Papal Mass for Cohabitating Couples

[tee_eff_em]

I apologize that I have had to edit more of my interlocutor’s words than I would like, in order to keep this post to a reasonable length. If I have done any injustice by doing so, it is unintentional.

We must read the canons very carefully.

Indeed we must. First let us recall the position to which I object:

The marriage is neither valid nor a sacrament, if it’s not consummated. Without the marital act, it’s two people vowing to do something, but never getting started. If they never get started, there is no marriage…

I can read the canon no more carefully than this:
A

valid marriage between the baptized is called

ratum tantum

Were your position correct, there would be no more appropriate place for the canons to refer to “a putative marriage” or to a “marriage-with-no-adjective-so-that-it-might-be-ambiguous”, but it does not. It specifically refers to “a valid marriage”

**Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated;

it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.**

Ratum tantum means ratified only. We presume validity, because we presume that it will be consummated and that if it’s not consummated, it would be because of some very legitimate reason.

The most famous case that I can remember of a marriage that was “rantum tantum” was that of Catherine of Arragon and Prince Arthur.

When we read section 2 we see something else under the onion skin.

If a marriage were indissoluble, from the moment that the vows are made, then there is no need examine if it was ever consummated. Validity is assumed.

It is not my assertion that marriage were indissoluble, from the moment that the vows are made. Rather, I assert

The Church teaches that a valid (and, between the baptized, sacramental) marriage exists even in the absence of consummation.

(and to add: That consummation renders a sacramental (valid, between the baptized) marriage indissoluble).

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

Carefully reading the canon: Something cannot be dissolved if it does not exist. If a valid marriage does not exist until it is consummated, there is nothing for the Roman Pontiff to dissolve in the above case.

Observe that it says “non-consummated”. Once it’s consummated, even the Pontiff cannot dissolve it. The marriage bond is sealed in the consummation, provided there is no canonical impediment to the marriage. It’s important to observe that Can 1142 calls it a “non-consummated marriage” not a valid marriage or sacramental marriage. The canon refers to the marriage by what it is not. It makes no assumption of validity. Why not? Because it if were valid just by the vows, would the pope have the authority to dissolve a valid marriage?

But did we not just carefully read canon 1061, which specifically refers to a valid marriage (which has yet to be consummated)?

Finally, let us recall the Catechism:

2352 …
“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”
…

and

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

Your position, that *marriage is neither valid nor a sacrament, if it’s not consummated * leads to the absurd conclusion that a couple cannot consummate their union except by a gravely sinful act! If a ratum tantum union is not a valid marriage, then the parties to it must be an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, carnal union between whom (by which they mean to consummate the ratum tantum marriage) would be the grave act of fornication!

Surely this absurd conclusion cannot be correct!

tee

 

[ProVobis]

Your position, that *marriage is neither valid nor a sacrament, if it’s not consummated * leads to the absurd conclusion that a couple cannot consummate their union except by a gravely sinful act! If a ratum tantum union is not a valid marriage, then the parties to it must be an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, carnal union between whom (by which they mean to consummate the ratum tantum marriage) would be the grave act of fornication!

Surely this absurd conclusion cannot be correct!

Very well played, tee. I have to give you credit there.

But, as we’ve often been told, the Pope is the final arbiter.

.

 

[JPrayer]

I also read the news of the Pope’s marrying co-habs. When first seeing the article, my first response was, "oh no, another strike to Church law. But after pausing for a time, I saw that these people are now in the arms of the Church. Also, who knows what the Holy Father said to these people before and after their matrimonies concerning their lives previously. For me, I can’t judge them, or the Holy Father (I don’t think we should judge Pope Francis at all), but many are. Maybe the married couples confessed their sin, are sorry for their sin, are elated that the Pope himself is granting them mercy, and may become ardent and faithful Catholics, and convince their children that what they did was against Church teaching. Our Holy Father never ceases to amaze me. He is the first Pope (and I seen six) that personifies Jesus in that he loves e v e r y b o d y. I feel that we should go with him. The world is becoming too sensitive of every infraction, social or otherwise. I guess because of this present Pope, we’re learning forgiveness; isn’t that a great blessing!

