Sacramental marriage or not?

[EasterJoy]

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?

I don’t think I would call this “bowing” to the state. For instance, if there were a government that did not allow any divorces or findings of nullity, the Church would not deny a couple the chance to establish that they were not validly married in the eyes of God. Rather, the Church uses civil divorce as evidence that the couple have permanently severed the common conjugal life.

Having said that, there are reasons that a couple may morally separate without having some defect in form, nor any guarantee that the Church will find that their attempt at marriage was null. If necessary to achieve a fair division of assets (which it usually does), it can be morally acceptable for this to include civil divorce, as well. If the couple has not tried to establish the freedom to marry in civil law, however, why would they establish a freedom to marry with the Church? Civil divorce does not result in excommunication, so it is not necessary to obtain a decree of nullity unless one of the parties wants to make new vows.

As far as I know, the policy of not opening an investigation into validity until after a divorce is just that: a policy. It is a policy that helps to avoid alienation of affection between spouses that might reconcile, if they are left without the interference of testifying to a tribunal. Still, exceptions can be made to such a policy, if the bishop decides they are warranted.

 

[slh3016]

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

I’m with HoosierDaddy on this issue. Why does a couple (in the US) have to divorce and tear apart their family to investigate the validity of their own marriage? I mean, marriage is no picnic all the time but I’d sure like to know if mine was valid before making decisions regarding my future (i.e., divorce or stick it out). Also, I’ve had the lingering question of what happens if, at the beginning, one of the parties did not give proper consent to the marriage and knew that the marriage was most likely invalid but continued in it for various reasons. At what point, does the party with the impediment actually give full consent (by staying) and the marriage become sacramental? Does it ever?

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Another important distinction: Some valid marriages–namely, those which are not sacramental because they include at least one spouse who is not baptized and those in which the attempt at marriage was not completed because the marriage had not been consummated–can be subject to dissolution, which is when a valid marriage bond is dissolved “for the good of the faith.” Dissolution cannot be accomplished on a sacramental marriage that was validly ratified and consummated.

 

[Vico]

I’m with HoosierDaddy on this issue. Why does a couple (in the US) have to divorce and tear apart their family to investigate the validity of their own marriage? I mean, marriage is no picnic all the time but I’d sure like to know if mine was valid before making decisions regarding my future (i.e., divorce or stick it out). Also, I’ve had the lingering question of what happens if, at the beginning, one of the parties did not give proper consent to the marriage and knew that the marriage was most likely invalid but continued in it for various reasons. At what point, does the party with the impediment actually give full consent (by staying) and the marriage become sacramental? Does it ever?

A person may never know if their spouse is lying of that there is an unknown impediment.

If the consent was invalid and secretly known only to the one consenting, then a secret consent is all that is needed.

If the consent was invalid and privately known only to the couple, then a private consent is all that is needed.

If the consent was invalid and publicly known, then a public consent is needed.

The practical reality is that for canon law to operate issues must be provable.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m with HoosierDaddy on this issue. Why does a couple (in the US) have to divorce and tear apart their family to investigate the validity of their own marriage? I mean, marriage is no picnic all the time but I’d sure like to know if mine was valid before making decisions regarding my future (i.e., divorce or stick it out). Also, I’ve had the lingering question of what happens if, at the beginning, one of the parties did not give proper consent to the marriage and knew that the marriage was most likely invalid but continued in it for various reasons. At what point, does the party with the impediment actually give full consent (by staying) and the marriage become sacramental? Does it ever?

Think of the opposite problem. A validly married couple asks the Church to investigate their marriage, because they are going through such a rough time that they want to quit. The Church tribunal agrees. In their testimony, the spouses outline all the ways in which their marriage is rotten for the tribunal, and in the process give some testimony that is very judgmental of their spouse and very hurtful. The tribunal finds that although there has been sin, there is no defect that precludes validity. The couple does not get their decree of nullity, but they’ve also made it impossible to live with each other in the same house, the mental strain being honestly too horrific after all the awful things each of them has said and all of the terrible testimony they’ve gotten out of the witnesses. They separate with the bond remaining:

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

I do not know the answer to your final question: That is, does a tribunal ever find that although someone wrote in their diary on their wedding day that their consent was a lie, do their subsequent words and actions ever show that the consent was in fact valid? You would have to ask in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. They have more people who understand canon law posting there.

