Why does the USCCB article contradict the Catechism?

[rcwitness]

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.

Yes, I get this. And that’s why the USCCB statement isn’t consistent when it says “no”. The marriage that is decreed by the Church tribunal is not the civil marriage. The Church and State are separate, so why does the USCCB answer of “no” conflate the two types marriage?

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.

I hear ya. Thanks for your posts, I have appreciated them. My only frustration with the USCCB Q&A has been the “No”. I agree that it should be discarded and the rest is fine. If either a “yes” or “no” is given to the direct question, a “yes” is more fitting. But again, so long as recognition is given to the State marriage having existed.

 

[Phemie]

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???

Let us be clear that a decree of nullity doesn’t say that a sacramental marriage never existed but that a valid marriage, as the Church understands validity, never existed. While it is true that you can’t have an invalid sacramental marriage, you can have a perfectly valid non-sacramental marriage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

The action may be objectively sinful but not imputable is probably the better way of putting it.

So an action can still be considered “sinful” objectively speaking even when the parties are fully blameless.

It is interesting that any person in a marriage who becomes convinced in conscience that the marriage is invalid is bound under pain of sin to have the matter investigated and, if my memory serves me correctly, to cease living as husband and wife.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let us be clear that a decree of nullity doesn’t say that a sacramental marriage never existed but that a valid marriage, as the Church understands validity, never existed. …

I am not sure about this.
If the Church declares a valid Catholic marriage between two Catholics never existed then a sacramental marriage never existed surely?

 

[Phemie]

I am not sure about this.
If the Church declares a valid Catholic marriage between two Catholics never existed then a sacramental marriage never existed surely?

You’re correct.

But the Tribunal doesn’t rule on whether a marriage is sacramental or not but on whether it’s valid or not.

It’s true that if the Tribunal finds that the marriage was invalid it means that there was never a sacrament. But if the Tribunal finds that the marriage is valid, it doesn’t automatically mean that there is a sacrament. There is no sacrament unless both parties are baptized.

 

[rcwitness]

Let us be clear that a decree of nullity doesn’t say that a sacramental marriage never existed but that a valid marriage, as the Church understands validity, never existed. While it is true that you can’t have an invalid sacramental marriage, you can have a perfectly valid non-sacramental marriage.

Now you would be contradicting the Catechism, since the Catechism uses the phrase “marriage never existed”.

 

[rcwitness]

The action may be objectively sinful but not imputable is probably the better way of putting it.

So an action can still be considered “sinful” objectively speaking even when the parties are fully blameless.

I was trying to answer Wannano’s complicated question to the best of my understanding. I quoted James 4: 17 as a basis for whether we would be guilty of a sin.

It is interesting that any person in a marriage who becomes convinced in conscience that the marriage is invalid is bound under pain of sin to have the matter investigated and, if my memory serves me correctly, to cease living as husband and wife.

Yes, and still this doesn’t really address Wannano’s direct question. What you are talking about is for a person to follow their conscience. And the Church upholds following their conscience. Wannano is asking if someone’s believes their conscience tells them something is sinful, yet the Church does not say that it is sinful, is it still sinful before God.

So while the Church upholds following our conscience, if we seek a judgment of the Church, and one is provided, then we would not be held culpable before God. IOWs, it would not be a sin.

Another tricky aspect of this is knowing a true “Church judgment”. A priest and even bishop can be wrong. So while our culpability may be diminished or even null after a leader condones a sinful action, our conscience may still be telling us that the Priest or Bishop had given false witness.

 

[Phemie]

Now you would be contradicting the Catechism, since the Catechism uses the phrase “marriage never existed”.

Nothing I said contradicts the Catechism. Tribunal rules on validity, not sacramentality (if such a word exists).

 

[Wannano]

I was trying to answer Wannano’s complicated question to the best of my understanding. I quoted James 4: 17 as a basis for whether we would be guilty of a sin.

Yes, and still this doesn’t really address Wannano’s direct question. What you are talking about is for a person to follow their conscience. And the Church upholds following their conscience. Wannano is asking if someone’s believes their conscience tells them something is sinful, yet the Church does not say that it is sinful, is it still sinful before God.

So while the Church upholds following our conscience, if we seek a judgment of the Church, and one is provided, then we would not be held culpable before God. IOWs, it would not be a sin.

Another tricky aspect of this is knowing a true “Church judgment”. A priest and even bishop can be wrong. So while our culpability may be diminished or even null after a leader condones a sinful action, our conscience may still be telling us that the Priest or Bishop had given false witness.

