Is it ever okay to consummate a marriage one knows is invalid?

[NeelyAnn]

I don’t understand these questions at all, or the point of the questions. I guess I am having one of Strawberry Jam’s moments of confusion with this.

However Joe it seems you understand this because you answered this in post #27, Page 2, and your answer makes perfect sense to me. Hope it answered Texas Roofer’s questions.’.

I don’t understand the questions either.

 

[NeelyAnn]

As what is mentioned earlier the primary issue is a lack of understanding of marriage NOT whether any sacramental marriages were discussed. If you look at all of catholic teachings you will have a great deal of problems finding guidance on the case of a couple who live together, have children, promised marriage in some form ( did they enter a covenant with god?) and now wish to consider themselves single via celibacy. It does not work this way, and there is no direct teaching on such. They are parents, they have responsibilities which result from their actions (covenant?, children, bonding, unity?) Please by all means show a Church teaching which relieves them of these responsibilities, they are not single.

If I remember correctly, Jane was a lapsed Catholic who is now an active Catholic and takes her faith seriously. Joe is a cafeteria Catholic. So although not a very good Catholic, he is still a Catholic. That means that all of the Church’s laws and teachings on marriage apply to both of them. Therefore, any marriage secured outside the Church for this couple would not be a sacramental marriage according to the laws of the Church.

There are a number of encyclicals related to Catholic marriages.

CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

ARCANUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
HUMANAE VITAE
ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL Vl

SUMMO IUGITER STUDIO
ON MIXED MARRIAGES
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

I don’t know, maybe you will find what you are looking for in one of the above encycilcals.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If I remember correctly, Jane was a lapsed Catholic who is now an active Catholic and takes her faith seriously. Joe is a cafeteria Catholic. So although not a very good Catholic, he is still a Catholic. That means that all of the Church’s laws and teachings on marriage apply to both of them. Therefore, any marriage secured outside the Church for this couple would not be a sacramental marriage according to the laws of the Church.

There are a number of encyclicals related to Catholic marriages.

CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

ARCANUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
HUMANAE VITAE
ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL Vl

SUMMO IUGITER STUDIO
ON MIXED MARRIAGES
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

I don’t know, maybe you will find what you are looking for in one of the above encycilcals.

Thanks, by the way (btw) there is nothing in there which makes her single, unwed, or claims the children are produced without consummation.

**Btw would you like another question which cannot be understood? If she goes celibate and moves out to follow those scandal teachings where do the children go? Should they leave Dad? Leave Mom? One each way? **

hope that helps

 

[NeelyAnn]

Thanks, by the way (btw) there is nothing in there which makes her single, unwed, or claims the children are produced without consummation.

**Btw would you like another question which cannot be understood? If she goes celibate and moves out to follow those scandal teachings where do the children go? Should they leave Dad? Leave Mom? One each way? **

hope that helps

I am really not sure what you are getting at. Jane and Joe are both Catholics who were married outside the Church. In secular society, they are legally married. By the Church’s standards, they are not. They have a civil marriage but, in the eyes of the Church, they do not have a sacramental marriage. If Jane and Joe wish to obtain the sacraments, they must rectify this situation. If not, they may not receive the sacraments. Joe was married once before so he has to obtain an annulment before he can have a sacramental marriage with Jane. It is all very simple. I am not sure why you are struggling with this.

Ideally, the Church would ask that they temporarily seperate while they go through this process. This is for the good of the Jane and Joe (due to the temptation to fornication), and also for others due to the risk of scandal. However, this is not always possible or the best solution, especially when children are involved. So in those circumstances, the Church ask that they live as brother and sister while they rectify the situation (which they have already been doing). In order not to cause scandal to others, most people do not broadcast their situation while they are in it. Most priests advise against broadcasting this information due to the scandal it may cause.

I have no clue what you mean by children being produced without consummation. She already has children. The children were produced through their relationship together but not through consummation of a marriage. Do you mean how can they have additional children if they do not consummate their civil marriage? If that is what you mean, they cannot. They are not supposed to until they are able to have a sacramental marriage.

