Why does the USCCB article contradict the Catechism?

[Vico]

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???

What is is conflict from USCCB, they state “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.”

A valid marriage is a covenant.

 

[dans0622]

If I was in charge of the USCCB site, I’d just take out the “No.” and leave the rest of the answer as is.

Dan

 

[rcwitness]

If I was in charge of the USCCB site, I’d just take out the “No.” and leave the rest of the answer as is.

Dan

 

[rcwitness]

What is is conflict from USCCB, they state “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.”

A valid marriage is a covenant.

The way the question is worded, requires the answer to be “yes” THEN clarification about a possible civil marriage can be made. What you quoted is correct. So the answer should be “yes, the marriage that the tribunal declared null had never existed”.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

It’s as I wrote in my last post. The real point here is to read the explanation and understand it.

This particular question simply doesn’t lend itself to a direct “Yes.” or “No.” response. Either way it has to be explained.

The people who wrote that original text were just doing their best to offer an explanation of a question that is more complicated than a simple yes/no response.

 

[FrDavid96]

If I was in charge of the USCCB site, I’d just take out the “No.” and leave the rest of the answer as is.

Dan

I agree. It would have been better that way.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree. It would have been better that way.

 

[Vico]

The way the question is worded, requires the answer to be “yes” THEN clarification about a possible civil marriage can be made. What you quoted is correct. So the answer should be “yes, the marriage that the tribunal declared null had never existed”.

It does not mean a marriage never existed, only that a valid Catholic marriage did not. So no was correct.

 

[rcwitness]

It does not mean a marriage never existed, only that a valid Catholic marriage did not. So no was correct.

I respectfully disagree.

Here is the question again:
**If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?
**
The direct question is related to the marriage that a tribunal declared null. The proper answer is “Yes, that marriage which the tribunal declared null never existed”. Then, we can acknowledge a state marriage that did exist. It really doesn’t matter if there was a relationship, since a mere relationship doesn’t fully constitute either a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage. And neither a Sacramental or civil marriage depends on the other, right? If I was to get a civil divorce, my Sacramental marriage still remains.

I don’t have a problem with the clarification by the USCCB. It just isn’t a proper answer to say “No” to the question the way it was worded. Especially when that’s how the CCC describes a null marriage.

 

[Vico]

I respectfully disagree.

Here is the question again:
If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

The direct question is related to the marriage that a tribunal declared null. The proper answer is “Yes, that marriage which the tribunal declared null never existed”. Then, we can acknowledge a state marriage that did exist. It really doesn’t matter if there was a relationship, since a mere relationship doesn’t fully constitute either a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage. And neither a Sacramental or civil marriage depends on the other, right? If I was to get a civil divorce, my Sacramental marriage still remains.

I don’t have a problem with the clarification by the USCCB. It just isn’t a proper answer to say “No” to the question the way it was worded. Especially when that’s how the CCC describes a null marriage.

Nullity is determined for the putative marriage.

 

[rcwitness]

Nullity is determined for the putative marriage.

By whom are you talking? And what is your point?

 

[Digitonomy]

I’ve rarely seen so much agreement in one thread. Pretty much everyone is in accord, with the exception of the word “yes” vs “no”.

However, I have to take issue with the reasoning expressed in #16.

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.

Of course that is exactly what the Church does do in the case of same sex marriage. At any given moment, it may or may not be prudent to pipe up about the legitimacy of a particular marriage or type of marriage, but the Church has the right to give opinions on such things, and does so.

I hardly think a sentence in a USCCB article restating well-known Catholic doctrine would embroil the Church in a perilous battle for survival with the government. I disagree the USCCB was fastidiously respecting the primacy of the state in recognizing legal marriages by the word choice, instead they were simply providing a slightly clumsy pastoral explanation.

FrDavid96:

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.

As one who’s made his share of tangential arguments, I recognize a stretch when I see one. Since corporate law isn’t a matter of sacramental theology, it’s not a good comparison. However, I’d argue that even so, the Church has from time to time opined on the legitimacy of state actions.

In some cases, it has backed up its opinions with legal cases, and in others it went no further than expressing views with moral authority. One example of the former would be the several Church-run or affiliated groups suing to avoid providing contraceptive coverage under Obamacare. An example of the latter would be Bishop Botean of Canton prohibiting his flock from participation in the Iraq War.

 

[Vico]

By whom are you talking? And what is your point?

Q. If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?
A. No.

As one example, for the case of a celebrated marriage of a Catholic there may be a defect of form but it is still putative marriage. Similarly there may be impediments. A different case is of that Catholic that has lack of form in the marriage attempt: there is no nullity process needed.

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, p. 1781
A defect of legitimate form must be distinguished from those cases where there is no semblance of canonical form at all (lack of form cases). When the canonical form was totally lacking, the documentary process is not used and the nullity is decided administratively as part of the prenuptial investigation. (cc. 1066-1067)

CIC (Latin Canon Law)
Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can. 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.

