Valid Marriage?

[John_oxios]

I did, and only did, what the OP asked. If the OP asked if my marriage may be null and void because I’m not sure if I properly gave consent at the time of my marriage I’d say go and see your parish priest and based on his advice you might take your question to a tribunal.

Lack of canonical form is easy. There was either canonical form or there wasn’t. No canonical form - no valid marriage. As far as I am aware there is three possibilities for the OP:

1. Take the case to a tribunal who will almost certainly issue a decree of nullity
2. Have a marriage in the Catholic Church observing canonical form
3. Get dispensation from canonical form - I’m not sure if this can be granted retrospectively or if they’d have to apply for it and then have a non-Catholic marriage service.

I was not citing canon law (I’d give a reference if I was) or trying to set myself up as a canon lawyer; null and void is the correct term.

I don’t have the literary skill to wrap my advice up in a parable.

Hello Matthew,
Its time to drop this, I showed you the CCC, you state certainties without record.
Now from the horses mouth:
I’ve been there! Done that, in order to get right with the Church. It’s not something I really wanted to do or cared to do, An annulment and a dispensation, I have experienced it first hand, nobody ever stated “John your 2nd marriage with two children is null and void,” , not recognized was a term used, not null and void. By the way an annulment is one of the hardest deepest spiritual pains I’ve ever experienced!

In civil court you’re pointing out each others faults… In an annulment your asked pages of questions which bring out what I did to contribute to my marriages demise, and what I didn’t to to try and keep it. And on top of that My sister and family members also needed asked questions… which when i read there testimony… hurt all the more because I just did not see it.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

That may be difficult. The Church does not have a comprehensive list of “thou shalt not …” for every possible situation. Can you show where the Church teaches what you claim his Her teaching?

Hi Matthew,
I did not call it a teaching, but you have said it is not of the Church to recognize a commitment of two people.

You can’t reconcile the fact that a man and woman, make a commitment/ oath/vow to each other to marry, (so be it outside the Catholic faith). And have remained married, that the Church can’t honestly recognize their commitment to each other? That’s like turning a blind eye to the obvious! They don’t see it as sacramental union, but it is a union nontheless. It can’t be dismissed
When I heard it said, I didn’t even question it. I’ll pass it on to the Priest who stated it for a comprehensive explanation.

Biblically there things you can prove and things you cannot prove. Protestants when they attack teachings don’t want to hear about tradtition… just what is written, but they do have their own Tradition, where they say “this is how we interpret this particular passage/ verse they are teaching you their tradition.”

Somehow If I can’t get a detailed comprehensive explanation of the point, common sense and logic will have to prevail. Until then>>

Paul never went into a community stating “Your doing this all wrong” They would have ran him out of town. What Paul did was take what they had. turn their thoughts towards Christ, captivating their thought toward Christ. and even then he got stoned sometimes and ran out of town.
Take Paul himself for instance even though he was persecuting the Church he thoughts were always on Christ, and Christ turned that zeal towards him.
I honestly can’t see Our Church telling someone interested incoming back telling them OH you did this all wrong, your marriage is null and void, and we don’t even recognize the ‘commitment’ you’ve made to each other, we got to throw everything our and start a new page. It’s not how its down’

We take with what they got, what they are working with and we bring them in. That’ Catholicism!

God bless,
John

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I did not call it a teaching…/, but you have said it is not of the Church to recognize a commitment of two people.

You can’t reconcile the fact that a man and woman, make a commitment/ oath/vow to each other to marry, (so be it outside the Catholic faith). And have remained married, that the Church can’t honestly recognize their commitment to each other? That’s like turning a blind eye to the obvious! They don’t see it as sacramental union, but it is a union nontheless. It can’t be dismissed
When I heard it said, I didn’t even question it. I’ll pass it on to the Priest who stated it for a comprehensive explanation.

Biblically there things you can prove and things you cannot prove. Protestants when they attack teachings don’t want to hear about tradtition… just what is written, but they do have their own Tradition, where they say “this is how we interpret this particular passage/ verse they are teaching you their tradition.”

