Marriage, annulment, validity, and Schrodinger's cat

[YADA]

I do not know which thread you spun this from, but I asked these same questions a few weeks ago. So far, no one has addressed this difficulty. Yes, it is a logical contradiction. If a marriage is invalid, it always was invalid before and after the declaration of nullity. All the talk about presumption and good faith do not change this fact, or address the dilemma you present. These are practical matters that are used because of the Schrodinger’s cat problem. Another strange twist is that if one is living with someone in an invalid marriage (even though it is presumed to be valid) you would have an objectively sinful situation that could never be construed as a real or subjective sin because of the good faith involved. Therefore, since the Church allows communion based on the subjective good faith in a presumed valid (but invalid) marriage, could she not also allow this in others?

I do not buy your preposition that someone would be living in sin …

A person cannot sin by accident - one has to fully understand the sinfulness of a specific action and choose to take that action knowingly …

Thus … unless one party of the marriage vows - knowingly takes the vow without proper intent [for example - they do not intend to be open to children, know they are not free to contract a marriage or have zero intent to stay married] which would because of their intent void the validity of the Sacrament - the couple cannot be in a sinful marriage merely because they were immature in their decision to marry. Now the party who withholds information like the examples above - would be purposefully engaging in a sinful action and I hazard a guess that you would clearly agree that the marriage would not be valid.

I would suggest that even two imperfectly prepared individuals can marry - and over time grow in their understanding and take a marriage which may or may not have been perfect at its conception and have it grow into a Sacramental union … the evidence of that would be a marriage that would last through the good times and the bad times and one that would still grow in grace.

 

[pnewton]

I do not buy your preposition that someone would be living in sin …
.

I did not say that they were living in sin. Like you say, sin involves an act of the will. Likewise, there are some in second marriages that may not be actually sinning in that there is no act of the will to sin. I said it is an objectively sinful situation, that is, it is objectively sinful to have sex with someone outside of valid marriage.

 

[YADA]

I did not say that they were living in sin. Like you say, sin involves an act of the will. Likewise, there are some in second marriages that may not be actually sinning in that there is no act of the will to sin. I said it is an objectively sinful situation, that is, it is objectively sinful to have sex with someone outside of valid marriage.

But that is really unknowable - which I realize is that conundrum you are dealing with … but also why I said it is tilting at windmills and why the Church acts on the presumption of validity …

Two people marry - the only one who knows with any precise information about the reality of the ‘vow’ taken is the individual who takes the vow - not the other half of this marriage - just the one… you cannot place yourself 100% in the heart or mind of the other … No matter how much you feel you are in love or the two of you are meant to be together … we each bring ourselves to the marriage - through which the two become one … remember - we are humans not angels and definitely not god like … Only God knows fully what is in our hearts …

Thus - you see, at best it still boils down to an act of faith - faith in yourself and in the other. The Church does its best to prepare the couple … but ultimately - this Sacrament is dependent upon the two and the conditions that exist.

No - its not perfect - but tell me - what in this life comes with that 100% guarantee you are seeking?

 

[dans0622]

?.. Another strange twist is that if one is living with someone in an invalid marriage (even though it is presumed to be valid) you would have an objectively sinful situation that could never be construed as a real or subjective sin because of the good faith involved. Therefore, since the Church allows communion based on the subjective good faith in a presumed valid (but invalid) marriage, could she not also allow this in others?

Hello,

When would a Catholic be in a presumptively valid marriage that is objectively sinful?

Dan

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No - its not perfect - but tell me - what in this life comes with that 100% guarantee you are seeking?

Well, most sacraments for one. Baptism being the prime example. We know a baptism is valid. It is permanent and cannot be removed. You either are baptized or you are not. It is simple. Look, the Church has no mechanism for declaring a baptism null for when a member wants to leave the Church and join with the initiation of a non Christian faith. We simply say, you are baptized Catholic, you will always be. And many times with that sacrament we did not consent, or even comprehend it.

Can anyone answer if their marriage is valid? How would you know?

 

[dans0622]

This is a spinoff from another thread asking if most marriages are invalid.

