Sacramental Marriage

[Maximillian45]

My wife of 25-years saw a Blog posting by our parish-priest which troubled her. Apparently, since she was not baptized at the time, our marriage is not a Sacramental marriage. It is something lesser. Apparently, we could divorce without even getting an annulment. :bigyikes:

Is this so? The now-retired priest who married us made no mention of this during out per-marital counseling:blush: In fact, because she intended to be baptized and join the Catholic church, the priest encouraged her to wait until after the wedding to ensure that her motive for getting married was not tied up with her desire to enter the Church.

This situation is very troubling for her and by extension to me. I want to do the proper thing and ease her mind. What do we do? Get married again? Invite all of our friends and family and say that after 25 years, we’ve decided to get married? I told my wife that I’m in full support of “marrying” her again, if that’s the right thing to do.

I appreciate any feedback.

 

[Elizium23]

A marriage that is between a baptized man and a baptized woman is sacramental. A valid marriage between two persons where one or both is unbaptized is a natural marriage.

Has your wife been baptized now? The moment she was baptized, your marriage became sacramental. No other action was necessary. If she is still unbaptized, then you have a (putatively) valid, natural marriage. Such a marriage may be dissolved by the Petrine privilege. A valid, sacramental marriage that has been consummated is indissoluble.

I would not be eager to call a natural marriage “lesser” than a sacramental one, but they are certainly two distinct types. I would encourage you to research the difference between them.

Yes, you could divorce and dissolve your marriage if your wife remains unbaptized, but you are still in a putatively valid marriage because you married in observance of Catholic law. If there is no reason to divorce, then don’t!

 

[quiet52]

If your wife is not yet baptized, your marriage is valid but not sacramental because the “entry” sacrament is Baptism.
If she has been baptized, then, as the previous poster has written, both of you are indeed sacramental as a couple.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

My wife of 25-years saw a Blog posting by our parish-priest which troubled her. Apparently, since she was not baptized at the time, our marriage is not a Sacramental marriage.

If she was not baptized as the time, then the marriage was a natural marriage, rather than a sacramental marriage. A sacramental marriage is between two validly baptized parties. Marriage involving one or more unbaptized parties is a natural marriage.

Apparently, we could divorce without even getting an annulment.

Maybe, maybe not. If you were married validly (which I assume you were since you mention a priest), your marriage is considered valid. I you divorced and wished to remarry, you would either need an annulment or a marital dissolution (assuming your wife is still unbaptized).

What do we do? Get married again?

You are validly married; you cannot get married again.

BTW, if your wife has been baptized since, your marriage is considered sacramental.

 

[1ke]

Apparently, since she was not baptized at the time, our marriage is not a Sacramental marriage.

At that time, your marriage was a natural marriage. Sacramentality flows from baptism, and so if one or both partiess are unbaptized, the marriage is a natural marriage. If the party or parties become baptized, the marriage automatically becomes a sacrament at that point in time.

It is something lesser.

It was a valid marriage while she was unbaptized. It was not “lesser”. It was “different”. Without baptism, sacramental grace is not available.

Apparently, we could divorce without even getting an annulment. :bigyikes:

Well, anyone can divorce without getting an annulment.

But, perhaps she meant remarry. If so, that is either incorrect information in the blog or a misunderstanding of what was written.

It is true that in some cases valid natural marriages can be dissolved by the Pauline or Petrine Privilege.

Is this so?

On the whole, I would say your wife has gotten it wrong.

You are validly married. If she became baptized after your marriage, it is also a sacrament and indissoluable.

The now-retired priest who married us made no mention of this during out per-marital counseling.

Right. Because what your wife has relayed is not an accurate version of what the Church actually teaches. There was no need for your priest to go into any of this during your premarital counseling.

This situation is very troubling for her and by extension to me.

she needs to put it aside. reading something on a blog does not make it true. you need to trust that being married in the Church means that you are validly married and there is nothing else that you need to do.

I want to do the proper thing and ease her mind. What do we do? Get married again?

No. you are validly married.

Invite all of our friends and family and say that after 25 years, we’ve decided to get married? I told my wife that I’m in full support of “marrying” her again, if that’s the right thing to do.

Put it out of both of your minds and do not think of it again.

 

[OraLabora]

I am reading between the lines a bit but this is what I see:

You were married by the Church to an unbaptized person. Your wife was then baptized.

At the time of your marriage, you entered a valid natural marriage with the consent of the Church.

As soon as your wife became baptized, the marriage did in fact become sacramental. You fulfilled your duty to marry with consent of the Church through its legitimate authority, and by her later baptism sacramental grace enters the marriage.

