Marwaige, Mawwriage is what bwings us together today

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miserissima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miserissima

Guest
Sorry, couldn’t resist quoting from the Princess Bride. Almost the best movie ever.

Now, on to my questions:

In a nutshell, what are the impediments to marriage?
  1. Marrying a non Catholic may cause issues
  2. Not being open to new life
  3. One or both partners being married before
  4. Having been married before
    …4a.civil marriage or in the Church, do one or both parties need an annullment, even if marrried civilly? Does the civil marriag need an annullment?
    5.My biggest question has to do with mental illness: if a fiance knows beforehand that that a potential wife/husband has a mental illness, would that preclude a marriage in the Church?
    …5a I already know that if a mental illness diagnosed AFTER the marriage that the spouses shouls remain together.
  5. Mental/physical abuse
I know that I can research this better, but I am looking for
“layman’s lingo” and hope you can help. What other impediments are there?

Finally, forgive the typing errors. I am on my husband’s laptop and can spell…really, I can!
 
can’t find the link but in the many discussions on annulments on this forum are links to Annulment the Marriage that Wasn’t by Fuller, which gives specifics on impediments to marriage in natural law and canon law. a review of those threads may be the fastest answer to your questions, my computer is running slow and having trouble searching right now, hope you have better luck

since your question revolves on mental illness look esp. at canon 1095 in the link above.
 
Both of you are too kind. I am on 56k with this laptop and instead of a search, it was easier to just as a question. I want to understand the wordin but my brain isn’t processing much today!
 
  1. Marrying a non Catholic may cause issues
Click to expand...
Not an impediment, as long as the non-Catholic is baptized.
  1. Not being open to new life
Click to expand...
The marriage needs be open to the gift of life. Now there are times in which conception is possible due to age or sterility.
  1. One or both partners being married before
Click to expand...
This is an impediment.
  1. Having been married before
    …4a.civil marriage or in the Church, do one or both parties need an annullment, even if marrried civilly?
Click to expand...
Even if the marriage is deemed invalid it still needs to be nulled by an annulment. If both parties have been in a previous marriage both of them need annulments to marry again.
Does the civil marriag need an annullment?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is not valid but it still needs to be nulled
5.My biggest question has to do with mental illness: if a fiance knows beforehand that that a potential wife/husband has a mental illness, would that preclude a marriage in the Church?
Click to expand...
As long as the person with mental illness could fulfill the marital commitment I think it would be valid. Ask a priest about this one.
…5a I already know that if a mental illness diagnosed AFTER the marriage that the spouses shouls remain together.
Click to expand...
Yes.
  1. Mental/physical abuse
Click to expand...
One should not enter a marriage in which they are being abused.

God Bless,
Matt
 
Another impediment would be if one of the persons, did not enter into marriage freely. If a couple got married because the woman was pregnant and they were getting married merely because it was the right thing to do for the child, this would be seen as going against free will, in entering a marriage. This is often a valid reason for a marriage to be annulled.

Also, a prearranged marriage by parents, where one of the persons were pressured into marriage, would also be an impediment.

Jim
 
Can. 1088 Those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.

If someone was a consecrated virgin/widow/hermit/anchorite, i.e. had made a public perpetual vow of chastity as an individual instead of being a member of an order or institute, does this mean they could dispense with that vow and get married?🤷
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Another impediment would be if one of the persons, did not enter into marriage freely. If a couple got married because the woman was pregnant and they were getting married merely because it was the right thing to do for the child, this would be seen as going against free will, in entering a marriage. This is often a valid reason for a marriage to be annulled.

Also, a prearranged marriage by parents, where one of the persons were pressured into marriage, would also be an impediment.

Jim
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between these kinds of impediments and the ones mentioned in the canons above though, in that someone getting married because they were pregnant or to please their parents would still be able to get married in church. It’s only later, if it turned out that this had affected their free will, that the question of whether the marriage was valid would be raised. That is to say, a priest could not and would not agree to marry a priest and a nun, or a man and a 12yr old girl, such marriages would never be marriages. But a priest need not, and probably would not deny a couple the right to marry because the woman was pregnant, or because the parents had introduced the young couple through a matchmaker.
 
