Why does the USCCB article contradict the Catechism?

[Blue_Horizon]

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 am not sure about this.
Catholic validity would not seem to be directly about sacramentality.
For example I am validly married in the Catholic Church but my marriage is not sacramental (my wife is Buddhist). So a tribunal’s possible decision re invalidity would have nothing to do with whether it was sacramental or not. It may dissolve this natural marriage instead if I later married a Catholic … but that is another matter.

So validity I believe is about the marriage “bond” (whether natural or sacramental) and whether it exists before God. Nothing directly to do with its sacramental character.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

Thanks for your post otjm. I don’t think I disagree with anything you are saying. We’re you responding to my concern over the answer “no”? I am not necessarily arguing with anyone here, and I have appreciated the thoughts of everyone.

But I am not pursuaded that the direct answer of “no” is either accurate to the direct question, or conforming to the language of the Catechism.

 

[rcwitness]

I am not sure about this.
Catholic validity would not seem to be directly about sacramentality.
For example I am validly married in the Catholic Church but my marriage is not sacramental (my wife is Buddhist). So a tribunal’s possible decision re invalidity would have nothing to do with whether it was sacramental or not. It may dissolve this natural marriage instead if I later married a Catholic … but that is another matter.

So validity I believe is about the marriage “bond” (whether natural or sacramental) and whether it exists before God. Nothing directly to do with its sacramental character.

Interesting. You seem to be implying that your marriage cannot be Sacramental. But wouldn’t it be so under the Pauline privilege (or Petrine, I get them confused)?

 

[Phemie]

Interesting. You seem to be implying that your marriage cannot be Sacramental. But wouldn’t it be so under the Pauline privilege (or Petrine, I get them confused)?

Only the marriage of two baptized people is sacramental.

A valid marriage between two unbaptized or one unbaptized and one baptized is a natural marriage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interesting. You seem to be implying that your marriage cannot be Sacramental. But wouldn’t it be so under the Pauline privilege (or Petrine, I get them confused)?

It is standard knowledge that a marriage between a Catholic and the non baptised cannot be sacramental.

 

[rcwitness]

It is standard knowledge that a marriage between a Catholic and the non baptised cannot be sacramental.

ok. I thought that the Petrine Privilege made it Sacramental. Thanks

 

[FrDavid96]

ok. I thought that the Petrine Privilege made it Sacramental. Thanks

Both Pauline Privilege and Petrine Privilege are ways of dissolving non-sacramental marriages.

Pauline: both parties non-baptised

Petrine: one baptised, one non-baptised

Just a clarification. Not the topic of the thread, though.

 

[jimkhong]

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

I cannot see a contradiction. What the USCCB states is that the civil marriage still exist and the two spouses are still bound by the responsibilities of the civil marriage. To say that the Catholic Church considers that the civil marriage never existed would have allowed Catholics to avoid responsibilities of a civil marriage, putting it in conflict if a civil judge seeks to impose civil responsibilities outside the sphere of the Church.

What the Catechism is referring to is that a Catholic marriage (as opposed to a civil marriage) never existed, but is silent on the existence of the civil marriage, as the law differs throughout the world on this matter.