You’re absolutely right. I wrote my answer, then went out for a walk, and I was five minutes out when I realized that I should have clarified that the church didn’t recognize a civil union as a valid marriage for a Catholic. Thank you for adding that.
By what criteria is a civil union a valid marriage?
This has been answered multiple times in this thread. A civil union is a valid marriage when the parties entering into it are not bound (usually by church law) to be married in a religious ceremony, are free to marry, and are not coerced.
What is the definition of marriage if you were to describe its essentials? This sounds like a silly question, but most people think of a marriage license, church ceremony, and justice of peace when they think of marriage, but those are just means to an end-and relatively new traditions. For thousands of years people got married without a government or a license.
Marriage is the union of a man and woman for their good, and the raising of children.
CCC 1601 said:
Are you saying fornication wasn’t always a sin?
How did you get that from what you quoted?
It’s called a “natural marriage”. It can be annulled in favor of a Sacramental Marriage! God Bless, Memaw
Valid marriages, whether natural or sacramental, cannot be dissolved. Nullity only applies to invalid marriages.
“I think the confusion comes from the fact that you are trying to apply the modern construction of marriage to a non-modern setting.”How did you get that from what you quoted?
How did you interpret THAT to read that fornication might not have been a sin? I’m talking about marriage. Not fornication. You seem to believe that marriage has to look like it does today - as in registrations, licenses, etc - in order to be valid. I’m trying to explain that those do not “make” a marriage.
My husbands first marriage, a “natural marriage”, was annulled by Pope Paul VI years before they started the Marriage Tribunals. I saw his signature!!! God Bless, Memaw
did the old testament say fornication is a sin?
Yes.
I wasn’t referring to the way it looked-i was referring to the concept of sharing property.
Property distribution in a marriage is a very 20th century construct, and has nothing at all to do with the validity of marriage, biblically or otherwise.
What was the definition of marriage before property distribution?
Laws affecting property distribution did not change or in any way affect the definition of marriage.
If marriage isnt defined by property, why is dividing property what goes on in a divorce?
Because married spouses will usually own property jointly, either because they have chosen to or because the law presumes that they do. But property ownership and distribution have NOTHING to do with defining marriage - the parties are not married BECAUSE they own property jointly, they own property jointly BECAUSE they are married.