Somehow If I can’t get a detailed comprehensive explanation of the point, common sense and logic will have to prevail. Until then>>

Paul never went into a community stating “Your doing this all wrong” They would have ran him out of town. What Paul did was take what they had. turn their thoughts towards Christ, captivating their thought toward Christ. and even then he got stoned sometimes and ran out of town.
Take Paul himself for instance even though he was persecuting the Church he thoughts were always on Christ, and Christ turned that zeal towards him.
I honestly can’t see Our Church telling someone interested incoming back telling them OH you did this all wrong, your marriage is null and void, and we don’t even recognize the ‘commitment’ you’ve made to each other, we got to throw everything our and start a new page. It’s not how its down’

We take with what they got, what they are working with and we bring them in. That’ Catholicism!

God bless,
John

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I did not call it a teaching…

OK, not explicitly but it is implied.

but you have said it is not of the Church to recognize a commitment of two people.

I didn’t, please tell me the post where I’m supposed to have done this.

You can’t reconcile the fact that a man and woman, make a commitment/ oath/vow to each other to marry, (so be it outside the Catholic faith). And have remained married, that the Church can’t honestly recognize their commitment to each other? That’s like turning a blind eye to the obvious! They don’t see it as sacramental union, but it is a union nontheless. It can’t be dismissed
When I heard it said, I didn’t even question it. I’ll pass it on to the Priest who stated it for a comprehensive explanation.

There could be unions that fit your description where a man and a woman have made some form of commitment to each other but are not in a valid marriage. The Church does not consider such unions to be equivalent to marriage. The Church values marriage too highly to accept anything else as equivalent. A marriage is only sacramental if the man and woman are (1) validy married to each other (if they are non-Catholics this could be a religious marriage in another Christian Church or ecclesial community or a civil marriage) and (2) both the man and the woman are validly baptised.

I honestly can’t see Our Church telling someone interested incoming back telling them OH you did this all wrong, your marriage is null and void, and we don’t even recognize the ‘commitment’ you’ve made to each other, we got to throw everything our and start a new page. It’s not how its down’

We take with what they got, what they are working with and we bring them in. That’ Catholicism!

God bless,
John

The Church is not as brutal as you imply and I don’t think any one has suggested that.

The Church has a responsibility to tell those coming home to the Church whether there are problems with their marriage. Returning to the Catholic Church does not invlove picking those aspects of the Faith that one is happy to accept but rejecting any aspect of the Faith one finds uncomfortable or disagreeable. As I believe I said in a previous post if a marriage is null and void due to lack of canonical form there are a number of possibilties for regularising that situation.

The Church will, of course, handle the matter is a pastoral manner. However, It will not say oh we don’t want to upset you please feel free to carry on as you are. It you want to return to the Church that invloves accepting all of the Church’s doctrines, laws, and teachings.

 

[John_oxios]

OK, not explicitly but it is implied.

.

Not implied, what I stated was An associate Pastor was asked a question, And his answer was" the Church recognizes the Commitment the Couple has made to each other"

I need time to ask why he stated that, whether it came up in an RCIA group, or Bible study,or one of our interfaith discussions… I can’t remember. But it still rings true to my ear.

God Bless,
John

 

[1ke]

hello 1ke

          Are you saying the Church denys acknowledging their commitment they have  to each other? 
 That's a hard teaching
         ok  show me  where that is written,  and I'll bring it to the associate pastor who stated it.

God bless,
John

If a couple marries invalidly do not have a “committment” that the Church recognizes. They are committing fornication, a sin against the Sixth Commandment.

If a couple who *validly *marries, the Church recognizes the marriage.

The Church does not recognize non-marital “commitments” of living together in sin. It is your burden to prove they do.

 

[John_oxios]

If a couple marries invalidly do not have a “committment” that the Church recognizes. They are committing fornication, a sin against the Sixth Commandment.

If a couple who *validly *marries, the Church recognizes the marriage.

The Church does not recognize non-marital “commitments” of living together in sin. It is your burden to prove they do.

