Failure to understand Marriage Sacrament

[Phemie]

Phemie:

Actually even the priest who married them had his doubts. But he still married them. Or rather, he received their consent.

Is this the same priest who signed the form 100? If a priest has doubts why in the world would he have married them?

Don’t know what a form 100 is but the priest was not our Pastor at the time he transferred into our KofC from another town.

The priest couldn’t refuse to marry them without a concrete reason. Suspecting something doesn’t make it so.

 

[Usige]

1ke:

In the English speaking world, you are correct the canons pertaining to separation are largely ignored by separating couples.

Possibly because no one has ever heard of such a rule. And if they had, probably many would conclude such action (separation) will not be be made subject to another person’s consent.

It’s also because many in the Church are hesitant to get involved in what may become a civil matter. As one canonist told me there is concern if the Church granted/recommended separation that an agreived spouse might try suiting the Church for interfering with their marriage. How likely such suit might be is questionable, but it is why many do not want to officially state that they should separate and only proceed to civilly divorce if their marriage is found to be invalid.

 

[Phemie]

Rau:

1ke:

In the English speaking world, you are correct the canons pertaining to separation are largely ignored by separating couples.

Possibly because no one has ever heard of such a rule. And if they had, probably many would conclude such action (separation) will not be be made subject to another person’s consent.

It’s also because many in the Church are hesitant to get involved in what may become a civil matter. As one canonist told me there is concern if the Church granted/recommended separation that an agreived spouse might try suiting the Church for interfering with their marriage. How likely such suit might be is questionable, but it is why many do not want to officially state that they should separate and only proceed to civilly divorce if their marriage is found to be invalid.

Except in North America you can’t petition for a decree of nullity unless you”re divorced. That’s the proof that there is no possibility of reconciliation.

 

[Rau]

in North America you can’t petition for a decree of nullity unless you”re divorced.

Actually, I thought that was the general rule…?

 

[otjm]

Vows are not Divine Law. Church can therefore “loose” your vow so that you are no longer bound by it.

Vows may or may not be Divine Law but covenant is Divine Law. Mark 10: 11-12 still applies.
The issue is not “loosing” a vow; it is the deterrmineation that a covenant relationship was never formed due to an impediment (e.g. a prior spouse) or an issue concerning consent.

Vows are the form of creating the covenant relationship; but it is not the vows (because essentially everyone attending a wedding hears the parties speak the vows) but the issue of whether saying the vows caused a covenant relationship or not.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

No. It’s one covenant, not two.

If the covenant is invalid, then it’s invalid.

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

And if he is aware of the impediment but marries them anyway, he can get in big trouble…

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

Laicization =/= nullity. Don’t conflate the two – they’re not the same thing!

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

Right… marriage is explicitly “until death do us part.” None of the others have “expiration dates.”

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Vows may or may not be Divine Law but covenant is Divine Law. Mark 10: 11-12 still applies.
The issue is not “loosing” a vow; it is the deterrmineation that a covenant relationship was never formed due to an impediment (e.g. a prior spouse) or an issue concerning consent.

Alright. What about situation where marriage was valid, but there is separation of spouses (while they can’t marry anyone else) ? They are clearly dispensed from Covenant. Mark 10: 11-12 says that this is only a problem if someone divorces and takes another spouse.

 

[otjm]

I still do not see how a covenant is not a vow; either it is not solemn or it is not a promise, but to me a covenant seems like an especially solemn promise.

A vow is a statement. A covenant is a relationship.

A vow may or may not create a covenant relationship.

As it is possible to say vows and not create a covenant relationship, then a vow cannot be a covenant.

 

[AngelaMarie]

I know someone who has had 3

 

[otjm]

Alright. What about situation where marriage was valid, but there is separation of spouses (while they can’t marry anyone else) ?

Without the review by a tribunal, the Church presumes the marriage is still valid. They may have a covenant relationship - which is viewed as of the day of the vows being said - or they may not, but for whatever reason choose to not approach the tribunal.

And in the eyes of the Church, neither is free to marry someone else. The separation does not break the covenant relationship nor does it “extinguish” or “loose” their vows. They still have the duties of a married couple - fidelity (so they cannot “shack up” with someone else); permanence (they are not free to marry someone else until the death of one of them) and openness to children. As they have presumably consummated the marriage, the Church does not require on-going sexual relations.

The short of it is they are married to each other, subject to the death of one of them, or their reuniting, or a tribunal reviewing the marriage ad determining if there was an impediment or a failure of consent according to the issues laid out in Canon law as of the day of the marriage.

If one does not die, or they do not reunite, or they do not go to a tribunal, they live separately.

There are Catholics who have divorced; one or both may choose to not remarry and they don’t go to a tribunal,. The Church considers them still married; the divorce may be done to protect financial issues.

 

[otjm]

I know someone who has had 3

They may be someone who has not made wise decisions, or did too little examination of the other party(s). Without seeing the actual decision(s) from the tribunal(s) it is impossible to make any valid comment concerning the number of decisions.

Most people who marry seem to have a strong emotional aspect toi their decision - meaning, they do not choose a spouse by going through a complete background examination of the other party, as one might do if hiring for a top secret clearance job.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So the contract lasts and they are dispensed from their obligations to care for each other etc? I guess that makes sense. They aren’t dispensed from marriage itself (which is itself a contract). Thank you for correction and clarification.

 

[farronwolf]

Right… marriage is explicitly “until death do us part.” None of the others have “expiration dates.”

