Marriage covenant vs. marriage contract

[rayne89]

What is the difference between a marriage covenant vs a marriage contract? Or is there a difference?

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

From what I, a naive teen, understands, a marriage is until death do they part. Unless there never was a marriage, then it can be annuled, which just says that the bride and groom were never wife and husband to begin with.

 

[kev7]

A covenant is not conditional on the other person keeping their promise. When you enter into a marriage covenant you promise to love the other person even if they failt to do the same. When God made a covenant with the jews he always he kept his promise regardless of their actions.

A contract is conditional on both parties keeping their end of the bargan up.

I think that a marriage contract is basically useless.

 

[rayne89]

kev7:

A covenant is not conditional on the other person keeping their promise. When you enter into a marriage covenant you promise to love the other person even if they failt to do the same. When God made a covenant with the jews he always he kept his promise regardless of their actions.

A contract is conditional on both parties keeping their end of the bargan up.

I think that a marriage contract is basically useless.

Thankyou Kev, that’s what I thought.

 

[mosher]

Pro-Life_Teen:

From what I, a naive teen, understands, a marriage is until death do they part. Unless there never was a marriage, then it can be annuled, which just says that the bride and groom were never wife and husband to begin with.

lol I know what you are referencing … don’t take it too hard.

rayne89:

What is the difference between a marriage covenant vs a marriage contract? Or is there a difference?

There is a huge difference between a covenant and a contract. Scott Hahn discusses this well in his Doctoral Discertation and in his book “A Father who keeps his promises”

Dr. Hahn cites that while there are many minor differences substantially there are two differences. In a contract there is a promise and in a covenant there is a solemn oath exchanged between the parties. The important disctinction here is that in a promise you use your name to seal the agreement but in an oath you seal the agreement with God’s name. “Covenants forge bonds of freedom in committment on the basis of oath-swearing.” (p. 25)

As far is the second point of importance is concerned it is a matter of what is exchanged. Dr. Hahn states: “A contract is an exchange of property in the form of goods and services (“That is mine and this is yours”); whereas a covenant calls for the exchange of persons (“I am yours and you and mine”), creating a shared bond of interpersonal communion.” (p. 26)

Because of this distinction there is a much larger gravity to the violation of a covenant than to a contract. In our sensabilities as Catholics are pertains to marriage or any sacrament to that matter there is implicit in the Sacrament the concept of covenant. The word for Sacrament in latin is sacramentum which is roughly translated as ‘oath’ - which can be translated as covenant. Thus each Sacrament is a covenant. In Marriage we find a marriage contract which is not a sacramental marriage and works just like a standard contract but in a marriage covenant we find a Sacramental nature.

 

[rayne89]

SO would you agree this? All this talk of “you do this and I’m outta here” lately on certain threads was making me wonder if we as Catholics really understood the difference bewtween a contract and covenant.

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=97&art_id=25012

*The Hebrew word for covenant, berit, which is translated into our English word “covenant," connotes much more than a legal contract or mere human promise. The Hebrew word signifies something that binds one to another forever. In fact, the word berit originally meant a “shackle” or “chain.” In other words, a person’s covenant was that person’s ultimate and unshakeable bond. This stands in stark differentiation from the word “contract.” A contract can be breached and remedies at law will fill the gap. A covenant, however, leaves an indelible mark that can never be effaced. Whether or not a party responds in covenant, he or she still remains in covenant which, once entered into, bonds the participants forever. Physical or emotional abandonment cannot supplant the supernatural act of spiritual bonding. The fusion engendered within each true and free covenant creates a sacred cohesion.

 

[mosher]

rayne89:

SO would you agree this? All this talk of “you do this and I’m outta here” lately on certain threads was making me wonder if we as Catholics really understood the difference bewtween a contract and covenant.

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=97&art_id=25012

The Hebrew word for covenant, berit, which is translated into our English word “covenant," connotes much more than a legal contract or mere human promise. The Hebrew word signifies something that binds one to another forever. In fact, the word berit originally meant a “shackle” or “chain.” In other words, a person’s covenant was that person’s ultimate and unshakeable bond. This stands in stark differentiation from the word “contract.” A contract can be breached and remedies at law will fill the gap. A covenant, however, leaves an indelible mark that can never be effaced. Whether or not a party responds in covenant, he or she still remains in covenant which, once entered into, bonds the participants forever. Physical or emotional abandonment cannot supplant the supernatural act of spiritual bonding. The fusion engendered within each true and free covenant creates a sacred cohesion.

Yes I think that that is a fair statement. It is my contention that it is our over exposure to protestant and secular ideas of marriage that most catholics live outside of the sacramental nature of their faith and this is directly related to the jump in recent years in the ammount of granted annulments and the lack of people in confessional lines and the declining understanding and belief in the True Presence in the Eucharist, the need for Baptism and Confirmation and the issue of Holy Orders as being reserved to men. I think that a lot if not most of the issues today in the Church are related to this aspect of losing our Sacramental identity and lifestyle as Catholics.