 

[SMHW]

Now you would be contradicting the Catechism, since the Catechism uses the phrase “marriage never existed”.

The Catechism uses language that addresses (putative) marriages in all of three categories: marriages between two baptized Christians, marriages between a baptized Christian and an unbaptized person, and marriages between two unbaptized persons.

I’d say that the writers of the Catechism really weren’t concerned with the civil validity of any marriage, whether the parties are baptized or not. A ruling of nullity by the Church does not affect the civil validity of a marriage.

But the USCCB is very much concerned about civil validity because people who did, are, or might in the future approach the Church to have their marriage examined, care about civil validity. In countries like the United States where the priest or deacon acts as an agent of the state to contract a civil marriage , it is might seem to people that a Church ruling of nullity results in a civil ruling of nullity.

What I see is that many people do not understand is that their concern for their children’s legitimacy is a civil rather than a Church matter. And people like to think that their children were conceived and/or born into a “holy union”.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I get this. And that’s why the USCCB statement isn’t consistent when it says “no”. The marriage that is decreed by the Church tribunal is not the civil marriage. The Church and State are separate, so why does the USCCB answer of “no” conflate the two types marriage?

I hear ya. Thanks for your posts, I have appreciated them. My only frustration with the USCCB Q&A has been the “No”. I agree that it should be discarded and the rest is fine. If either a “yes” or “no” is given to the direct question, a “yes” is more fitting. But again, so long as recognition is given to the State marriage having existed.

What I’ve been trying to say all along here is just to ignore the exact words in the Q&A if you find them troubling. Instead, concentrate on the larger issue—that of understanding the message that the Q&A is trying to convey.

Don’t get too caught-up in the choice of words. It’s only a Q&A on a website.

 

[rcwitness]

What I’ve been trying to say all along here is just to ignore the exact words in the Q&A if you find them troubling. Instead, concentrate on the larger issue—that of understanding the message that the Q&A is trying to convey.

Don’t get too caught-up in the choice of words. It’s only a Q&A on a website.

I hear ya. And I’m just pointing out that it’s better to align with the language of the Catechism, and that it’s more proper to answer that question with “yes” rather than “no” and still clarify the distinction of Sacramental marriage from State marriage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You’re correct.

But the Tribunal doesn’t rule on whether a marriage is sacramental or not but on whether it’s valid or not.

It’s true that if the Tribunal finds that the marriage was invalid it means that there was never a sacrament. But if the Tribunal finds that the marriage is valid, it doesn’t automatically mean that there is a sacrament. There is no sacrament unless both parties are baptized.

Does a Tribunal in fact ever make a declaration of validity?
It is my understanding it only makes a declaration of nullity.

If it cannot declare nullity then the presumption is in favour of the law (ie the putative first marriage is assumed to stand by default).
However that would not be a declaration of validity by any means.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Nothing I said contradicts the Catechism. Tribunal rules on validity, not sacramentality (if such a word exists).

OK this is true.
However for all practical purposes it amounts to the same thing.

If we are not dealing with two baptised persons we already know the marriage, if valid, is not sacramental.

If we are, then the judgement in the same act does effectively judge on the non existence of the sacraments that as well…because the valid marriage of the baptized is by that very reason considered sacramental. Though this traditional teaching may change if, as Card Ratzinger and Pope Francis have signalled, a living faith at the time of marriage is deemed necessary also.

But all this aside, why do you stress the importance of observing that Tribunals decide on the validity of the marriage bond rather than the sacramentality directly?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, and still this doesn’t really address Wannano’s direct question. What you are talking about is for a person to follow their conscience. And the Church upholds following their conscience. Wannano is asking if someone’s believes their conscience tells them something is sinful, yet the Church does not say that it is sinful, is it still sinful before God.

So while the Church upholds following our conscience, if we seek a judgment of the Church, and one is provided, then we would not be held culpable before God. IOWs, it would not be a sin.

I already addressed the issue in the preceding paragraph.

I don’t think we can easily deny that if the first marriage is declared never to have existed (ie null) then, objectively, the matter is sinful. Technically fornication I suppose. However, it is fully non imputable. In this sense it was “sinful”.

Therefore a person convinced they are not in a valid marriage may be correct even though the Church currently holds the putative marriage is valid and therefore not sinful matter. So this may directly relate to Wannano’s conscience issue.

