Why must married couples abstain until their marriage is blessed?

[Pug]

The reason the pizza and coke do not work is because they void the ignorance of the recipient. Since the example is a Catholic marrying in the Baptist church with a Baptist preacher the same is true. The attempt is illicit (as well as invalid) had the same Baptist preacher came into the catholic church and wore catholic vestments and celebrated the same marriage it could be illicit and valid because the couple could believe the man to be an ordained priest. In the example the couple willing seeks an illicit ceremony so their actions are invalid and their ceremony is illicit. So the question is “Why does the catholic church refuse to acknowledge this invalid and illicit marriage ceremony?”

I’m unfamiliar with this terminology, “void the ignorance of the recipient”, but I think I know what you wish to say by it. Mere ignorance doesn’t suffice to supply for that situation. Sometimes it can supply (or the terminology I think might be lurking in the background is “the Church supplies”). But with coke and pizza it certainly can’t. If someone pretends to be a Catholic priest (God forbid) and stands there apparently at a sacrament, that man is doing something gravely wrong. Also, people start to raise the question of what happens for the recipient of the “sacrament” and is it a sacrament.

I wasn’t thinking along those lines, nor did I think Drawmack was. But I partly see why you bring it up now. You are correct, being ignorant of the fact that a Baptist preacher cannot marry you (assuming you are Catholic, or one of you is, etc.) will not supply or make up the difference for you. You will remain unmarried; there will be no sacrament. There is no provision for if the parties were acting in ignorance. I figure lots and lots of baptized Catholics walk around in ignorance of their own canon law. In ignorance or not, in good faith or bad faith, defiantly or not, they still cannot contract that marriage.

So the question is “Why does the catholic church refuse to acknowledge this invalid and illicit marriage ceremony?”

Because they have chosen to make it invalid by fiat, so clearly they will observe their own rule. They didn’t have to have made it so. They originally made this fiat at Trent, and Trent says they did it on account of the evil/adultery taking place on account of the clandestine marriages, which they wish to rectify/put a stop to. They rectify it at least in the future by declaring it impossible to contract a clandestine marriage. Since the groom *cannot *have married secretly, the problem of clandestinity vanishes. (Well, in an ideal world. Of course there are always loopholes and bigamy is still possible for a man to swing, even today.) I hope that is clearer.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think we are miscommunicating

I’m unfamiliar with this terminology, “void the ignorance of the recipient”, but I think I know what you wish to say by it. Mere ignorance doesn’t suffice to supply for that situation. Sometimes it can supply (or the terminology I think might be lurking in the background is “the Church supplies”). But with coke and pizza it certainly can’t. If someone pretends to be a Catholic priest (God forbid) and stands there apparently at a sacrament, that man is doing something gravely wrong. Also, people start to raise the question of what happens for the recipient of the “sacrament” and is it a sacrament.

Sin requires knowledge, so in a state of ignorance one cannot sin* So when recipients are ignorant of the false priest they are without fault, thus their effort is valid. When the false priest knows of the facts the ceremony is illicit. That is why the pizza and pop do not work all reasonable people know this is incorrect so the issue is illicit and invalid. In the example the couple clearly had knowledge of the issue and proceded to the illicit ceremony so again they chose a Natural Marriage which is for the catholic both invalid and illicit from a sacramental marriage

I wasn’t thinking along those lines, nor did I think Drawmack was. But I partly see why you bring it up now. You are correct, being ignorant of the fact that a Baptist preacher cannot marry you (assuming you are Catholic, or one of you is, etc.) will not supply or make up the difference for you. You will remain unmarried; there will be no sacrament. There is no provision for if the parties were acting in ignorance. I figure lots and lots of baptized Catholics walk around in ignorance of their own canon law. In ignorance or not, in good faith or bad faith, defiantly or not, they still cannot contract that marriage.

agreed, they cannot confer a sacramental marriage, they can enter a Natural Marriage

Because they have chosen to make it invalid by fiat, so clearly they will observe their own rule. They didn’t have to have made it so. They originally made this fiat at Trent, and Trent says they did it on account of the evil/adultery taking place on account of the clandestine marriages, which they wish to rectify/put a stop to. They rectify it at least in the future by declaring it impossible to contract a clandestine marriage. Since the groom *cannot *have married secretly, the problem of clandestinity vanishes. (Well, in an ideal world. Of course there are always loopholes and bigamy is still possible for a man to swing, even today.) I hope that is clearer.

