When is a person considered a spouse?

[speck]

I think that the snippet you posted about what she said raises a great many questions not about what her facts were, but about exactly what her point was, to tell you the truth.

For instance: there is no difference between what the Bible says and what the Church says.

I changed my mind. I will clarify this for you. However, before I do, I request that you take your own advice and please be careful not to “assume” things that I did not say or imply. I say this because I was so surprised at how you misconstrued the little that I said and how you seem to think that you could know more about a conversation in which I was a participant and you were not. You even assumed things which I find to be both absurd and insulting. Please show me some respect and stick to disputing the facts.

The important point here is (Historically Speaking) that if Civil Ceremonies were not recognized by God then God recognized no one as married before around the 11th Century. And what logically follows is for that to be true then who were the adulterers that the bible speaks of? Then too…if God did not recognize these Civil marriages, then Adultery would have been impossible up until the Church started conducting marriage rites. Clearly God recognized civil marriages (at least up until around the 11 century). If you disagree or dispute that last statement, I would like to know how you could.

 

[EasterJoy]

I changed my mind. I will clarify this for you. However, before I do, I request that you take your own advice and please be careful not to “assume” things that I did not say or imply. I say this because I was so surprised at how you misconstrued the little that I said and how you seem to think that you could know more about a conversation in which I was a participant and you were not. You even assumed things which I find to be both absurd and insulting. Please show me some respect and stick to disputing the facts.

The important point here is (Historically Speaking) that if Civil Ceremonies were not recognized by God then God recognized no one as married before around the 11th Century. And what logically follows is for that to be true then who were the adulterers that the bible speaks of? Then too…if God did not recognize these Civil marriages, then Adultery would have been impossible up until the Church started conducting marriage rites. Clearly God recognized civil marriages (at least up until around the 11 century). If you disagree or dispute that last statement, I would like to know how you could.

I don’t think you drew the right conclusion, for two reasons. (I’m going to write “you are” below, but recognize that I realize I could be reading you wrong. Let “you seem to be” be implied.)

First off, you are assuming that the particulars of moral law cannot change. For instance, you would not argue, would you, that God does not care whether or not Christians wear seatbelts, because seat belts did not even exist in the 11th century? Of course not. Would you argue that God recognizes present-day polygamous marriages, since it is obvious that Jacob practiced polygamy? I’m feeling really sure on that one, but more on that later, in my second point.

I think the important point, “historically speaking” is that the bishops have the authority to determine the laws of marriage that are binding upon Catholics. Obviously, which laws are reasonable and prudent are going to change over time, but that fact remains.

For instance: up until the 11th century, we are talking about Christian nations that were actually Christian…Christian and unified. In the 11th century, the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Church had not happened, let alone the break off of all the thousands of Protestant denominations we have now. The separation of Church and State had not even been dreamed of; there was not the divorce between the secular and the religious that we have now. The understanding of marriage could easily have been assumed by the bishops to have been a universally Christian understanding. Under those conditions, the bishops could assume that marriages would have the proper form, that the civil authorities would not allow a marriage not recognized by the Church without proper dispensation by the bishop, and so on. Since the ministers of the sacrament are the husband and the wife, circumstances under which the Church might recognize civil marriages between Catholics as sacramental are not impossible to imagine.

But to the point of adultery: even the Church does not call sex within a marriage it does not recognize as adulterous when the marriage is entered into in good faith. If a Catholic marries and the marriage is later found null, the marital relations are not considered adulterous. Likewise, any person who marries in good faith (or who deceitfully receives the vows of their spouse in good faith) is morally bound to marital fidelity. If they have sexual relations with anyone else, that is adultery, and that is even true if the marriage is not one that God would recognize: if they had unknowing married a sibling or whatnot.

And that is what I would think the good Sister meant: that is, that God reads the heart, the intention. Provided that the person has not warped their conscience with rationalizations, I agree, and we all know that God reads that, too. A Catholic cannot explain away transgressions against canon law with “but I thought that for me…”. That does not wash.

 

[Vico]

Not sure what you are saying here. A divorced non-Catholic, formerly married to another non-Catholic, who wishes to marry a Catholic will have to petition the Marriage Tribunal for a decree of nullity since his marriage is presumed valid.

I wrote “A Catholic tribunal will only address the validity of a marriage (or attempted marriage) where there is at least one Catholic by baptism.”

I was thinking of a couple (with at least one Catholic) asking the Tribunal for a determination.

You are correct, of course, a divorced non-Catholic may petition a Catholic Matrimonial Tribunal to determine if a previous non-Catholic marriage is null, either before Catholic marriage or for a convalidation.

 

[EasterJoy]

Back to the point of the thread: We do well to consider a) what possible difference it makes whether a particular sin is fornication or adultery and b) that there are different shades of being married. Once a person becomes a Catholic, there are sacramental marriages which are by nature only soluble by death, non-sacramental marriages which are likewise permanent (excepting the Petrine and Pauline priveleges), and marriages which may morally be dissolved, but into which a Catholic may not knowingly enter. For instance, if a Catholic commits adultery with a married atheist, the Catholic commits adultery, not fornication. The Catholic violates not only chastity, but also violates the trust of his or her lover’s spouse.