 

[Eliza10]

If I remember correctly, Jane was a lapsed Catholic who is now an active Catholic and takes her faith seriously. Joe is a cafeteria Catholic. So although not a very good Catholic, he is still a Catholic. That means that all of the Church’s laws and teachings on marriage apply to both of them. Therefore, any marriage secured outside the Church for this couple would not be a sacramental marriage according to the laws of the Church.

Thanks, Neely, it looks like you get it.

…I don’t know, maybe you will find what you are looking for in one of the above encycilcals.

Looks like he didn’t. And he must be a pretty fast reader.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Fr. Hardon has written a lot on Christian Marriage. An understanding about the ‘elevated’ nature of Christian Marriage is very helpful here. There is a big difference between a civil marriage and a Christian Marriage theologically. Marriage as a sacrament gives you the graces needed to make the marriage work (it is still up to you to use those graces). A civil marriage will not give you those graces. In addition, civil marriages can be dissolved by divorce. A sacramental marriage is not dissolved by divorce.

THE MYSTERY OF MARRIAGE
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Christian Marriage
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Saint Augustine and Christian Marriage
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

The Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Matrimony, The Sacrament of Fidelity and Procreation
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Chastity and Charity in Marriage
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

 

[Eliza10]

Thanks, by the way (btw) there is nothing in there which makes her single, unwed, or claims the children are produced without consummation.

**Btw would you like another question which cannot be understood? If she goes celibate and moves out to follow those scandal teachings where do the children go? Should they leave Dad? Leave Mom? One each way? **

hope that helps

Like Neely, I am confused by this. But while Neely thinks you are struggling with this, I think you are sitting back relaxed just trying to throw a wrench in things. Like a philosopher who asks, “What is truth?”. Or was that Herod who asked that?

Your last question is completely irrelavant to the question posted in my original post. If you want to start a philosophical debate about this hypothetical case, you should start a new thread.

 

[Eliza10]

She “already knows” our advice? Well what does she think of our advice? Does she know it to be true? Or is she looking for someone to give her the easy answer?..Some Catholics are too gray.

I just want to defend my friend from any misconceptions about her here - even though I am doing my best to keep her anonymous, I don’t want her misunderstood. She is devout in her prayers and practices. She spent two years praying the St. Bridget prayers faithfully and offers up rosaries faithfully and shares what leittle she has and every week she goes to Adoration and asks God to either bring her husband to the fullness of faith. She is not looking for easy answers - obviously since she has lived as brother and sister this long. She is in a difficult position which I haven’t explained here and wont - but it is difficult and thats what the Holy priests she was able to consult with 4 years ago agreed when they heard the whole long story - that yes, she is in a difficlut spot. She has been taking their advice to live as brother and sister. What she is doing recently came into question and I am going to give more detail on that in my next post because it will help clarify the question of my orignal post.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Ideally, the Church would ask that they temporarily separate while they go through this process…

And where to the children go through the separation?

… the Church ask that they live as brother and sister while they rectify the situation (which they have already been doing).

could you document either of those statements?  I have never seen the Church ask them to separate nor have I seen any evidence they have separated.  How do you know either statement to be true?  Actually the issue at hand is their ordinary advised them to live their vows and rectify the situation.  if you could simply provide the evidence you have to the ordinary the entire problem would be gone.  Why are you withhold such valuable evidence for the ordinary?

I have no clue what you mean by children being produced without consummation. She already has children. The children were produced through their relationship together but not through consummation of a marriage.

I think you forgot the word “sacramental”? See the children are evidence a Natural Marriage* was consummated

          ………Do you mean how can they have additional children if they do not consummate their civil marriage?

nope

If that is what you mean, they cannot. They are not supposed to until they are able to have a sacramental marriage.