 

[commenter]

I also read the news of the Pope’s marrying co-habs. When first seeing the article, my first response was, "oh no, another strike to Church law. But after pausing for a time, I saw that these people are now in the arms of the Church. Also, who knows what the Holy Father said to these people before and after their matrimonies concerning their lives previously. For me, I can’t judge them, or the Holy Father (I don’t think we should judge Pope Francis at all), but many are. Maybe the married couples confessed their sin, are sorry for their sin, are elated that the Pope himself is granting them mercy, and may become ardent and faithful Catholics, and convince their children that what they did was against Church teaching. Our Holy Father never ceases to amaze me. He is the first Pope (and I seen six) that personifies Jesus in that he loves e v e r y b o d y. I feel that we should go with him. The world is becoming too sensitive of every infraction, social or otherwise. I guess because of this present Pope, we’re learning forgiveness; isn’t that a great blessing!

Cohabitation is like smoking. It isn’t the worst thing in the world. We have no right to condemn those who have done it - or continue to do it. Yes, both practices are very hard to quit, after you have been doing it for a long time. We can’t judge the person who does the one, or the other thing.

That being said, we CAN judge that certain actions are harmful. We can do all we can to discourage people from initiating either of these habits, and do all we can to help them to stop. And keep loving the smokers, or cohabiters, even if they don’t.

 

[HelenRose]

I just read an article in the Catholic Review that Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, will preside at a Papal Mass and wedding ceremony for couples who have been cohabitating and couples who already have children.

The article went on to say “while cohabitating is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, it is contrary to the church’s teaching on marriage and sexual love.”

I am completely confused by this latest news from Rome. I have always been taught that a man and woman living together outside of marriage are committing the sin of fornication. Why, all of a sudden, is this not still a fact?

Nothing is said in the long article about these couples going to Confession and repenting for this (IMHO) terrible sin.

Is the Catholic Church I grew up with now changing its policy on marriage. Is it now okay to just “live together” and forget about it?

Very soon I am afraid we will hear that same sex marriage is now permitted in the Catholic Church.

:knight1:

I would appreciate some reasonable answers, please.

I don’t see the problem. It is a given that they all went to confession. I mean, who wouldn’t if they knew they were going to be married by the Pope Francis? This ceremony was planned enough in advance and each of these people had time to talk to Pope Francis or some other priest before the ceremony.

It is my constant prayer the my precious grandson and his girlfriend will turn to a priest and find peace and joy in a Catholic marriage.

 

[Lormar]

The marriage is neither valid nor a sacrament, if it’s not consummated. Without the marital act, it’s two people vowing to do something, but never getting started. If they never get started, there is no marriage.

The three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. I think I put confession where I wanted to say confirmation. However, confession is not required for marriage. That was the point that I was driving at. Thank you for the correction. I appreciate it.

That’s that last of that.** I’m not here to debate with people. I don’t have long to live. I’ll teach and those who want to learn and those who don’t want to learn don’t have to do so. But I will not engage. **Thank you.

Thank you, Brother, for making the effort to still come here when you perceive a need.

I admit I was taken up in the whirlwind with this recent bit of Vatican news until I decided it was not only none of my business, but that I was in no position to cast any stones at anyone for anything, and that the beam in my own eye was sufficient to keep me busy for the remainder of my earthly existence.

Prayers for you daily, Brother!

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Kresta in the Afternoon radio show will feature an interview today with canon lawyer Ed Peters on this papal mass for cohabiting couples. Here is show description. Check audio archives later if you can’t listen live.

 

[pnewton]

. All sacramental marriages are valid; but not all valid marriages are sacramental. Yet, validity is what makes a marriage indissoluble, not the grace of the sacrament. .

We must read the canons very carefully.

**Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; **

Ratum tantum means ratified only. We presume validity, because we presume that it will be consummated and that if it’s not consummated, it would be because of some very legitimate reason.

Hm. Learned something new today. Thanks!

To use the analogy above of the doctor, in the case of the Holy Father, the doctor has cured the patience, since the remedy to cohabitating without marriage is cohabitating within marriage. Ta da. All is good.

FYI - Priests do this all the time. This is nothing new.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please do not argue canon law unless you have had some training in canon law. It’s a complex area. Many of our readers may assume that you know what you’re talking about, because you sound logical. This is how people end up on slippery slopes.

The purpose of this forum is to discuss Catholic customs and Catholic traditions.

It is equally important, when discussing a matter that is as serious as this to inform your reader that you have no formal training in canon law, theology, scripture or whatever is needed to do the subject justice. This helps the reader remember to consult someone in his or her parish or diocese.