 

[slh3016]

Think of the opposite problem. A validly married couple asks the Church to investigate their marriage, because they are going through such a rough time that they want to quit. The Church tribunal agrees. In their testimony, the spouses outline all the ways in which their marriage is rotten for the tribunal, and in the process give some testimony that is very judgmental of their spouse and very hurtful. The tribunal finds that although there has been sin, there is no defect that precludes validity. The couple does not get their decree of nullity, but they’ve also made it impossible to live with each other in the same house, the mental strain being honestly too horrific after all the awful things each of them has said and all of the terrible testimony they’ve gotten out of the witnesses. They separate with the bond remaining

But, they probably would’ve separated with the bond remaining anyway, right?

So, the only way one can have their marriage investigated for validity/sacramentality is to get a divorce first. Still sounds odd to me

Personally, I’d want to know what my options were before making a huge decision to legally divorce.

 

[Phemie]

But, they probably would’ve separated with the bond remaining anyway, right?

So, the only way one can have their marriage investigated for validity/sacramentality is to get a divorce first. Still sounds odd to me

Personally, I’d want to know what my options were before making a huge decision to legally divorce.

The reason for requiring a divorce is that it’s proof that the marriage has irrevocably broken down. Remember, the Church’s priority is not to prove that a marriage is or isn’t invalid, it’s to preserve the marriage (which is presumed valid) and to bring about the spouses’ reconciliation. The odds of going through a Tribunal investigation and then reconciling are slim.

Only when it’s abundantly obvious that reconciliation will not occur does the Church investigate the marriage. In the US and Canada, divorce is the way you prove that you won’t reconcile.

 

[slh3016]

The reason for requiring a divorce is that it’s proof that the marriage has irrevocably broken down. Remember, the Church’s priority is not to prove that a marriage is or isn’t invalid, it’s to preserve the marriage (which is presumed valid) and to bring about the spouses’ reconciliation. The odds of going through a Tribunal investigation and then reconciling are slim.

Only when it’s abundantly obvious that reconciliation will not occur does the Church investigate the marriage. In the US and Canada, divorce is the way you prove that you won’t reconcile.

I wish there would be some way to know whether a couple has a better chance of reconciling if the annulment tribunal took place FIRST and found the marriage was valid versus getting divorced first and then finding the marriage was valid (i.e., how many couples remarry after finding their annulment wasn’t granted?)

Honestly, I’d think that most rational people, knowing that they could never remarry and receive communion or have licit sexual relations again might try to work out the issues post-tribunal than post-divorce AND post-tribunal. Just my :twocents:

 

[ToeInTheWater]

But, they probably would’ve separated with the bond remaining anyway, right?

So, the only way one can have their marriage investigated for validity/sacramentality is to get a divorce first. Still sounds odd to me

Personally, I’d want to know what my options were before making a huge decision to legally divorce.

You do realize that civil divorce IS reversible? There are actually are many stories (some I’ve read even on CAF) where couples civilly divorce, but eventually reconcile and remarry each other. This happened with one of Liz Taylor’s husbands.

I’ve even seen some argue that it’s perfectly licit for a Catholic couple to divorce civilly, later reconcile, and go back to living a full conjugal life without bothering to actually remarry again in the civil sense. Even when the reason for that is a fairly selfish one such as “well if we re-marry civilly then we won’t qualify for welfare benefits” or something.

 

[slh3016]

You do realize that civil divorce IS reversible? There are actually are many stories (some I’ve read even on CAF) where couples civilly divorce, but eventually reconcile and remarry each other. This happened with one of Liz Taylor’s husbands.

I’ve even seen some argue that it’s perfectly licit for a Catholic couple to divorce civilly, later reconcile, and go back to living a full conjugal life without bothering to actually remarry again in the civil sense. Even when the reason for that is a fairly selfish one such as “well if we re-marry civilly then we won’t qualify for welfare benefits” or something.

Yes, I realize it is but I’d like to know the stats on reconciliation post-divorce if tribunal rules it is valid. But, those cannot be ascertained because it’s not allowed. It could potentially save both sides a lot of legal fees and other emotional pain, I would think, especially when a lot of claws tend to come out when splitting up the financial assets.

