What makes a marriage invalid?

[quiet52]

You have rejected the Catholic faith. Perhaps the priest realized that you did not understand or accept the Church’s teachings about Matrimony – and it is the responsibility of a pastor to ensure that a Catholic understands and accepts the teachings before allowing him/her to be married in the Church.

You are legally married, but as a baptized Catholic, you are not validly married in the eyes of the Church. Catholics are expected to “be” Catholic, and by marrying outside of the Church without dispensation from a bishop, you’re rejecting part of what we believe. You have chosen to marry invalidly.

A side note about the discussion of relativism above – there is but one absolute theological and moral truth. Jesus is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” He desires unity of faith in the Church He founded. One faith, one set of beliefs, not many. Not picking what we like, cafeteria-style. The belief that “What’s true for you is fine, what’s true for me is fine … whatever” is centered on the preference of man amd rejects Christ and the will of the Father.

 

[1ke]

Maybe because in the situation described it would still be an invalid marriage? Lack of full consent due to the pregnancy? My present pastor’s attitude to these situations is “Well, when (not if) this ‘marriage’ fails they won’t have to petition for a decree of nullity.”

In such a case the *proper *course of advice would be to postpone marriage, go through marital preparation, and reconsider the lifestyle which resulted in the out of wedlock pregnancy to begin with. Advising them to continue living in a sinful manner and marry invalidly is wrongheaded.

Morality 101: One may never do evil, even if attempting a good to come from it.

Morality 102: We sin when we cooperate in other’s sins or encourage them to sin

 

[kage_ar]

I didn’t say that I was going to bring him to a mosque or synagogue and make him practice other faiths. I just said that I don’t want him thinking that Catholicism is 100% the one true religion and that everything is wrong (if he comes to that conclusion by himself, so be it, but I don’t want him coming to that conclusion purely because I told him that and he trusts me). I want to teach him my beliefs, but also the beliefs of others and show him that you should not discriminate. Really, none of us know for sure what is right until we die, and I want him to know that.

I especially don’t want to teach him that God existing is a FACT. I believe God exists, and I have some good (albeit personal) reasons for it, but many intelligent people doubt that God exists. I want to make sure he understands this from a young age. I want to be completely open with him so he doesn’t follow a religion just because I told him to.

So you plan to raise your child in the heresy of relativism.

 

[hellopeople]

So you plan to raise your child in the heresy of relativism.

How is it heresy to teach my child the truth. You cannot deny that there is no way to PROVE the existence of God, and he should know that.

When I was a child, I asked my mother why mcdonalds was open on fridays during lent. I figured that no one ate meat so there was no point for it to be open. I thank my mother for her teachings, but I never want my son to be so ignorant of other peoples’ beliefs. If teaching my son the truth is heresy, so be it.

To be honest I have no idea how it is even relativism. Teaching that the Catholic Church is 100% true like a proven math equation is just not logical. If there was a way to 100% prove the church was true, the church would have another 6 billion followers.

 

[hellopeople]

In such a case the *proper *course of advice would be to postpone marriage, go through marital preparation, and reconsider the lifestyle which resulted in the out of wedlock pregnancy to begin with. Advising them to continue living in a sinful manner and marry invalidly is wrongheaded.

Morality 101: One may never do evil, even if attempting a good to come from it.

Morality 102: We sin when we cooperate in other’s sins or encourage them to sin

I don’t agree with morality 101.

 

[otjm]

How is it heresy to teach my child the truth. You cannot deny that there is no way to PROVE the existence of God, and he should know that.

When I was a child, I asked my mother why mcdonalds was open on fridays during lent. I figured that no one ate meat so there was no point for it to be open. I thank my mother for her teachings, but I never want my son to be so ignorant of other peoples’ beliefs. If teaching my son the truth is heresy, so be it.

To be honest I have no idea how it is even relativism. Teaching that the Catholic Church is 100% true like a proven math equation is just not logical. If there was a way to 100% prove the church was true, the church would have another 6 billion followers.

Actually, there are proofs for the existence of God. You may choose not to believe them, or to accept them, but that does not work to deny their validity.

There are ways to prove the Church is 100% true. That does not equate with 6 billion followers; people do not want to accept the truth of the Church because it requires them to change their lifestyle, which is more important than following Christ.

And if you do not know how it is relativism, then I would suggest a good course in Logic might be worthy of consideration.

How is it heresy to teach your dhild the (truth). Well, to begin with, you have said that effectively, you cannot show how the Catholic Church is the one true Church; coupled with that, you don’t believe it yourself; and the essence of what you propose to teach your child is that all churches are good, and that he can pick whichever one he chooses.

Underneath this bit of instruction is a presumption, and that is that maybe, just maybe, one of the Churches teaches the total truth, but probably not; therefore, essentially all churches are equal (in that none of them is the one true one); from that, they are relative.

