Quick question about annulment/divorce

[joanofarc2008]

Which answers are from Canon Lawyers.

I can tell you that one of them is NOT me. It’s not my business to point out anyone else’s except to say that there have been very qualified individuals that have spoken up and been ignored. On that note, I think Easter Joy is right. Hopefully the OP has gotten the point of what the OP came for.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You didn’t answer the question.

Actually, I did answer your questions maybe you should return the favor ?

Your claim that the Church is clear should be able to be backed up with citations from Church documtnets.

The posts are backed with references so what is your reason to write such a statement?

Which answers are from Canon Lawyers.

Well I think one was pointed out in post 61

Do you need an explanation of what Canon 1055 means? Here is a hint read the part which says “which a man and a woman establish between themselves” and then answer to yourself WHO stops the contract?

It would be most helpful if you answered the questions asked earlier.

 

[adrift]

Actually, I did answer your questions maybe you should return the favor ?

The posts are backed with references so what is your reason to write such a statement?

Well I think one was pointed out in post 61

Do you need an explanation of what Canon 1055 means? Here is a hint read the part which says “which a man and a woman establish between themselves” and then answer to yourself WHO stops the contract?

It would be most helpful if you answered the questions asked earlier.

I have found your posts to be condescending , insulting and evasive.

Actually, I did answer your questions maybe you should return the favor ?

I have reread each of your post.
You asked a question in post 31, 33, and 43
They were answered in 32 and 34 Only one question was not answered and it was about RADICAL SANATION

Please explain how this person or millions in similar scenarios can apply for and be granted radical sanation.

Why you asked this question is not clear.

Since you want an answer and btw none of the questions were addressed to me.

Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.
§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.
§3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

Please note the Can refer to invalid marriage.

You have yet to provide a source that defines invalid to mean a marriage that is not sacramental. Indeed the Canons say this is not possible

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Well I think one was pointed out in post 61

The question was "Who posted on this thread that is a canon lawyer? Post 61 is your post are you saying you are a Canon Lawyer?

Do you need an explanation of what Canon 1055 means? Here is a hint read the part which says “which a man and a woman establish between themselves” and then answer to yourself WHO stops the contract?

It seems that you need an explanation

The covenant that is between a man and woman is partnership that is for life and it is good by its very nature for the purpose of the spouse and the children for their birth and education which was raised to a sacrament for those who are baptized. Although it doesn’t mention it here, those who are not baptized are considered a natural marriage. Because it is a sacrament a valid contract meaning the marriage cannot exist when the couple are both baptized without being a sacrament. In other words, it can’t be a valid marriage without being a sacrament. They are not separated but go hand in hand together. The old song come to mind you can’t have one without the other.

Unless you can provide a Church document that supports your position further discussion is pointless.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have found your posts to be condescending , insulting and evasive.

…………………………… meaning the marriage cannot exist………………………………………

And there you go.

It is unfortunate that you are offended. I wonder how these strangers feel when they are told they are not married? I wonder how the posters justify the authority to revoke god’s right granted to them when Eve was created and god made marriage between man and woman. I do not believe you or the other posters have this claimed authority. I have never seen the Catholic Church claim to intervene in god’s plan in this manner.

Let me explain to you why this “no marriage” interpretation is incorrect and what the substantial difference is. God created marriage when he created Eve, this is recorded in scripture. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged this and preaches and teach such. Men and Women have entered marriage all through history. None of those marriages were created nor ended by the Catholic Church. Catholic Priests speak of this very issue in every Catholic wedding celebration I have attended. This same issue is repeated in catholic writings, teachings and canons. About 1300 years ago the Catholic Church granted a sacrament to those who enter these marriages through the Catholic Church. Additionally, the Catholic Church granted a blanket sacrament to non catholic Christians who also enter the marriage properly. Some marriages are blocked from that sacrament, which include Natural Marriages, disparity of cult when not pre-dispensed by a bishop, lack of proper form when not pre-dispensed by the bishop. This blocking from a sacrament is called an impediment. In this thread and in millions of cases the marriages which are blocked can be reconciled with the Church if desired by the participants. The specifics of the impediments can vary. In no case can the church remove the god granted authority to the couple, nor is there any reason to. Blocking of the sacrament is completed under the authority of the church. Marriage is completely under the authority of the couple. The term “valid” has colloquial meaning and non-colloquial meaning. In the non colloquial meaning it applies to improperly presenting oneself for a sacrament. Which is often moot here as many cases have no request for a sacrament; however the impediment continues should one later request ***any ***sacrament. In the colloquial meaning it means false in representation. When the colloquial term is used and elevated to an injustice via dropping all references to a sacrament the poster creates and unjust offense against his neighbor.

