Sacramental marriage or not?

[Tezza]

I would appreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut on this as it has been disturbing to me:

The scenario: two young couples where all are practicing Catholics marry in the Church because the women became pregnant and the men, who never intended to marry these women, felt it was the right thing to do. In other words, their vows were spoken through forced lips.

Couple A divorce ten years later. An annulment is sought and granted.

Couple B stick it out.

All things being equal, how can we assume a sacramental nature of the marriage of Couple B?

And on that note, what does a non-sacramental marriage look like? Couples fight more? They forgive less?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Xantippe]

In the US these days, there’d probably be a 6 month marriage prep/cooling off period before they’d be able to get married in a Catholic church and standard practice is to have the couples wait until after the baby is born to be able to get married in the Church, precisely to prevent this scenario.

So, your scenario is unlikely in the present in the US, but it could have happened in the past.

 

[Tezza]

In the US these days, there’d probably be a 6 month marriage prep/cooling off period before they’d be able to get married in a Catholic church and standard practice is to have the couples wait until after the baby is born to be able to get married in the Church, precisely to prevent this scenario.

So, your scenario is unlikely in the present in the US, but it could have happened in the past.

OK. It happened in the past. Any thoughts?

 

[1ke]

All things being equal,

All things are not equal. They are each individual people. You cannot assume anything about one couple based on another couple. You cannot know what does or does not determine their will.

how can we assume a sacramental nature of the marriage of Couple B?

Can. 1055 §1. 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, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

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

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

And on that note, what does a non-sacramental marriage look like? Couples fight more? They forgive less?

One can draw no conclusions.

 

[Gorgias]

All things being equal, how can we assume a sacramental nature of the marriage of Couple B?

Because, as 1ke pointed out, marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Inasmuch as couple B attempted marriage validly, the law presumes validity.

And on that note, what does a non-sacramental marriage look like? Couples fight more? They forgive less?

No. “Marriage enjoys the favor of the law.” Period. Non-sacramental marriage doesn’t ‘look like’ anything different. One cannot look at a seemingly valid marriage and conclude “valid” or “invalid” based on how that marriage is lived out.

More to the point: nullity isn’t determined upon what happens during the marriage, per se, but upon what was leading up to the wedding. So, we can’t look at the experience during married life and use that as the basis for determining validity.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

OP, validity and sacramentality are not the same thing. We assume that, we hope and pray that, all marriages in the Church are valid. We would never assume anything else. All valid marriages between baptized Christians are sacramental.

 

[Vico]

I would appreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut on this as it has been disturbing to me:

The scenario: two young couples where all are practicing Catholics marry in the Church because the women became pregnant and the men, who never intended to marry these women, felt it was the right thing to do. In other words, their vows were spoken through forced lips.

Couple A divorce ten years later. An annulment is sought and granted.

Couple B stick it out.

All things being equal, how can we assume a sacramental nature of the marriage of Couple B?

And on that note, what does a non-sacramental marriage look like? Couples fight more? They forgive less?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

There is a problem with the scenario. Marriage requires consent of both parties, yet you say these men “never intended to marry these women” but that they “felt it was the right thing to do”, so really they did consent in the end. As long as these Catholic baptized men and women of their own free will, intended a lifelong, exclusive marriage, granting conjugal rights as required, and celebrated with the approval of the Church, then it was a true sacramental marriage.

Then later couple A was found to have something wrong, not specified in your post, and it was found to be invalid.

The fact is no valid marriage is known with absolute certainty to be efficacious, because one could be lying, or there could be an impediment not known.

A a sacramental marriage brings sacramental grace and through it, actual graces specific to matrimony, which are only received an each individual when not in a state of mortal sin.

It it is found invalid, then no sacramental grace was received.

 

[ichabode]

The scenario: two young couples where all are practicing Catholics marry in the Church because the women became pregnant and the men, who never intended to marry these women, felt it was the right thing to do. In other words, their vows were spoken through forced lips.

I am sure someone will quip about “practicing Catholics” and pregnant out of wedlock. He without sin cast the first stone, and but for the grace of God go I.
I am not sure about the forced lips as they were free to choose the act of sexual intercourse and to be married. I do agree it was the right thing to do and only wish more men saw it that way. Instead today we have a society that if two young couples get pregnant the first thing their parents and friends do is try and talk them out of it.

Couple A divorce ten years later. An annulment is sought and granted.
Couple B stick it out.
All things being equal, how can we assume a sacramental nature of the marriage of Couple B?

An annulment or “decree of nullity” is not an infallible decree from the Church. It is a best guess at most. Couple A could still be sacramentally married, and therefore their “new” not valid. Divorce is all around a nasty business, and people are hurt all over no more than the children.

Because marriage is two people becoming morally one and uniting themselves with God it is not possible for us to judge their hearts. Of course the sacrament of marriage is not an emotion as emotions and feeling can change. We pray they change for the better, but if you are always high on marriage you probably should get off the drugs.

