I am a Millennial, and a convert to Catholicism (well, technically, a revert - baptized in the Church, raised in another faith community from then on). Permit me a couple of generational anecdotes.
(1) My husband's first attempted marriage was to a Catholic. As far as we can tell, she had no idea that as a Catholic, she had to follow sp…
I am a Millennial, and a convert to Catholicism (well, technically, a revert - baptized in the Church, raised in another faith community from then on). Permit me a couple of generational anecdotes.
(1) My husband's first attempted marriage was to a Catholic. As far as we can tell, she had no idea that as a Catholic, she had to follow special rules to get married.
(2) Most of my college friends are non-practicing Catholics - Christmas/Easter at most. Most of them aren't married yet. Those who are married, married outside the Church. We haven't kept in close touch, so I don't know whether they are innocently unaware of the Church's teachings about marriage for Catholics. However, based on previous conversations with them about the Church, I'd guess they do not in any case believe the Church has the moral authority to decide whether their marriage is valid in the eyes of God or not. (The one wedding I attended, their "Scripture Reading" was Kennedy's Obergefell decision. No, it wasn't a gay wedding. It was a statement wedding.)
(3) My brother, like me, was baptized Catholic as a small child and then raised in our mom's faith tradition. Apparently, neither Mom nor Dad knew that baptizing us into the Church gave us rights and responsibilities - I think they both were under the impression that it would be Confirmation that would place us under the Church's authority. So my brother's marriage is probably invalid, and he has no idea - and again, I don't think he would take it seriously if I told him, because he doesn't believe the Church has the authority to place that responsibility on him when he was never raised in the church.
So, out of the 6 baptized Catholics in my generation whose marriage situations I have personal knowledge of, I'm the only one who went through the proper channels, and I have good reason to believe I'm the only one who *knew/acknowledged that there was such a thing as a proper channel*.
Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem.
"Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem." You articulated my thoughts perfectly. I'm 30 and so few of my peers are even marrying to begin with that I can think of only one canonically married couple who might have benefited from this kind of thing. When my sister attempted marriage outside the Church, even I didn't completely realize it was invalid, and nobody was willing to set the record straight.
I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way.
(Edited because the post button is too close to my phone keyboard.)
"I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way." <-- Yes, and with yearly reinforcement in faith formation. Maybe the message will get through if there are 1-2 class hours each year (and 3-4 in the First Communion and Confirmation years) devoted to the rights and responsibilities of Kingdom Citizenship, so to speak.
I'm also curious whether, from a canonical perspective, the assumption of invalidity due to deficiency of form (did I word that correctly?) could be dispensed with. Like, could that just no longer be a qualification for validity? At least, if the wedding is between two baptized people and takes place in a Christian context (officiant is the pastor of an ecclesial community, for example), could the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic baptism be eliminated? It's troubling to think that my brother and his wife, who were committed Christians, without impediments, intending to do what the Church intends in a wedding, are not validly married due to sheer ignorance on our whole family's part.
Yes, the Church could just drop the requirements for canonical form, but I do not think that it is likely to anytime soon. It solves many problems, from one perspective. Many couples are getting married in the Church after a long civil marriage. Other couples are coming to their second marriage, but first one in the Church. It makes all those first weddings a kind of trial marriage situation that sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't.
It does raise important questions, as you mention in your brother's situation. Obviously he and his wife have a relationship. Because he is a Catholic, that relationship is not a marriage. So what is it? If it is a lifelong, faithful, relationship open to life, it sure seems like a marriage. It is easy to see how it is not the sacrament of Matrimony, but not easy to see how it is not a marriage. The problem is created because all of this is canon law stuff and not theology. Lawyers are constantly saying that things are other things. I think they recently declared that bees are a kind of fish in California.
So your brother is not in the Sacrament of Matrimony. He is not canonically married. But he is clearly married. And he probably does not care about the first two things. This is why common law marriage exists. If a man and a woman vow lifelong fidelity for the sake of procreation, they are married. They may or may not be: sacramentally married, legally married, canonically married, or some other sort of married, but they are married.
It comes down to a question of what words mean. If a Catholic is invalidly married, does he have a relationship with the mother of his children who lives in his house? Obviously. What would you call that relationship? Perhaps a natural marriage or a quasi-marriage but not no marriage.
Consider several other situations that clearly do not constitute a valid marriage:
1. A couple who has cohabited for 10 years with children but no wedding.
2. A homosexual couple who attempted marriage with an invalid ceremony in a Catholic church presided over by a Catholic priest.