Ah the word sacramental has returned, good. The Church does teach Catholics should enter sacramental marriages and avoid Natural Marriage, yet the Church issues dispensation for Natural Marriages. The Church actually does not advice on the current conditions. The Church certainly encourages all to either be celibate or in sacramental marriages. The Church also recognizes Natural Marriages for non catholics and in some cases for catholics. So to repeat where we started there is no direct teaching for the situation at hand. That is why those so quickly to complete judgment can show no, none, not one teaching telling these two to separate, or where to send their children while they separate, nor how they obtained authority to separate what god has combined.

So again where are the answers?
**If she goes celibate and moves out to follow those scandal teachings where do the children go? Should they leave Dad? Leave Mom? One each way?

Could you document “good faith” and “for the good of the children” as the base for the priest’s and nun’s teaching ?

Could [you] answer whether unity exists in this couple?

Is Jane simply choosing between groups of mortals sins?**

Of course once you show the ordinary the Church has made a special request in this case it will all go away, could I see a copy? - thanks

• Natural Marriage is clearly discussed in the catechism (start around #1600), it is important to separate when the Church recognized Natural Marriages which has restrictions compared to Natural Marriages as discussed in the earlier catechism. For more reading on that look in Canon law on conversion of Polygamy marriages.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Like Neely, I am confused by this. But while Neely thinks you are struggling with this, I think you are sitting back relaxed just trying to throw a wrench in things. Like a philosopher who asks, “What is truth?”. Or was that Herod who asked that?

Your last question is completely irrelavant to the question posted in my original post. If you want to start a philosophical debate about this hypothetical case, you should start a new thread.

That would make you both in error. I have read your statements and comments. This thread would have closed long ago if you or any other showed actual Church teaching which backed those statements. It would be most helpful to simply post the Church teachings on the questions in bold print. The reason I post is this lady and any others in similar situations should know the truth. If you wish to give her options that is fine( something I have not done concerning her relationship). If you wish to tell her Church teachings simply show them as Canon Laws and Catechism teachings. If you think the Priest errored fine. If you know the Priest violated the Church Law show the law. It really is that simple

 

[NeelyAnn]

And where to the children go through the separation?

You appear to be intentionally dishonest here. I specifically said "IDEALLY’ when speaking of separation! I specifically mentioned what is required when that is not possible, such as when children are involved. So, your question is pointless.

 could you document either of those statements?  I have never seen the Church ask them to separate nor have I seen any evidence they have separated.  How do you know either statement to be true?

Do your own research on the internet. Call your local diocese if you wish. I know this to be a fact because I know others who have been through this. This is handled case by case and is usually not publicised unless the parties involved wish to share the information. However, most priest would be willing to hypothertically discuss these situations and what is normally required.

Actually the issue at hand is their ordinary advised them to live their vows and rectify the situation. if you could simply provide the evidence you have to the ordinary the entire problem would be gone. Why are you withhold such valuable evidence for the ordinary?

Umm, no! Jane was already advised to live as brother and siter under her current circumstances. Now someone else is advising her differently and contrary to Church teaching. There are priests who that these days. It is very unfortunate.

See the children are evidence a Natural Marriage* was consummated nope

Wrong again. The children were born prior to the civil marriage. The civil marriage occurred some years after the birth of the children. They have been living as brother and sister since obtaining the civil marriage.

The Church does have answers for this situation. They do not recognize the civil marriage between this couple.

BTW - The Church handles marriage between Catholics differently thatn marriage between Protestants, non-Catholics, etc. Catholics are expected to obtain sacramental marriages and to abide by the Church’s teaching on marriage if they wish to receive the sacraments.

 

[Eliza10]

My friend clarified some of the details pertaining to the topic of this thread so I thought I would share them.

Jane was not told that certain members of the Church are too black and white. Jane was told that SHE can’t be black and white because her situation is grey . To me, this is the same as saying the good priests who advised her that the Chruch expects her to live as brother and sister right now since she ws not free to marry yet and going elssewhere was not an option are too black and white.