 

[sfleet]

I agree with many of the posters in this thread and as a recent convert I too struggle with understanding the Church’s teaching on marriage, divorce, annulments. The simple fact is that outside of a few evangelical protestant denominations most non-Catholics don’t have the same understanding of marriage as the Catholic church.

I for one come from a family full of divorce. My mom and dad divorce after 24 years. My dad remarried and has been with his new wife for 18 years. My grandfather had 3 marriages, my grandmother had 2. My sister has been married twice. I say all of this to provide evidence that my understanding of marriage atleast my old understanding of marriage is vastly different from the Catholic church.

Furthermore i was ‘raised’ Episcopalian who have never been ones to hold fast to the teachings of Jesus. Throughout high school and college I attended church a handful of times and it was for all the wrong reasons. Girls or friends I was interested in were going. Throughout my courtship with my wife…dated for 2.5 years before our wedding we maybe attended church once or twice, we never prayed together, never discussed faith, and definitely weren’t thinking about Catholicism or what the Catholic understanding of marriage was.

I say all of this now, because I have converted to the faith and my wife hasn’t…alot of our issues within our marriage are related to my conversion. I’m now starting to question the validity of my marriage, I know that is terrible and I’m not happy about it. I’ve confessed it to a priest, but there isn’t a lot of joy in our marriage and the fact that I’ve learned what a ‘valid’ marriage is supposed to contain, the correct ‘form’ I can naturally and easily look back on my courtship and wedding day and say with certainty that my marriage doesn’t have that. Does that mean I want a divorce, no, but it also don’t mean that we should both be miserable for the rest of our lives living out an invalid marriage. It almost seems nonsensical to me that my marriage could even remotely be considered valid. But as the Pope would say “who am I to judge”?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t think I would call this “bowing” to the state. For instance, if there were a government that did not allow any divorces or findings of nullity, the Church would not deny a couple the chance to establish that they were not validly married in the eyes of God. Rather, the Church uses civil divorce as evidence that the couple have permanently severed the common conjugal life.

Having said that, there are reasons that a couple may morally separate without having some defect in form, nor any guarantee that the Church will find that their attempt at marriage was null. If necessary to achieve a fair division of assets (which it usually does), it can be morally acceptable for this to include civil divorce, as well. If the couple has not tried to establish the freedom to marry in civil law, however, why would they establish a freedom to marry with the Church? Civil divorce does not result in excommunication, so it is not necessary to obtain a decree of nullity unless one of the parties wants to make new vows.

As far as I know, the policy of not opening an investigation into validity until after a divorce is just that: a policy. It is a policy that helps to avoid alienation of affection between spouses that might reconcile, if they are left without the interference of testifying to a tribunal. Still, exceptions can be made to such a policy, if the bishop decides they are warranted.

Its more than that EJ, As Catholics we have sacraments. And these sacraments are instruments God has given His Church to dispense His Grace. I know many troubled marriages where one wonders if the sacramental aspect is not there the couple could be missing out on some Graces that would help not hurt the situation. So, one would think that there would be a way to check the sacramental nature of the marriage without giving authority to the state. This is troublesome with the idea that the state could and almost certainly will come back and say "You have given us precedent in the past and power over this one sacrament so, we now have say in the “new marriage” of today. By getting in bed with the state in regards to paperwork, divorce and annulments, the Church has conceded power. Imagine this type of intrusion with other sacraments. Say if one had to provide proof of membership in the Democratic party to revoke baptism…

Not only that but as we can see from the massive divorce rate of Catholics and skyrocketing annulment numbers the Church has many marriages that are not sacramental and are being left out of graces that may indeed help a couple who is struggling. But there is no way to check this.

So from a sacramental and supernatural standpoint there are many marriages that perhaps may not be sacramentally valid and these people are being denied supernatural graces. Something is broken and the only way for them to know is to destroy it. Also, I disagree with your position of Mercy being that the Church does not want to dig up facts that may hurt a marriage. The Church is nothing if not the visible and earthy manifestation of divine Truth. So truth, especially when both parities agree to find out the Truth, cannot be a bad thing.