1. The Church Presumes all marriages to be valid.
2. An annulment does not dissolve a marriage but rather proclaims it never was.
3. Annulments only come into play after a couple has agreed to divorce.
4. So, this is where the cat comes into play. A couple may not divorce but still be in an invalid marriage.
5. I cannot know the future so, is it possible my fruitful, happy, and life giving marriage is invalid, hence does not exist, and the only way we can find out is to open the box (go through the annulment process?)

Is the cat (marriage) in the box alive (valid) or dead (invalid)?

Hello,

I will accept your first premise, even though it could use a qualification.
I accept the second premise.
The third premise is practically true, in some places, but not necessarily so.
Fourth, yes.
Fifth, what does the future have to do with it? The mariage is based on a past action. You can always examine yourself, of course, and change your manner of life, if needed.

Marrriage is a contract. The law has to operate from the presumption that a contract entered into in accord with the law is binding. Anybody, at any time and in any contract, could act fraudulently or in some way that makes the contract null and void. That doesn’t change the fact that a functioning legal system and the members of society have to have the foundational presumption that contracts are binding, whenever the law surrounding the formation of the contract was externally observed.

Dan

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Anybody, at any time and in any contract, could act fraudulently or in some way that makes the contract null and void.

Dan

Is this really true with marriage. What can I do now or tomorrow to act fraudulently and therefore void my contract of marriage? It was my understanding that the validity of a marriage has to do with the situation at the time of the marriage. Not after. If what you are saying is true then marriage has no permanent bearing whatsoever. Because at any time one my act fraudulently and therefore void the contract? I would be absolutely shocked to find that to be the case.

 

[YADA]

Well, most sacraments for one. Baptism being the prime example. We know a baptism is valid. It is permanent and cannot be removed. You either are baptized or you are not. It is simple. Look, the Church has no mechanism for declaring a baptism null for when a member wants to leave the Church and join with the initiation of a non Christian faith. We simply say, you are baptized Catholic, you will always be. And many times with that sacrament we did not consent, or even comprehend it.

Can anyone answer if their marriage is valid? How would you know?

But a valid baptism provides no guarantee of salvation - the baptized person can still reject God in their life and loose salvation …

Marriage is conferred upon the vow of two people that is different then the vow made by an adult seeking baptism … though there is a current thread by a non-practicing [due to their determination that the Church is full of hypocrites] who is upset that the priest will not baptize her 1 month old son …

I would hazard a guess that if an adult requested baptism without the proper intent - willfully answering the question to renounce sin - without the intent to in fact renounce sin, Satan and all Satan’s works - that baptism would be invalid - even if the proper words and matter are spoken by the priest …

If a couple requests baptism for their child for the sake of grandparent happiness - promising to bring the child up in the faith while fully intending to bring the child up in a different faith tradition - then one could suspect that the baptism may have a defective aspect to it …

Similarly - a penitent can enter the confessional and say all the right words about contrition - fool the priest - hear the words of absolution and if they are not sorry for their sins, do not have a firm commitment to refrain from sin and are merely going through the ‘motions’ - they are not forgiven …

That is one of the Protestant fallacies about Catholics … that Catholics believe they can do whatever they want Monday through Friday - go to confession on Saturday and then repeat the same sins the next week … over and over again … its not true …

All of the Sacraments are dependent upon the proper disposition of the person upon which the

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

All of the Sacraments are dependent upon the proper disposition of the person upon which the

That is flat out not true…

Baptism is valid, and binding no matter the disposition.

 

[dans0622]

Is this really true with marriage. What can I do now or tomorrow to act fraudulently and therefore void my contract of marriage? It was my understanding that the validity of a marriage has to do with the situation at the time of the marriage. Not after. If what you are saying is true then marriage has no permanent bearing whatsoever. Because at any time one my act fraudulently and therefore void the contract? I would be absolutely shocked to find that to be the case.

Hello,

Sorry, I should have been more precise. Anybody can act that way at the moment the contract is entered into, and that action can have a nullifying effect.

Dan.

 

[YADA]

That is flat out not true…

Baptism is valid, and binding no matter the disposition.

So if an adult lies in order to receive baptism - you think the baptism is valid? They do not intend to be Christian nor intend to live a Christian life - they do not renounce Satan and all his works - they do no renounce sin … they are still validly baptized? You are saying yes

Why does the Church ask those questions then?