 

[EasterJoy]

You seem to be saying that there is no sin involved. You also don’t seem to acknowledge that when marriage is mentioned it is mentioned with being invalid. What does invalid mean to you?

When a marriage is invalid it means that the consent given cannot be assumed to be perpetual in its nature and the marital union is not sacramental in nature. It does not mean that full consent to marry according to the couple’s understanding of marriage was not given and it does not imply that marital relations between the two people amounted to fornication. If consent is given, but is defective, the consent is not perpetual and the marriage is not sacramental in nature, but the consent is still consent.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that there is no sin involved when a Catholic fails through his or her own fault to marry according Church law, even if the fault is the serious neglect to educate oneself about the laws of marriage. The question is whether someone who ignorantly believes himself or herself to be married commits the sin of fornication by having marital relations with the person believed to be his or her lawful spouse.

If ignorance made a couple guilty of fornication, then why would canon law say that children of a putative marriage are legitimate? Why would it say that “even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.” (Can. 1107)? It would not. Rather, consent given to an invalid marriage would be utterly meaningless. The law would say that if the marriage was not valid, then the children are not legitimate.

As it is, the children of a putative marriage are legitimate: that is, if one spouse believed himself or herself to be engaging in lawful marital relations, the resulting children are legitimate, which is to say they are not the issue of fornication, but rather the issue of marital consent.

 

[Dan_Daly]

When a marriage is invalid it means that the consent given cannot be assumed to be perpetual in its nature and the marital union is not sacramental in nature. It does not mean that full consent to marry according to the couple’s understanding of marriage was not given and it does not imply that marital relations between the two people amounted to fornication. If consent is given, but is defective, the consent is not perpetual and the marriage is not sacramental in nature, but the consent is still consent.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that there is no sin involved when a Catholic fails through his or her own fault to marry according Church law, even if the fault is the serious neglect to educate oneself about the laws of marriage. The question is whether someone who ignorantly believes himself or herself to be married commits the sin of fornication by having marital relations with the person believed to be his or her lawful spouse.

If ignorance made a couple guilty of fornication, then why would canon law say that children of a putative marriage are legitimate? Why would it say that “even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.” (Can. 1107)? It would not. Rather, consent given to an invalid marriage would be utterly meaningless. The law would say that if the marriage was not valid, then the children are not legitimate.

As it is, the children of a putative marriage are legitimate: that is, if one spouse believed himself or herself to be engaging in lawful marital relations, the resulting children are legitimate, which is to say they are not the issue of fornication, but rather the issue of marital consent.

Two baptized Christians cannot contract a natural marriage. They either have a sacramental marriage or no marriage. A natural marriage is only possible between a Christian and a non-Christian or two non-Christians.

So if two Christians do not have a sacramental marriage…they are not married.

Sex between two unmarried people is fornication.

It’s that simple.

Our modern culture very much likes to “deal” with problems by simply eliminating words we don’t like. Don’t want our country to tortue people anymore? Easy. We’ll just get rid of the word “torture” and only do “enhanced interrogations” from now.