That a Catholic may not, under normal circumstances, knowingly enter into a marriage that is liable to dissolution by man does not mean that a Catholic would not compound any future sins against chastity by entering into such a marriage and then violating the vows of that marriage, made in good faith by their partner (whether Catholic or not) and honored in good faith by secular society.

These questions not only have a bearing onto whether a Catholic in such a marriage owes a marital debt, but also whether the Catholic owes a debt of mutual care and fidelity, even when marital relations are morally forbidden. Even though the Catholic may not legitimately engage in marital relations unless married within the boundaries legitimately set by the Church in his own time and place, the Catholic is bound to go through the steps to dissolve a civil marriage before the Catholic is free to marry anyone else. It is not a black-and-white matter of “oh, I’m not married, this is ‘only’ fornication, I didn’t wrong this so-called spouse of mine by being unfaithful to our vows.” It is a matter of “I made a promise that I did not have the authority to make. I cannot morally honor my end with regards to sexual relations, but I may still be morally bound with regards to certain unforbidden demands of justice and charity.”

Woah! Suffice to say that the bible hasn’t changed it’s position since it was written. I’ll leave the rest to any Historians or History Buff’s who might desire to discuss this with you.

God Bless.

On this point: Our Lord had a great deal to teach the experts in the Law–and his disciples on the road to Emmaus, for that matter–about what the Bible had to say. Again: the facts of what are in the Bible had not changed. Interpreting what the many layers of points that the Bible is making, that is another matter. I am all for Lectio Divina, and I know that the Holy Spirit speaks through Scriptures to each soul. As for what the Bible’s points are with regards to the moral questions we face today, however, I would rather let the bishops consider what light the historians may have to put on the subject, but as for myself, listen to the bishops. After all, I know from the Bible what the duties and authority of the bishops are.
**
Alas, I have to bow out and get offline until at least after Easter. I wish I could read the future points to be made, as you have all given me much to think about. Thank you!!**

 

[kage_ar]

Sister Laura (white teaching the RCIA class) responded to the following question: "If you were married in a civil ceremony, is it adultery, if you have sex with someone other than your spouse? *Her response was, “did you know that all marriages were civil ceremonies until around the 11th century?” Sister went on to say that just because you weren’t married in a church does not mean that God doesn’t recognize your marriage. Anyhow, she said a lot more but I don’t have time to tell it all.

God Bless!

*she may have said “until the 11th century”, however the point she makes remains the same.

Sounds as if Sister Laura needs a Catechism and a history class.

 

[speck]

I don’t think you drew the right conclusion, for two reasons. (I’m going to write “you are” below, but recognize that I realize I could be reading you wrong. Let “you seem to be” be implied.)

You like to argue don’t you?

First off, you are assuming that the particulars of moral law cannot change.

I say that do I? Wow, can you point me back to where I said that? Thanks.

I think the important point, “historically speaking” is that the bishops have the authority to determine the laws of marriage that are binding upon Catholics. Obviously, which laws are reasonable and prudent are going to change over time, but that fact remains.

Excuse me, but I was talking about whether or not God recognized the civil marriages before or around the eleven hundreds. If you wish to deny that he did then please say so. I would like to read that.

For instance: up until the 11th century, we are talking about Christian nations that were actually Christian…Christian and unified. In the 11th century, the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Church had not happened, let alone the break off of all the thousands of Protestant denominations we have now. The separation of Church and State had not even been dreamed of; there was not the divorce between the secular and the religious that we have now. The understanding of marriage could easily have been assumed by the bishops to have been a universally Christian understanding. Under those conditions, the bishops could assume that marriages would have the proper form, that the civil authorities would not allow a marriage not recognized by the Church without proper dispensation by the bishop, and so on. Since the ministers of the sacrament are the husband and the wife, circumstances under which the Church might recognize civil marriages between Catholics as sacramental are not impossible to imagine.

But to the point of adultery: even the Church does not call sex within a marriage it does not recognize as adulterous when the marriage is entered into in good faith. If a Catholic marries and the marriage is later found null, the marital relations are not considered adulterous. Likewise, any person who marries in good faith (or who deceitfully receives the vows of their spouse in good faith) is morally bound to marital fidelity. If they have sexual relations with anyone else, that is adultery, and that is even true if the marriage is not one that God would recognize: if they had unknowing married a sibling or whatnot.

And that is what I would think the good Sister meant: that is, that God reads the heart, the intention. Provided that the person has not warped their conscience with rationalizations, I agree, and we all know that God reads that, too. A Catholic cannot explain away transgressions against canon law with “but I thought that for me…”. That does not wash.