But the basis of relativism is that truth is relative (that is, there is no absolute truth). However, there is one absolute truth, and that is that there is no absolute truth. Said another way, it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. It is contradictory on the face of it. People who have elementary logic can figure this out if they take enough time to think it through. However, most people who are relativists do not think it through and continue on with denying that there is any abolute truth; there are several reasons for such: 1) they don’t have the mental horsepower to see the fallacy of their thought process; 2) admitting otherwise would cause them to confront that the reality would require them to change morally; 3) intellectual pride which prevents them from admitting a mistake.

The fact that you do not see the logic of the Church does not mean the logic does not exist. However, what is interesting is that when you are challenged, you are not interested in pursuing the matter. Check 1 through 3 above.

 

[hellopeople]

Actually, there are proofs for the existence of God. You may choose not to believe them, or to accept them, but that does not work to deny their validity.

There are ways to prove the Church is 100% true. That does not equate with 6 billion followers; people do not want to accept the truth of the Church because it requires them to change their lifestyle, which is more important than following Christ.

And if you do not know how it is relativism, then I would suggest a good course in Logic might be worthy of consideration.

How is it heresy to teach your dhild the (truth). Well, to begin with, you have said that effectively, you cannot show how the Catholic Church is the one true Church; coupled with that, you don’t believe it yourself; and the essence of what you propose to teach your child is that all churches are good, and that he can pick whichever one he chooses.

Underneath this bit of instruction is a presumption, and that is that maybe, just maybe, one of the Churches teaches the total truth, but probably not; therefore, essentially all churches are equal (in that none of them is the one true one); from that, they are relative.

But the basis of relativism is that truth is relative (that is, there is no absolute truth). However, there is one absolute truth, and that is that there is no absolute truth. Said another way, it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. It is contradictory on the face of it. People who have elementary logic can figure this out if they take enough time to think it through. However, most people who are relativists do not think it through and continue on with denying that there is any abolute truth; there are several reasons for such: 1) they don’t have the mental horsepower to see the fallacy of their thought process; 2) admitting otherwise would cause them to confront that the reality would require them to change morally; 3) intellectual pride which prevents them from admitting a mistake.

The fact that you do not see the logic of the Church does not mean the logic does not exist. However, what is interesting is that when you are challenged, you are not interested in pursuing the matter. Check 1 through 3 above.

I didn’t say that there was no one truth. I just said that I don’t think that Catholicism, or any religion, has the truth. Obviously there has to be truths of the universe.

So, OK, you say that there is 100% proof that God exists and that the Church is right. Lets hear it. If this were true, what is faith for? With proof, there is no need for faith. I don’t need faith to know that 2 + 2 = 4. It can be proven. You need faith to believe in God and the church though.

Do you have faith? Or do you not need faith because the church is true.

Please, to prove your point you MUST prove to me that the church is true.

 

[kage_ar]

hello-

Prove to me 100% that Aristotle existed.

Prove to me 100% that you exist.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

I am not too sure how dedicated we are to bringing my child up in the faith. I want him to make his own choices. I will explain my beliefs and how those beliefs differ from other people. I will explain that some people don’t even believe in any God and there are decent points on both sides. I will then let him choose his own beliefs without trying to push Catholicism or anything on him. The last thing I want to do is teach Catholicism as if it were 100% true, no doubt about it, and anyone that believes differently is wrong and misguided.

Please don’t do this.

This is exactly what my parents did.

It made for a very, very sad childhood.

 

[hellopeople]

Please don’t do this.

This is exactly what my parents did.

It made for a very, very sad childhood.

Please explain.

 

[otjm]

I didn’t say that there was no one truth. I just said that I don’t think that Catholicism, or any religion, has the truth. Obviously there has to be truths of the universe.

So, OK, you say that there is 100% proof that God exists and that the Church is right. Lets hear it. If this were true, what is faith for? With proof, there is no need for faith. I don’t need faith to know that 2 + 2 = 4. It can be proven. You need faith to believe in God and the church though.

Do you have faith? Or do you not need faith because the church is true.

Please, to prove your point you MUST prove to me that the church is true.

Since you seem interested in teaching religious studies, I am surprised you don’t have this at the tips of your fingers.

I will give you a hint; they have been around for centuries. One of the is the Unmoved First Mover.

And since you are in college, do some research.

And I don’t have to prove anything; I accept tht the Church is true. The whole story, all of the teachings of the Church, are like a woven cloth with no imperfections or gaps. It all makes sense; it all hangs together; it is all backed by Scripture. Faith is an element; Faith without Doctrine moves to heresy. Doctrine without Faith is empty, hollow and dead, but even an atheist can learn what the doctrine is.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

Please explain.

