Marriage, annulment, validity, and Schrodinger's cat

[dans0622]

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.

Hello,

I think we have a different understanding of what “objectively invalid” means in the context of the presumption of law in favor of the validity of a marriage. A topic for another time.

Dan

 

[Tomdstone]

Hello,

I think we have a different understanding of what “objectively invalid” means in the context of the presumption of law in favor of the validity of a marriage. A topic for another time.

Dan

Is invalid and objective or a subjective concept?

 

[pnewton]

Hello,

I think we have a different understanding of what “objectively invalid” means in the context of the presumption of law in favor of the validity of a marriage.

Perhaps. By “objectively”, I mean in reality, lacking at least one element that is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage. I use is like a woman’s ordination is objectively invalid, regardless of the denomination, ceremony, intent or opinion of the woman ordained.

 

[Vico]

Perhaps. By “objectively”, I mean in reality, lacking at least one element that is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage. I use is like a woman’s ordination is objectively invalid, regardless of the denomination, ceremony, intent or opinion of the woman ordained.

The standard terminology is material sin (contrary to divine law, but unknown) and formal sin (free transgression of law per conscience).

If there was simulation of vows know to be sinful, it would be formal sin.
If there was simulation of vows unknown to be sinful, it would be material sin.

In the thought experiment, it is not stated if the woman knew (by conscience) of the sinfulness of her first two marriages. I would assume it is no so it seems that the first two were not religious marriages, which would make it material sin.

 

[pnewton]

The standard terminology is material sin (contrary to divine law, but unknown) and formal sin (free transgression of law per conscience).

If there was simulation of vows know to be sinful, it would be formal sin.
If there was simulation of vows unknown to be sinful, it would be material sin.

In the thought experiment, it is not stated if the woman knew (by conscience) of the sinfulness of her first two marriages. I would assume it is no so it seems that the first two were not religious marriages, which would make it material sin.

Yes. I should have made that clear. As in most people today, when they marry, they believe it to be okay. The do not see this simulation. As in many cases, acts material sin may contain less, or even zero formal sin.

But I was speaking of* validity*, not sin. I do not know if the same adjectives are used. As much as words change meaning with context (like the word “sin”,e.g), I would not assume them to be used, or have the same meaning if they are.

 

[Vico]

Yes. I should have made that clear. As in most people today, when they marry, they believe it to be okay. The do not see this simulation. As in many cases, acts material sin may contain less, or even zero formal sin.

But I was speaking of* validity*, not sin. I do not know if the same adjectives are used. As much as words change meaning with context (like the word “sin”,e.g), I would not assume them to be used, or have the same meaning if they are.

I think absolute validity can never be know because there may be deceit or unknown error.

 

[pnewton]

I think absolute validity can never be know because there may be deceit or unknown error.

I was speaking as to what can be know by the persons involved, and I do believe sometimes it is possible to know with moral certainty. There is a possibility of self-deceit or delusion, but if we are going to open up all possibilities of epistemology, we could never know anything with absolute certainty. The Church* could* allow those people who know most assuredly to make determinations in this area, as the Church already allows people to make determinations in almost* all* other areas of potential sin, with respect to communion.

 

[Vico]

I was speaking as to what can be know by the persons involved, and I do believe sometimes it is possible to know with moral certainty. There is a possibility of self-deceit or delusion, but if we are going to open up all possibilities of epistemology, we could never know anything with absolute certainty. The Church* could* allow those people who know most assuredly to make determinations in this area, as the Church already allows people to make determinations in almost* all* other areas of potential sin, with respect to communion.

Because of deceit or error, it would not be known to others, and with deceit what motive would exist to reveal the truth?

That seems a little confused, you said you were not referring to sin, and you said potential sin (with respect to communion).

 

[TheOrigen]

I’m very new to this, and very worried.

My wife was Baptized in an Armenian Orthodox Church, and got to her First Communion in a Catholic. However, her family didn’t really practise and as such, neither did she. She was years away from the Church when I met her, much less married her.

I’m not baptized. We married in a Presbyterian church. There were no dispensations because, quite honestly, neither of us ever thought we were going to be in a Catholic church so neither of us would have known any better. Of course, if we did, I would have been baptized and we’d have married in the church.

Are we married? Must we remain chaste lest my unbaptized nature cause her to sin until we get all of this behind us? I, of course, will if I must, our eternity is far more important than our discomfort. However, I will say that it’s a very challenging thing for a catechumen and a child Catholic to find as the first thing facing us as we try to walk in the door to Jesus.

 

[Vico]

I’m very new to this, and very worried.

My wife was Baptized in an Armenian Orthodox Church, and got to her First Communion in a Catholic. However, her family didn’t really practise and as such, neither did she. She was years away from the Church when I met her, much less married her.

