Sacramental marriage or not?

[Tezza]

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?

Valid point and good question.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Well…there are sources of sanctifying grace for married people other than from the validity of the sacrament of marriage. Let us say that one of the couple married in good faith and the other did not. The obedience of the one who married in good faith does not remain fruitless because of the deceit of the other. The Holy Spirit is not confined in that way.

Consider also that the matter of whether a marriage “survives” is a different matter than whether or not the marriage is valid. People can be validly married and yet through sin, lack of virtue, or even factors beyond their control the common conjugal life can become impossible, too dangerous, or difficult to the point of injustice. This is why canon law recognizes that it can be morally permissible to separate even though there is a valid bond. It is only after the common conjugal life has been destroyed that the marriage, like the fallen tree, can be examined to see if it fell because it was fundamentally unsound.

 

[Tezza]

I

Ponder your suggested scenario though, the entire idea is preposterous because who, really are they trying to fool?

I think in light of today’s society, people are trying to fool themselves more than anything. It doesn’t seem so preposterous to me.

 

[Tezza]

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”.

Good point. Is there a difference between the consent of “feel it is the right thing to do” and consent of a resounding yes? Kind of like when we are practicing Catholics who follow the letter of the law for fear of hell and those that follow the law because they love Jesus. I don’t know. I’m feeling very philosophical.

 

[Vico]

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.

If each party is in the state of grace, it will allow the receipt of any graces specific to matrimony, in a valid sacramental marriage. That seems stronger than would exist in valid a non-sacramental marriage (one Christian, one non-Christian).

 

[Phemie]

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

There’s no such thing as valid and not sacramental between two baptized persons.

 

[Tezza]

Well…there are sources of sanctifying grace for married people other than from the validity of the sacrament of marriage. Let us say that one of the couple married in good faith and the other did not. The obedience of the one who married in good faith does not remain fruitless because of the deceit of the other. The Holy Spirit is not confined in that way.

Consider also that the matter of whether a marriage “survives” is a different matter than whether or not the marriage is valid. People can be validly married and yet through sin, lack of virtue, or even factors beyond their control the common conjugal life can become impossible, too dangerous, or difficult to the point of injustice. This is why canon law recognizes that it can be morally permissible to separate even though there is a valid bond. It is only after the common conjugal life has been destroyed that the marriage, like the fallen tree, can be examined to see if it fell because it was fundamentally unsound.

Thank you for the response. That makes a lot of sense. I think I’m trying to compartmentalize too much because I’m a black/white thinker.

 

[Tezza]

There’s no such thing as valid and not sacramental between two baptized persons.

Gotcha:thumbsup:

 

[Tezza]

If each party is in the state of grace, it will allow the receipt of any graces specific to matrimony, in a valid sacramental marriage. That seems stronger than would exist in valid a non-sacramental marriage (one Christian, one non-Christian).

I see what you’re saying, but my original question was regarding the specific issue of whether a marriage was valid by outward appearances but, in fact, later annulled, so never valid in the first place. Thus, no sacramental grace. It seems like a catch 22. Someone gives marriage a go but it’s not valid (though not decreed as such at that time). Therefore, it lacks sacramental grace, making it more difficult to sustain. Do you know what I mean?

 

[Tezza]

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.

Sorry, I don’t know what IOW means:blush:

Maybe I’m just not understanding the sacramental grace of Holy Matrimony. You can have sacramental marriage and non-sacramental marriage that co-exist with little to no distinction. Yet, there is a huge distinction between:
the Eucharist and a cracker at a Lord’s Supper service
a priest and and an ordained, protestant minister
baptizing someone in water vs in lemonade
privately telling God sorry for a moral sin without going to Reconciliation and going to Reconciliation for said sin (ok, maybe not this one by outward appearances)

Anyway, do you get where I’m coming from?

