Why does the USCCB article contradict the Catechism?

[rcwitness]

I was studying about annulment and discovered this contradiction:

From usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/annulment/
If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

No. It means that a marriage that was thought to be valid civilly and canonically was in fact not valid according to Church law. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship was missing something that the Church requires for a valid marriage.

And from the CCC:
1629For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

 

[rcwitness]

That seems reasonable. But the USCCB should also make an effort to conform to the language of the Catechism. To directly say that an annulment does not mean the marriage never existed contradicts what the Catechism says. But I hear ya. The USCCB is actually definitely how the marriage never existed. So they should try better to not contradict the Catechism.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Concur, naturally, with the learned deacon.
(Since I Am Not A Canon Lawyer)

NB too that even the catechism acknowledges the existence of a relationship outside of the putative marriage.

And from the CCC:
1629For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132In this case the contracting parties are free to marry,

provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged

.133

tee
Not A Canon Lawyer Down Here Either

 

[rcwitness]

Concur, naturally, with the learned deacon.
(Since I Am Not A Canon Lawyer)

NB too that even the catechism acknowledges the existence of a relationship outside of the putative marriage.

tee
Not A Canon Lawyer Down Here Either

A relationship may have existed, of course. The question would be if a Christian marriage (Sacramental) existed. The Catholic Church recognizes that a non-Catholic Christian couple (or even if only one spouse is Christian) can be Sacramental, right?

But an annulment recognizes whether a Sacramental (God blessed and consummated) ever existed. The Catechism directly says an invalid marriage which is declared null by the Tribunal, never existed. That is correct. The USCCB article says “no”. They should actually say “yes”.

 

[rcwitness]

I can agree to all this.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually I would say that it is the Catechism language that needs to be clarified, because the reality is that a “civil marriage” did exist. .

The Catechism language does not need to be clarified (in the Catechism). Other discussions as to the “civil legal” aspects that may have been in play can take place in local discussions, pastoral care etc.

 

[Bookcat]

Seen especially in the whole of the sections on Marriage I would say it is clear and discusses nullity and what that means in the wider context of the nature of Marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage and divorce and “remarrying civilly” etc. So no I do not think it needs further clarity.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1615

 

[rcwitness]

The Catechism language does not need to be clarified (in the Catechism). Other discussions as to the “civil legal” aspects that may have been in play can take place in local discussions, pastoral care etc.

Yes, Changing the Catechism is not realistic or necessary. I think the USCCB article could have been more careful not to seemingly contradict the language of the Catechism. I agree with (name removed by moderator)'s points. I don’t think there is a “true” contradiction. Rather, the USCCB article gives a direct “no”, but then goes on to clarify. It should have said, “It depends”.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism is rather correct and clear as to what marriage is - and this is important to keep at the upmost. That is was my main point.

Also even though it thankfully has become widely used by many persons it is important to keep in mind the original main audience of the Catechism (Bishops, writers of Catechisms, as a sure norm to teach the Faith).

The issued of children should be discussed on the local level with every case involving the question of legitimate and illegitimate Children -and what that means and does not mean. Such confusion has always happened.

Though I suppose - yes - in light of the fact that it has taken off and has entered into much wider use - if it were ever revised it could have in the that small letter text a note about children of marriages that where thought to be valid but were found to be null. So yes I could see now an addition could be useful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You are absolutely correct, Deacon, and to be affirmed in everything you have written.

 

[FrDavid96]

A relationship may have existed, of course. The question would be if a Christian marriage (Sacramental) existed. The Catholic Church recognizes that a non-Catholic Christian couple (or even if only one spouse is Christian) can be Sacramental, right?

But an annulment recognizes whether a Sacramental (God blessed and consummated) ever existed. The Catechism directly says an invalid marriage which is declared null by the Tribunal, never existed. That is correct. The USCCB article says “no”. They should actually say “yes”.

Part of the difficulty here is that the word “marriage” can express 2 different realities.

On the one hand, marriage is a legal institution, regulated by the state.

On the other hand, marriage is a Sacrament.

In the U.S. the Church must be careful about issuing statements that might seem to contradict civil law. For example, if 2 divorced Catholics (no annulments) marry each other and that marriage meets the requirements of state law, then the couple is married legally. There is no sacrament.

The problem is that if the Church were to say that “there is no marriage” in any official way, then the Church could be accused of subverting the marriage laws of the state.

Think of it this way: if 10 people form a legal corporation, the state grants a corporate charter. It is a matter of law that such a corporation exists and it has rights and responsibilities under the law. If the Church were to issue some kind of official statement saying “that corporation doesn’t exist” then the Church would be interfering in the legal authority of the state to charter corporations.

So the difficulty here is in choosing the vocabulary. We need to say that no Christian marriage exists; while at the same time, we cannot outright contradict the laws of the state.

The point is this: do not make too much, nor read too much into what seems like a contradiction. This is nothing more than a matter of trying to choose the right words for the right context.

 

[rcwitness]

Part of the difficulty here is that the word “marriage” can express 2 different realities.

On the one hand, marriage is a legal institution, regulated by the state.

On the other hand, marriage is a Sacrament.

In the U.S. the Church must be careful about issuing statements that might seem to contradict civil law. For example, if 2 divorced Catholics (no annulments) marry each other and that marriage meets the requirements of state law, then the couple is married legally. There is no sacrament.