3. A couple who married in the Church but the husband hid a previous Catholic marriage in his country of origin.
4. A man who has sex with a prostitute for money.
Now, these couples are clearly not married, but couple 2 is the most not married, followed by couple 3, then couple 4, and then couple 1. But they are all more married then you and a random woman you have never met. There are gradations of being not married. The law makes it binary, but St. Paul acknowledges the quasi-marriage of couple 4.
It is good for the law to draw a clear line, but the theology comes up with different answers. If all 5 couples approach me as a priest and ask what they should do to get right with God, couple 1 should get married, couple 2 should stop pretending to be married, couple 3 should break up, and couple 4 is not really a couple unless there is a child.
Meanwhile, couple 0, what would you think I should say to them? What should Clare say to her brother if the question ever came up? Obviously, be a Catholic and marry in the Church. But let us say that this is not going to happen yet. What should we say then? Abandon your wife and children? That is the legal answer, but is very obviously not the moral one. Love your wife and children and stay faithful? Technically, legally, a sin, but also what he should do, so not actually a sin. And if it would be a sin for him to abandon her, they are clearly mostly married.
Legally, lines should be very clear and marriage should be only marriage. Everyone who is not with us is against us. -Luke 11:23
Theologically, we recognize the seeds of goodness everywhere: ecclesial communities, invalid marriages, even the love of homosexual couples. Everyone who is not against us is for us. -Luke 9:50
Marriage is like pregnancy: you either are or you aren’t. You can’t be mostly married or mostly pregnant, sort of married or sort of pregnant. The question for the first would be, “Does a marriage bond exist? For the second, “Is there a baby?” It’s a yes or no question, not a scale.
A relationship that is not a marriage may have many positive features, but cannot appropriately include the marital act. Regarding couple #1 above, Christian morality does not say that a partner in parenthood should be abandoned. The tough requirement is that a non-married partner needs to say, “I can’t have sex with you,” even if they’re raising children together.
St. Paul seems to disagree with you at 1 Corinthians 6:16. He quotes the marriage language with reference to a man and a prostitute.
I don't see how marriage is like pregnancy at all in the way you describe. "Does a marriage bond exist?" is a legal question. "Is there a baby?" is a question of fact.
It seems to me that St Paul in I Cor 6:16 quotes the language of marriage to show the profanation of what should be a marital act. A sexual act with a prostitute does not bring about a quasi-marriage, but rather is an abomination precisely because it profanes what is sacred. Yes, the two are literally one flesh, but temporarily and in a manner that is sordid rather than beautiful, showing selfishness rather than love.
“Does a marriage bond exist?” is also a question of fact. Canon law recognizes the existence of the bond, but does not create it. The bond is created by the consent of the couple, but is then a fact that exists beyond their control. I can’t revoke my consent and end my marriage and a change in canon law cannot end it, either.
If a scientist wants to know whether a woman is pregnant, they can, without any information about her past, run various tests or do an ultrasound. That is a fact. There is no such similar test for marriage bonds. That is why pregnancy is not a good analogy.
You say that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple". But in the particular case under discussion, the couple did give their consent. So the bond was created. But canon law says that it was not, because the man did not have the Church's permission to give his consent. Someone who believed in the Church's authority in that matter would not have given their consent, since they would have given it while simultaneously believing that they did not have power to give it. But, in this case, since he does not believe in the Church's authority nor even know that the Church claims this authority, he gave his consent in good faith. Does that not create a marriage bond?
If it does, then they are at least a little bit married. If it does not, then your statement that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple" is incorrect. Perhaps you think that you could restate your statement until it included all the edge cases, but it has been proven by logicians that this is impossible. Language can never be that precise when it is about real life. Law can draw bright lines, but they are just lines on paper. Real life is too complicated.
So it is in St. Paul's example in Corinthians. The question is not why he quotes the language. You are right about the reason. The fact is that he does quote the language. Since he quotes the language, he must have thought it was applicable. If the marriage language is applicable to fornication, then fornication is at least a quasi-marriage.
This is only sordid rather than beautiful. Of course you are right. A sordid quasi-marriage.
"It profanes what is sacred." What is sacred? Marriage. It profanes marriage. It could not profane marriage without being a quasi-marriage.
"Yes, the two are literally one flesh" (this is marriage according to Jesus and Genesis) "but temporarily" No, the possibility of a child proves that no such act can ever be temporary. Even if the child is murdered, the two still have a child.
I know that the marital bond is formed by the consent of the spouses and I know that the Church has the power to regulate the sacraments; I would love to hear a full explanation of how those two premises fit together!
Physical analogies are useful, although limited, in understanding spiritual realities because we can grasp more easily that which is apparent to our senses, even if the spiritual is in a way even more real.
There is no provision in Catholic thought for “a little bit married” any more than a man may be “sort of a priest.” If you had attempted to say Mass the day before your ordination, it would have been a lie. In the same way, a couple engaging in intercourse the day before their wedding is engaged in a lie. Fornication is wrong not because the couple is only “a little bit married,” but because they are not married at all.
