Why is Matrimony so different in terms of what makes it valid?

[BobCatholic]

Compare the sacraments.

Baptism. Anyone can do it. Even an atheist can do it. Even though a lot is lacking when an atheist does it, the baptism is valid. Just make sure the proper intention is there and it is valid.

Confirmation: A bishop can do it. A priest can do it if the Bishop says it is OK. When a priest does it, something is missing from the usual, but the sacrament is still valid.

Holy Orders: There are many different churches (Catholic, eastern Catholic, orthodox, some anglican, SSPV, SSPX, Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, etc.) All of them do the ordination differently but all are valid. Something is missing in one and it is still valid. The intention to ordain a clergyman is needed and it is OK.

OK, let’s skip to the problem.

Matrimony. The sacraments is performed by the husband and wife. Priest optional. But if one tiny thing is missing, it can easily be null and void. No intending to have kids? Game over. Invalid. Drunk at the wedding? Game over. Pre-nup? Game over. You can intend to marry and still wind up having an invalid marriage.

How is it that Matrimony, is so fragile, so rickety, that almost anything can make it invalid, but the other sacraments are so powerful that even when things are missing they are still valid?

 

[Gorgias]

Matrimony. The sacraments is performed by the husband and wife. Priest optional. But if one tiny thing is missing, it can easily be null and void. No intending to have kids? Game over. Invalid. Drunk at the wedding? Game over. Pre-nup? Game over. You can intend to marry and still wind up having an invalid marriage.

Apples and oranges. For example:

Baptism. The sacrament is performed by the person baptizing. But if one tiny thing is missing, it can easily be null and void. No water? Game over. No triple immersion or pouring? Game over. No invocation ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’? Game over. Invalid.

Confirmation:

No oil? Game over. No command ‘be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit’? Game over. Invalid.

See what I mean? On one hand, you’re discussing the presider, and on the other, the very form and matter of the sacrament – and therefore, where form and matter don’t exist, you’re complaining that the (naturally) invalid sacrament is therefore ‘fragile’.

But, let’s talk about the particular issues that cause a marriage to be invalid, and why they aren’t arbitrary notions:

• “No intending to have kids?” – One of the ends of marriage is procreation. A marriage isn’t made valid by the birth (or adoption) of children; however, if you lack the intention to be open to procreation, then you lack an essential facet of the intention to enter into Christian marriage.
• “Drunk at the wedding?” – At the wedding, the spouses are required to make vows. A person who is drunk is unable to consent to a vow. (Oh, sure… he can pronounce the words of a vow, but he’s not considered able to make that commitment, due to his impairment.) Tell you what: go get drunk as a skunk and walk into a car dealership with a friend, and see if they’ll let you sign for a new car. No way.
• Pre-nup? – Not always. Some agreements aren’t contrary to marriage. However, if you’re entering into what you say you believe to be a permanent covenant, and you’re also making plans for the ways in which you’ll split the marital assets once the marriage ends in divorce, then something’s wrong: clearly, you don’t believe that you’re making a commitment for life.

You can intend to marry and still wind up having an invalid marriage.

For these issues you’ve noted, then technically, you’re not “intending to marry.” You’re either incapacitated and unable to consent, or you’re consenting to something that’s different than Christian marriage. In either case, you’re not attempting to enter into a valid marriage.

 

[BobCatholic]

OK I got it Thanks!

 

[JimG]

A whole book could be devoted to this question. It should not really be that difficult for a man and a woman to make a sincere marriage commitment to each other, promising fidelity, permanence, and openness to life.

Yet the stats on annulments, at least in the U.S., are simply stunning. I see two possibilities.
(1) There has been a drastic decline in couples’ ability to make permanent binding marriage commitments, resulting in an unprecedented number of marriages which are null from the beginning. Or (2) there are a lot of marriages that were really valid that are being declared null.

Personally, I am inclined to go with No. 1. Many couples are apparently incapable of entering a valid marriage, for one reason or another, and so we have an explosiong in the number of decrees of nullity.

PS–I know of at least one guy who was drunk at his wedding and still, in my view–and his–made a valid and binding marriage vow. He did what he intended to do.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet the stats on annulments, at least in the U.S., are simply stunning. I see two possibilities.
(1) There has been a drastic decline in couples’ ability to make permanent binding marriage commitments, resulting in an unprecedented number of marriages which are null from the beginning. Or (2) there are a lot of marriages that were really valid that are being declared null.

There’s really a third possibility: it’s not that people are incapable of making the commitment… it’s simply that they aren’t truly making the commitment. When meeting with the priest – having already spent a bundle on a ring, a gown, a reception; and knowing that reneging on the wedding will cause a lot of grief and shame – the couples’ answers to the priest’s questions may not really be “yes, Christian marriage is what I intend” so much as it is “yes, this wedding day is what I intend.”

I’m inclined to go with this possibility. Note that, if this is what’s going on, then a declaration of nullity is a reasonable outcome.