My mother, a cradle Catholic, and my father, raised Presbyterian, decided that the best course for their kids was to raise us with no religious formation, and let us “choose”. Religious questions were handled with the angle of “lots of people believe different things”, including the explanation that some people believed there was no God at all.

I distinctly recall being five to seven years old and lying in bed, awake, late at night, tears streaming down my face, knowing if there was a god, I surely disappointed him because I wasn’t really convinced he was up there, and maybe some people are right, and maybe some people are wrong, and maybe I am going to hell, or maybe there is no hell, but what if there might be? What if God wants to doom me forever?

I had a lot of nights sitting up crying.

Those nights could have been avoided if someone just told this poor little child that Jesus loves you no matter what, you’re forgiven for every naughty thing you do, and there is a heaven.

I was a little. tiny. kid. It could have been made simple, if only my parents had REALLY thought it over. But they didn’t. And their mistake caused their child great anguish.

It’s fine when you’re kids are older; they can handle different spiritual concepts better because they have reason at this point. But not when they are little.

A great blessing happened when I became tragically ill as a teen. Although my parents wrote on my hospital intake forms that I had no religion, it was a Catholic hospital, and nuns and priests could be seen strolling about the grounds here there and everywhere. One priest knew he couldn’t come in and talk to me. But he’d look in. A little wave. He’d be on his way. I was there a long time, and I knew who he was.

And I am crying now as I type this, because now I see the depth and breadth of that simple brave action. He set a course of events in motion that I believe saved me.

I was very sad before that day. And even though I continued to have days where I doubted God, it was never as empty and lonely as it was before.

But please don’t put your kids through that lonely, empty sorrow. Encourage them to believe God is out there, loves them, and show them how to worship, and let them worship and grow with other children.

 

[Marianj]

There are a lot of things that make a marriage invalid. When the Priest asks the couple if he/she intends to take her/him as his/her lawfully wedded wife/husband and the man for example said “no” in his heart but said yes out loud - does that make the marriage valid? I guess not!

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Is my marriage valid…here are the details.

We are both baptized and confirmed Catholic. She ended up getting pregnant and we got married while she was pregnant. We were living together before we got married. We were married by my friend’s mom (who is a non denominational person who marries people) at my wife’s parents house. Is that valid?

It is my understanding the your marriage is valid, but illicit because of “lack of form.”

I am in grad school studying pastoral ministry and in my last class, which was sacramental theology, we talked about this.

My understanding is that 2 confirmed Catholics entering into a marriage are indeed *“sacramentally married”, *it is a grace that comes with being Catholic. Where the problem is, is in the how.

Based on the description of your marriage, I think all you really need to do is fill out some paperwork as to why you were married the way you were, supply proof that you and your spouse are indeed confirmed Catholic’s and have your marriage “convalidated.”

That said though, the Priest has a moral responsibility and obligation to the Church to make sure that the “rules” are followed. And a big rule is that any children from said marriage are raised and schooled in the faith.

Which brings me to the question, if you are not sure if you believe, and do not want to raise your child in the Catholic faith, why do you care if the church considers your marrigae valid or not?

 

[Corki]

It is my understanding the your marriage is valid, but illicit because of “lack of form.”

I am in grad school studying pastoral ministry and in my last class, which was sacramental theology, we talked about this.

Lack of form when one of the spouses is Catholic makes a marriage invalid, not just illicit.

The process for regularizing a marriage that is invalid due to lack of form is shorter than other tribunal processes. That may be where you got confused.

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.

 

[kelvinf]

I didn’t say that there was no one truth. I just said that I don’t think that Catholicism, or any religion, has the truth. Obviously there has to be truths of the universe.

So, OK, you say that there is 100% proof that God exists and that the Church is right. Lets hear it. If this were true, what is faith for? With proof, there is no need for faith. I don’t need faith to know that 2 + 2 = 4. It can be proven. You need faith to believe in God and the church though.

Do you have faith? Or do you not need faith because the church is true.

Please, to prove your point you MUST prove to me that the church is true.

I am just so curious. Please prove that 2 + 2 = 4. I am very interested in seeing or knowing your(or the) proof.

If possible, also help me prove that the Fibonacci of zero i.e. f(0) is(=) zero (0).

 

[lovemyboys]

SpaceNeedle, I really appreciated your story!!

 

[PJM]

=hellopeople;6443702]Is any wedding not in a Catholic church invalid? What about protestants or people of other religions getting married? What about if someone was baptized catholic but left the church and was getting married in a protestant church? What if both parties were baptized and confirmed Catholic but were married outside the church without a priest?

Becaue it is the Bride nd Groom who actually Marry Themselves; and the priest or deacon act ONLY as whitness for the Church; so long as the marriage is;

Legeal by age and w/o impediments

freely entered into

by compentent male and female

and then consumated freely,

Such a mariage is valid.

Perhaps not Blessed, but nevertheless VALID.