Jane did not go to the Priest or to the Sister (I’ll call her Sister Pam") about how or if she should be a wife to Joe. Jane went to them for help about getting Joe’s marriage annuled. In explaining her situation, Jane let them both know that she and Joe are living as brother and sister, so that they did not have to tell her to do this since she already knows she has to do this and that she is.

The Priest then explained to Jane that God would not want Jane and Joe to be living as brother and sister considering their overall situation and that they should be husband and wife in order to work on the marriage as well as bringing it to the Church.

Since Jane was shocked by this and since she does not know this Priest very well, she left thinking she needs to talk to her own Priest at her own parish that she is registered at and has been going to Sunday Mass with weekly for some years, and had their children baptized there, and its where Joe would be starting the annullment anyway. I’m not so sure about Jane and Joe’s regular priest myself so I don’t know what he would say.

Anyway on Sunday after Mass she looked for Sister Pam, who is active in her parish and is someone she knows and trusts, to ask about seeing the Priest of her parish and told her why…that Joe needs to have his marriage annuled etc. and also told Sister Pam that they are living as brother and sister…also so that Sister Pam would know that she does not need to tell Jane to do this.

So Jane’s confusion deepened when Sister Pam also told her the same thing that the Priest told her. Jane’s conversation went on longer with her because she knows her and felt comfortable “arguing” the subject with her. She explained that although Jane does do not have a marriage blessed by the Church, Jane does do have a legal marriage, and part of marriage is marital love and they should be experiencing that, especially since Joe does not share her views, and it can put strain on the marriage to not have marital love.

Dying to know what folks think of this conversation. I know what I think.

Sister Pam also thinks that since Joe is giving in and willing to get the marriage annuled even though he does not think it matters, then Jane needs to meet him in the middle for the sake of the marriage. This is where Sister Pam believes the Spirit of the law comes into play, and the end that they, or mainly Jane is working on which is having the marriage blessed by the Church will justify the means which is working on the marriage while trying to bring it to the Church.

This is what Sister Pam advised her!!!

Yup. The end justifies the means.

So it was not a case where Joe was trying to get his way with Jane. Joe has come to accept the reality that Jane feels it is serious sin to live as married people without a Sacramental marriage. It was simply a matter of Jane trying to talk to as many people of the Church as possible because she knows that when Joe starts the annulment process, as he said he wanted to now, he will come to know about what Jane has been told about their marriage.

I guess that means then that he’ll be told that he better see to it that their legal marriage is consummated while they are working on the anulment. That will be fine with him and Jane won’t have a leg to stand on to refuse.

So this is the facts on the question I posed. It is shocking and I am concerned for my friend. She needs to go through her own parish to start the annulment, and this is what the sister thinks there, and most probably her priest. It woudl be difficult to suggest that Joe start his annulment at some strange chruch; Joe would want to know why. He is likely to consult with their own church no matter waht she says anyway. What a spot she is in.

Last night I picked up my Bible and read randomly and came right to this: 1 Peter 3:1-2: **“Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior.”
**
This is Jane. She is subordinate to her husband (except when it might trample on her dignity as a person) and she is reverent and chaste. Apparently its working, because he is now willing to honor her wishes and get an annulment! But I guess the priest and nun she consulted think revernt and chaste is a little too old-fashioned.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well that makes it clear there will be no Church teachings posted to support the many bold statements, and no answers to important questions.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You appear to be intentionally dishonest here. … .

Well that makes it clear there will be no Church teachings posted to support the many bold statements, and no answers to important questions.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“So this is the facts on the question I posed. It is shocking and I am concerned for my friend. She needs to go through her own parish to start the annulment, and this is what the sister thinks there, and most probably her priest. It woudl be difficult to suggest that Joe start his annulment at some strange chruch; Joe would want to know why. He is likely to consult with their own church no matter waht she says anyway. What a spot she is in.”

Jane can’t file for annulment of anything. Only Joe or Joe’s ex can. I already asked for clarification on that, and got that. Jane is not able to do anything.

And, I have read that you can file for annulment in the parish you are a member of currently, or the one you were originally married in. Is that right in all diocese’s?