Why does the Church require consent of non Christian parents before they baptize?

If consent and proper disposition do not matter - why require it?

That lady who was raised Catholic and who considered herself a good Christian and who wanted her one month old son baptized in the same Church she received her Sacraments … why would that priest say no? … because you are saying - proper disposition is not necessary

Do you hold that disposition does not matter in the Confessional too?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So if an adult lies in order to receive baptism - you think the baptism is valid? They do not intend to be Christian nor intend to live a Christian life - they do not renounce Satan and all his works - they do no renounce sin … they are still validly baptized? You are saying yes

Why does the Church ask those questions then?

Why does the Church require consent of non Christian parents before they baptize?

If consent and proper disposition do not matter - why require it?

That lady who was raised Catholic and who considered herself a good Christian and who wanted her one month old son baptized in the same Church she received her Sacraments … why would that priest say no? … because you are saying - proper disposition is not necessary

Do you hold that disposition does not matter in the Confessional too?

Well, I hold this. That if a person in RCIA gets baptized, and later leaves the faith or even converts to another faith they cannot say “gee I did not mean it at the time, can the Church declare my baptism null.” There is simply no vehicle for that because the Church does in fact hold that a baptism is valid if done in the correct form. You know differently? I have to suspect that there will be some pretty big line somewhere in the Church for those who wish to declare baptism null, especially with such protestant views on baptism being so varied and the biggest branch of Christianity being “former Catholic”

Honestly, It is as close as the Church gets to once saved always saved.

 

[YADA]

Well, I hold this. That if a person in RCIA gets baptized, and later leaves the faith or even converts to another faith they cannot say “gee I did not mean it at the time, can the Church declare my baptism null.” There is simply no vehicle for that because the Church does in fact hold that a baptism is valid if done in the correct form. You know differently? I have to suspect that there will be some pretty big line somewhere in the Church for those who wish to declare baptism null, especially with such protestant views on baptism being so varied and the biggest branch of Christianity being “former Catholic”

Honestly, It is as close as the Church gets to once saved always saved.

Well - I would think that few people would take the vow of baptism flippantly - but still baptism is not ‘once saved always saved’ … and its easy to merely move on to the next faith community - many of which do not recognize a Catholic baptism.

In fact, sadly - I know many Catholics who have joined other Christian denominations who have been “Baptized” in those faiths … … so there is not any need to seek a ‘church’ decision on their baptism … in fact many Catholics marry outside the Church after divorce and never seek a decision on their first marriages either - thus they have decided [negatively] for themselves the Sacramental nature if their first marriage.

The fact is - God knows the state of the one baptized and the ones who make the baptismal promises [on behalf of infants] … What I do not discount is the action of God working in our life and with what we are capable of when we make a vow or a promise …

What of confession - do you deny the participation/disposition of the penitent?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well - I would think that few people would take the vow of baptism flippantly - but still baptism is not ‘once saved always saved’ … and its easy to merely move on to the next faith community - many of which do not recognize a Catholic baptism.

In fact, sadly - I know many Catholics who have joined other Christian denominations who have been “Baptized” in those faiths … … so there is not any need to seek a ‘church’ decision on their baptism … in fact many Catholics marry outside the Church after divorce and never seek a decision on their first marriages either - thus they have decided [negatively] for themselves the Sacramental nature if their first marriage.

The fact is - God knows the state of the one baptized and the ones who make the baptismal promises [on behalf of infants] … What I do not discount is the action of God working in our life and with what we are capable of when we make a vow or a promise …

What of confession - do you deny the participation/disposition of the penitent?

I’m not sure what you are saying here. But baptisms cannot be declared null by the Church. Now you can go on making excuses for why that is and hold that no one would want one declared null, but I could make the same argument for marriages. Baptisms are a one time permanent thing. The Church has always taught this. that is why we do not re baptize . Even if the person said, I did not mean it the first time. That is pretty simple stuff.
With confession the penitent has to have the correct repentance. That too is basic. However the Church does not have a vehicle here either to declare a pronounced confession valid or not.