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

rayne89:

SO would you agree this? All this talk of “you do this and I’m outta here” lately on certain threads was making me wonder if we as Catholics really understood the difference bewtween a contract and covenant.

Not to mention, it’s very unnerving. And not at all assuring. I don’t know about other teens, but I want a marriage where I know my spouse’s staying. I wouldn’t leave if he did something stupid and regretted it. Asked for forgiveness. Trust is a big factor… but trusting that you can be forgiven is big too.

You know how a kid doesn something and is afraid of telling their parents because they’ll get mad? This is the same, only maginified. You and you spouse are one flesh, but if one is too afraid to say something for fear of that being a ticket outta there, it’s not going to be a good marriage.

People have to learn to forgive. Love the sinner and hate the sin. Adultry is stupid, evil and wrong. But you don’t have to leave your spouse for it. You love them, I assume, since you married them in God’s house.

 

[rayne89]

Pro-Life_Teen:

Not to mention, it’s very unnerving. And not at all assuring. I don’t know about other teens, but I want a marriage where I know my spouse’s staying. I wouldn’t leave if he did something stupid and regretted it. Asked for forgiveness. Trust is a big factor… but trusting that you can be forgiven is big too.

I think some people make a big point of saying “If you cheat I’m outta here” because they feel if they say to their spouse “I’ll stick by you no matter what” that somehow gives their spouse a blanket invitation to cheat. It’s really said as a threat to “keep their spouse inline”. I feel that the people that feel the need to preface their vows with stipulations means there is an underlying trust or insecurity issue.

 

[Catholic2003]

The Church teaches, and has always taught, that in the case of an adulterous spouse, the innocent party has recourse to perpetual separation (i.e., civil divorce without possibility of remarriage). I don’t see any point in questioning the Church’s wisdom in this matter.

As to the title question, this chapter of Frank Sheed’s Nullity of Marriage is very informative:

VERY few single phrases can have wrought so much mischief as the phrase “Marriage is a contract”. The man in the street repeats it, without full understanding, knowing nothing of all that goes with it in the mind of the expert; he has never heard of a contract (nor, indeed, is there one) that cannot be brought to an end by the consent of both parties; he therefore argues that marriage, too, since it is a contract, must be terminable in the same way.

…

God alone can bring a marriage into being; God alone lays down the conditions in which it can cease to be. Once a relationship is in being, the parties cannot alter these conditions; nor can the State; nor can the Church. By God’s ordinance, marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman for the propagation of the species. Thus, marriage is not terminable, as a contract would be terminable, by the consent of the parties; it is not terminable, as a mere status would be terminable, by the will of the State.

From this it follows that, while the parties can separate, with the husband going to other women, the wife to other men, they are still husband and wife because it was God who made them so; their ignoring of the oneness leaves the oneness untouched: it is beyond their reach, beyond any reach but God’s. Similarly a declaration by the State that a husband and wife are no longer husband and wife–a declaration, that is, of divorce–is a mere form of words. The State can say that it has broken the marriage-bond between two people; but it has not broken it. During the lifetime of the parties they remain husband and wife; because that is of the nature of marriage as ordained by God.

The failure to understand this teaching of the Catholic Church has given rise to much quite irrelevant argument. Those who urge that the Church should grant, or, at any rate, permit, divorce always do so on the ground that in certain cases it is desirable. But to urge that a thing is desirable is no answer to a statement that it is impossible. And that is the precise truth.

Marriage, then, is a contract resulting in a relationship; better still, it is a relationship resulting from a contract.

For when the relationship comes into being the contract has done its work; it has produced the relationship of marriage, and the parties are now governed in their common life, not by the contract (which they made), but by the relationship (which God made in ratification of their contract).

 

[Topher]

I think that a covenant has to do with becoming familial and with the giving of persons. For this reason it has a personal aspeft that allows for mercy and forgivenss. A contract, on the other hand, is simply a legal agreement. If person A does this or that, then person B will do that or this. It is not personal and there is no room for mercy.

 

[CARose]

Pro-Life_Teen:

Not to mention, it’s very unnerving. And not at all assuring. I don’t know about other teens, but I want a marriage where I know my spouse’s staying. I wouldn’t leave if he did something stupid and regretted it. Asked for forgiveness. Trust is a big factor… but trusting that you can be forgiven is big too.

You know how a kid doesn something and is afraid of telling their parents because they’ll get mad? This is the same, only maginified. You and you spouse are one flesh, but if one is too afraid to say something for fear of that being a ticket outta there, it’s not going to be a good marriage.

