Yet ANOTHER Marriage Question

[Phemie]

This is interesting. I have always understood that the validity of a marriage is established at it’s inception. You assert that a previously invalid marriage can become valid due to a subsequent change of heart. I would agree with you if it also worked the other way; that a previously valid marriage could become invalid due to a change of heart.

There’s only one way that I understand that an invalid marriage can become valid and that’s where ‘consent’ is concerned. If at the time of the original vows there isn’t ‘free consent’ then the marriage is invalid. But if subsequently the couple were to freely renew their vows, say at an anniversary, the marriage becomes valid.

I don’t think it works that way with other impediments such as not planning to have children or not planning for the marriage to be ‘until death do us part’, because changing your mind after the fact doesn’t change the circumstances of the original vows.

 

[Phemie]

You might be right. I’m not real clear on the concept of “sacramental marriage” as opposed to “valid marriage.”

Does Canon Law have different expectations for non-Catholics where divorce and remarriage are concerned? It was my understanding that, where these topics are concerned, the rules are the same for everyone.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Two validly baptized (trinitarian baptism) Christians contracting a valid marriage also contract a sacramental marriage.

The marriage of a non-baptized & a baptized or of two non-baptized may very well be valid but it is not sacramental because the non-baptized cannot receive a sacrament and the sacrament cannot apply to only 1/2 the couple. Theirs is a valid natural marriage.

The non-Catholics are not bound by the laws of the Catholic Church until such a time as they want to contract a marriage in the Church. Then the Church has to examine any previous marriage.

 

[Cristiano]

This is interesting. I have always understood that the validity of a marriage is established at it’s inception. You assert that a previously invalid marriage can become valid due to a subsequent change of heart. I would agree with you if it also worked the other way; that a previously valid marriage could become invalid due to a change of heart.

Not really, I am not asserting that for marriage as a de facto statement. Mine was more of a general reflection. I am quite sure that it is true when it comes to an invalid baptism (Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier) that can be corrected through the baptism of desire. For marriage I do not really know, I need to think more about it.

This, in my opinion, gets right to the heart of the problem. A quasi-legal system has been established that directly affects who can and cannot be in full communion with the Church. The Tribunal judges the validity of a marriage by applying Canon Law to a marriage that may have ended many years ago. There is, in my opinion, no way they can know the true conscience of the parties at inception of the marriage. Consequently, I suspect that at least some of the decisions handed down by the Tribunal do not reflect the true state of the marriages they have examined. To me, it would make more sense to do away with the “legal system,” simply take people at their word regarding the state of their marriage, then let God sort them out.

But of course, I’m not in charge of such matters.

Here I disagree with you. Canon law is not a quasi-legal system, it is a legal system. One issue here is the assumption that the church is not guided by the Holy Spirit when she tries to ascertain the truth. Another other issue is that some people think that these procedures are infallible and that is wrong too, that would imply that humans do not sin.

 

[Phemie]

This, in my opinion, gets right to the heart of the problem. A quasi-legal system has been established that directly affects who can and cannot be in full communion with the Church. The Tribunal judges the validity of a marriage by applying Canon Law to a marriage that may have ended many years ago. There is, in my opinion, no way they can know the true conscience of the parties at inception of the marriage. Consequently, I suspect that at least some of the decisions handed down by the Tribunal do not reflect the true state of the marriages they have examined. To me, it would make more sense to do away with the “legal system,” simply take people at their word regarding the state of their marriage, then let God sort them out.

But of course, I’m not in charge of such matters.

Who can truly have knowledge of what is in the heart of any couple at the time they speak their vows? Even the parties themselves can only know what’s in their own heart, not that of their spouse. So does it make any difference if it’s years after the fact? I know what I was thinking at the time, 32 years after the fact. Should I ever be in the position of petitioning for an decree of nullity I could easily answer the questions put to me with full memory of what was happening at the time.

Now, since today people are more in the know of what makes a marriage invalid there is always the danger that people will tell the interrogator exactly what they need to say to get the decree.

But sometimes it’s a no-brainer. A couple (farmer’s son/rich merchant’s daughter) gets married. She’s pregnant and friends will tell you they had a blow-out fight two days before the wedding. What odds that, 10-12 years later after a second child born from the wife’s adulterous relationship and a bitter divorce, they won’t be granted a decree of nullity based on consent?