Hilaire Belloc touches on exactly this point in his essay on The New Paganism:

This revival of slavery must not be confused with the spread of mechanical restriction applicable to all. They are cousins, but they are not identical. Slavery is the compulsion of one man or set of men to work for the benefit of others. It is a compulsion to work, backed by the arms of the State. The way has been prepared for it by that already half-Pagan thing-----industrial capitalism, of which I write on a later page; and the steps whereby the New Paganism will achieve slavery develop naturally from industrial capitalism. It is a thesis I have developed at greater length in my book, The Servile State; I here only touch on it as a main social result to which the New Paganism will give birth. That this novel status will bear the name “slavery” I doubt; for it is in the nature of mankind, when they are proceeding to call that good which once they called evil, to avoid the old evil name.* In the same way fornication is not called fornication but “companionate marriage.” *

Probably slavery, when it comes, will be called “permanent employment”; and a century hence, a rich man will say to his friends, talking of his new gardener: “He’s a permanent. Paid for him at the Bureau only last Thursday.”

Emphasis mine.

Pax

 

[mamaslo]

EasterJoy’s comment and understanding must be prevalent as i have been very nearly alone in my journey of chastity. Thank you Dan for the support.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Two baptized Christians cannot contract a natural marriage. They either have a sacramental marriage or no marriage. A natural marriage is only possible between a Christian and a non-Christian or two non-Christians.

So if two Christians do not have a sacramental marriage…they are not married.

Sex between two unmarried people is fornication.

It’s that simple.

…

Dan
Would you explain a couple of things to me; is the Catholic Church 100% responsible for all marriage, or said the other way what responsibility if any is on the man or woman?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dan
Would you explain a couple of things to me; is the Catholic Church 100% responsible for all marriage, or said the other way what responsibility if any is on the man or woman?

I don’t understand the question.

What do you mean by “responsible”?

Pax

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Two baptized Christians cannot contract a natural marriage. They either have a sacramental marriage or no marriage. …

So if two Christians do not have a sacramental marriage…they are not married.
…

Dan
Would you explain a couple of things to me; is the Catholic Church 100% responsible for all marriage, or said the other way what responsibility if any is on the man or woman?

I don’t understand the question.

What do you mean by “responsible”?

Pax

okay lets back up a step, how can a “sacrament” be obtained?

 

[Dan_Daly]

By the grace of God.

The specifics of how that works, depends on the sacrament you are referring to.

Pax

 

[1ke]

i think it would be an important step for those on this thread to agree regarding some definitions-- as the CHURCH defines things (because it is the Church that is the authority here). If you cannot come to agreement regarding these terms, you might as well hang up this conversation, you are talking past each other:

Natural marriage - a VALID marriage between two people, one or both of whom are not baptized. This valid marriage occurs between two non-Catholics when they marry civilly and occurs when a Catholic is involved in a disparity of cult marriage if the Catholic marries in Catholic form or receives a dispensation from form and a dispensation from disparity of cult. It occurs when neither of the contracting parties has any defects or impediments including a prior bond.

Sacramental marriage - a VALID marriage between two people, both of whom are baptized. This valid marriage occurs between two baptized non-Catholics when they marry civilly and occurs when a Catholic is involved in a mixed marriage if the Catholic marries in Catholic form or receives a dispensation from form. It occurs when neither of the contracting parties has any defects or impediments including a prior bond.

Putative marriage - a marriage entered into in good faith but that has an impediment to validity and is therefore in reality not valid. This includes those marriages of Catholics with a defect in form or other impediment.

Invalid - the term that describes a finding of fact that a putative marriage was not valid and therefore is not a natural marriage or a sacramental marriage. Such a marriage must be by simple convalation or a radical sanation convalidation to become a valid marriage.

Simple Convalidation - the making valid of an invalid marriage where the couple gives new consent

Radical Sanation - the making valid of an invalid marriage where the impediment or defect does not involve consent. Therefore, the marriage can be made valid without exchange of new consent.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

By the grace of God.

The specifics of how that works, depends on the sacrament you are referring to.