 

[EasterJoy]

Sorry, I don’t know what IOW means:blush:

Maybe I’m just not understanding the sacramental grace of Holy Matrimony. You can have sacramental marriage and non-sacramental marriage that co-exist with little to no distinction. Yet, there is a huge distinction between:
the Eucharist and a cracker at a Lord’s Supper service
a priest and and an ordained, protestant minister
baptizing someone in water vs in lemonade
privately telling God sorry for a moral sin without going to Reconciliation and going to Reconciliation for said sin (ok, maybe not this one by outward appearances)

Anyway, do you get where I’m coming from?

Sorry. IOW = in other words. It isn’t a terribly common abbreviation, so don’t feel bad!

I think your question is this: What makes a sacrament valid? How can we tell?

Well, let’s start with the second half first. If we do our best to inform ourselves on what makes a sacrament valid and believe a sacrament to be valid in good faith, it is nothing against us if we are later proven to have been incorrect. If someone were to pass himself off as a priest when he doesn’t have the power to confect the Eucharist, yet you believe in good faith that he did, it is nothing against you that you genuflected to an unconsecrated host. You would not be guilty of failing to go to Mass on Sunday, nor guilty of giving the worship, honor, and love due to God alone to a piece of bread. It is not outside the power of the Holy Spirit to grant you the graces of a spiritual communion with Christ because of your faith and obedience and in spite of the false priest’s deception, just as if you had asked for the graces of a spiritual communion in prayer because it was impossible to go to Mass. If you made a confession you believed to be valid, you would not be held responsible for failing to confess a mortal sin because someone conned you into believing he was a priest. Likewise, a couple who believes in good faith that they are married validly do not commit fornication by having marital relations. And so on.

So, what makes a sacrament valid? There needs to be the necessary matter, form, and the intention of the minister. You are asking when coercion removes the free consent necessary for the spouses, the ministers of marriage, to enter into a sacramental covenant. Obviously, it is not necessary for the couples to have been utterly free of outside pressure to marry. That is the ideal, of course, but extenuating circumstances that change their minds about thinking marriage is the “right thing to do” does not automatically render marriage vows invalid.

**Can. 1103 **A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.

**Can. 1107 **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.

It is possible to have two couples who seem to have been in the same circumstances, have both divorce, have both ask to have their marriages examined, and then to have one of the marriages declared valid and the other invalid. On that account, all marriages are assumed valid until invalidity is established. You don’t set fire to a building if someone might be living in it. You treat it as occupied until you are sure it is not being lived in.

The couple who have not divorced and not asked for an investigation are to be presumed validly married. We would never advise that they separate and end the common conjugal life unless the circumstances are such that we would advise a separation even though their bond is valid and they will not be free to marry anyone else.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

Couple B can never know if their marriage is valid or not…
The Church bows to the state in this sacramental investigation. One would first have to ask the state (divorce) to then ask the church. Seems odd no?

 

[Tezza]

Sorry. IOW = in other words. It isn’t a terribly common abbreviation, so don’t feel bad!

I think your question is this: What makes a sacrament valid? How can we tell?

Well, let’s start with the second half first. If we do our best to inform ourselves on what makes a sacrament valid and believe a sacrament to be valid in good faith, it is nothing against us if we are later proven to have been incorrect. If someone were to pass himself off as a priest when he doesn’t have the power to confect the Eucharist, yet you believe in good faith that he did, it is nothing against you that you genuflected to an unconsecrated host. You would not be guilty of failing to go to Mass on Sunday, nor guilty of giving the worship, honor, and love due to God alone to a piece of bread. It is not outside the power of the Holy Spirit to grant you the graces of a spiritual communion with Christ because of your faith and obedience and in spite of the false priest’s deception, just as if you had asked for the graces of a spiritual communion in prayer because it was impossible to go to Mass. If you made a confession you believed to be valid, you would not be held responsible for failing to confess a mortal sin because someone conned you into believing he was a priest. Likewise, a couple who believes in good faith that they are married validly do not commit fornication by having marital relations. And so on.