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

This is ambiguous re the question at hand perhaps.
Does the tribunal in fact state the invalid first marriage was “free from sin”?
As above it depends what you mean by sin.

Sincere persons are certainly free of actual sin.
But the matter may be objectively sinful as opined above. They were after all having sex without a marriage bond (though unknowingly).

That does not mean the children were bastards (“illegitimate”) because that is determined solely on the legal status of the marriage at the time.

However sin (ie defining the objective matter) here is about more than the current legal status of the marriage but also it’s eternal status (ie the presence of the bond or not).

As with AL discussions it comes down to two related but different ways of determining “objective”. For the purposes of establishing sinful matter do we determine the objective situation only by means of fallible human law and judgements at the time … or do we consider eternal law? After all, if the bond never existed from the getgo then despite being married at the time they never were according to the eternal picture.

Is fornication and adultery to be defined objectively by human law that stands at the time or by eternal law that human judgements often poorly attempt to parallel?

Pastorally we all know the answer is it doesn’t really matter because there is no personal sin.
It is Canon Lawyers and Moral Theologians who seem unable to agree on how we define the objective matter though.

Which is why AL is such a hot potato…same confusions over how to define the objective situation of some irregulars.

 

[rcwitness]

I already addressed the issue in the preceding paragraph.

I don’t think we can easily deny that if the first marriage is declared never to have existed (ie null) then, objectively, the matter is sinful. Technically fornication I suppose. However, it is fully non imputable. In this sense it was “sinful”.

Therefore a person convinced they are not in a valid marriage may be correct even though the Church currently holds the putative marriage is valid and therefore not sinful matter. So this may directly relate to Wannano’s conscience issue.

This is ambiguous re the question at hand perhaps.
Does the tribunal in fact state the invalid first marriage was “free from sin”?
As above it depends what you mean by sin.

Sincere persons are certainly free of actual sin.
But the matter may be objectively sinful as opined above. They were after all having sex without a marriage bond (though unknowingly).

That does not mean the children were bastards (“illegitimate”) because that is determined solely on the legal status of the marriage at the time.

However sin (ie defining the objective matter) here is about more than the current legal status of the marriage but also it’s eternal status (ie the presence of the bond or not).

As with AL discussions it comes down to two related but different ways of determining “objective”. For the purposes of establishing sinful matter do we determine the objective situation only by means of fallible human law and judgements at the time … or do we consider eternal law? After all, if the bond never existed from the getgo then despite being married at the time they never were according to the eternal picture.

Is fornication and adultery to be defined objectively by human law that stands at the time or by eternal law that human judgements often poorly attempt to parallel?

Pastorally we all know the answer is it doesn’t really matter because there is no personal sin.
It is Canon Lawyers and Moral Theologians who seem unable to agree on how we define the objective matter though.

Which is why AL is such a hot potato…same confusions over how to define the objective situation of some irregulars.

Ok, I didn’t think that Wannano’s question was about a tribunal decision. Rather he asked a general question about if the Church specifically declares something free of sin. I don’t blame you for applying it to a tribunal declaration (since that is the thread topic), which I’m not disputing you about at all. But rather, if the Church does happen to say, in an official manner, “doing ‘x’ is not sinful” then no matter what somebody privately feels, it would not be considered sin by God.

For example, if someone thinks it’s a sin to drink a glass of wine, and the Church says “it is not a sin to drink a glass of wine” and the person still believes it is, and then drinks a glass of wine, I don’t think God will hold them accountable for sinning by drinking a glass of wine. However, God may hold them accountable for not believing in the Church’s Teaching that it is not a sin to drink a glass of wine.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If… the Church says “it is not a sin to drink a glass of wine” and the person still believes it is, and then drinks a glass of wine, I don’t think God will hold them accountable for sinning by drinking a glass of wine.

Probably best for us not to railroad this thread with the Church’s finally balanced teaching on conscience.

I simply one time observe that you are going somewhat against mainstream Catholic teaching with your above comment. If one truly believes something is seriously offensive to God (regardless of what it is) and freely chooses to do that thing knowing this then that is indeed a vicious actual sin.

However, God may hold them accountable for not believing in the Church’s Teaching that it is not a sin to drink a glass of wine.

One would only be held accountable for this if we did not have a “certain conscience” or had taken little trouble beforehand to try and inform our conscience before the act involving a certain (yet allegedly erroneous) conscience.

What does it mean to inform our conscience?
At the most primitive level it means to make an effort to update ourselves on what the Church’s related moral teachings and principles are.