 

[Wannano]

I respectfully disagree.

Here is the question again:
If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?

The direct question is related to the marriage that a tribunal declared null. The proper answer is “Yes, that marriage which the tribunal declared null never existed”. Then, we can acknowledge a state marriage that did exist. It really doesn’t matter if there was a relationship, since a mere relationship doesn’t fully constitute either a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage. And neither a Sacramental or civil marriage depends on the other, right? If I was to get a civil divorce, my Sacramental marriage still remains.

I don’t have a problem with the clarification by the USCCB. It just isn’t a proper answer to say “No” to the question the way it was worded. Especially when that’s how the CCC describes a null marriage.

A question I have is if the tribunal declares a Sacramental marriage to have never existed then are the couple guilty of having sex outside of the bonds of a valid Sacramental marriage?

 

[phil19034]

A question I have is if the tribunal declares a Sacramental marriage to have never existed then are the couple guilty of having sex outside of the bonds of a valid Sacramental marriage?

No, because they did not know.

 

[rcwitness]

No, because they did not know.

How do you know that? Just because a tribunal declares a marriage invalid does not mean they did not know. Maybe they knew, maybe they didnt, maybe one did, maybe one didnt.

In either case, they are still guilty, but their culpability may diminish their blameworthiness, right?

 

[rcwitness]

A question I have is if the tribunal declares a Sacramental marriage to have never existed then are the couple guilty of having sex outside of the bonds of a valid Sacramental marriage?

I think this is a complex question. There are so many various situations and reasons that a couple can be in a non-Sacramental marriage. Maybe they weren’t Christian at all and converted to the faith, or maybe they were both knowledgeable, practicing Catholics who for whatever reason chose to marry outside of the Catholic faith. I can’t possibly have much of an opinion about such a complex question.

Alot of times I refer to what what St James tells us:
Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

 

[Wannano]

I think this is a complex question. There are so many various situations and reasons that a couple can be in a non-Sacramental marriage. Maybe they weren’t Christian at all and converted to the faith, or maybe they were both knowledgeable, practicing Catholics who for whatever reason chose to marry outside of the Catholic faith. I can’t possibly have much of an opinion about such a complex question.

Alot of times I refer to what what St James tells us:
Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

One more side question if a Catholic man is convicted within himself that something is sin for hIm and yet the CC does not teach that that particular activity is a sin, is it still a sin in God’s eyes for him to partake in it?

 

[rcwitness]

One more side question if a Catholic man is convicted within himself that something is sin for hIm and yet the CC does not teach that that particular activity is a sin, is it still a sin in God’s eyes for him to partake in it?

If the Church officially condones an action as free of sin, then he would not be guilty before God.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve rarely seen so much agreement in one thread. Pretty much everyone is in accord, with the exception of the word “yes” vs “no”.

However, I have to take issue with the reasoning expressed in #16.Of course that is exactly what the Church does do in the case of same sex marriage. At any given moment, it may or may not be prudent to pipe up about the legitimacy of a particular marriage or type of marriage, but the Church has the right to give opinions on such things, and does so.

I hardly think a sentence in a USCCB article restating well-known Catholic doctrine would embroil the Church in a perilous battle for survival with the government. I disagree the USCCB was fastidiously respecting the primacy of the state in recognizing legal marriages by the word choice, instead they were simply providing a slightly clumsy pastoral explanation.As one who’s made his share of tangential arguments, I recognize a stretch when I see one. Since corporate law isn’t a matter of sacramental theology, it’s not a good comparison. However, I’d argue that even so, the Church has from time to time opined on the legitimacy of state actions.

In some cases, it has backed up its opinions with legal cases, and in others it went no further than expressing views with moral authority. One example of the former would be the several Church-run or affiliated groups suing to avoid providing contraceptive coverage under Obamacare. An example of the latter would be Bishop Botean of Canton prohibiting his flock from participation in the Iraq War.

Whether you see it or not, whether you disagree makes no difference.

This is how things are done in the U.S.

You are conflating different things. Of course, the Church can speak out against a particular law or policy. The Church can seek relief in the courts. I never said otherwise, so you’re just making a straw-man there.

Marriage tribunals are very careful not to say something like “there was no civil marriage” because that is a question to be answered by the state.

What I am explaining here is also exactly the reason why marriage tribunals will not consider petitions for declaration of nullity unless and until a civil divorce or civil annulment has bee issued (except for extremely unusual circumstances.) Civil marriage is a legal contract between 2 parties, which grants them a legal status under civil law. The Church does not dispute that.

Certainly, the Church speaks out against civil laws that are harmful to the integrity of human marriage, but does not deny that such laws exist. You’re confusing the two issues.