Hi 1ke

Now were getting a little ridiculous here, your grasping at straws, lot of if’s, I tell you my own personal experience…what I have heard and seen in Five yrs of RCIA service, quote the CCC, and come back with if innuendo and nonsense to prove your point?
it is because of ‘the religious elite’ who laud there opinion of what they believe is the absolute law of the church that keeps people away. You guys are making a marriage outside the SAcramental blessings seem lie lust or shacking up together which is not the case. Even Christ was against those religious who belittled the poor and downtrodden.
Most people by my experience are beaten down and attempting to reconcile with the Church and you want to hit between the eyes with:

NULL : without value, effect, consequence, or significance.
being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent.

Void: having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.
useless; ineffectual; vain.

The church isn’t stating that only in granted annulments, however it is stating that the marriage in its invalidity is lacking Union of the entire Church community, that by passing this Sacrament, and taking the easier path they have lost something spiritually beneficial to the couple and other family members

as far living together The Church is against it, yes, why? because the couples living together are generally practicing some form of contraception HELLO! I’ve seen couples come to RCIA who are living together, and Our Priest/Pastor/deacon usually request that for the benefit of the marriage that they try living separately for six months prior to the wedding… some have conformed to this and some have not. But again, A Priest cannot refuse to marry two Baptized persons (of the opposite sex), [unless than do not qualify i.e married already in the Catholic faith w/out an annulment].

God bless,
John

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Not implied, what I stated was An associate Pastor was asked a question, And his answer was" the Church recognizes the Commitment the Couple has made to each other"

I need time to ask why he stated that, whether it came up in an RCIA group, or Bible study,or one of our interfaith discussions… I can’t remember. But it still rings true to my ear.

God Bless,
John

So, are you saying that the Associate Pastor was giving a response that was contrary to Church teachings?

I am finding your contributions to this discussion more confusing. You have clearly admitted that you are relying on a memory of what you are not even sure of.

It is not very clear what point you are trying to make. You admit that the Church teaches that marriage is the correct way for a man and woman to live together. You also admit that a man and a woman living together outside marriage is a sin. What you appear to be proposing is that there is some third option. There isn’t! If you think that there is then you need to support that claim.

You also need to clarify what this priest was saying.

 

[1ke]

You guys are making a marriage outside the SAcramental blessings seem lie lust or shacking up together which is not the case.

you are repeatedly stating that the Church does not recognize the marriages of non-Cathlics as marriages or sacrmaents. This simply **isn’t **true.

A **valid **marriage between **non-Catholics **that are **baptized **is a real **marriage **and a real sacrament.

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.

If one or both parties is unbaptized, the Church still recognizes their **valid **marriage as a **real **marriage. It is not a sacrament due to the unbaptized state of the parties. But it is still a real marriage and it is called a natural marriage by the Church.

If the marriage is invalid, due to an impediment or defect, then the Church doesn’t recognize it as anything. Not a “committment” and not a “marriage”. Those in **invalid **marriages are committing fornication.

If one of the parties is a Catholic, then any marriage they attempt outside the Church is invalid and the Church does NOT recognize it or any so-called “committment.” Again, the couple is living in a state of fornication which can be rectified via convalidation.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Most people by my experience are beaten down and attempting to reconcile with the Church and you want to hit between the eyes with:

NULL : without value, effect, consequence, or significance.
being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent.

Void: having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.
useless; ineffectual; vain.

I don’t believe I ever said anything of the sort, that I wanted to “hit someone between the eyes”. A couple approaching the Church to rectify their invalid marriage is treated with respect, compassion, and dignity by me (the RCIA director) and by the pastor.

The church isn’t stating that only in granted annulments, however it is stating that the marriage in its invalidity is lacking Union of the entire Church community, that by passing this Sacrament, and taking the easier path they have lost something spiritually beneficial to the couple and other family members

Um, no, that is NOT what the Church is saying AT ALL.

as far living together The Church is against it, yes, why? because the couples living together are generally practicing some form of contraception

No, this is not the reason the Church teaches that cohabitation is wrong. Although, yes, contraception is certainly an additional wrong.