However simply having the Church’s teachings explained to us does not necessarily mean a sincere and blameless conscience will always be persuaded to act objectively correctly.

Things can still go wrong, even with blameless agents.
For example, the Church may not have a specific teaching for this specific case. It may rest on application of principles. Different Church principles may or may not apply to this particular case. In which case wise and sincere Catholics may choose different courses of action and both be blameless.

Or, the Church does seem to have a specific teaching that clearly applies but we just cannot in certain conscience agree with it. For basic, grave moral matters (eg the Commandments whose matter reflects immutable natural law) it would be very unlikely that a sincere and well educated Catholic would ever find themselves in such a position. Some Catholics just cannot see why contraception is always and everywhere sinful. That is understandable as the evil of contraception is determined only indirectly via natural law principles.

Or, some teachings are not in fact immutable moral doctrines but arbitrary but wise Church disciplines that could be changed and usually have already been in the distant past. It is understandable then that they may not apply well in all cases and sincere Catholics who have long questioned their applicability in their situation may in fact be right.
This area can be difficult if the discipline is very very old - such as no Communion for all active irregulars.

So simply “knowing” the Church’s teaching does not mean we are blameworthy for not informing out conscience if our conscience still cannot assent with certainty and we act otherwise.

However a person who has made the effort to inform his certain (objectively erroneous) conscience with correct Church teaching will of course be aware they are materially acting contrary to Church teaching.

In such cases a blamelessly informed conscience will continuously seek wise counsel, likely be a model Catholic in other areas of their lives, and keep possible scandal to a minimum.

In which case God will not hold such persons accountable for “not believing” the teaching in question.

 

[rcwitness]

Probably best for us not to railroad this thread with the Church’s finally balanced teaching on conscience.

I simply one time observe that you are going somewhat against mainstream Catholic teaching with your above comment. If one truly believes something is seriously offensive to God (regardless of what it is) and freely chooses to do that thing knowing this then that is indeed a vicious actual sin.

… Or maybe it’s not really their conscience… but their disordered mind? But whatever, you can respond directly to Wannano’s question if you believe you have the correct answer. He asked me, and I gave my thoughts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… Or maybe it’s not really their conscience… but their disordered mind? But whatever, you can respond directly to Wannano’s question if you believe you have the correct answer. He asked me, and I gave my thoughts.

Yes, a certain but erroneous conscience is in a sense a disordered mind, but it makes no difference to the doctrine, it may be blameless.

Though of course other people in authority must be allowed to do what they believe is right - which may involve punishing those blameless persons.

 

[otjm]

The whole matter of the conflict between USCCB and the CCC is a matter of what meaning we give to words, and their context.

it is entirely possible that one might have a marriage to which a tribunal would grant a decree of nullity, and to which the State also would grant a decree of nullity.

For example, the issue of consanguinity is a matter in which both a tribunal and a civil court might find a marriage null - did not exist. In a civil court, this would not be a matter of divorce, but rather a matter of an annulment - a different filing, and different proof than what would be required in a divorce.

A civil divorce does not say the marriage was null, or invalid; it says it was valid, but treats marriage as a contract, not a covenant.

The difficulty, in relation the the Sacrament of Marriage, is that when people people hear the word “valid”, or “invalid”, they most often are not sophisticated enough to understand that the Church (and anyone discussing it with them) is not talking about the legal marriage, but rather whether or not there was a sacramental component to that marriage.

I have actually witnessed the emotional “nuclear meltdowns” and they can have horrible results.

I would presume that most, if not almost every last person who works with marriage cases in the Church has figured this out, and counsels people accordingly. However, there are plenty of “armchair Canon lawyers” who have not, and bluster their way through the matter, never having a clue of how much disaster they leave trailing behind them.

It is a sad fact that about 3/4ths of baptized Catholics do not attend Mass on a regular basis, and a very significant number of that group have nothing to do with the Church whatsoever.

Some of them may be trying to come back to the Church, and are in an irregular marriage; others may be coming to Mass regularly, but have gone through a divorce and are struggling with the possibility of applying to the tribunal.

It behooves most of us, who are not trained in this area, to keep our mouths shut as to what too often is a poorly formed comment about the possible validity or invalidity of their marriage. We should refer anyone in such a situation to the experts, and not do damage - unwittingly - to someone who has separated from the Church, or who may well separate because we cannot explain context adequately.

(name removed by moderator) is absolutely correct and on point - he gets it. If you question what I say, go read his posts.