People have to learn to forgive. Love the sinner and hate the sin. Adultry is stupid, evil and wrong. But you don’t have to leave your spouse for it. You love them, I assume, since you married them in God’s house.

Bravo! I wish more people felt as you do.

Cath2003, just because the Church allows something is not the same as saying the Church requires it. It’s OK and even admirable for a spouse to stand my their better half, even when their spouse has acted less than admirably.

JMHO.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Catholic2003]

CARose:

Cath2003, just because the Church allows something is not the same as saying the Church requires it.

It is true that the Church no longer requires separation in cases of adultery.

CARose:

It’s OK and even admirable for a spouse to stand my their better half, even when their spouse has acted less than admirably.

It is indeed admirable.

However, the suggestion that those innocent spouses who do choose to separate are somehow reneging on their marriage vows is squarely against Church teaching.

 

[CARose]

Catholic2003:

It is indeed admirable.

However, the suggestion that those innocent spouses who do choose to separate are somehow reneging on their marriage vows is squarely against Church teaching.

I suggest that it is because of the hardness of their hearts that such a thing is permitted, just as Moses permitted divorce for the same offense. This was pointed out by Christ.

But that’s just my humble opinion and I applaud those who would like to see more people take the more permanent approach to marriage.

CARose

 

[Catholic2003]

CARose:

I suggest that it is because of the hardness of their hearts that such a thing is permitted, just as Moses permitted divorce for the same offense. This was pointed out by Christ.

I’ve already posted the reasons for this Church teaching:

By penalizing adultery, the legislator is directly protecting the very status of the defrauded spouse in his or her faith, inasmuch as adultery violates the most unique obligation of marriage, fidelity related to the specifically conjugal acts. It is protecting not so much the personal dignity of the innocent spouse, as much as the specific marital dignity of the innocent spouse; it is protecting the spouse precisely because s/he is a spouse. Adultery extinguishes first the obligation of conjugal sexual intercourse and consequently the obligation of cohabitation.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with the hardness of our hearts. Note that, technically speaking, the “legislator” referred to above is Pope John Paul II, so it is possible that Pope Benedict XVI could have a different rationale. But I doubt it.

Those who wish to correctly form their consciences about the effects of adultery on a Catholic marriage would do well to meditate on this paragraph.

 

[mosher]

Catholic2003:

The Church teaches, and has always taught, that in the case of an adulterous spouse, the innocent party has recourse to perpetual separation (i.e., civil divorce without possibility of remarriage). I don’t see any point in questioning the Church’s wisdom in this matter.

As to the title question, this chapter of Frank Sheed’s Nullity of Marriage is very informative:

True but this has nothing to do with the seeking of an annulment because that might not be possible.

Further even though the Church does allow for perpertual seperation as I am cited elseware it implies the possibility of spousal reconsiliation.

 

[Ruthie]

Please read catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp.

Please also read CCC 2382 and 2383.

Adultery is NOT grounds for divorce. For separation, yes, but not for divorce. Even so, “it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner…”

Divorce is only tolerated when “certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of an inheritance” are threatened.

And even so, the Church still considers the couple separated, unless an annulment is granted.

I did read on the “Ask an Apologist” forum that a threat to the kids can exist if the adulterer is at risk of bringing STDs home.

 

[Catholic2003]

Ruthie:

Even so, “it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner…”

This is very true, and I don’t mean to imply otherwise. But it is very important to contrast this with the fact that Church teaching requires (and not just earnestly recommends) forgiveness for every other kind of marital problem or difficulty.

I think that we need to be on guard against the secular idea that adultery is just one type of bad marital behavior out of many, or that adultery is no more than just an indication of deeper, more important problems within a marriage. This is the kind of flawed thinking that led to the “no-fault” divorce laws that are inflicted on us nowadays.

Instead, adultery is a singular affront to the dignity of a marriage that cannot be compared with any other marital sins, including physical abuse. There are many, many ways to sin against another person, including one’s spouse. But adultery is unique in the way that it directly attacks at the heart of the marriage relationship itself.

 

[rayne89]

Catholic2003:

This is very true, and I don’t mean to imply otherwise. But it is very important to contrast this with the fact that Church teaching requires (and not just earnestly recommends) forgiveness for every other kind of marital problem or difficulty.

I always thought we always had to forgive any wrong against us.

14. "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15. "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
Matt 6:14-15

 

[Catholic2003]

rayne89:

I always thought we always had to forgive any wrong against us.

In the context of canon 1152 §1 (which is the source of Ruthie’s quote), forgiveness refers specifically to readmitting the adulterous spouse to common conjugal life.

In the context of Matthew 6:14-15, a more general notion of forgiveness applies, which does not include the obligation to readmit an adulterous spouse to common conjugal life.