And on that note, what does a non-sacramental marriage look like? Couples fight more? They forgive less?

Couples fighting, laughing, loving, their kindness to each other etc. is not better or worse if the marriage is sacramental. I would love to tell you that a sacramental marriage couples are more inclined to love each other, but that is not always the case.
People lose children, jobs, parents, some have had horrible things happen in a marriage infidelity, the raping of ones spouse, and bad and influential in-laws. No one especially those in a sacramental marriages are not immune to life’s suffering. In fact the sacramental marriage typically has more as Jesus told us to pick up our cross, and a loving parent corrects and punishes his own children. Not out of insincere justice but because of Mercy and love. You do not punish someone another’s child, so the sacramental marriage will have more trials, but God’s grace is there more abundantly when accepted

You question did not seem theoretical, so I am sorry if you are experiencing this first hand in some way. I say I am sorry because reading your post and responding I know I am guilty of yelling in my house at times, and not being the father and husband God has called to me to be. I would bet you dollars to donuts that at some point in time both couples especially when their children were born had prayed, “God what have I done for you to bless me like you have”. We just forget our first loves to often.

 

[Regina7]

Let’s not forget that not all annulments should have been granted. Those granting annulments are human and thus error. While I’m not saying this is likely in the situation you presented, it’s a possibility.

 

[Phemie]

There is a problem with the scenario. Marriage requires consent of both parties, yet you say these men “never intended to marry these women” but that they “felt it was the right thing to do”, so really they did consent in the end. As long as these Catholic baptized men and women of their own free will, intended a lifelong, exclusive marriage, granting conjugal rights as required, and celebrated with the approval of the Church, then it was a true sacramental marriage.

Then later couple A was found to have something wrong, not specified in your post, and it was found to be invalid.

The fact is no valid marriage is known with absolute certainty to be efficacious, because one could be lying, or there could be an impediment not known.

A a sacramental marriage brings sacramental grace and through it, actual graces specific to matrimony, which are only received an each individual when not in a state of mortal sin.

It it is found invalid, then no sacramental grace was received.

Both marriages were presumed valid from the get-go because marriage enjoys the favour of law.

Presumably couple A’s marriage was found invalid due to a defect of consent on the husband’s part. Perfectly logical if he felt forced to marry because he was going to become a dad and the marriage didn’t survive.

Couple B, on the other hand has made a go of it. Their marriage survived. It may have been invalid in the beginning due to the same lack of consent but at some point along the way the husband decided that he wanted to stay in the marriage. That consent, private and secret rendered the marriage valid. Canon 1159 provides for that.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Couple B, on the other hand has made a go of it. Their marriage survived. It may have been invalid in the beginning due to the same lack of consent but at some point along the way the husband decided that he wanted to stay in the marriage. That consent, private and secret rendered the marriage valid. Canon 1159 provides for that.

I think the problem, though, is that since apparently, nothing that happens after the public marriage is considered during the annulment process, it would be all too easy for the couple to eventually divorce 20 years later, and for them to deny any such “private and secret consent” occurred – are they even asked that in the first place?

I even recall a poster advocating “shotgun marriages” on CAF, not despite the risk they would be invalid, but because of it. The argument seemed to be, “Yeah, odds are it won’t work out. But in that case, annulment is a slam-dunk, no harm no foul. So why not give it a shot, just in case? Best case scenario, the baby grows up in an intact family. Worst case scenario, at least the baby starts off in such a family and gets the benefits, even if it’s only for a few years. Much better than being raised by a single mother from the beginning.”

While I don’t think this is quite the best way to approach marriage in cases of pregnancy, are there any safeguards in the Church to prevent this from happening?

 

[Columba_Tom]

Perhaps there is a confusion between the idea of “consent” and the idea of “being in love and wanting to marry”. “Consent” means they commit! In many good marriages, love comes late. If you start out “in love”, expect romance to ebb and flow over the years.

Picking up ichabode’s observation, let us rephrase the scenario:

Two young couples get themselves in the family way. They are subsequently reconciled with or convert to the Catholic Faith. They decide, by their own free wills, to commit to their partners and children in marriage, for better or for worse, etc., as a sacramental vow of their newly embraced Catholic faith. Given the circumstances, their priest probably takes particular care to ascertain the state of willingness of each individual.

One couple divorce. The marriage is judged invalid for some reason not mentioned here. The judgement probably takes into account the view of the presiding priest, if available.

We get to examine neither the reasons for the annulment nor the minds and souls of the couples.

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” –Mt,19:8.

 

[Vico]

Both marriages were presumed valid from the get-go because marriage enjoys the favour of law.

Presumably couple A’s marriage was found invalid due to a defect of consent on the husband’s part. Perfectly logical if he felt forced to marry because he was going to become a dad and the marriage didn’t survive.

Couple B, on the other hand has made a go of it. Their marriage survived. It may have been invalid in the beginning due to the same lack of consent but at some point along the way the husband decided that he wanted to stay in the marriage. That consent, private and secret rendered the marriage valid. Canon 1159 provides for that.