Anyway, why did sex even get brought up? This guy has not been having any with Jane for years. They can hardly “cause scandal” to anyone when they are living together and have children already. Even if they aren’t having sex, do you think anyone in their neighborhood is thinking they are not? I understand it would be a mortal sin for them to do it, but not that anyone is going to be scandalized by their situation, which they already messed up long before now.

 

[1ke]

If she goes celibate and moves out to follow those scandal teachings where do the children go? Should they leave Dad? Leave Mom? One each way?

If she moves out, it would be up to the couple to determine who the children live with. They could live full time with one or the other, or could rotate.

No one has suggested she move out.

Could you document “good faith” and “for the good of the children” as the base for the priest’s and nun’s teaching ?

It is the priest and nun who suggested this. It would be up to them to document these as church teachings, not us.

Could [you] answer whether unity exists in this couple?

Define unity.

Is Jane simply choosing between groups of mortals sins?

If Jane chooses to engage in sexual intercourse with the man to whom she is currently not validly married, she will be choosing to sin.

If she chooses to continue being chaste, she will be choosing not to sin.

If you are referring to some other group of sins, you will have to specify what they are.

Of course once you show the ordinary the Church has made a special request in this case it will all go away, could I see a copy? - thanks

Your sentence makes no sense.

The Ordinary is the Bishop of the diocese. What is it he supposedly did? What will “all go away?”

There is nothing in the OP’s post about the bishop. Her post is about advice given to the woman by a priest and by a nun.

• Natural Marriage is clearly discussed in the catechism (start around #1600), it is important to separate when the Church recognized Natural Marriages which has restrictions compared to Natural Marriages as discussed in the earlier catechism.

Natural marriage clearly has nothing to this situation. Both parties are baptized. They are currently in an invalid marriage.

A natural marriage is a valid marriage between two unbaptized persons or one unbaptized and one baptized person.

 

[Eliza10]

Anyway, why did sex even get brought up? …They can hardly “cause scandal” to anyone when they are living together and have children already…

Good question - why did it even get brought up. Both the priest and the nun brought it up and told Jane she should be having it, basically, instead of being chase in obedience to the Chrch teaching. And she didn’t say it was a problem and she didn’t say Joe was suffering about it. I am really wondering here. There seems to be some sort of cafeteria-Catholicism, based on misplaced compassion that has its own set of rules that this priest and this nun and Texas Roofer all seem to subscribe to, with some kind of consistent theme, that goes along with the culture of the day. One of the things our culture, and they, apparently teach is that if you are not having sex there is something seriously wrong with you, and you must remedy it, and whatever the Church teaches to the contrary is irrelevant.

And no, you’re right, its not a scandal. People aren’t asking. They appear like any other married couple with children, so, other people being scandalized in any way is not an issue here.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Good question - why did it even get brought up. Both the priest and the nun brought it up and told Jane she should be having it, basically, instead of being chase in obedience to the Chrch teaching. And she didn’t say it was a problem and she didn’t say Joe was suffering about it. I am really wondering here. There seems to be some sort of cafeteria-Catholicism, based on misplaced compassion that has its own set of rules that this priest and this nun and Texas Roofer all seem to subscribe to, with some kind of consistent theme, that goes along with the culture of the day. One of the things our culture, and they, apparently teach is that if you are not having sex there is something seriously wrong with you, and you must remedy it, and whatever the Church teaches to the contrary is irrelevant.

And no, you’re right, its not a scandal. People aren’t asking. They appear like any other married couple with children, so, other people being scandalized in any way is not an issue here.

This sounds very very simple. She should simply report this discussion to the appropriate higer up in leadership, whoever that would be in that particular location. The pastor of that parish, I guess would be the first one to approach?
It sounds like it could be a misunderstanding. It’s not good to take second hand, (even from a freind) information and then run with it. She’s under stress. It’s not an ideal situation. Maybe she was confused, maybe not. But, it is not making her situation better by lamenting how bad the advice was that was given without showing any attempts to get resolution that can’t come from this forum.
She has a duty, biblically and from a protocol sense to report this and let them defend themselves before making people think that all nuns and priests have run amock, and are giving people bad advice. That- can be a scandal. She doesn’t need to be running up anymore sins now.

