Why is a Baptized Catholic obligated to marry in the Catholic Church?

[Genesis315]

The Church does not forbid me from wishing anyone “Happy Anniversary”, even if they are in an irregular marriage.

Is this true? Doesn’t an “irregular” marriage mean the couple is either committing adultery or fornication, at least objectively? Wouldn’t congratulating or celebrating them for persevering in this be forbidden? From the Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

 

[vsedriver]

My parents never took me back to the church. I was provided with no religious education.

I’m now objectively fornicating, living in an objectively invalid marriage… and I have no clue and never will… that doesn’t seem fair or just

this falls under ‘invincible ignorance’. You can’t be in a state of sin unless you are aware it involves grave matter. The church doesn’t hold someone as guilty if they don’t even know they are doing wrong.

 

[Genesis315]

Nobody that is Catholic in Baptism only will ever intend to do what the Church does anymore than a Protestant or Atheist.

The intent is subjective. One doesn’t have to know which is the true Church or even believe the sacrament is real. A Protestant by following their own church’s rite or rules (if any) can still be intending to do what the church of Christ does. An atheist can intend to do what the Church does, even if he doesn’t believe it actually does anything (that’s why even an atheist can baptize validly if he intends to do what the Church does and uses the correct form and matter, even if he doesn’t believe it will actually have a real effect).

However, when a Catholic deliberately rejects what the Church does, it manifests an intent of positive exclusion. This is the same reason Anglican orders become invalid. A group of bishops (who had been Catholic bishops) deliberately chose to use different rites so as to not do what the Church does.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

What I struggle with is the fact that Sweetlandia embraces all of the other marriages taking place in your birth country, except for yours just because you are a citizen. People from Sweetlandia can wish everyone else in your birth country a happy anniversary each year except for you unless you come back and get married in Sweetlandia.

Isn’t that basically what the USA does.

The USA expects anybody who is a US citizen to pay taxes in the US. Even if they were born in a foreign country and never set foot in the USA in their life.

Of course you can ignore and trash the tax form they mail you every year, and many people do. I know people in that situation. But if for some reason they then decide to come and vacation in the USA, or come on a business trip, and the immigration officer spots that they haven’t payed taxes in 40 years, they risk arrest and being forced to rectify the situation.

Somebody who isn’t a US citizen, who hasn’t payed those taxes either, can just come and vacation.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

However, when a Catholic deliberately rejects what the Church does, it manifests an intent of positive exclusion. This is the same reason Anglican orders become invalid. A group of bishops (who had been Catholic bishops) deliberately chose to use different rites so as to not do what the Church does.

Maybe we are going off on a tangent here, but did they really all deliberately chose to use different rites, or were they lied to or deceived by the king and by the archbishop, and did they believe they were doing the right thing? In that case, the intent to do the right thing would still have been there.

Especially if you consider that Henry VIII hardly tampered with any rites or theological principles. All that happened much later, und Edward and Elizabeth, and then under Cromwell.

 

[twf]

Sure they were. Church weddings didn’t even exist for the first centuries of Christianity. The idea of a liturgical marriage ceremony evolved gradually.

 

[twf]

True, they may not be culpable, but it still seems to me that it would be an act of mercy to recognize their marriage when it was entered into in good faith. Again, this is simply a matter of Church discipline… the Church could choose tomorrow to recognize these marriages, but has not done so.

 

[vsedriver]

the Church could choose tomorrow to recognize these marriages, but has not done so

for the Church to recognize their marriage all they have to do is have their marriage convalidated.

 

[TK421]

Why is someone obligated to marry in the Church because of Baptism, regardless of how little they were raised in the faith afterwards?

They were suppose to have been raised in the faith afterwards, so whoever had them baptized did not fulfill their promises.

I don’t know how culpable or not culpable that person who was let down might be, but marriage is a Sacrament and it is something that takes place in the sanctuary. The marriage may still be convalidated afterwards and this is relatively simple to do.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Wouldn’t congratulating or celebrating them for persevering in this be forbidden?