That is true, however, the point of my post was that it was not clear in the original post that there was lack of consent because they “felt it was the right thing to do”.

 

[Tezza]

All things are not equal. They are each individual people. You cannot assume anything about one couple based on another couple. You cannot know what does or does not determine their will.

Well, since it’s my little hypothetical, I’m going to say they are equal. I’m not assuming anything, because I’m the creator.

Can. 1055 §1. 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, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

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

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

One can draw no conclusions.

I’m not asking whether church law considers it valid until proven otherwise, or how it looks from the outside. What I’m presenting is someone feeling forced to marry and it’s impact on the sacramental nature of it’s union considering the Church’s decision to nullify a marriage under these circumstances when another marriage chugs along.

Sorry for inserting in the quote. I’m not good at breaking up people’s responses. Thanks for the response, BTW.

 

[Tezza]

Because, as 1ke pointed out, marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Inasmuch as couple B attempted marriage validly, the law presumes validity.

I understand the law presumes it, what I’m trying to work through is the truth of it. What’s it’s nature in real time? A couple married 10 years receives an annulment. It was presumed valid for 10 years. In actuality, the marriage spent 10 years being invalid, if invalid is the right word to use

No. “Marriage enjoys the favor of the law.” Period. Non-sacramental marriage doesn’t ‘look like’ anything different. One cannot look at a seemingly valid marriage and conclude “valid” or “invalid” based on how that marriage is lived out.

I was trying to be poetic in saying looks like. What I meant to ask was about it’s inner workings. Sacramental vs ? I did not mean to imply outward appearances being some kind of proof of sacramentality.

More to the point: nullity isn’t determined upon what happens during the marriage, per se, but upon what was leading up to the wedding. So, we can’t look at the experience during married life and use that as the basis for determining validity.

Agreed on that last point. Of course, someone could say (and think) at that time that I married cause it was the right thing to do and hope the honor in his decision would somehow sustain the marriage. Then, when it fell apart, states, “I only married out of honor” and a decree of nullity was granted. Both the end and the beginning are the some…honor. The only difference is the ONLY at the end. Does that make sense? (my wording here, not the whole scenario). Thanks for being part of the discussion.

 

[Tezza]

OP, validity and sacramentality are not the same thing. We assume that, we hope and pray that, all marriages in the Church are valid. We would never assume anything else. All valid marriages between baptized Christians are sacramental.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, valid being proper form, i.e. a priest or deacon presiding following the instruction on marriage in Church Law, and sacramental being the couple are in the proper state to give free consent?

I agree. We assume, we hope, and we pray. But with the number of divorces and decrees of nullity, how can we not at least wonder…

 

[Tezza]

It it is found invalid, then no sacramental grace was received.

Thanks for the response. It makes you wonder…is part of the reason the marriage didn’t survive is because there wasn’t sacramental grace.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not asking whether church law considers it valid until proven otherwise, or how it looks from the outside. What I’m presenting is someone feeling forced to marry and it’s impact on the sacramental nature of it’s union considering the Church’s decision to nullify a marriage under these circumstances when another marriage chugs along.

Sorry for inserting in the quote. I’m not good at breaking up people’s responses. Thanks for the response, BTW.

What are you asking? Two trees can grow up next to each other and look the same, yet when a storm comes up and one of them comes down it can be seen that one of the two was rotted on the inside. You don’t go drilling into healthy trees because of the ones that come down in a storm.

If it is a marriage between a baptized man and a baptized woman and it is valid, then by its nature it is sacramental. There isn’t some incremental degree to the sacramental nature of marriage, not any more than absolution is incremental based on whether the penitent sought out confession without any outside prompting or had to be convinced by someone else that they ought to go. The Eucharist is not less sacramental when a priest of lesser holiness says the Mass. Provided the Mass was valid, the Blessed Sacrament is the same.

IOW, a sacrament is not diminished by the unworthiness of its ministers, even if the ministers can make a difference in how they dispose the faithful to receiving the sanctifying grace of the sacrament.

 

[Tezza]

An annulment or "decree of nullity" is not an infallible decree from the Church. It is a best guess at most. Couple A could still be sacramentally married, and therefore their "new" not valid. Divorce is all around a nasty business, and people are hurt all over no more than the children.

I have never heard this before. I thought God honored in heaven what the Church declared on earth as long as it was in the confines of Church law. The Church has set up tribunals with rules on how the process works. Whether or not the individuals in the tribunal are seriously flawed, the decision is honored, nest-ce pas? Wouldn’t this cause people to question the sacramentality of a “second” marriage following the annulment of the first?

 

[Tezza]

.

Couple B, on the other hand has made a go of it. Their marriage survived. It may have been invalid in the beginning due to the same lack of consent but at some point along the way the husband decided that he wanted to stay in the marriage. That consent, private and secret rendered the marriage valid. Canon 1159 provides for that.

Just to clarify, the marriage was rendered valid AND sacramental?