New to the faith and I have some questions?

[estesbob]

Thank you for explaining that to me

But surely in medieval Catholic Europe, marriage ceremonys didn’t even exist (so I heard). Marriage would be by desire, an agreement would be made and then you would be married once they came to agreement. .

This myth is often expounded by those trying to promote homosexual marriage -it simply is not true. Marriage has been a sacrament since the first century.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I have Holy Orders by desire.

Just call me Father Liz. :bigyikes:

 

[CEM5]

Thank you for explaining that to me

But surely in medieval Catholic Europe, marriage ceremonys didn’t even exist (so I heard). Marriage would be by desire, an agreement would be made and then you would be married once they came to agreement. This was taken really seriously. In Britain, there was a case when a young local man raped a woman. She then went to the authorities, who agreed with her that this meant he was her legal husband, and was duty-bound to stay with her. She succeeded. I’m sure Britain was Catholic at the time this practice was taking place, it certainly wasn’t in the pre-Christian era of British history.

Edit: I don’t mean to question the doctrine, but I’m asking whether how marriage worked out has changed historically.

Hi LemonAndLime,

Yes, Medieval Catholic marriage ceremonies did exist, and as a matter of fact, many of our marriage traditions stem from it.

blessings,
CEM

 

[jmcrae]

I have Holy Orders by desire.

Just call me Father Liz. :bigyikes:

 

[Incomplete]

I don’t think that case worked like that. I got the impression that the reason the woman chased the man for marriage was that she would find it very difficult to find anyone else who would take her, and that this was a man she knew. She took it to the local magistrate and he ruled in her favour - I assume that the fact he had sex with her (something which is restrained to within marriage) was advantageous in her case for a mutually agreed marriage. I think the reason this record existed was because it was in the magistrate record book, kept in an ancient Church - it was in a documentary about medieval Britain, it was a long time ago that I watched it. The guy was simply going through the records of disputes over land, wages etc and this came up.

I’m wondering how the term “rape” was used back then. I only say this because I can’t imagine a man raping a woman and then the woman wanting to marry him. Maybe there was some consent on her part, but because of societal pressures she couldn’t admit it.

That, of course, is speculation on my part.

Regardless, if the local magistrate considered her married, then there were norms in that day about sex and marriage. If a rapist would be considered married, obviously somebody participating in consensual sex would be considered married. In this day and age, there is none of that. A ceremony is required even by secular law. That is the present boundary. In present time nobody would be ruled to be married because of a sexual relationship.

 

[Incomplete]

LemonAndLime;7442747:

If there was a wedding feast at Cana that out Lord attended then I’m sure there were rubrics for marriage in the medieval times . Marriages were made a sacrament by Christs presence and this is what the Priest (Alter Christi) does at weddings; they are there to represent Christ and confer the sacrament of marriage.

Good point.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’m wondering how the term “rape” was used back then. I only say this because I can’t imagine a man raping a woman and then the woman wanting to marry him. Maybe there was some consent on her part, but because of societal pressures she couldn’t admit it.

That, of course, is speculation on my part.

Regardless, if the local magistrate considered her married, then there were norms in that day about sex and marriage. If a rapist would be considered married, obviously somebody participating in consensual sex would be considered married. In this day and age, there is none of that. A ceremony is required even by secular law. That is the present boundary. In present time nobody would be ruled to be married because of a sexual relationship.

True, but most marriages by then didn’t necessarily involve a ceremony, by my understanding. They would make an agreement, shake hands, and then be a married couple. We’re talking about hundreds of years ago though, and I guess not all people lived near a Church.

 

[Incomplete]

True, but most marriages by then didn’t necessarily involve a ceremony, by my understanding. They would make an agreement, shake hands, and then be a married couple. We’re talking about hundreds of years ago though, and I guess not all people lived near a Church.

I’m glad you ask questions that others may be thinking.

Whether or not your understanding is correct, even what you said shows that there was an acknowledgement of when a person was married and when they weren’t. There has to be some sort of public boundary. Somehow people knew the couple were married, not just desiring to be married.

In other words, it was after the agreement and handshake that the couple could engage in a marital relationship, not the day they started talking about making that commitment, or even the day they agreed that they would one day make that commitment. There was a day they could be proclaimed husband and wife. That was the day that marital relationships became appropriate, because that was the day they were married.

And I just noticed your signature. Welcome home!

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’m glad you ask questions that others may be thinking.

Whether or not your understanding is correct, even what you said shows that there was an acknowledgement of when a person was married and when they weren’t. There has to be some sort of public boundary. Somehow people knew the couple were married, not just desiring to be married.

In other words, it was after the agreement and handshake that the couple could engage in a marital relationship, not the day they started talking about making that commitment, or even the day they agreed that they would one day make that commitment. There was a day they could be proclaimed husband and wife. That was the day that marital relationships became appropriate, because that was the day they were married.

And I just noticed your signature. Welcome home!

I thought that “married by desire” meant that they believed that they were married, just didn’t consider it necessary to have a ceremony. So I thought my example would count as being married by desire, because they both desired and agreed on it and then they were married instead of having a 3rd entity involved, whether thats a Priest or the mayor.

And thank you!

 

[Incomplete]

I thought that “married by desire” meant that they believed that they were married, just didn’t consider it necessary to have a ceremony. So I thought my example would count as being married by desire, because they both desired and agreed on it and then they were married instead of having a 3rd entity involved, whether thats a Priest or the mayor.

And thank you!

The Catholic church would require a public commitment.

In the example you made, it shows there was some sort of “form” to be followed to say you were married. This is different from saying that no ceremony is necessary. They followed societal norms. For all I know, it was the act of moving in that showed the world they were man and wife. Whatever boundary it was that showed others they were married, that’s when a sexual relationship is appropriate.

Though, since weddings were certainly mentioned in the Bible, and from a few other posts, I think there was always some form of public witness to a wedding. But either way, society has always had some way to recognize whether a couple is married or not. That’s why marriage by desire doesn’t work.

I’ve enjoyed this conversation. I have to share the story of why this thread struck such an interest in me:

Back in my day (I’m in my early 50s) we attended CCD all the way through high school, not just until confirmation.

I was dating a man in my senior year of high school. We planned to be married. He was getting a bit aggressive, though, in trying to convince me we should being a sexual relationship.

I learned that my CCD teacher was going to be talking about sex, so I invited him to the class, figuring it might help him to lay off.

The teacher taught marriage by desire. He said that once the agreement was made to be married, you were married in your heart, therefore sex at that time was not sinful.

This, of course, goes against Church teachings. And it didn’t help me at all. My fiance was more than happy to buy into that. At that time I wanted to believe him as well. It sure would’ve taken a lot of pressure off of me.

I know you did not mean this kind of “marriage by desire” when you cited your example, but I just wanted to share it.

 

[white_sheep]

It’d be very difficult to obtain a degree of nullity for a marriage by desire.