Sacrament of Matrimony and Mitt Romney

[valient_Lucy]

The universal teaching of the Magisterium on unity then indissolubility: Remember this is not the same as unity. Unity means when monogamy. Indissolubility means that a sacramental consummated marriage cannot be dissolved with a right to remarry. The teaching of Christ here Matthew 19, Matthew 10, Luke 16 and Matthew 5. St. Paul again, and notice the Romans and those converts among the Romans, in Corinth, converts among the Greeks. And they had problems, naturally, because naturally two human beings naturally, cannot remain faithful to each other and love one another until death. Not that it is hard, it is impossible. That is why Christ had to establish the Sacrament of Matrimony.

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_008.htm

In other words, according to Fr. Hardon, what the Romneys are (apparantly) doing is impossible.

I reject this teaching, of course.

 

[clmowry]

When Catholics explain the Sacrament of Matrimony, the usual explaination is that marriage, after the Fall, is almost impossible, so God had to make marriage a sacrament.

But if this is the case, how do Catholics explain a person like Mitt Romney, who, not being baptized, does not have a sacramental marriage, and yet has been married to his wife for decades? Are we to believe that he and his wife are lying about the state of their marriage?

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard the need for a sacramental marriage explained that way.

In any case, one does not need to have a valid sacramental marriage to maintain a long term loving relationship. It happens all the time.

Neither does a valid sacramental marriage guarantee one will maintain a long term loving relationship.

Maybe it goes something like this: A Sacramental Marriage is one of the Ways God bestows his Graces on a married couple, but He’s not limited in such a way that this is the only way He does so.

I think the important element in a marriage is that you have a union of two people who are not just holding true in their commitment to each but to a commitment they jointly made with God.

One does not need to have a correct theological understanding to make and honor such a commitment.

I wouldn’t be so sure that God wouldn’t provide someone who tries to honor that commitment with the graces necessary to have a successful marriage regardless of their theological misunderstandings.

Chuck

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well, no, that is not at all what Fr. Hardon said.

See post 21.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard the need for a sacramental marriage explained that way.

In any case, one does not need to have a valid sacramental marriage to maintain a long term loving relationship. It happens all the time.

Neither does a valid sacramental marriage guarantee one will maintain a long term loving relationship.

Maybe it goes something like this: A Sacramental Marriage is one of the Ways God bestows his Graces on a married couple, but He’s not limited in such a way that this is the only way He does so.

I think the important element in a marriage is that you have a union of two people who are not just holding true in their commitment to each but to a commitment they jointly made with God.

One does not need to have a correct theological understanding to make and honor such a commitment.

I wouldn’t be so sure that God wouldn’t provide someone who tries to honor that commitment with the graces necessary to have a successful marriage regardless of their theological misunderstandings.

Chuck

That’s what I believe.

 

[Luvtosew]

We are not talking about Catholics. We are talking about Mitt Romney and his wife, neither of whom is Catholic. They marry validly when they marry civilly.

When a Catholic marries, in addition to valid consent there is another criteria for validity and that is form or dispensation from it. That applies only to Catholics and those marrying a Catholic.

They are validly married. They are not living in sin.

Perhaps what you heard was in reference to a Catholic who married outside the Church (lack of form) without the proper dispensations.

None of that appiies to two non-Catholics.

Thank you that clears it up.

 

[1ke]

See post 21.

Of course in the natural order Original Sin mars and disrupts God’s original plan of holiness. Of course sacraments give us the actual and sanctifying graces necessary to live out the vocation.

Fr. Hardon is talking about in the economy of salvation, not at the individual person level. I believe you fail to see the global analogy in his talk and are taking it literally, which of course it isn’t. He does’t mean that literally no unbaptized persons can have a faithful, lifelong marriage.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If two people are catholic per say, does the Church think they are married if they had a civil marriage?
I do know they would not be able to receive communion, but are they considered married or living in sin??

You may be able to clear this up for me, as I’ve heard it both ways. Thanks.

FYI
First I assume you are dismissing 3 means of communion with the Church while marrying in a civil service (dispensation, radical sanation, convalidation)? And assuming you are not considering catholics who divorced and married other catholics, all only under civil authority, then: In all cases they are married until proven contrary. If the 3 means listed are void then they are refusing the teaching of the Church which is a sin. Any activity related to unity (maintaining the marriage) is not the sin. In fact the concept of abandoning the marriage covenant to receive other sacraments is iffy at best.

 

[thenobes]

And they had problems, naturally, because naturally two human beings naturally, cannot remain faithful to each other and love one another until death. Not that it is hard, it is impossible. That is why Christ had to establish the Sacrament of Matrimony.

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_008.htm

In other words, according to Fr. Hardon, what the Romneys are (apparantly) doing is impossible.

I reject this teaching, of course.

The aren’t staying togather Naturally. They are imitating the bond of the Christian Sacrament, and actually doing quite a good job I might add…

peace
steve

 

[salusanimarum17]

…

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_008.htm

In other words, according to Fr. Hardon, what the Romneys are (apparantly) doing is impossible.

I reject this teaching, of course.

Another person said this shouldn’t be taken literally. Maybe that’s true. Personally, I hesitate to attribute a great deal of weight to this statement since it was an off-the-cuff response to a listener’s question. If he said this in a published writing, too, then I would accept that he “really means it.” I don’t expect you to find this in published writing, by the way. Thanks for finding this.