Right you cant be married to a dead person, and a priest cant perform duties when they are dead, but they can after they are laicized and even if they might then be married even in a marriage that isnt accepted by the church. They may not have permission to but the sacrament may still be valid. Laicized Priest could be running a brothel or dealing drugs or performing abortions and still do sacraments.

Oh and the null doesnt really mean null according to my understanding. They just use that word.

Yep makes zero sense.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Baptism makes it sacramental;

Two validly baptized persons who are free to marry is the matter of the Sacrament.

 

[otjm]

They aren’t dispensed from marriage itself (which is itself a contract)

No, it is not a contract (although the State treats marriage as a contract).

A contract is an agreement between parties for a limited amount of time, not by its nature limited, and only subject to the terms of the contract. It also is based on performance (I will do this if you do that).

A covenant does not have “terms”, nor does it require performance by one party in order to bind the other party. Both parties are bound completely (no “I won’t be married unless you do” or “I won’t be married if you do”.

Contracts are normally for a specified amount of time or performance; a covenant is not.

That is why during the marriage vows, the “plus” and the “minus” is stated; it is an “I will be yours” come what may - richer/poorer, sickness/health, better/worse . Thus adultery is not grounds for a decree of nullity, but would be if a contract was created by the vows - “I will be yours unless”.

It is in short meant to signify a complete giving of self, by each party without terms.

 

[otjm]

Oh and the null doesnt really mean null according to my understanding. They just use that word.

Null means, in terms of a marriage, that there never was a covenant relation.

If someone is married to another person and with or without getting a divorce, goes through a marriage ceremnoy with another person, that second action does not create a covenant relationship. That act is null as far as the Church understands marriage.

The State may accept the second act as another marriage, or may consider it to be an act of bigamy (if the first marriage was not resolved in a divorce).

The Church presumes the first marriage is a covenant relationship unless and until it is shown to not be one.

I get it that you cannot understand this - you have a lot of company. I will again reiterate: I suggested three books, and someone else suggested one of the three.

If you want to learn and understand what the Church teaches, I would urge you to buy Annulment The Wedding That Was by (Monsignor) Michael Smith Foster. Although it is written by a Canon lawyeer, it is written for the lay person who does not want to feel the writer is talking over their head - it is understandable, an replete with examples. It starts with an example of what would come under the term of “shotgun marriage”.

Other than doing that, I am not sure anyone can satisfy your understanding, or inability to understand decrees of nullity.

Sacramental Theology is a very deep area of study, We do not need to be theologians; we need to understand what the Church teaches sufficient to be able to follow Christ. Ad all too often, people come away with what might be termed a shallow understanding of the sacraments. As long as they operate on faith and the willingness to follow what Christ taught, and to seek forgiveness when they fail to do so, no more is required.

However, the Church has had 2,000 years +/- to reflect on what Christ taught, and a part of that is sacramental theology, and specifically what is marriage and what is covenant. The Church gets into the depths of a sacrament, and to many people, it simply seems to be getting “out in the weeds”, as it is very unfamiliar territory. The laity are not required to know the territory the Church is responsible for, but when there are reasonable explanations (and in the case of the book recommendation, 189 pages plus a glossary, notes (including the Canon law sections) and an index of popular names and subjects treated. It is well done - I again recommend it, if you want a thorough and easy to read explanation of what the Church teaches. Amazon has it at $16.79 new with delivery by Monday with Prime, and used starting at $1.98 and up.

 

[farronwolf]

From usccb.

What is an annulment?​

“Annulment” is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic “declaration of nullity.” Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

 

[Gorgias]

Right you cant be married to a dead person, and a priest cant perform duties when they are dead

A dead person is not married, but he’s still a baptized member of the Church.

A dead priest doesn’t perform ministry, but he’s still a priest.

Simple. And internally consistent, from a sacramental point of view.

they can after they are laicized and even if they might then be married even in a marriage that isnt accepted by the church. They may not have permission to but the sacrament may still be valid.

Illicit, but valid.

Laicized Priest could be running a brothel or dealing drugs or performing abortions and still do sacraments.

Brother, I’ve got news for you: an active priest could be doing those things and still be confecting valid sacraments! Here, you’re dipping your toes into the question of “what makes a valid sacrament?” … and the answer isn’t “a holy priest”, it’s “a validly-ordained priest with faculties.” By the same token, even if you hate the POTUS, he’s still the POTUS, and still has the power to do what POTUSes do. So, again… internally consistent.

Oh and the null doesnt really mean null according to my understanding. They just use that word.

I think we need to work on your understanding then, with all due respect. It literally means that the marriage – that is, the covenant – is null. It does not validly exist.

Yep makes zero sense.

Keep noodling on it… you’ll get there!

“Annulment” is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic “declaration of nullity.” Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

Annulment is the “unfortunate word”, not nullity. A declaration of nullity – as your cited text asserts – does not make a marriage null. Rather, it only asserts the fact that it has been null from the very beginning. It is a declaration of a fact, and not an assertion of a change in status. Perhaps this is where you’re misunderstanding the situation?

 

[Anesti33]

Not true; you completely ignored the quote I supplied from a reliable source.

 

[Usige]

Except in North America you can’t petition for a decree of nullity unless you”re divorced. That’s the proof that there is no possibility of reconciliation.

In general, that is the case, but the Judicial Vicar told us during advocate training that it is not absolutely required and they have had a few fairly devout couples where the couple asked if they couple separate while their marriage was investigated. Those are exceptions, but in an ideal world the legal reality would match the spiritual.