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
• Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
• Willful exclusion of marital fidelity (Canon 1101, 12)
• Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
• Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
• Past condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
• Present condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
• Force (Canon 1103)
• Fear (1103)
• Error regarding marital unity that determined the will (1099)
• Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099)
• Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099)
• Lack of new consent during convalidation (Canons 1157, 1160)

 

[Anesti33]

It is not a vow, but a covenant

Marriage vows are not vows?

 

[InThePew]

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 difference is that there’s no right to be ordained but if a couple come to me wanting to marry and are free from impediments (or have them dispensed) then I have to marry them (provided of course they meet any other basic requirements). I have personally solmenised marriages where I have serious doubts about a couple’s suitability - as in whether they fully understand what they’re doing (marriage ism after all, more than just a dress, flowers and cake) but all I can do is advise, suggest and make sure I record my concerns on their prenuptial papers.

The formation of the marital bond involves both parties giving their free, mutual and full consent to what they’re entering into with the other person. If something gets in the way of this consent being given properly (such as immaturity or just a lack of careful consideration) then the consent is nullified and without consent there can’t be a marriage.

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

The difference is that the sacrament of orders isn’t annulled when a priest is laicised. Effectively, they’re just dispensed from the rights and obligations associated with the clerical state (including of course celibacy) but any sacrament, was still validly administered and so the remain a priest.