The problem is that if the Church were to say that “there is no marriage” in any official way, then the Church could be accused of subverting the marriage laws of the state.

Think of it this way: if 10 people form a legal corporation, the state grants a corporate charter. It is a matter of law that such a corporation exists and it has rights and responsibilities under the law. If the Church were to issue some kind of official statement saying “that corporation doesn’t exist” then the Church would be interfering in the legal authority of the state to charter corporations.

So the difficulty here is in choosing the vocabulary. We need to say that no Christian marriage exists; while at the same time, we cannot outright contradict the laws of the state.

The point is this: do not make too much, nor read too much into what seems like a contradiction. This is nothing more than a matter of trying to choose the right words for the right context.

good points.

But here is what I am saying…

This is the question on the USCCB website:

If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

Now, if a marriage is declared null, that means the tribunal determined that the marriage never existed. So the direct answer is “yes”. Then, the further clarification should be "however, even though a sacramental marriage never existed, a valid civil marriage may have existed.

You see? The way the question is put forward, and a “no” is given, it isn’t very accurate, even though the explanation clarifies it.

In other words, the direct “no” is a bit tricky for the direct question.

 

[phil19034]

good points.

But here is what I am saying…

This is the question on the USCCB website:

If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

Now, if a marriage is declared null, that means the tribunal determined that the marriage never existed. So the direct answer is “yes”. Then, the further clarification should be "however, even though a sacramental marriage never existed, a valid civil marriage may have existed.

You see? The way the question is put forward, and a “no” is given, it isn’t very accurate, even though the explanation clarifies it.

In other words, the direct “no” is a bit tricky for the direct question.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that there are MANY divorced, American Catholics who refuse to seek an annulment because they (incorrectly) think that their children would then be illegitimate because they were not actually married.

When I have conversations with such people, they can’t get past this. They will say something like, “I don’t care what the Church says, that doesn’t make sense. If I wasn’t really married then how can my kids be legitimate?”

By answering “no” I think that helps address that concern which some people (esp born in the 1960s and before) incorrectly have.

 

[rcwitness]

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that there are MANY divorced, American Catholics who refuse to seek an annulment because they (incorrectly) think that their children would then be illegitimate because they were not actually married.

When I have conversations with such people, they can’t get past this. They will say something like, “I don’t care what the Church says, that doesn’t make sense. If I wasn’t really married then how can my kids be legitimate?”

By answering “no” I think that helps address that concern which some people (esp born in the 1960s and before) incorrectly have.

I can see this. And that means it’s playcating. When I first read the question and answer, I thought “that is playing into the emotions of the weak”.

 

[Tim_D]

I don’t understand the weight that people continue to put on what is, quite frankly, an arcane concept of a child being “legitimate.” Wasn’t legitimacy important in the age of kings for the sake of inheritance of titles and estates? Civil law basically makes that pointless. Or am I missing something?

 

[rcwitness]

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that there are MANY divorced, American Catholics who refuse to seek an annulment because they (incorrectly) think that their children would then be illegitimate because they were not actually married.

When I have conversations with such people, they can’t get past this. They will say something like, “I don’t care what the Church says, that doesn’t make sense. If I wasn’t really married then how can my kids be legitimate?”

By answering “no” I think that helps address that concern which some people (esp born in the 1960s and before) incorrectly have.

I’ve never heard people speak like this. What does “illegitimate” mean? What is the consequence? What does the Church Teach that illigitimate children means?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’ve never heard people speak like this. What does “illegitimate” mean? What is the consequence? What does the Church Teach that illigitimate children means?

To the best of my knowledge, the Church has no particular teaching on the effects of (il)legitimacy. I can find nothing in the Catechism, and Canon law contains these 4 Canons, and that’s it.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.
§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.

Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

Can. 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

tee
Still Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Illegitimacy had legal effects (both civil and canonical I believe) in past times. Inheritance rights lost and non eligibility for ordination amongst others from memory.

 

[Vico]

I was studying about annulment and discovered this contradiction:

From usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/annulment/
If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

No. It means that a marriage that was thought to be valid civilly and canonically was in fact not valid according to Church law. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship was missing something that the Church requires for a valid marriage.

And from the CCC:
1629For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

The footnote refers to CIC 1095-1107 which is on marital consent rather than on formation of a relationship. Also see CIC1055 that a covenant is different than a simple relationship:
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,

 

[rcwitness]

The footnote refers to CIC 1095-1107 which is on marital consent rather than on formation of a relationship. Also see CIC1055 that a covenant is different than a simple relationship:
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,

Yes. I’m sorry I’m not understanding your point.

If we look at the direct question in the USCCB website, is says"

If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

The marriage which is being addressed in the question, is not
A civil marriage. It’s the marriage that is declared null by the Church. So the answer is “yes”. The fact that a civil marriage/union/relationship may yet exist outside of a valid or invalid Sacramental marriage is secondary. But the answer begins with “No”. For this reason, it is not correctly written. It is playcating to the ignorant, and contradicting the language of the Catechism.

However, in its explanation, it does clarify that a marriage declared null by the tribunal is not valid. This actually means that that marriage (sacramental) never existed.

Does this not make sense to anyone here???