You know, a priest that baptized one of my children was two years into the priesthood when he decided that he wanted to live his life as an active homosexual. Not only did he “leave” the priesthood, but he “married” another man within the year. The Church does not say he was never a priest, that he was never ordained of that his baptism of my daughter never happened, or that the hands that now caress another man never confected the Eucharist. (something only a priest can do)In a way that is similar to a marriage. Because he was/is a priest.

 

[Vico]

I do not know which thread you spun this from, but I asked these same questions a few weeks ago. So far, no one has addressed this difficulty. Yes, it is a logical contradiction. If a marriage is invalid, it always was invalid before and after the declaration of nullity. All the talk about presumption and good faith do not change this fact, or address the dilemma you present. These are practical matters that are used because of the Schrodinger’s cat problem. Another strange twist is that if one is living with someone in an invalid marriage (even though it is presumed to be valid) you would have an objectively sinful situation that could never be construed as a real or subjective sin because of the good faith involved. Therefore, since the Church allows communion based on the subjective good faith in a presumed valid (but invalid) marriage, could she not also allow this in others?

The Church must avoid scandal and scandal is based on perception even if what gives scandal is not sinful.

No marriage is known with certainty to be valid since error, deceit, or simulation could be present.

An presumed valid marriage would not necessarily be objectively evil, even if found to be invalid since there are many grounds upon which validity rests.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

While the Church has played footsie with the media over the synod on the families, these are the questions that need answered.

And the Church is going to have to address and soon, the reality that state sanctioned marriages will not be able to be the norm in which the Church operates anymore. She has had the luxury of 2000 years of marriage being essentially the same. But now, while the state has decided to sanction other unions the Church will be addressed with questions like these, Will a person who was in a SSM be required to get an annulment before marrying the opposite sex in the Catholic Church? Many diocese have always stated that if the state marries two people the Church presumes validity. That is going to have to be re done now. There is an inconsistency here and in the quest for mercy we must remember that sometimes education and suffering is merciful.

But again, why would we enter into a sacrament that had no assurance? Odd.

But again, we hear from the homosexual movements (what does it harm your marriage?) Or of the adulterers or divorce and remarried and remarried and remarried. How does it harm you? Well the answer is that we now have no way of knowing if our own marriages are indeed valid. What other sacrament is like that? Do we walk out of the confessional thinking that if in 20 years the priest had a change of heart that we could be drug back into a tribunal for our confession? Or do we have to wonder if our baptism is null? Or our priesthood? How about the Eucharist? Is it also only “presumed” valid, or do we believe it is the body and blood of God Himself?

 

[Vico]

While the Church has played footsie with the media over the synod on the families, these are the questions that need answered.

And the Church is going to have to address and soon, the reality that state sanctioned marriages will not be able to be the norm in which the Church operates anymore. She has had the luxury of 2000 years of marriage being essentially the same. But now, while the state has decided to sanction other unions the Church will be addressed with questions like these, Will a person who was in a SSM be required to get an annulment before marrying the opposite sex in the Catholic Church? Many diocese have always stated that if the state marries two people the Church presumes validity. That is going to have to be re done now. There is an inconsistency here and in the quest for mercy we must remember that sometimes education and suffering is merciful.

But again, why would we enter into a sacrament that had no assurance? Odd.

Any of the seven sacraments could be found defective in matter, form, or intention.

The presumption is not that simple, it is only when there is doubt. Also it is between a man and women only and civil authority has no say in this, only in merely civil effects.
CIC

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament. Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified 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.

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

 

[pnewton]

Hello,

When would a Catholic be in a presumptively valid marriage that is objectively sinful?

Dan

If the marriage is objectively invalid. Again, of course there is not sin imputed when one is acting in accord with the knowledge one has.

 

[pnewton]

An presumed valid marriage would not necessarily be objectively evil, even if found to be invalid since there are many grounds upon which validity rests.

If a marriage is found to be invalid, that means it was invalid from the start. It was always invalid and the couple were having relations while not in a valid marriage. Is any of this not true? I know that there are a lot of “buts”, “howevers” and “practically’s”. Yet isn’t the above statement true (and the source of the OP’s conundrum)?

 

[Phemie]

The Tribunal only determines whether the marriage that was contracted was Sacramental in nature …

No. The Tribunal only determines whether the marriage was VALID. If it was valid it may or may not be sacramental.