Yes, I do not think the canon stays for clandestine reasons today. With a 50% failure rate marriage education is clearly lacking.

• some argue it is possible to commit some forms of sin without knowledge however those highly technical arguments.

 

[Drawmack]

Okay, I think I understand the teachings now. I’m not going to restate them because anyone can read the thread to this point and see them. Thank you Pug and Texas Roofer.

I do, now, have another question.

Let’s say that someone is Baptized Catholic. After this they leave the Catholic Church and become a confirmed Baptist. Then they marry in the Baptist Church and it is a valid Baptist wedding. Then, later, the person rejoins the Catholic Church and their spouse comes into the fold with them. Would this be an illicit and / or invalid marriage and why?

Please do not get into technicalities here. Take this scenario on it’s own merit. Assume that neither person would have anything the Catholic Church would find an impediment to marriage and that it is a marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Pug]

Thank you again Pug. Can requirements to the form of the sacrament be changed if they are deemed unnecessary? I’m not talking about changing something about the sacrament or how it is performed.

Yes. They are not a dogma/doctrine kind of thing. Even now the form can be different in different rites, or in extraordinary circumstances, like in a country of persecutions where you can’t find any priests anywhere to marry you according to form. Uh, that thing about different rites may have gone outside of your knowledge base, I don’t know. There are two codes of canon law that potentially apply to a Catholic, one for the Latin Catholics and one for the Eastern/Oriental Catholics. The rules for marriage already are not identical in the two. I am a Latin rite Catholic (the most common variety), and that code of canon law (abbreviated CIC, not to be confused with the CCC or the CCEO) is the one I mean unless I mention otherwise.

Would they ever move all the parish records to Rome, and switch to doing records electronically at that? This seems unlikely, but they could alter their rules/canons about parish priests recording sacraments, baptisms, etc. if that seemed desirable to them. Also, whatever changes they made would likely be conditioned by how it might affect their relations with the Orthodox, if that turned out to be relevant in this arena for some reason. I know they are not above using technology for stuff. They even use fax machines to fax requests to Rome for removals of certain types of censures so that it can be done very rapidly. Currently, though, I’m not sure every Catholic diocese in the world could handle becoming “electronic”. Some are fairly far off the beaten path. Rome doesn’t seem to change things unless they are motivated to, though.

I see your new scenario. I will answer that in a bit.

Oh, for your future reference, so that you don’t encounter a confusion, there is another way to use the word “form” with regard to the sacraments than we have been employing here. That type of “form” does relate to dogma, but it isn’t what we are talking about here.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let’s say that someone is Baptized Catholic. After this they leave the Catholic Church and become a confirmed Baptist. Then they marry in the Baptist Church and it is a valid Baptist wedding. Then, later, the person rejoins the Catholic Church and their spouse comes into the fold with them. Would this be an illicit and / or invalid marriage and why?

It is harder than it sounds to keep it simple my advice is for the catholic assuming they have made first communion and confirmation to visit the priest/marriage ministry to apply for a convalidation (or Radical Sanate) with a dispensation (for non-Catholic spouse). He would be back in communion once that was granted. At the same time the non-Catholic spouse would attend RCIA (adult Sunday school) she would be a candidate so roughly Dec 1- Easter would be her minimum period. At Easter she would receive her outstanding sacraments, and her marriage status would be a full sacrament.

The alternate is she attend RCIA the same way with neither receiving communion until Easter. At Easter he would attend confession and have their marriage blessed. In the latter case she would receive the sacraments of Reconciliation, First Eucharist, Confirmation, and Marriage all at once.

 

[Drawmack]

Yes. They are not a dogma/doctrine kind of thing. Even now the form can be different in different rites, or in extraordinary circumstances, like in a country of persecutions where you can’t find any priests anywhere to marry you according to form. Uh, that thing about different rites may have gone outside of your knowledge base, I don’t know. There are two codes of canon law that potentially apply to a Catholic, one for the Latin Catholics and one for the Eastern/Oriental Catholics. The rules for marriage already are not identical in the two. I am a Latin rite Catholic (the most common variety), and that code of canon law (abbreviated CIC, not to be confused with the CCC or the CCEO) is the one I mean unless I mention otherwise.