Would the same line of reasoning extend to when they have children, not congratulating them because they are not married? I know being welcoming towards others does not mean allowing the truth to be relative, but it seems cold to shine a negative light and avoid celebration of every big moment in their life on a technicality, while celebrating others that from their perspective are living the same way.

 

[Genesis315]

God can bring good out of evil–a child is such a good. That’s different than praising the sin itself, no? In this case, it seems the illicit relationship is itself the problem that is at odds with divine law and the thing that is being praised.

Honestly, there are very few people where I have any idea what their marital history is, the details of the marriage, etc. We should certainly assume uprightness unless we know with reasonable certainty otherwise.

 

[Genesis315]

My understand is it was a handful of bishops during time of Edward who were originally Catholic bishops before the schism (they weren’t born into it) who deliberately changed the received rite for the very purpose of excluding what the Church had theretofore done (ordain a sacrificing priesthood) and who ordained an entire generation of Anglican bishops. They broke the line. When they changed back later to intend to ordain like Catholic Church, it was too late.

I’m probably not doing the situation justice, but there is a book out there called “Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention” from 1956 by Francis Clark, SJ that is helpful.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

I guess that makes sense when you consider that God is involved in making a baby, but not in an invalid wedding. The congratulations is in regards to receiving the baby as a gift from God, and not a “good job” to conceiving the baby through adultery.

 

[TheLittleLady]

In a few days I will celebrate 4th of July, Independence Day. By celebrating, it does not mean I am approving, participating in, advising, approving a war that I feel was did not meet the Just War Doctrine.

Same when I have a dinner with friends. Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, that did not mean he approved, etc. Sometimes dinner is just dinner.

 

[Dorothy]

What you wrote doesn’t make any sense to me. In the scenario that you provided the person didn’t know about the teachings of the Catholic Church specifically because he wasn’t taught.

Someone would have to deliberately defy a commandment of God in order to be guilty of something.

 

[twf]

I didn’t say anything about guilt or culpability. I’m talking about objective reality. Even though this person never knew they were a Catholic, and never will know (until judgment day)…they are objectively, truly, NOT married. Even if they are not culpable, even if there is no personal sin, that is NOT a good situation. There is no marriage. There is no sacrament. They may truly believe they are validly married before God with all their heart…but they aren’t…there’s nothing there. That’s tragic. It seems to me that as an act of pastoral mercy the Church could recognize such marriages. It is within the Church’s power to do so. I’m not the only one with this opinion. I think even Cardinal Ratzinger promoted it at one point (though didn’t actually pull the trigger as Pope).

 

[tuffsmurf]

What is your definition of a civil marriage? They sure didn’t take place in a courthouse before a judge.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Why would your marriage status have any effect on your ability to own property what so ever? People in unrecognized marriages in the US, for example polygamists, can still own land, vote in elections and everything else a citizen can do. Because those things doesn’t have anything to do with each other.

Normally, two citizens can also marry in another country and have their marriage recognized by their home country. Two swedish citizens can go to Greece and marry according to greek law, get a greek marriage certificate, and upon returning to Sweden have their marriage recognized even though Sweden wasn’t involved (except if the marriage is in conflict with the Public order, which in this case would be polygamist unions or a marriage involving a minor under the age of 15).

 

[vsedriver]

they are objectively, truly, NOT married

your conclusion is incorrect. The church recognizes natural marriage as valid. So they are married but their marriage is illicit. However it is only illicit for practicing members of the Catholic Church. A person baptized as a Catholic is a member of the Catholic Church but if not taught the faith then they are not culpable for any actions they take that are against church discipline.

The church would not declare their marriage invalid. If they decided to become practicing Catholics then they would fall under the disciplines of the church and would need to have their marriage convalidated.

 

[whatistrue]

People in unrecognized marriages in the US,

Two swedish citizens can go to Greece

True. And not relevant to the scenario. We are not talking about the US, or Sweden, or Greece, or any other real country. We are talking about the fictional country of Sweetland, whose fictional laws are, according to the original hypothetical, different.