C
chevalier
Guest
Below are some doubts of a secular law student who has occasional contact with Canon Law, regarding the presence of sacrament in specific cases of marriage.
As many of us know, marriages are presumed valid unless proven otherwise. Canon Law says valid marriages for the baptised are sacramental. A contrario, invalid marriages wouldn’t be sacramental. A marriage can’t be annuled, it can only be judged null and void ab initio. Therefore, it has always been invalid, if it is declared null (unless the declaration is in error).
My question is: what with the sacrament?
Seeking a declaration of nullity on the grounds of defective consent is discouraged.
My question is: why is it discouraged to check if the marriage is valid if there’s room for doubt? If it actually is invalid, the couple is living in fornication. If it is valid, no force on earth can validly declare it null. But the Sacrament is only in valid marriages. So why is it discouraged to check if the marriage is valid or if it’s invalid and in need of convalidation?
I doubt the Church would think along the lines “Leave it alone if it works. Even if it might be fornication.” So what gives? Shouldn’t we rather convalidate all doubtful matrimonies by default if both parties want to stay married, so that the sacrament would be there?
Another question: how is the sacrament handled in unconsummated marriages (ratum tantum / ratum sed non consummatum)? They are valid and sacramental even before consummation, but can be dissolved. Where does the sacrament go?
Yet another question: what is the construction of Church approval being needed for validity? I understand the licit part, but valid? For example, an uncle can marry a niece with dispensation and the marriage is both valid and licit. But if second cousins marry without dispensation, their marriage can be declared null ab initio with even one party unwilling. So, does the bishop’s dispensation or lack thereof bind God in granting the sacrament on the two nupturients-ministers?
Well, this actually breeds another question: what if a marriage were invalid because of a little formality missing (one witness instead of two or whatever such) and the parties never learnt of that? Would they have never had a sacrament?
Following this question, there is a problem with “voidable” marriages, i.e. ones that are normally valid, but a party or both parties can request one such marriage to be declared null and void. Does the sacrament “leave” if they decide to pursue nullity? Does the sacrament suddenly come about if they decide to drop the charges (not convalidation, just a decision not to press or to withdraw a nullity charge). We can presume validity for the sake of the trial, but presuming a sacrament won’t help facts and won’t bring said sacrament about. So what exactly happens with the sacrament?
Validity can be presumed, but what about the sacrament?
Next: what if it weren’t a problem of a never detected missing dispensation or insufficient consent/consciousness at the point of exchanging vows, but something grander? Let’s say there had been some child-swapping or separation at birth and it shows that the putative spouses are brother and sister (instead of cousins) or even father and daughter (instead of uncle and niece) and it never comes out? Does God abhor the union and never bless it, even though the spouses don’t know anything? Does God start abhorring the union the moment they realise they are brother and sister or father and daughter? Or what if a first spouse who is presumed dead is not actually dead, even though no one knows - does God still abhor the union and never grace it? What if the missing and presumed dead first spouse dies 1 minute after the new wedding and the marriage is de facto invalid, no matter what the formal side looks like (no one knows anything ever, there’s no asking for convalidation because no one even supposed it might be needed)? No sacrament there?
Hmm… so another question: a spouse is presumed dead and long forgotten but shows up alive after 30 years, after the other spouse has fallen in love again and had a couple of children. What is the person supposed to do? Per Canon Law, he/she would have to stay away from any sexual relations with the new spouse, but the marriage would still be presumed valid until dissolved - so the person would theoretically be committing adultery for making love with the newly found first spouse, as well, and a declaration of nullity would be required for them to join up again, even though no renewal of marriage wouldn’t be necessary. Isn’t this a bit weird?
As many of us know, marriages are presumed valid unless proven otherwise. Canon Law says valid marriages for the baptised are sacramental. A contrario, invalid marriages wouldn’t be sacramental. A marriage can’t be annuled, it can only be judged null and void ab initio. Therefore, it has always been invalid, if it is declared null (unless the declaration is in error).
My question is: what with the sacrament?
Seeking a declaration of nullity on the grounds of defective consent is discouraged.
My question is: why is it discouraged to check if the marriage is valid if there’s room for doubt? If it actually is invalid, the couple is living in fornication. If it is valid, no force on earth can validly declare it null. But the Sacrament is only in valid marriages. So why is it discouraged to check if the marriage is valid or if it’s invalid and in need of convalidation?
I doubt the Church would think along the lines “Leave it alone if it works. Even if it might be fornication.” So what gives? Shouldn’t we rather convalidate all doubtful matrimonies by default if both parties want to stay married, so that the sacrament would be there?
Another question: how is the sacrament handled in unconsummated marriages (ratum tantum / ratum sed non consummatum)? They are valid and sacramental even before consummation, but can be dissolved. Where does the sacrament go?
Yet another question: what is the construction of Church approval being needed for validity? I understand the licit part, but valid? For example, an uncle can marry a niece with dispensation and the marriage is both valid and licit. But if second cousins marry without dispensation, their marriage can be declared null ab initio with even one party unwilling. So, does the bishop’s dispensation or lack thereof bind God in granting the sacrament on the two nupturients-ministers?
Well, this actually breeds another question: what if a marriage were invalid because of a little formality missing (one witness instead of two or whatever such) and the parties never learnt of that? Would they have never had a sacrament?
Following this question, there is a problem with “voidable” marriages, i.e. ones that are normally valid, but a party or both parties can request one such marriage to be declared null and void. Does the sacrament “leave” if they decide to pursue nullity? Does the sacrament suddenly come about if they decide to drop the charges (not convalidation, just a decision not to press or to withdraw a nullity charge). We can presume validity for the sake of the trial, but presuming a sacrament won’t help facts and won’t bring said sacrament about. So what exactly happens with the sacrament?
Validity can be presumed, but what about the sacrament?
Next: what if it weren’t a problem of a never detected missing dispensation or insufficient consent/consciousness at the point of exchanging vows, but something grander? Let’s say there had been some child-swapping or separation at birth and it shows that the putative spouses are brother and sister (instead of cousins) or even father and daughter (instead of uncle and niece) and it never comes out? Does God abhor the union and never bless it, even though the spouses don’t know anything? Does God start abhorring the union the moment they realise they are brother and sister or father and daughter? Or what if a first spouse who is presumed dead is not actually dead, even though no one knows - does God still abhor the union and never grace it? What if the missing and presumed dead first spouse dies 1 minute after the new wedding and the marriage is de facto invalid, no matter what the formal side looks like (no one knows anything ever, there’s no asking for convalidation because no one even supposed it might be needed)? No sacrament there?
Hmm… so another question: a spouse is presumed dead and long forgotten but shows up alive after 30 years, after the other spouse has fallen in love again and had a couple of children. What is the person supposed to do? Per Canon Law, he/she would have to stay away from any sexual relations with the new spouse, but the marriage would still be presumed valid until dissolved - so the person would theoretically be committing adultery for making love with the newly found first spouse, as well, and a declaration of nullity would be required for them to join up again, even though no renewal of marriage wouldn’t be necessary. Isn’t this a bit weird?