PS–I know of at least one guy who was drunk at his wedding and still, in my view–and his–made a valid and binding marriage vow. He did what he intended to do.

uch: Ouch…! No, he did not do what he intended to do: at the time of his vows, he was incapacitated, and therefore, was unable to do what he intended to do. (Now, that doesn’t mean that, following his intoxication, he didn’t consent to marriage – it just means that, at the time of the marriage, he was unable to do it.)

 

[MikhailSeeking]

“Baptism. The sacrament is performed by the person baptizing. But if one tiny thing is missing, it can easily be null and void. No water? Game over. No triple immersion or pouring? Game over. No invocation ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’? Game over. Invalid.”

Triple Immersion is necessary for baptism? I was baptised in a Baptist Church before becoming Catholic (Confirmed by a priest in ICU while believed to be dying.) He told me that my Baptism by immersion (Only immersed once, and in the Trinitarian Formula) was valid. Was he wrong?

 

[pnewton]

“Baptism. The sacrament is performed by the person baptizing. But if one tiny thing is missing, it can easily be null and void. No water? Game over. No triple immersion or pouring? Game over. No invocation ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’? Game over. Invalid.”

Triple Immersion is necessary for baptism? I was baptised in a Baptist Church before becoming Catholic (Confirmed by a priest in ICU while believed to be dying.) He told me that my Baptism by immersion (Only immersed once, and in the Trinitarian Formula) was valid. Was he wrong?

No. Triple immersion is not required. The Trinity invocation is. Here is a massive list of denominations and their validity. Virtually none use triple immersion.

archbalt.org/evangelization/worship/rcia/upload/Validity-of-Baptisms-and-Confirmation.pdf

I think the confusion because the Catechism mentions triple immersion. That is the Catholic way.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

“Baptism. The sacrament is performed by the person baptizing. But if one tiny thing is missing, it can easily be null and void. No water? Game over. No triple immersion or pouring? Game over. No invocation ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’? Game over. Invalid.”

Triple Immersion is necessary for baptism? I was baptised in a Baptist Church before becoming Catholic (Confirmed by a priest in ICU while believed to be dying.) He told me that my Baptism by immersion (Only immersed once, and in the Trinitarian Formula) was valid. Was he wrong?

No, he wasn’t wrong, and you are validly baptized. A triple immersion or pouring is *not *necessary. Only water and the Trinitarian formula is necessary. Even Jesus was only immersed once!

 

[Mark1124]

Even Jesus was only immersed once!

Not sure how that’s relevant, since Jesus didn’t receive sacramental Baptism.

 

[JimG]

Not sure how that’s relevant, since Jesus didn’t receive sacramental Baptism.

The baptism that Jesus received from John the Baptist was not a sacramental baptism, because the sacrament had not yet been instituted. Jesus’ public ministry had barely begun. It was a baptism of repentance, not a sacrament. John was immersing a lot of people, but not as a sacrament. Jesus later instituted the sacrament by telling the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[JimG]

There’s really a third possibility: it’s not that people are incapable of making the commitment… it’s simply that they aren’t truly making the commitment. When meeting with the priest – having already spent a bundle on a ring, a gown, a reception; and knowing that reneging on the wedding will cause a lot of grief and shame – the couples’ answers to the priest’s questions may not really be “yes, Christian marriage is what I intend” so much as it is “yes, this wedding day is what I intend.”

I’m inclined to go with this possibility. Note that, if this is what’s going on, then a declaration of nullity is a reasonable outcome.

That is a possibility. What it means though, is that people are really lying when they recite their marriage vows, saying something that they do not intend.

uch: Ouch…! No, he did not do what he intended to do: at the time of his vows, he was incapacitated, and therefore, was unable to do what he intended to do. (Now, that doesn’t mean that, following his intoxication, he didn’t consent to marriage – it just means that, at the time of the marriage, he was unable to do it.)

Well, the intent to marry was present before and after the wedding by both parties. The bride was not about to stop the ceremony and say ‘wait, I can’t marry you until you sober up!’

And it might be noted that some defects, such as an intention against children, might also be remedied after the vows are recited, whether earlier or later, thereby validating the vows.

 

[MikhailSeeking]

No, he wasn’t wrong, and you are validly baptized. A triple immersion or pouring is *not *necessary. Only water and the Trinitarian formula is necessary. Even Jesus was only immersed once!