Miserissima said:
5.My biggest question has to do with mental illness: if a fiance knows beforehand that that a potential wife/husband has a mental illness, would that preclude a marriage in the Church?
…5a I already know that if a mental illness diagnosed AFTER the marriage that the spouses shouls remain together.
6. Mental/physical abuse

I know that I can research this better, but I am looking for
“layman’s lingo” and hope you can help. What other impediments are there?

Finally, forgive the typing errors. I am on my husband’s laptop and can spell…really, I can!
Click to expand...
I think mental illness diagnosed after the marriage, but which could have been present or showed some symptoms before the marriage, would be grounds for an annulment. As would mental or physical abuse before the marriage.

There is a difference between impediments to a marriage, i.e. things that make it impossible to get married, such as if one of you is a priest or already married, and grounds for nullity, i.e. things that mean that maybe when you said the words that make the sacrament valid, there was some ignorance or lack of consent that mean that maybe the marriage isn’t sacramental. This could include holding something back, being engaged in adultery while engaged, which continues once married, being ignorant of the meaning of Catholic marriage (which is why so many diocese are extra careful about marriage prep these days), being mentally ill, signing a pre-nuptial agreement (a sign that you expect divorce as a possible outcome), marrying under pressure from parents or society, marrying to get a Green Card, etc.

In the case of impediments, there is no marriage, fact. In the case of these other issues, you must assume that the marriage was valid until a Church tribunal declares otherwise.

I am worried by these questions, is this about you personally? If so, speak to a priest and/or a good Catholic marriage counsellor.
 
DL82 said:
There’s a difference between these kinds of impediments and the ones mentioned in the canons above though, in that someone getting married because they were pregnant or to please their parents would still be able to get married in church. It’s only later, if it turned out that this had affected their free will, that the question of whether the marriage was valid would be raised. That is to say, a priest could not and would not agree to marry a priest and a nun, or a man and a 12yr old girl, such marriages would never be marriages. But a priest need not, and probably would not deny a couple the right to marry because the woman was pregnant, or because the parents had introduced the young couple through a matchmaker.
Click to expand...
I think that in today’s world, if a couple is getting married, because of pregnancy or to please parents, the priest would not marry them, because it would not be entered freely.

The condition for annulment is that there was no marriage in the first place, because one of the couple, did not enter into it freely.

Anyway, thats my understanding, which is probably wrong.🙂

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I think that in today’s world, if a couple is getting married, because of pregnancy or to please parents, the priest would not marry them, because it would not be entered freely.

The condition for annulment is that there was no marriage in the first place, because one of the couple, did not enter into it freely.

Anyway, thats my understanding, which is probably wrong.🙂

Jim
Click to expand...
I think freedom is a relative kind of thing. In today’s world, we tend to think that freedom means an infinite number of choices, but that’s not really true. We tend to think that for a couple to love eachother, they must fall for eachother for no other reason than that they have ‘fallen in love’.

For example, I can choose to become a university teacher, even though I could just as easily have been a chef or a fisherman or a woodsman. A quadriplegic may not have had those choices, but may still choose to become a university teacher. Is their choice any less free just because those other possibilities weren’t viable?

It’s quite possible that two people can be strongly encouraged by their parents to get married, but at the same time can freely choose by themselves to love one another and to make that commitment to get married. Likewise somebody who chooses to marry the woman they’ve got pregnant, they can genuinely decide to spend their lives together, love one another, be open to life, and be good parents to the child they have created. The Church insists that people freely choose to make the commitment to marriage, it doesn’t insist that people are head over heels in the kind of sentimental love you see in the movies.

Of course, it’s good if that love is there, and in my own life I’d be worried if I was considering marriage and it wasn’t.
 
DL82;
I think freedom is a relative kind of thing. In today’s world, we tend to think that freedom means an infinite number of choices, but that’s not really true.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about freedom of will here, not the privalege of making choices. In the context of marriage, the person must be entering the union, with free will.