I said nothing about a “sacrament”? There is a difference between God recognizing that a couple are married and in God blessing a marriage and I would tell you more of what the sister said and how she explained it, but I am tired of being attacked and having my words twisted. I also don’t like to hear the sister’s words being attacked. And I have to say that I am tempted to put words into your mouth and to say things that you did not say and to ignore FACTS that I don’t like, but then I would be behaving very badly. You seem to know it all, so I will not say anymore. You now have the rest of this discussion to yourself.

 

[JerrySeibert]

Great comments

 

[Vico]

There are a lot of types of union:

valid non-sacramental
valid sacramental ratum et consummatum
valid sacramental ratum tantum
invalid putative
invalid non-putative
none (lack of form)

Putative means commonly reputed to be valid, but actually invalid due to either

1. a diriment impediment or
2. lack of good faith by both (e.g., by intention to exclude children, or to be non-exclusive, or to be temporary).

From “Canon law on marriage: introductory notes and comments” by Adolfo N. Dacanáy, S.J., (2000, Loyola School of Theology), p. 8 is stated that when those bound to observe the canonical form of marriage form do not (meaning a Catholic in a civil marriage for example), the result does not constitute a putative marriage.

Also, convalidation and radical sanation both require current consent to the marriage covenant to exist, so they are not different in covenant.

 

[Digitonomy]

Putative means commonly reputed to be valid, but actually invalid due to either…

In your list, the putative unions are invalid. However, the word itself does not mean invalid, and your quote from Fr Dacanay is a good example where it would make no sense to substitute “invalid” for “putative.”

 

[Vico]

In your list, the putative unions are invalid. However, the word itself does not mean invalid, and your quote from Fr Dacanay is a good example where it would make no sense to substitute “invalid” for “putative.”

True, a putative marriage (as used in canon law) is an invalid marriage but not all invalid marriages are putative.

Latin putativus supposed, purported, from putatus, from puto, putare to think.

That is not a quote from the book, but a paraphrase with reference. You can read the book here (page 8):

books.google.com/books?id=jcUD8eWp8C8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Canon+law+on+marriage:+introductory+notes+and+comments&source=bl&ots=Df3k0Ik4lI&sig=WzHjylJEQT_M2opKIYyW9l521lI&hl=en&ei=vIGjS6TlFYO0tgfdg6XyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[Digitonomy]

True, a putative marriage (as used in canon law) is an invalid marriage but not all invalid marriages are putative.

My point was that not all putative marriages are invalid. You make a good point that canon law only uses the term for marriages that are later found to be invalid. But I think the reason is that the law spends a lot of time looking backward omnisciently at invalid marriages to address a current problem. “Even though we know the marriage was null, the presumed validity at the time allows us to state that the child was legitimate.”

However, just because canon law defines a certain category of invalid marriages as putative, doesn’t exclude the broader use of the word to include valid marriages. In other words, you could say “Of the fifty putative marriages celebrated in January 1995, five were later found to be invalid.”

I just looked at the book you referenced, and it appears to support such broader use:

The two required elements of a putative marriage are: (a) celebration of the marriage in good faith by at least one of the parties; (b) the marriage must have been celebrated in some public way so that mere cohabitation would not constitute a putative marriage.

There is no requirement that the marriage be invalid, to be putative.

A principal effect of a putative marriage… This would be true even if, at some later date, the putative marriage is declared to be in fact invalid ab initio.

This implies that the norm is that a putative marriage would be valid.

 

[Vico]

My point was that not all putative marriages are invalid. You make a good point that canon law only uses the term for marriages that are later found to be invalid. But I think the reason is that the law spends a lot of time looking backward omnisciently at invalid marriages to address a current problem. “Even though we know the marriage was null, the presumed validity at the time allows us to state that the child was legitimate.”

However, just because canon law defines a certain category of invalid marriages as putative, doesn’t exclude the broader use of the word to include valid marriages. In other words, you could say “Of the fifty putative marriages celebrated in January 1995, five were later found to be invalid.”

I just looked at the book you referenced, and it appears to support such broader use:There is no requirement that the marriage be invalid, to be putative.This implies that the norm is that a putative marriage would be valid.

I understand your logic, and I think you can use putative that way, but it causes confusion due to the restricted use in the canons. It is requried to prove the invalidity, except in lack of form, so the thought is: “We **do not **know the marriage was null, so through presumed validity we state that the child is legitimate.” See Canon 1137 below.

I based this opinion on the Latin canons, which refer to a marriage as “valid or putative” (1137, 1139), and “an invalid mariage is said to be putative” (1061), even though the dictionary use supports use of “valid putative”, i.e., valid and also thought to be valid.

1983 Catholic Canon (Latin)

Can. 1137 Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.
Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, whether valid or putative, or by a rescript of the Holy See.
Can. 1061 §3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

I think many are not aware that a “lack of form” union (with at least one Catholic) or one where both parties know that both have erroneous consent (like intention to exclude children, intention to later divorce, or intention to have other partners, or even total simulation of consent) is not even putative (thought to be valid).