This is a matter where the Church is playing the role of a hypocrite. It is a large inconsistency in our faith.
But by all means lets hijack the idea of family at a time when families are dying and being destroyed by our culture and society and lets use a synod to discuss if divorced and remarried adulterers should consume the Body of Christ eating and drinking damnation upon them.

Now, this idea of “policy” That is thrown around a lot in these discussions but no one really shows where this policy is not practiced or can be changed. No doubt it can and should. But just going around and saying it is a “policy” is not helping the problem. We are at a societal and religious crisis with marriage and family. Divorces and Annulments are tragic. Especially with children involved. And we need the Grace that comes from the Church, not the idea that you must receive a secular political remedy before a sacramental one… No good can come from the “marriage” of the church and the state in this matter. King Henry VIII’s wives agree with me on this…

End Rant

Please note that any tone of frustration is not directed at you personally or even your post. I am sure you and I have similar views on what marriage is and should be. And you are not saying anything I really disagree with too much.

 

[Vico]

…
So from a sacramental and supernatural standpoint there are many marriages that perhaps may not be sacramentally valid and these people are being denied supernatural graces. Something is broken and the only way for them to know is to destroy it…

Holy Gifts to holy people.

Sometimes a declaration of nullity is overturned, so there really is no absolute certainty anyway. A faithful Catholic may not receive the sacramental grace for matrimony, yet may still be in a state of sanctifying grace because on not being culpable for any sin.

 

[LongingSoul]

Holy Gifts to holy people.

Sometimes a declaration of nullity is overturned, so there really is no absolute certainty anyway. A faithful Catholic may not receive the sacramental grace for matrimony, yet may still be in a state of sanctifying grace because on not being culpable for any sin.

From what I am aware of, the graces are always conferred by the sacrament but involve the couples capacity to receive them. Some couples in their immaturity may not open the door to the graces till later int he marriage thereby partaking in the divine life of their marriage. So a Catholic marriage never needs to be ‘investigated’ for whether it is sacramental. It’s about whether they personally have the faith to cooperate in that grace. While a Catholic marriage exists the grace is always there. Only after a formal divorce has the definite choice been made that keeps the door closed on that grace.

 

[Vico]

From what I am aware of, the graces are always conferred by the sacrament but involve the couples capacity to receive them. Some couples in their immaturity may not open the door to the graces till later int he marriage thereby partaking in the divine life of their marriage. So a Catholic marriage never needs to be ‘investigated’ for whether it is sacramental. It’s about whether they personally have the faith to cooperate in that grace. While a Catholic marriage exists the grace is always there. Only after a formal divorce has the definite choice been made that keeps the door closed on that grace.

A valid marriage between the baptized is a sacrament which confers sacramental grace and actual graces through the sacramental grace. If worthy, each spouse will receive it. For a natural marriage, there is no sacramental grace available. The matrimonial *state *is conferred in any case of a valid natural or sacramental marriage.

 

[slh3016]

Its more than that EJ, As Catholics we have sacraments. And these sacraments are instruments God has given His Church to dispense His Grace. I know many troubled marriages where one wonders if the sacramental aspect is not there the couple could be missing out on some Graces that would help not hurt the situation. So, one would think that there would be a way to check the sacramental nature of the marriage without giving authority to the state. This is troublesome with the idea that the state could and almost certainly will come back and say "You have given us precedent in the past and power over this one sacrament so, we now have say in the “new marriage” of today. By getting in bed with the state in regards to paperwork, divorce and annulments, the Church has conceded power. Imagine this type of intrusion with other sacraments. Say if one had to provide proof of membership in the Democratic party to revoke baptism…

Not only that but as we can see from the massive divorce rate of Catholics and skyrocketing annulment numbers the Church has many marriages that are not sacramental and are being left out of graces that may indeed help a couple who is struggling. But there is no way to check this.

So from a sacramental and supernatural standpoint there are many marriages that perhaps may not be sacramentally valid and these people are being denied supernatural graces. Something is broken and the only way for them to know is to destroy it. Also, I disagree with your position of Mercy being that the Church does not want to dig up facts that may hurt a marriage. The Church is nothing if not the visible and earthy manifestation of divine Truth. So truth, especially when both parities agree to find out the Truth, cannot be a bad thing.