Would they ever move all the parish records to Rome, and switch to doing records electronically at that? This seems unlikely, but they could alter their rules/canons about parish priests recording sacraments, baptisms, etc. if that seemed desirable to them. Also, whatever changes they made would likely be conditioned by how it might affect their relations with the Orthodox, if that turned out to be relevant in this arena for some reason. I know they are not above using technology for stuff. They even use fax machines to fax requests to Rome for removals of certain types of censures so that it can be done very rapidly. Currently, though, I’m not sure every Catholic diocese in the world could handle becoming “electronic”. Some are fairly far off the beaten path. Rome doesn’t seem to change things unless they are motivated to, though.

I see your new scenario. I will answer that in a bit.

Oh, for your future reference, so that you don’t encounter a confusion, there is another way to use the word “form” with regard to the sacraments than we have been employing here. That type of “form” does relate to dogma, but it isn’t what we are talking about here.

Yes, I am fully aware of the Rites. Questions about those seem to be outside the scope of this thread though. Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

 

[Pug]

Let’s say that someone is Baptized Catholic. After this they leave the Catholic Church and become a confirmed Baptist. Then they marry in the Baptist Church and it is a valid Baptist wedding. Then, later, the person rejoins the Catholic Church and their spouse comes into the fold with them. Would this be an illicit and / or invalid marriage and why?

Please do not get into technicalities here. Take this scenario on it’s own merit. Assume that neither person would have anything the Catholic Church would find an impediment to marriage and that it is a marriage between a man and a woman.

I am going to need to bring in one technicality, because you mentioned confirmation/profession in another religion, so it could be on your mind. There is a law about “formally renouncing” the Faith. It is currently, as of a recently issued clarification if I recall very unlikely to meet the conditions. I will assume the conditions for it are not met in my answer.

The Church deems the Catholic party to have been Catholic enough to qualify for the rules about needing to marry in the Church. Thus, the couple did originally fall and still falls under Catholic rules for the marriage. Ignoring other details, they lacked at least one dispensation when they got married. This can be fixed easily, with a little help from your bishop. It is unknown to me which fixing method would be chosen. Radical Sanation (you don’t repeat any vows/consent) or one where you do in front of a priest, called Simple Convalidation. Both can be fairly private/unseen. You can choose to make more hoopla if you like. The radical sanation one seems unlikley because the other spouse is on board with the whole thing, but I don’t really know.

Short answer: some relatively easy fixing is required in order to be valid

 

[Pug]

I think we are miscommunicating

Sin requires knowledge, so in a state of ignorance one cannot sin

Agreed.

So when recipients are ignorant of the false priest they are without fault

Agreed.

, thus their effort is valid.

I wouldn’t typically call the effort by a word like valid. The recipients effort and intent are there.

When the false priest knows of the facts the ceremony is illicit. That is why the pizza and pop do not work all reasonable people know this is incorrect so the issue is illicit and invalid.

Pizza and pop example is both illicit and invalid. Priest knows he is acting against the law. Also, invalid matter negates any chance at confecting Eucharist. Thus invalid sacrament.

In the example the couple clearly had knowledge of the issue and proceded to the illicit ceremony so again they chose a Natural Marriage which is for the catholic both invalid and illicit from a sacramental marriage

Here, and in the next quote. Here somehow I am confused. If they somehow manage to get a valid natural marriage, I think I understand the law to be saying this means they also manage to get a sacramental one, since the presence of a valid natural marriage is enough to make a sacramental one if the two parties are baptized. Your sentence, however, seems to want to apply the words invalid and illict to the sacramental marriage aspect only. You are taking two baptized people and letting them have a valid natural marriage without letting them have a sacramental marriage, or so it seems as I try to read your sentence. I think I might not be interpreting your sentence correctly.

agreed, they cannot confer a sacramental marriage, they can enter a Natural Marriage

See above.