 

[Bookcat]

Another person said this shouldn’t be taken literally. Maybe that’s true. Personally, I hesitate to attribute a great deal of weight to this statement since it was an off-the-cuff response to a listener’s question. If he said this in a published writing, too, then I would accept that he “really means it.” I don’t expect you to find this in published writing, by the way. Thanks for finding this.

Also…

Lots of things are said in a “poetic” or “particular sense”. One does so to make a point for emphasis etc.

Jesus for example said that if ones eye cause one to sin --to pluck it out. He is using a way of speech in use then by Rabbis.

Fr. Hardon would not say that it is the teaching of the Church that a natural marriage after the fall is “impossible” such is not the teaching of the Church (he certainly sought always to teach that which the Church taught…). I would not take what he said in the literal way of the question it raised. And if it were --he would always subject his words to that which the Church teaches…so he would be the first to say…I did not mean that one could not have a good natural marriage.

His definition of marriage: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34750 (nothing about it being “impossible”…the “possibility” is presumed…It is rather dictionary-ish…but well it is from his dictionary…)

For the Teaching of the Church: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#I

 

[1AugustSon7]

Marriage is natural. Grace builds on nature.

Depriving yourself and your wife of sacramental marriage is to cut yourselves off from inumerable graces, which many are aimed at the good of the whole family, and the children.

Human life is also a good, because it is natural (created by God). However, in the state of orginal sin, it is actually an imperfect good; and so long as original sin is present, it makes us incapable of beatitude.

To what extent sin and original sin specifically harm or vitiate a marriage I neither know nor can say. Undoubtedly though the accumulation of sin vitiates virtue, nature itself and the soul, and this cannot but harm relationships, since it harms the sinner and, especially in the case of marriage, the spouse consequently also suffers, though not themselves being responsible for the sin(s).

 

[venite_adoremus]

Fr. John Hardon SJ said “Marriage isn’t difficult, it’s just impossible. That’s why God made it a sacrament.” I’ve heard many others give that same argument as well.

That’s a Jesuit joke. In the line of “The difficult we do easily, the impossible takes a little longer.”

Don’t confuse marriage with the Sacrament of Matrimony, in which God gives us the necessary graces not only to raise children, not only to assist our spouse in achieving the Kingdom of Heaven, but also to appreciate the good things in life.

Including an occasional good joke.

Here’s a link to what Fr Hardon REALLY said:

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_005.htm

 

[valient_Lucy]

That’s a Jesuit joke. In the line of “The difficult we do easily, the impossible takes a little longer.”

Don’t confuse marriage with the Sacrament of Matrimony, in which God gives us the necessary graces not only to raise children, not only to assist our spouse in achieving the Kingdom of Heaven, but also to appreciate the good things in life.

Including an occasional good joke.

Here’s a link to what Fr Hardon REALLY said:

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_005.htm

Ok, Fr. Hardon says that Christian marriage is a call to a lifelong commitment and to accept and raise the children that God gives them.

Are non-Christian married couples not called to do this? Are they not called to be faithful to one another until death? Are they not called to accept and raise the children God gives them?

 

[sllhouette]

When Catholics explain the Sacrament of Matrimony, the usual explaination is that marriage, after the Fall, is almost impossible, so God had to make marriage a sacrament.

But if this is the case, how do Catholics explain a person like Mitt Romney, who, not being baptized, does not have a sacramental marriage, and yet has been married to his wife for decades? Are we to believe that he and his wife are lying about the state of their marriage?

Not sure, but I think the Sacrament of Matrimony existed before the fall.

Are jewish marriages valid? I would think so. In that case I would think that mormon marriages have the capacity for validity as well with respect to baptism. It should, however, be pointed out that other factors could easily invalidate marriages.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Not sure, but I think the Sacrament of Matrimony existed before the fall.

Are jewish marriages valid? I would think so. In that case I would think that mormon marriages have the capacity for validity as well with respect to baptism. It should, however, be pointed out that other factors could easily invalidate marriages.

I wasn’t asking if their marriage was valid.

I was told that marriage had to be a sacrament because it was impossible for a couple to have a good marriage unless it was a sacrament. In other words, it’s impossible for the couples to keep from commiting adultery, fighting all the time, and divorcing, unless their marriage is sacramental.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I wasn’t asking if their marriage was valid.

I was told that marriage had to be a sacrament because it was impossible for a couple to have a good marriage unless it was a sacrament. In other words, it’s impossible for the couples to keep from commiting adultery, fighting all the time, and divorcing, unless their marriage is sacramental.

If that were true, most of the world’s married couples (since most of the world is not Catholic or even Christian) would be committing adultery, fighting all the time, and getting divorced. I don’t think that is the reality.

And even in the Catholic Church, where the marriage is Sacramental between two baptized persons, many end up committing adultery, fighting all the time, and divorcing.

 

[OraLabora]

I wasn’t asking if their marriage was valid.

I was told that marriage had to be a sacrament because it was impossible for a couple to have a good marriage unless it was a sacrament. In other words, it’s impossible for the couples to keep from commiting adultery, fighting all the time, and divorcing, unless their marriage is sacramental.

The Church doesn’t teach this. They have a valid natural marriage and are perfectly capable of marital fidelity without their marriage being sacramental. Marital fidelity is not limited to Catholics. Many faithful Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths have valid non-sacramental marriages that are stable and faithful.