This is a matter where the Church is playing the role of a hypocrite. It is a large inconsistency in our faith.
But by all means lets hijack the idea of family at a time when families are dying and being destroyed by our culture and society and lets use a synod to discuss if divorced and remarried adulterers should consume the Body of Christ eating and drinking damnation upon them.

Now, this idea of “policy” That is thrown around a lot in these discussions but no one really shows where this policy is not practiced or can be changed. No doubt it can and should. But just going around and saying it is a “policy” is not helping the problem. We are at a societal and religious crisis with marriage and family. Divorces and Annulments are tragic. Especially with children involved. And we need the Grace that comes from the Church, not the idea that you must receive a secular political remedy before a sacramental one… No good can come from the “marriage” of the church and the state in this matter. King Henry VIII’s wives agree with me on this…

End Rant

Please note that any tone of frustration is not directed at you personally or even your post. I am sure you and I have similar views on what marriage is and should be. And you are not saying anything I really disagree with too much.

Brilliantly stated

 

[dans0622]

Just for the sake of clarity:

Tribunals do not investigate whether a marriage is Sacramental or not.
Tribunals do not declare that a marriage is valid.
Divorce has no impact on the validity/invalidity of a marriage.

In my opinion, if a couple thinks something essential was lacking in their consent and so they are missing out on Sacramental grace, they should supply whatever was lacking. If they are unwilling to do that, then they should not live as a married couple…right?

Dan

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Just for the sake of clarity:

Tribunals do not investigate whether a marriage is Sacramental or not.
Tribunals do not declare that a marriage is valid.
Divorce has no impact on the validity/invalidity of a marriage.

In my opinion, if a couple thinks something essential was lacking in their consent and so they are missing out on Sacramental grace, they should supply whatever was lacking. If they are unwilling to do that, then they should not live as a married couple…right?

Dan

Perhaps you could clarify your clarification?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t think I would call this “bowing” to the state. For instance, if there were a government that did not allow any divorces or findings of nullity, the Church would not deny a couple the chance to establish that they were not validly married in the eyes of God. Rather, the Church uses civil divorce as evidence that the couple have permanently severed the common conjugal life.

Having said that, there are reasons that a couple may morally separate without having some defect in form, nor any guarantee that the Church will find that their attempt at marriage was null. If necessary to achieve a fair division of assets (which it usually does), it can be morally acceptable for this to include civil divorce, as well. If the couple has not tried to establish the freedom to marry in civil law, however, why would they establish a freedom to marry with the Church? Civil divorce does not result in excommunication, so it is not necessary to obtain a decree of nullity unless one of the parties wants to make new vows.

As far as I know, the policy of not opening an investigation into validity until after a divorce is just that: a policy. It is a policy that helps to avoid alienation of affection between spouses that might reconcile, if they are left without the interference of testifying to a tribunal. Still, exceptions can be made to such a policy, if the bishop decides they are warranted.

In Italy civil divorce only came into existence in 1974.

If a couple required an annulment they would apply, the “Civil” marriage would be also considered null, if the annulment was granted.

 

[dans0622]

Perhaps you could clarify your clarification?

Sure.

1. Many (not sure of a percentage) cases before Tribunals involve marriages that are certainly not Sacramental. At least one party is not baptized.

Even for the cases that involve two baptized people, the question is about validity, not Sacramentality. That being said, if a marriage between two baptized people is declared invalid, it was also, necessarily, not a Sacrament.

1. When a person presents a case to a Tribunal, he is alleging that his marriage is invalid because of some reason or other. The Tribunal’s answer is either “yes, it is invalid because of that reason” or “No, it hasn’t been proven invalid because of that reason.” The latter answer is not the same as “the marriage is valid.” A Tribunal can’t go beyond the presumed validity of the marriage and declare that the marriage is valid. For this reason, a person can present a case and “lose” but then present it again on different grounds and “win.”
2. … I don’t remember why I said that…and it was just this morning that I said it… The fact of divorce does not prove a marriage was invalid or make it invalid. If it was valid in the beginning, it will always be valid. If it was invalid, divorce can’t make it more invalid.

Dan