Pax

Well, if we can stay on the marriage “sacrament” in your understanding is any other party involved in any level or responsibility or authority? For example the man, woman, Catholic Church, or another. For example does the grace need to be requested, is there a defined administer or recorder etc…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

1ke

I want to thank you for this post (#109) , and I agree with most of what has been posted. There appears to be a couple of obvious problems here so if these definitions came from catholic literature please forward the source. If we could look at what appears to be the most relevant issue only I think it would be Natural Marriage and inside the listed definition the relevant issue is by what methods and authority is the restriction? Most catholic teachings I see reference scripture or Canon 1055’s section as the implied definition of Natural Marriage “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,……” This is very much at the heart of the issue. When we leave the Catholics practicing communion with the Church where is the establishment of authority? Even in the case of Catholics out of communion with the Church where is the Church’s authority to intervene into their daily life and revoke this component of natural law?

Thanks

 

[EasterJoy]

1ke

I want to thank you for this post (#109) , and I agree with most of what has been posted. There appears to be a couple of obvious problems here so if these definitions came from catholic literature please forward the source. If we could look at what appears to be the most relevant issue only I think it would be Natural Marriage and inside the listed definition the relevant issue is by what methods and authority is the restriction? Most catholic teachings I see reference scripture or Canon 1055’s section as the implied definition of Natural Marriage “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,……” This is very much at the heart of the issue. When we leave the Catholics practicing communion with the Church where is the establishment of authority? Even in the case of Catholics out of communion with the Church where is the Church’s authority to intervene into their daily life and revoke this component of natural law?

Thanks

Catholics out of communion are still Catholics. We are the Hotel California: You can check out any time you like but you can never “leave”. That’s why, if you come back, it is via confession, and not re-baptism. Having said that, while the Church will, we hope, actively encourage reconciliation with those who are out of communion, the Church does not go out and “intervene” in the life of anyone who is not trying to avail themselves of the life of the Church.

Natural marriage can be regulated by the state or other entity, but the right to marry is not granted by any outside entity. It is the natural right of those who are free to marry to choose to do so if they wish. Even the Church cannot justly deny or unduly delay marriage of couples who are free of impediments to marriage. When we join the life of the Church, we are free to marry those in the Church, but we do not have the right to join ourselves to those who deny the Church. This is why we can be free to marry but not free to marry outside the Church: that is, because we in the Church are not entirely our own, but belong to the Body.

 

[1ke]

OK, let’s start with this document:

archatl.com/offices/tribunal/newcs/TheologyOfMarriage.pdf

 

[mamaslo]

OK, let’s start with this document:

archatl.com/offices/tribunal/newcs/TheologyOfMarriage.pdf

1ke, that is an excellent article, but I think Texas Roofer is getting caught up in terminology of the word “Marriage” people still use it even if it isn’t valid. the Church still uses it even if it isn’t valid. So his point is why use the word if it really isn’t so, and who is anyone to tell those people in invalid marriages they are not married when the Church sill calls it that…even if it isn’t sacramental, valid or anything else.

I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

OK, let’s start with this document:

archatl.com/offices/tribunal/newcs/TheologyOfMarriage.pdf

Ok, let’s look at it:
*“ Code of Canon Law on January 25, 1983. It took effect on November 27, 1983, and contains the universal laws that govern the structure, ecclesiastical life, sacraments, discipline, and practice of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church throughout the world. Of the 1752 canons in the 1983 code, eighty-six deal directly with the sacrament of marriage” * Well this statement would certainly not claim to extend and governance or structure over greater marriage, it would only apply to the relationship of marriage in Latin Rite Catholics.

