Marriage, divorce and marriage annulment only seem legalistic. They are in fact matters of Canon law and Marriage Tribunals are conducted as trials under Canon law. Canon lawyers are involved and issues are often quite technical interpretations of Canon law. Under Canon Law marriage is in essence viewed as a contract concerning conjugal relations.You know, every time there’s a thread like this I’m struck by the legalism of the anti-marriage side, hence why these threads are so long.
I know it is common here for people to order others to “read” this or that, so I will only suggest that if anyone would look at my post and actually read it, then that person would know that I “took no line”. The synod has not even met. I will take whatever “line” the give and the Holy Father implements.Jesus doesn’t care if they are.
Read the relevant Gospel reading. Right after Jesus says that the apostles take the same line you do…
My comment clearly concerns only those Catholics that are are divorced and remarried but have not obtained an annulment from the Church.The question is not whether a marriage was sacramental, but whether it was valid. Any valid marriage, whether or not it was sacramental, needs investigation prior to a new attempt at marriage. Some natural marriages can be dissolved rather than declared null, but then again, so can an unconsummated sacramental marriage.
Your comment clearly depicts the confusion so many people have between “sacramentality” of a marriage and “validity” of it.My comment clearly concerns only those Catholics that are are divorced and remarried but have not obtained an annulment from the Church.
Not only is the sacramentality of a marriage NOT determined in an annulment case, the question of its sacramentality is not even RAISED in the process. The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality. Experts must know and consistently present these distinctions if they are ever to help pew Catholics to understand first the fundamental juridic nature of all marriage and then the sacramentality of specifically Christian marriage.
Consider: if tribunals really regarded as null all marriages that were not “sacramental”, then no marriage between Jews, or between Muslims, or between Hindus, would be valid, for none of those marriages are sacramental. For that matter, no marriage between a Catholic and any non-baptized person would be valid, for such marriages are not regarded as sacramental, even when they are entered into in accord with canon law! This is nonsense, of course, but it’s the kind of nonsense that gains traction when an “expert” describes the central question in annulment cases to be about sacramentality instead of about validity.
I have to say that I was wrong on this for years. I was only corrected on it here a few years back.Your comment clearly depicts the confusion so many people have between “sacramentality” of a wedding and “validity” of it.
The legalism he was referring to is the tendency to accomodate and permit divorce and sinful behavior and irregular situations,like the pharisees did.Marriage, divorce and marriage annulment only seem legalistic. They are in fact matters of Canon law and Marriage Tribunals are conducted as trials under Canon law. Canon lawyers are involved and issues are often quite technical interpretations of Canon law. Under Canon Law marriage is in essence viewed as a contract concerning conjugal relations.
Canon 1134 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:Your comment clearly depicts the confusion so many people have between “sacramentality” of a marriage and “validity” of it.
I think the problem was that the use of the word, and of the Pharisees, was the polar opposite of how it is normally used. Finding exceptions to canon law is not something that is pharisaical, or legalistic. Trying to act pastorally in contrary to canon law likewise is not pharisaical. Just the opposite. It was Jesus that intervened contrary to the law to show mercy, to the woman about to be stoned in accordance to the Law, to the lame on the Sabbath, to the disciples when they were hungry on the Sabbath.The legalism he was referring to is the tendency to accomodate and permit divorce and sinful behavior and irregular situations,like the pharisees did.
It is possible for a Catholic to marry a Jew, or an atheist, in a Catholic Church before a Catholic priest or deacon, and this is called a “natural marriage”. If both of the parties are baptized Christians, it is a sacrament. If they are baptized later on during the marriage, it immediately becomes sacramental upon the baptism, no other ceremony is needed. But natural marriages do occur all the time, inside and outside the Catholic Church; inside the Church a dispensation for “disparity of cult” is needed, but easily obtained.This “special sacrament” is the Sacrament of Marriage. I realize that a Decree of Nullity concerns the validity of the marriage, but a valid Catholic marriage is a sacramental marriage.