 

[Eliza10]

Thanks so much for taking on Texas Roofer, 1ke. I am so confused by what he is saying that I don’t know how to respond to it.

…No one has suggested she move out. .

Right. Its not an option so not part of this discussion.

…It is the priest and nun who suggested this. It would be up to them to document these as church teachings, not us. .

Yes and if they “document” it like Texas Roofer is doing here it will just leave total confusion. I imagine the typical response to explanations like these is “Um… uh…hmm. Well, what is the bottom line, anyway?” In this case its a bottom line that is going to serve Joe but not Jane.

…If you are referring to some other group of sins, you will have to specify what they are…

Yeah, this whole “group of sins” statement has me drawing a blank. I do not see dueling groups of mortal sins.

…Your sentence makes no sense.

The Ordinary is the Bishop of the diocese. What is it he supposedly did? What will “all go away?”

There is nothing in the OP’s post about the bishop. Her post is about advice given to the woman by a priest and by a nun. .

Thanks for pointing out how this made no sense. It certainly made no sense to me but I could not begin to even say how it made no sense.

It bothers me when people present as superior authorities on Church teaching, but they can’t explain what they are saying in a way it makes sense, or, they shut down or introduce new topics when you try to engage them in a discussion about what they have said. I am saying that because I have seen it before.

…Natural marriage clearly has nothing to this situation. Both parties are baptized. They are currently in an invalid marriage.

A natural marriage is a valid marriage between two unbaptized persons or one unbaptized and one baptized person.

Thank you for a reasonable true statement! How can you challenge this?

 

[Eliza10]

This sounds very very simple. She should simply report this discussion to the appropriate higer up in leadership, whoever that would be in that particular location. The pastor of that parish, I guess would be the first one to approach?
It sounds like it could be a misunderstanding. It’s not good to take second hand, (even from a freind) information and then run with it. She’s under stress. It’s not an ideal situation. Maybe she was confused, maybe not. But, it is not making her situation better by lamenting how bad the advice was that was given without showing any attempts to get resolution that can’t come from this forum.
She has a duty, biblically and from a protocol sense to report this and let them defend themselves before making people think that all nuns and priests have run amock, and are giving people bad advice. That- can be a scandal. She doesn’t need to be running up anymore sins now.

I think you are on the right track here. Actually my friend has one of the most amazing memories I have ever seen. She can consistently remember who said exactly what with amazing precision, and confusion is not a problem with her. So no misunderstanding in this case that what was said was said.

But she is going to speak to a better priest, who I know will give her wise advice, as soon as it can be arranged.

There is such a divide between Catholics like this nun, who seems to be of that group of active Catholics who are stubbornly confirmed in their error, who have developed and stick to their own brand of Catholicism, a special but common brand that includes a “rule” of “disobedience-in-the-name-of-compassion”, that they propogate and they will stick their heels in if they are challenged over it.

For example, we had a well-liked priest here, a “star” of his own church community, who was excommunicated for disobedience and he took most of a loyal congregation with him and they started their own church. The real parish was Corpus Christi. The new name for the new schism church community? Spiritus Christi. A statement name, one that says:- “We don’;t follow the black and white rules of the Church, we follow the* spirit* of the rules.”

My hope is that ultimately my friend can be a bridge in that divide. I think going to the bishop (you don’t know our bishop, but just imagine he was one of those fine hero-type bishops in upholding the truths of the Church) should not be the first thing. I think its always best to go to the person who has offended you before going higher up. But my friend is a faithful Catholic and she will take it to the Lord in Adoration and she will see and listen to the good priest and he will speak the truth and I know she will understand then. Then maybe she can be a “bridge”- perhaps if Sister Pam is not “confirmed in her error” she will see that sometimes those “black and white” rules of the Church serve the higher good. Surprise.