So unless I have the sequence of events wrong reading between the lines (valid, Church-approved marriage to a non-baptized person, and her later baptism), you now are in a valid, sacramental marriage. Relax and congrats on 25 years together, my wife and will be married 25 years come August as well. Because I was a lapsed Catholic when we got married in a civil marriage (and she was also unbaptized at the time), we later had our marriage convalidated, as I returned to the Church and she also became a baptized Anglican.

 

[anruari]

Is this so? The now-retired priest who married us made no mention of this during out per-marital counseling:blush: In fact, because she intended to be baptized and join the Catholic church, the priest encouraged her to wait until after the wedding to ensure that her motive for getting married was not tied up with her desire to enter the Church.

I appreciate any feedback.

As I read this you were married in the Church. You were already a Christian. Presumably the priest who witnessed your vows will have obtained the appropriate dispensations from the canonical requirement for a marriage to only take place between 2 baptised Catholics.

The cannon law states:
Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

§2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1125 and ⇒ 1126 have been fulfilled.

This clearly shows that dispensation from this is expected to be fairly easy provided the conditions are met.

CHAPTER VI.

MIXED MARRIAGES

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Can. 1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

It is clear from this that as you were clearly already expressed an intention to be baptised into the church the requirements to dispense the impediments were more clearly present than normal (where a non baptised spouse must simply promise not to coerce their christian spouse into abandoning their faith or it’s practice).

NOW: You were married in the church, with every possible and just reason to believe that the appropriate dispensations were granted by the bishop at the time. If this was not done the sin of omission lies with the priest for failure to properly instruct you, not with yourselves.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can. 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.

§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

§3. A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

§3. For a marriage contracted with a dispensation from canonical form, the local ordinary who granted the dispensation is to take care that the dispensation and celebration are inscribed in the marriage registers of both the curia and the proper parish of the Catholic party whose pastor conducted the investigation about the free status. The Catholic spouse is bound to notify as soon as possible the same ordinary and pastor about the marriage celebrated and also to indicate the place of the celebration and the public form observed.

 

[anruari]

If the two of you intended to enter into a sacramental marriage,
Did so in the Church, and under the instruction of your priest then even though one party was not yet baptised I would assume that the marriage has all the outward signs of a valid, sacramental marriage.
As such it must be treated as if it does have that status unless a formal Tribunal declares otherwise.

In the worst case you can have it convalidated: but I doubt that is necessary.

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.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If the two of you intended to enter into a sacramental marriage,
Did so in the Church, and under the instruction of your priest then even though one party was not yet baptised I would assume that the marriage has all the outward signs of a valid, sacramental marriage.

Whether or not a marriage is a sacrament is determined solely by the baptismal status of the spouses. If both are validly baptized, the marriage is also a sacrament. If not, is not a sacramental marriage, but a natural marriage.

As such it must be treated as if it does have that status unless a formal Tribunal declares otherwise.

The marriage is assumed valid. The sacramental aspect comes into play if one divorces and wants to remarry. Valid, consummated, sacramental marriages cannot be dissolved, whereas natural marriages are not intrinsically indissoluble.

In the worst case you can have it convalidated: but I doubt that is necessary.

Valid marriages, both natural and sacramental, cannot be convalidated, since the parties are already married.

 

[Maximillian45]

:extrahappy: Many thanks and may God bless you and keep you close to His heart. I deeply appreciate all of you taking the time to explain and correct our misunderstanding.

She was indeed baptized and received into the Church the following year so we do in fact have a Sacramental marriage.

As I have told my wonderful wife, I have no intention of EVER divorcing her or leaving her for ANY reason. Being stubborn can be a burden but, in these matters, I consider it a blessing in disguise. I made a vow before God and only in the last 7 years have I begun to understand and appreciate the true depth of that vow to my wife and my God. The struggles throughout the years, well, I can only imagine that God has to use an extra heavy mallet to chisel stubborn rock. But, everything we have struggled with has only ever served to bring us closer to Him.

This is why I spend my time in prayer, the Bible and Mass rather than reading blogs by people who are more interested in criticizing the failings of other Catholics. Please don’t misunderstand, I fully accept the Church’s teachings. Even the ones that I struggle to understand. The priest who married us is sadly retired, but he is one of the most holy people anyone would be blessed to know. He was/is a true zealot in preaching and making people understand that Our Lord has an infinite and uncompromising love for us, his children adopted through Jesus. The priest who took his place, not so much. And that is as much as I will say in that regard. I enjoy reading the many excellent Catholic blogs out there by people who, like any of us, are trying to come to some sort of understanding of our Catholic faith. I avoid others who appear intent on finding fault with basically everything.