“In a survey of the theology of Christian marriage, we discovered that the indissoluble, unitive, and fruitful union of conjugal love between a man and a woman was ordained from the beginning by God” Here we have the document affirming the common teach that marriage existed before religion, or any religious authority, even before the fall of man (big implication here because marriage exists before salvation is needed)

“The second element is validity. In sacramental law, when the 1983 Code speaks in terms of validity, it refers to the effectiveness of a sacramental action” Again as in the first statement we see the law is for the sacrament. At the heart of this issue is the authority to remove the word sacrament, or transition the word to sacramental (an adjective) and install into this statement the noun “marriage”? In this same paragraph on the element of validity we get this statement *“If he does not use bread or wine, or if he improvises the words of institution, or if the one who attempts to consecrate has not validly received the sacrament of Holy Orders, the Body and Blood of Christ are not made present. The Eucharist is invalid (the action has no sacramental effect).” *This statement is consistent with the other statements, it does not extend the canonical law to deny the existence of the bread and water, but rather the authority to deny “confected validly” of the sacrament.

In the next section

• “Regarding marriage, Latin Catholic theology understands the ministers of marriage to be the man and woman themselves (Eastern Catholic theology understands the priest to be the minister). Therefore, generally speaking, whenever a man and a woman who do not have a prior marriage bond manifest their consent to enter into “a union for the totality of life” characterized by conjugal love, indissolubility, fidelity, and openness to begetting children, the action has effect. That is,** the couple is validly married. Even if one or both of the parties is not a Christian, they will have a valid “natural marriage” (for the natural state of marriage given by God from the beginning is perpetual, faithful, and open to procreation).** * And there it is, this unknown author writes the marriage is “valid” of course it does not answer the question of any authority to use the word “valid” nor the colloquial verses non colloquial meaning. Because this is repeatedly occurring lets stray long enough to give an ill-advised analogue. If a fellow named Fred brings his past IRS tax returns and his civil marriage license to his priest to prove a “valid” marriage. He achieves his goal, however his priest should tell him those are different authorities and the Catholic Church does not recognized much if any of the authority of those entities in this regard. So “valid” to the IRS and state is not the same as “valid” to the Catholic Church. So what “valid” is the “valid” in the above statement? This is not an obtuse statement. The IRS has authority and defines “valid” marriages for tax purposes. The civil authority defines “valid” marriage for legal purposes in state law (next of kin, custodial care, etc…) . The Catholic Church defines “valid” for sacraments to include the sacrament awarded to marriages. But who has authority to define “valid” in Natural marriage?

Lastly though largely moot: *“In the case of a baptized man and woman, the exchange of valid marital consent has a far greater effect, it brings about a marriage that is also a sacrament, a union which has “a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.” *‘This is a repeated statement but I list it because again the writing returns to the noun sacrament.

In summary I find no deviations from this article (author unknown) as posted by the Arch Diocese of Atlanta. I also find no statement of authority over natural marriage, which is something I personally have looked for years.

Thanks

 

[Texas_Roofer]

1ke, that is an excellent article, but I think Texas Roofer is getting caught up in terminology of the word “Marriage” people still use it even if it isn’t valid. the Church still uses it even if it isn’t valid. So his point is why use the word if it really isn’t so, and who is anyone to tell those people in invalid marriages they are not married when the Church sill calls it that…even if it isn’t sacramental, valid or anything else.

I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you, please read the new post, I will happily read your posts. Though one can look at “the marriage sacrament” and compare it to a “sacramental marriage” for the purpose of defining nouns and adjectives, that discussion by no means removes the property of one owner from the other owner. Or said another way “My country” does not actually mean I own the country. So the issue is who can declare another’s marriage invalid?

 

[adrift]

1ke, that is an excellent article, but I think Texas Roofer is getting caught up in terminology of the word “Marriage” people still use it even if it isn’t valid. the Church still uses it even if it isn’t valid. So his point is why use the word if it really isn’t so, and who is anyone to tell those people in invalid marriages they are not married when the Church sill calls it that…even if it isn’t sacramental, valid or anything else.

I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

I think you are exactly right. But lets go back to what I first objected to. It was stated Marriage always receives the favor of law, and is presumed valid until proven otherwise. This is what I objected to. It is only true for Catholic who have married according to Church Law. To non-catholics who were free to marry and committed themselves to each other either in a religious ceremonly or by the state, judge, justice of the peace, etc. but it is not accorded to those who are Catholic and marry outside the authority of the Church.