Yes, I remember. But thanks. Canon law 1086.1 addresses this question. It is indeed an impediment known as ‘disparity of cult’ and under Canon law the impediment may be dispensed. Pax.It is possible for a Catholic to marry a Jew, or an atheist, in a Catholic Church before a Catholic priest or deacon, and this is called a “natural marriage”. If both of the parties are baptized Christians, it is a sacrament. If they are baptized later on during the marriage, it immediately becomes sacramental upon the baptism, no other ceremony is needed. But natural marriages do occur all the time, inside and outside the Catholic Church; inside the Church a dispensation for “disparity of cult” is needed, but easily obtained.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.The legalism he was referring to is the tendency to accomodate and permit divorce and sinful behavior and irregular situations,like the pharisees did.
Legalism is not always about following rules too strictly,it can also be about making exceptions to rules out of laxity and corruption,like the pharisees did with regard to permitting young men to be freed from their duty to support their parents if they made an offering to the temple.
The concern such comments raise in me is their vagueness. Clearly no one opposes mercy and forgiveness. The problem is that without specifying what they mean in this context and how they would be applied it really isn’t possible to know what is being suggested. Keep in mind that both mercy and forgiveness presuppose repentance.No, my comment was not at all a change. In posts #85 and #92, I stated I did not think that Pope Francis would change doctrine. As a result, I believe that the question will become what could be done for divorced and remarried Catholics that have not obtained an annulment. What I believe is important is to look to the person with mercy and forgiveness, for this concerns the eternal salvation of souls. We ought to tread carefully in our judgments of others.
What, exactly, do you mean here? Can you give a concrete example of how mercy and forgiveness would be applied?Mercy and forgiveness are relevant if for nothing else the error they perhaps made by entering into a marriage that failed.
It seems to me this is what the Synod is (or should be) all about.Since the question does involve the eternal salvation of souls, what I am saying is that the Church ought to reach out to those Catholics who are, without an annulment, divorced and remarried and do what could be done for them.
All marriages are presumed valid, and cannot be declared invalid without being investigated. Again, my concern with being “merciful” here is that it could devolve into simply rubber-stamping divorce as equaling invalid marriage.Without doubt, quite significant numbers of these Catholics never had a sacramental marriage. That the marriage ended in divorce is itself an indicator. It is no secret than many divorced and remarried Catholics do not wish to endure the current marriage tribunal process and view it as personally intrusive, lengthy and expensive. I might add that Matthew 7.1 is not irrelevant here either, and I know there are those in this situation that will not participate in the tribunal process for this very reason. Others do not want to reopen old wounds and again experience the deep pain of a failed marriage. The process ought to involve mercy.
A “re-marriage” is not a valid marriage. Having sexual relations outside of a valid marriage is adultery.I for one am hoping for a better understanding of why re-marriage can be a “state” of mortal sin…
Yes, adultery satisfies those criteria.… whether it is objective mortal sin having grave matter…
I don’t know what a subjective sin is.… or subjective mortal sin, but not always.
Adultery is an objectively grave sin. Keep in mind that if adultery is not a mortal sin then it would be difficult to contend that any sexual sin was grave.Is it the subjective state of mortal sin, or the objective, that bars communion?
That person would continue in blissful ignorance without giving his condition another thought, at least until judgment day. Everyone who becomes aware of his sin is pretty much in the same boat: either continue to sin and forgo communion or cease to sin and partake.What if the person does not know he committed a sin of grave matter?
Hello,…But whether a marriage were sacramental or not is what is important in the issue of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion without having obtained an annulment. …
The one that would be more like Jesus is the one who would do what Jesus said.Who is more like Jesus, the one who wants to do the most for sinners, or the one that does not even want to consider the question? Who is more like the Pharisee?
.
This concerns the Sacrament of Marriage. A valid Catholic marriage is a sacramental marriage. The valid first marriage of a divorced and remarried Catholic is putative absent a decree of Nullity. In this case, the second marriage is presumed an adulterous relationship, and therefore the Church does not (usually) permit such an individual to receive communion.Hello,
Why is that important?
Dan
Upon reflection, this is an excellent question. I will try to explain why since it is a question of the ages.Hello,
Why is that important?
Dan
This just begs the question of what Jesus says. We are not Protestants, after all, where we interpret for ourselves, what Jesus says beyond his actual words. A good example of this is your interpretation of Jesus saying, “Too, bad. Life’s hard,” which he did not say.The one that would be more like Jesus is the one who would do what Jesus said.