Regarding Church teaching on marriage: I highly recommend you read the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster to help you understand actual Church teaching. One talk in RCIA is not a sufficient grounding in Church teaching on this subject.

 

[Seatuck]

John do you understand that it is a grave sin to marry outside the church? That a person in an invalid marriage is unable to receive the sacraments?

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

 

[John_oxios]

John do you understand that it is a grave sin to marry outside the church? That a person in an invalid marriage is unable to receive the sacraments?

Hello Seatuck,
Not everyone is religious, some people grow up not receiving any instruction after Baptism, or communion, or confirmation any combination thereof… And have married outside the Roman Catholic Church, because they did not know any better, let’s say to them A church is a Church is a Church… and for some reason, whether it was by invitation, or say something they may have heard in a homily while attending thier semi annual visit to the Mass were prompted by the Holy Sprit to return…
As scripture tells us:
Ecc 7:13 Consider the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked?

Hbr 12:12-14 "Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. “Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

Pharisees and Sadducees lauded their righteousness over the Hebrews, and Jesus rebuked them for that.
He who is without sin cast the first stone, and he did not condemn the woman.

 What of people attempting to get right with the Church, do we beat them over the head with fire and brimstone?   Or do accept where they are on their journey, and bring back to the fold with God's grace, forgiveness and proper instruction to become members of the community again.

What is worse is remaining in that state:
"…rejection of God, rejection of his grace and therefore opposition to the very source of salvation - these are manifestations whereby a person seems to exclude himself voluntarily from the path of forgiveness. It is to be hoped that very few persist to the end in this attitude of rebellion or even defiance of God. Moreover, God in his merciful love is greater than our hearts, as St. John further teaches us, and can overcome all our psychological and spiritual resistance. So that, as St. Thomas writes, “considering the omnipotence and mercy of God, no one should despair of the salvation of anyone in this life.”

Read your URL, “having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage”

It may be invalid sacramentally, but it is lawful.
from what I’ve read, is that before receiving a person must make a confession of his sin.
In which case imagine the priest would council the confessed how to get in God’s and the Church good graces.

However who hasn’t been guilty of a grave sin?

www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

Remember NO one is righteous not one:

This is a grave sin:
Adultery—Adultery is marital infidelity. A married person who has sexual relations with anyone but their lawful spouse, even transient sexual relations, commits adultery (CCC 2380).

Divorce—The grave sin of divorce condemns those **who divorce and remarry **(Matthew 5:32) and those who divorce in the civil sense (except by grave dispensation). Hence divorce between two baptized Christians is a mortal sin (CCC 2384).

Lust—Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. It is disordered because sexual pleasure must not be isolated from its true, natural place: within the Sacrament of Matrimony that is ordered to procreation of children and a unifying love between husband and wife (CCC 2351). …

But then again read these grave sins,
What kinds of offenses against God constitute “grave matter”?

St. Paul gives us a list of grave sins. He states that anyone who commits these sins shall not enter the kingdom of God. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-20). … Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). These sins constitute grave matter, and if they are committed willingly and with full consent, constitute mortal sin.

The Church also tells us that t**he sins of anger, blasphemy, envy, hatred, malice, murder, neglect of Sunday obligation**, sins against faith (incredulity against God or heresy), sins against hope (obstinate despair in the hope for salvation and/or presumption that oneself can live without God or be saved by one’s own power) and sins against love (indifference towards charity, ingratitude, and/or hatred of God) also constitute grave matter. This list of grave sins, is based on Jesus Christ’s interpretation of the gravity of the Ten Commandments. Grave sins can be classed as sins against God, neighbor and self, and can further be divided into carnal and spiritual sins (CCC 1853).

I am happy to have found a Roman Catholic parish/ Diocese that welcomed me, in my grave sin, and showed me with all due patience and instruction to lead me back especially after I had come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ after some ten yrs of Bible study in various Christian faiths.
it was also a grave sin to turn away an alien passing through your community.

God Bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Matthew Holford;7894554]

Originally Posted by John oxios
but you have said it is not of the Church to recognize a commitment of two people.
I didn’t, please tell me the post where I’m supposed to have done this

.