Yes, I do not think the canon stays for clandestine reasons today. With a 50% failure rate marriage education is clearly lacking.

Yes, I think they are very interested in marriage education today. Canon law has new (1983AD) canons to reflect that exact interest. My 2cents opinion is that they still don’t do enough marriage preparation.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

"reference:

In the example the couple clearly had knowledge of the issue and proceded to the illicit ceremony so again they chose a Natural Marriage which is for the catholic both invalid and illicit from a sacramental marriage
…… they cannot confer a sacramental marriage, they can enter a Natural Marriage

Agreed.
Here, and in the next quote. Here somehow I am confused. If they somehow manage to get a valid natural marriage, I think I understand the law to be saying this means they also manage to get a sacramental one, since the presence of a valid natural marriage is enough to make a sacramental one if the two parties are baptized. Your sentence, however, seems to want to apply the words invalid and illict to the sacramental marriage aspect only. You are taking two baptized people and letting them have a valid natural marriage without letting them have a sacramental marriage, or so it seems as I try to read your sentence. I think I might not be interpreting your sentence correctly.
See above.

I am glad you bring it up, it is in another thread also, the canon actually says :

*“Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.” *

I would love a full explanation for the marriage ministry or a canon lawyer, until then I can only look at the fact their marriage is under Natural Moral Law until they attempt to come into communion with the Catholic Church. At that time the church interprets the merits of the marriage not the individuals. So the church will declar the marriage invalid because it fails others. The canons say many many things about church participation here are just a few :

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
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.
Can. 1082 Unless a rescript of the Penitentiary provides otherwise,* a dispensation from an occult impediment *granted in the non-sacramental internal forum is to be noted in a book which must be kept in the secret archive of the curia; no other dispensation for the external forum is necessary if afterwards the occult impediment becomes public.

So in general it seems the Natural Marriage is “valid” in the commmon definition of the word “valid” but “invalid” in the Catholic forum of the word “valid”. Again I would love to see the issue addressed by a expert in Catholic Marriage

 

[Pug]

I am glad you bring it up, it is in another thread also, the canon actually says :

*“Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.” *

I would love a full explanation for the marriage ministry or a canon lawyer, until then I can only look at the fact their marriage is under Natural Moral Law until they attempt to come into communion with the Catholic Church. At that time the church interprets the merits of the marriage not the individuals. So the church will declar the marriage invalid because it fails others. The canons say many many things about church participation here are just a few :

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
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.
Can. 1082 Unless a rescript of the Penitentiary provides otherwise,** a dispensation from an occult impediment **granted in the non-sacramental internal forum is to be noted in a book which must be kept in the secret archive of the curia; no other dispensation for the external forum is necessary if afterwards the occult impediment becomes public.

So in general it seems the Natural Marriage is “valid” in the commmon definition of the word “valid” but “invalid” in the Catholic forum of the word “valid”. Again I would love to see the issue addressed by a expert in Catholic Marriage

Okay, I, too, think it appears that if we are using the Catholic official word “valid” then it would seem that the natural marriage there is invalid. I, too, would like to see someone who really knows, a canon lawyer, clarify this issue. Yes, they have done everything well according to the law that sits on their hearts, assuming the case of say the man being baptized Catholic but never raised Catholic.

Clearly such a couple, operating in integrity, would receive graces. God doesn’t ever leave his children without graces. They are his beloved children.

I appreciate your list of canons. From your highlighting for example of number 1059, it seems we see similar things in them, and that is leading to our wondering. I will add a canon to yours, because it is of interest to me, and is appropriate in the context, I think:Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
I have highlighted words that are interesting to me, because they require the consent not only to be consent of will, but also manifested in a specific way. Perhaps these words mean a specific thing for a person who qualifies as a Catholic person.

I know real people are reading this thread. I neither wish nor think any ill of individuals who may fall under the umbrella of this discussion. Sometimes I sound so academic and dry, I know. uch:

 

[chain]

fwiw, the situation that I am aware of is similar to your Confirmed Baptist one. The wife left the Catholic church and became Lutheran (joined the congregation, and was even a church employee for several years). She did not, however, go through the process of formally renouncing her Catholic faith with the church - so she was still Catholic.