Thank you! I was worried when I read the post about the triple immersion. I’ve also had a lot of people tell me its weird that I got the Eucharist before being confirmed. The first priest I saw was reluctant to confirm because the doctor wasn’t quite able to say I would die, after checking I was baptised he elected to take a first confession, give the anointing of the sick and give me the eucharist. When my condition was more serious the next day the next priest confirmed me at 10pm. Poor guy was a young priest and he’d never confirmed anyone before, he was so nervous. However, next day my condition started improving and I was discharged the day after that. Sacramental grace. :3

 

[Phemie]

Thank you! I was worried when I read the post about the triple immersion. I’ve also had a lot of people tell me its weird that I got the Eucharist before being confirmed. The first priest I saw was reluctant to confirm because the doctor wasn’t quite able to say I would die, after checking I was baptised he elected to take a first confession, give the anointing of the sick and give me the eucharist. When my condition was more serious the next day the next priest confirmed me at 10pm. Poor guy was a young priest and he’d never confirmed anyone before, he was so nervous. However, next day my condition started improving and I was discharged the day after that. Sacramental grace. :3

It sounds as though he had no experience receiving someone into the Catholic Church either. The idea that he shouldn’t confirm you and make you Catholic but he could confer other sacraments only open to those who are Catholic seems confused in the extreme. But in any case all’s well that ends well.

 

[Phemie]

But only if their own minister is unavailable.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thank you! I was worried when I read the post about the triple immersion. I’ve also had a lot of people tell me its weird that I got the Eucharist before being confirmed. The first priest I saw was reluctant to confirm because the doctor wasn’t quite able to say I would die, after checking I was baptised he elected to take a first confession, give the anointing of the sick and give me the eucharist. When my condition was more serious the next day the next priest confirmed me at 10pm. Poor guy was a young priest and he’d never confirmed anyone before, he was so nervous. However, next day my condition started improving and I was discharged the day after that. Sacramental grace. :3

I don’t find it odd. Those who are baptized as babies, often make their First Communion before their Confirmation, so I’d say you have things in the proper order. Anyway, just glad you made such great improvement and recovered. It had to be sacramental grace.

 

[utah_rose]

That is a possibility. What it means though, is that people are really lying when they recite their marriage vows, saying something that they do not intend.

Well, the intent to marry was present before and after the wedding by both parties. The bride was not about to stop the ceremony and say ‘wait, I can’t marry you until you sober up!’

And it might be noted that some defects, such as an intention against children, might also be remedied after the vows are recited, whether earlier or later, thereby validating the vows.

We’ve been married for 50 years and at that time pre Cana instructions consisted of talking to your priest a few times. As for children, in 1965, the pill according to some priests was ok as long as you’d be open to children sometime in the future but the decision was yours. In our case, we had his grandfather living with us so kids were not an option for a few years. But 4 years later despite that our daughter was born, and 2 years later I had a miscarriage. I guess what I’m trying to say that some people would call it invalid because of the children thing. I can also see some brides having a little hesitation and maybe wanting to call it off but being afraid to because of expense and especially parental objections. It would take a lot of courage for the bride or the groom to break it off at the last minute.

 

[JimG]

We’ve been married for 50 years and at that time pre Cana instructions consisted of talking to your priest a few times. As for children, in 1965, the pill according to some priests was ok as long as you’d be open to children sometime in the future but the decision was yours. In our case, we had his grandfather living with us so kids were not an option for a few years. But 4 years later despite that our daughter was born, and 2 years later I had a miscarriage. I guess what I’m trying to say that some people would call it invalid because of the children thing. I can also see some brides having a little hesitation and maybe wanting to call it off but being afraid to because of expense and especially parental objections. It would take a lot of courage for the bride or the groom to break it off at the last minute.

Yes, there can be a lot of uncertainties and fears. I think that in the past there was a lot less inclination to use such things as a reason to seek a declaration of nullity. Now, it seems as though such things are seized upon as a reason for nullity.

 

[Phemie]

Some, like my neighbour, remained in a marriage rife with abuse and rampant adultery (no teenage maid was safe) even after being advised to get out by the parish priest. At least 3 more children were born after that advice was given.

I’m almost positive that given the circumstances of their wedding the marriage would have been declared null, considering the fact that he beat the oldest daughter because she was the reason he was trapped in the marriage.

But a single mother of 4 kids in a rural village in the late 50s… it seems it would have been harder to go than it was to stay.

 

[otjm]

Yet the stats on annulments, at least in the U.S., are simply stunning.

Stunning? Only if one actually has the stats on decrees of nullity.

CARA did some research concerning the matter. Their finding was that 7% of divorced Catholics had received a decree of nullity.

And given that there is no reporting of where the tribunals do not find grounds, their (CARA’s) finding perhaps was astounding: 8% who had started the process had not received a decree.

Which leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have never started the process.

Yes, those statistics are stunning.

 

[Gorgias]

That is a possibility. What it means though, is that people are really lying when they recite their marriage vows, saying something that they do not intend.

Well… I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say ‘lying’. Perhaps “hoping”, or “hoping, with the idea that they’ll bail if it gets ‘too bad’”. Or, maybe even, giving them the benefit of the doubt, “deluding themselves, trying to convince themselves that they mean ‘yes’”.

Well, the intent to marry was present before and after the wedding by both parties.

That’s not the same, though, as being capable of actualizing the intent at the time that they made the vows…

The bride was not about to stop the ceremony and say ‘wait, I can’t marry you until you sober up!’

I know. That’s why the priest or deacon should’ve – or, at the very least, he should’ve made note of it in the marriage file, so that it was available should the need later arise.