I didn’t, please tell me the post where I’m supposed to have done this

.

Hi Matthew ,
My apologies, I attributed a statement made by 1ke at post #16 to you,

 

[D317]

I didn’t mean to start such a heated debate!

I was a non-practicing Catholic. My wife non-Catholic. It was a Protestant service and we had no marriage prep.

 

[John_oxios]

I didn’t mean to start such a heated debate!

I was a non-practicing Catholic. My wife non-Catholic. It was a Protestant service and we had no marriage prep.

Hey D317,

It’s okay, Catholics tend to agree to disagree… we all sharpening our iron, we’re all learning.

Questions get us to dig deeper into our faith, make us better Catholics.

What brought me back? Even though I knew where i belonged, an invitation by a passing Deacon, I asked him a question, and he looked at me, and asked are you Catholic? I replied I used to be, He then told me I want to see you at Mass on Sunday, I showed up for awhile I went to two Sunday services Catholic and Protestant… Then came the day I knew I had to make a decision, it wasn’t hard, Been back ever since, never needing to look back.

God Bless,
John

 

[dans0622]

The question of the thread has been answered.

Perhaps the priest referenced by “john oxios” was obliquely referring to this passage from Bl. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio:

"82. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments."

Dan

 

[John_oxios]

The question of the thread has been answered.

Perhaps the priest referenced by “john oxios” was obliquely referring to this passage from Bl. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio:

"82. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, **because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, **even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments."

Dan

Thank you Dan, defender of bonds? Coincidence? (the Bold type I’ve added) As I stated I heard a very respected Associate Pastor, give answer with “The Church recognizes the commitment” He may have been obliquely referring to this APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION;

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

[John_oxios]

The question of the thread has been answered.

Perhaps the priest referenced by “john oxios” was obliquely referring to this passage from Bl. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio:

"82. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments."

Dan

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

This is way down the Document Part IV of Part IV

IV - PASTORAL CARE OF THE FAMILY IN DIFFICULT CASES

(c) # 82

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I didn’t mean to start such a heated debate!

I was a non-practicing Catholic. My wife non-Catholic. It was a Protestant service and we had no marriage prep.

I am surprised that it has caused such debate. We tried to answer your question. The situation that you described is quite straightforward as marriage cases go. Although you describe yourself as a non-practising Catholic you remain a Catholic.

As a Catholic you have two options: (1) marry according to canonical form or (2) apply for dispensation from canonical form. From what you have said I do not think that you did number (1). From what you have said I infer that did not do number (2).

That means you have two main options. If you and your wife are still married and you want to regularise your marriage situation then you should contact your parish priest to arrange this. Until that happens you and your wife should live as brother and sister. You will have to go to confession because although it may sound harsh you have been living inappropriately.

If you have separated and had a civil dissolution of marriage (commonly called a divorce) you will need to apply to a tribunal for a decree of nullity. If your case is one of lack of canonical form the procedure is quite straightforward and reasonably quick.

I send you my best wishes for whatever happens.

I am sorry that someone has had to “muddy the water”.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Deacon, I asked him a question, and he looked at me, and asked are you Catholic? I replied I used to be …

You NEVER stopped being a Catholic.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Having been in exactly that situation myself, a baptized Catholic who marries outside of the Church, without permission does NOT have a valid marriage. It is not recognized by the Church as a marriage, and you will need to get a decree of nullity before you can marry IN the Catholic Church (unless you are marrying the same person). It is however a valid LEGAL marriage, and you would need to get a civil divorce, etc. before you could marry anyone else.

My first marriage happened whan I was estranged from the church, and was to a woman who was divorced. We married in a non-demoninational church. Legally, the marriage was totally valid. and I had to get a civil divorce. I also got total custody of our two daughters, and my wife lost any parental rights (she had abandoned us, completely).

I came back to the church a couple of years later, had my daughters baptized, and they introduced me to the woman who would become my wife (she was a substitute teacher in their classes). I went through the process of having my 1st marriage declared invalid, so we could be married in the Church. Two years after our marriage, at my daughters request, my wife adopted them. That was 33 years ago.