I’m not baptized. We married in a Presbyterian church. There were no dispensations because, quite honestly, neither of us ever thought we were going to be in a Catholic church so neither of us would have known any better. Of course, if we did, I would have been baptized and we’d have married in the church.

Are we married? Must we remain chaste lest my unbaptized nature cause her to sin until we get all of this behind us? I, of course, will if I must, our eternity is far more important than our discomfort. However, I will say that it’s a very challenging thing for a catechumen and a child Catholic to find as the first thing facing us as we try to walk in the door to Jesus.

If she came into full communion with the Catholic Church, from Armenian Orthodox, she would be Catholic and bound to have the Church bless her marriage for validity. (Most likely Armenian Catholic, which requires a priest - not a deacon or appointed lay person - to bless the marriage.) For a time 1983 to 2010, it was possible to formally defect from the Catholic Church and not be bound to the canonical form, however it seems that few defections were formally received by Catholic bishops. The canon law was changed because it was causing difficulties when persons returned to the Catholic faith, and their non-Catholic marriages were valid. It was seemed inconsistent.

If there is a desire to return to the Catholic Church sacraments, then a con-validation could be done. Usually the complications are for those that had more than one marriage and the spouses are alive. Please discuss this with a priest as soon as possible. Also note that the canon law used for Armenian Catholics is different and more restrictive than for Latin Catholics. The code is called CCEO.

 

[TheOrigen]

If she came into full communion with the Catholic Church, from Armenian Orthodox, she would be Catholic and bound to have the Church bless her marriage for validity. (Most likely Armenian Catholic, which requires a priest - not a deacon or appointed lay person - to bless the marriage.) For a time 1983 to 2010, it was possible to formally defect from the Catholic Church and not be bound to the canonical form, however it seems that few defections were formally received by Catholic bishops. The canon law was changed because it was causing difficulties when persons returned to the Catholic faith, and their non-Catholic marriages were valid. It was seemed inconsistent.

If there is a desire to return to the Catholic Church sacraments, then a con-validation could be done. Usually the complications are for those that had more than one marriage and the spouses are alive. Please discuss this with a priest as soon as possible. Also note that the canon law used for Armenian Catholics is different and more restrictive than for Latin Catholics. The code is called CCEO.

Yes, we will be speaking to a priest as soon as one will talk to us. Our parish is between Fathers right now, and the temporary Father just went on vacation as we arrived. There are happily no previous marriages. We were married once and intend to stay that way. We started going to mass and RCIA this week, after a year long of thought between us after our last experience.

I trust that God will figure it out. My fear is what our actions are supposed to be as He figures it out. I do not want to cause sin upon my wife. She is wonderful, and the best gift He could have given me. But we cannot live separately for financial reasons, it just isn’t possible. I fear that even in chastity my very being is causing sin upon her.

It’s a lot to process for a man who four years ago would hear things like this, say “what a bunch of crazies” and leave. She has helped me grow in great ways, and I desperately do not want to cause her harm.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, we will be speaking to a priest as soon as one will talk to us. Our parish is between Fathers right now, and the temporary Father just went on vacation as we arrived. There are happily no previous marriages. We were married once and intend to stay that way. We started going to mass and RCIA this week, after a year long of thought between us after our last experience.

I trust that God will figure it out. My fear is what our actions are supposed to be as He figures it out. I do not want to cause sin upon my wife. She is wonderful, and the best gift He could have given me. But we cannot live separately for financial reasons, it just isn’t possible. I fear that even in chastity my very being is causing sin upon her.

It’s a lot to process for a man who four years ago would hear things like this, say “what a bunch of crazies” and leave. She has helped me grow in great ways, and I desperately do not want to cause her harm.

The process will take time, so be patient, and enjoy your RCIA classes. If you just started this week, then I expect you will be received into the Church at Easter of 2016, so there is no reason to panic. Certainly if you have no pastor at your parish, it’s not going to be possible to short-track the RCIA process anyway - normally it takes at least a year, anyway. Welcome!

 

[Vico]

Yes, we will be speaking to a priest as soon as one will talk to us. Our parish is between Fathers right now, and the temporary Father just went on vacation as we arrived. There are happily no previous marriages. We were married once and intend to stay that way. We started going to mass and RCIA this week, after a year long of thought between us after our last experience.

I trust that God will figure it out. My fear is what our actions are supposed to be as He figures it out. I do not want to cause sin upon my wife. She is wonderful, and the best gift He could have given me. But we cannot live separately for financial reasons, it just isn’t possible. I fear that even in chastity my very being is causing sin upon her.

It’s a lot to process for a man who four years ago would hear things like this, say “what a bunch of crazies” and leave. She has helped me grow in great ways, and I desperately do not want to cause her harm.

This is what St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Familaris Consortio:

c) Catholics in Civil Marriages

1. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html