So, what makes a sacrament valid? There needs to be the necessary matter, form, and the intention of the minister. You are asking when coercion removes the free consent necessary for the spouses, the ministers of marriage, to enter into a sacramental covenant. Obviously, it is not necessary for the couples to have been utterly free of outside pressure to marry. That is the ideal, of course, but extenuating circumstances that change their minds about thinking marriage is the “right thing to do” does not automatically render marriage vows invalid.

**Can. 1103 **A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.

**Can. 1107 **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.

It is possible to have two couples who seem to have been in the same circumstances, have both divorce, have both ask to have their marriages examined, and then to have one of the marriages declared valid and the other invalid. On that account, all marriages are assumed valid until invalidity is established. You don’t set fire to a building if someone might be living in it. You treat it as occupied until you are sure it is not being lived in.

The couple who have not divorced and not asked for an investigation are to be presumed validly married. We would never advise that they separate and end the common conjugal life unless the circumstances are such that we would advise a separation even though their bond is valid and they will not be free to marry anyone else.

Thanks, Easter Joy!
BTW, I don’t know what SMH means either, but I see it all the time. Can someone help a sister out?

 

[LongingSoul]

Sorry, I don’t know what IOW means:blush:

Maybe I’m just not understanding the sacramental grace of Holy Matrimony. You can have sacramental marriage and non-sacramental marriage that co-exist with little to no distinction.

Rather than ‘non-sacramental’ I’d probably make the distinction between sacramental and *natural *marriage but understanding that a sacramental marriage is also natural. The sacramental aspect is a recognition of our relationship with God through Christ.

 

[Vico]

Thanks, Easter Joy!
BTW, I don’t know what SMH means either, but I see it all the time. Can someone help a sister out?

Shaking My Head (disappointment or shock).

 

[Tezza]

Couple B can never know if their marriage is valid or not…
The Church bows to the state in this sacramental investigation. One would first have to ask the state (divorce) to then ask the church. Seems odd no?

It does seem odd. Since, in reality, only God confers marriage and the state is simply the enforcer of the temporal laws of taxes and property, one would think you could be granted a decree of nullity without ever “divorcing”.

Also, by divorcing first, remarrying, and then applying for an annulment, the pressure would be on the tribunal to not grant the annulment and dissolve a complicated union where children could be involved or have that union continue in mortal sin.

I believe the questionnaire asks if you are currently married or in a relationship. What should that have to do with establishing the validity of your first marriage?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[Tezza]

Shaking My Head (disappointment or shock).

Thanks!

 

[Tezza]

Rather than ‘non-sacramental’ I’d probably make the distinction between sacramental and *natural *marriage but understanding that a sacramental marriage is also natural. The sacramental aspect is a recognition of our relationship with God through Christ.

Thank you. That helps.

 

[Vico]

It does seem odd. Since, in reality, only God confers marriage and the state is simply the enforcer of the temporal laws of taxes and property, one would think you could be granted a decree of nullity without ever “divorcing”.

Also, by divorcing first, remarrying, and then applying for an annulment, the pressure would be on the tribunal to not grant the annulment and dissolve a complicated union where children could be involved or have that union continue in mortal sin.

I believe the questionnaire asks if you are currently married or in a relationship. What should that have to do with establishing the validity of your first marriage?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Prior divorce is not required canonically. Particular tribunals may require it to demonstrate that the marriage has deteriorated.

 

[LongingSoul]

It does seem odd. Since, in reality, only God confers marriage and the state is simply the enforcer of the temporal laws of taxes and property, one would think you could be granted a decree of nullity without ever “divorcing”.

Also, by divorcing first, remarrying, and then applying for an annulment, the pressure would be on the tribunal to not grant the annulment and dissolve a complicated union where children could be involved or have that union continue in mortal sin.

I believe the questionnaire asks if you are currently married or in a relationship. What should that have to do with establishing the validity of your first marriage?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Again I would say natural marriage officiated by the state is valid marriage. By it, a couple serves mankind in their desire to commit and have a family. The sacrament is not like a cherry on top of a cake that can be there or not there. I suppose thinking cakes, its more connected to the binding agent. The binding agent has to have failed to hold it together for the sacarment to be shown as absent.