In other words, a woman becomes pregnant out of wed-lock, and she marries the father, not because she wants to, but feels she must for the sake of the child, or to please her parents, who would be embarassed over the un-wed pregnancy. In other words, she believes she must marry the father.
We tend to think that for a couple to love eachother, they must fall for eachother for no other reason than that they have ‘fallen in love’.
Click to expand...
Love is a decision of the will. Its not just a matter of passion, which is what today’s world tends to think love is.
For example, I can choose to become a university teacher, even though I could just as easily have been a chef or a fisherman or a woodsman. A quadriplegic may not have had those choices, but may still choose to become a university teacher. Is their choice any less free just because those other possibilities weren’t viable?
Click to expand...
These are not choices that are permanent, as marriage is. Even if you chose to become a chef or whatever, you could later on, deside to leave. Not so marriage, if the marriage is valid.

Also, the difference with the quadriplegic, is that his choice is limited. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the person entered the union because she/he thought there was no choice.
The Church insists that people freely choose to make the commitment to marriage, it doesn’t insist that people are head over heels in the kind of sentimental love you see in the movies.
Click to expand...
As I’ve been saying, the Church looks at whether the person has entered marriage of their own free will, and not because of circumstances or outside pressure.

Jim
 
Jim, thanks for your response. All I’m saying is that circumstances do not in themselves preclude the possibility of free will. It is perfectly possible for a person to both experience family pressure to marry AND freely choose to marry. It’s like the way we offer up our sufferings. We didn’t choose the suffering, but we can choose (or not) to offer it up. The same thing can go on inside a person’s head when they are weighing up whether to go ahead and get married in that kind of situation. For that reason, being pregnant or being part of an arranged marriage (which is different from a forced marriage, which would be invalid) would not necessarily make the marriage invalid.

Put another way, a priest would not commit a sin by allowing such a couple to marry in his church. If on the other hand, a priest allowed a brother and sister to marry, or allowed a priest and a nun to marry, he would commit a sin. These are objective impediments to marriage, whereas the pressures you talk about are only subjective factors which may suggest a lack of full consent, but would not in themselves preclude marriage.

Returning to the original poster, I am still concerned about your questions 5a, 5b and 6. If these refer to you and your spouse, I seriously suggest you seek the advice of your priest, not the advice of us on this forum.
 
DL82 said:
At the risk of taking this thread completely off-topic, neither of these canons requires that the two people be a man and a woman! Maybe that’s so obvious it doesn’t need to be stated in canon law.
Click to expand...
It’s not mentioned there because it defines marriage earlier.

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.

God Bless,
Matt
 
I KNEW coming here I woud get answers from people who would know. I am sorry to ask you to research FOR me, but greatly apreciate your help…I even questions to ask the Monsegnior after the Pontiff leaves town!

*Thank you all.*I know I’ve posted this before, but especially tonight for each of the contributors to this thread:

Watch, O Lord, with those who wake,
or watch, or weep tonight,
and give your angels and saints
charge over those who sleep.

Tend your sick ones, O Lord Christ,
rest your weary ones,
bless your dying ones,
soothe your suffering ones,
pity your afflicted ones
shield your joyous ones.

**And all for youre love’s sake. **
Amen.
 
Illness, including mental illness, is only an impediment if it precludes either free consent or the ability to fulfill one’s marital obligations. Neuroses are not necessarily impediments to valid marriage. It does not matter whether a disqualifying mental illness was actually diagnosed at the time of marriage, only whether the illness existed at the time of marriage. If there was not a marriage on Day 1, there was no marriage. That one’s prospective spouse knew of the illness and chose to try to ignore it and attempted the marriage anyway does not give spouse with the illness the ability to be validly married, either. No ability on Day 1, no marriage.

One thing that you haven’t listed is the case where one or both spouses gave their consent deceitfully; that is, if they made their vows but had no intention honoring them. This kind of deceit is a serious sin, but it does not make a valid marriage. One can also have a defect in character that is so grave that one never possessed the ability to enter into marriage.

This is different, however, from having the ability and the original intent, but then later choosing not to honor the vows. My impression is that it is a steep hill to demonstrate that one lacked the ability to make the vows, rather than that one willfully refused to honor them. A marriage is always presumed valid unless evidence proves otherwise. If the evidence is not irrefutable (like the existence of a previous valid marriage), the marriage is valid until declared otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top