I am a Millennial, and a convert to Catholicism (well, technically, a revert - baptized in the Church, raised in another faith community from then on). Permit me a couple of generational anecdotes.
(1) My husband's first attempted marriage was to a Catholic. As far as we can tell, she had no idea that as a Catholic, she had to follow special rules to get married.
(2) Most of my college friends are non-practicing Catholics - Christmas/Easter at most. Most of them aren't married yet. Those who are married, married outside the Church. We haven't kept in close touch, so I don't know whether they are innocently unaware of the Church's teachings about marriage for Catholics. However, based on previous conversations with them about the Church, I'd guess they do not in any case believe the Church has the moral authority to decide whether their marriage is valid in the eyes of God or not. (The one wedding I attended, their "Scripture Reading" was Kennedy's Obergefell decision. No, it wasn't a gay wedding. It was a statement wedding.)
(3) My brother, like me, was baptized Catholic as a small child and then raised in our mom's faith tradition. Apparently, neither Mom nor Dad knew that baptizing us into the Church gave us rights and responsibilities - I think they both were under the impression that it would be Confirmation that would place us under the Church's authority. So my brother's marriage is probably invalid, and he has no idea - and again, I don't think he would take it seriously if I told him, because he doesn't believe the Church has the authority to place that responsibility on him when he was never raised in the church.
So, out of the 6 baptized Catholics in my generation whose marriage situations I have personal knowledge of, I'm the only one who went through the proper channels, and I have good reason to believe I'm the only one who *knew/acknowledged that there was such a thing as a proper channel*.
Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem.
"Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem." You articulated my thoughts perfectly. I'm 30 and so few of my peers are even marrying to begin with that I can think of only one canonically married couple who might have benefited from this kind of thing. When my sister attempted marriage outside the Church, even I didn't completely realize it was invalid, and nobody was willing to set the record straight.
I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way.
(Edited because the post button is too close to my phone keyboard.)
"I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way." <-- Yes, and with yearly reinforcement in faith formation. Maybe the message will get through if there are 1-2 class hours each year (and 3-4 in the First Communion and Confirmation years) devoted to the rights and responsibilities of Kingdom Citizenship, so to speak.
I'm also curious whether, from a canonical perspective, the assumption of invalidity due to deficiency of form (did I word that correctly?) could be dispensed with. Like, could that just no longer be a qualification for validity? At least, if the wedding is between two baptized people and takes place in a Christian context (officiant is the pastor of an ecclesial community, for example), could the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic baptism be eliminated? It's troubling to think that my brother and his wife, who were committed Christians, without impediments, intending to do what the Church intends in a wedding, are not validly married due to sheer ignorance on our whole family's part.
Yes, the Church could just drop the requirements for canonical form, but I do not think that it is likely to anytime soon. It solves many problems, from one perspective. Many couples are getting married in the Church after a long civil marriage. Other couples are coming to their second marriage, but first one in the Church. It makes all those first weddings a kind of trial marriage situation that sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't.
It does raise important questions, as you mention in your brother's situation. Obviously he and his wife have a relationship. Because he is a Catholic, that relationship is not a marriage. So what is it? If it is a lifelong, faithful, relationship open to life, it sure seems like a marriage. It is easy to see how it is not the sacrament of Matrimony, but not easy to see how it is not a marriage. The problem is created because all of this is canon law stuff and not theology. Lawyers are constantly saying that things are other things. I think they recently declared that bees are a kind of fish in California.
So your brother is not in the Sacrament of Matrimony. He is not canonically married. But he is clearly married. And he probably does not care about the first two things. This is why common law marriage exists. If a man and a woman vow lifelong fidelity for the sake of procreation, they are married. They may or may not be: sacramentally married, legally married, canonically married, or some other sort of married, but they are married.
It comes down to a question of what words mean. If a Catholic is invalidly married, does he have a relationship with the mother of his children who lives in his house? Obviously. What would you call that relationship? Perhaps a natural marriage or a quasi-marriage but not no marriage.
Consider several other situations that clearly do not constitute a valid marriage:
1. A couple who has cohabited for 10 years with children but no wedding.
2. A homosexual couple who attempted marriage with an invalid ceremony in a Catholic church presided over by a Catholic priest.
3. A couple who married in the Church but the husband hid a previous Catholic marriage in his country of origin.
4. A man who has sex with a prostitute for money.
Now, these couples are clearly not married, but couple 2 is the most not married, followed by couple 3, then couple 4, and then couple 1. But they are all more married then you and a random woman you have never met. There are gradations of being not married. The law makes it binary, but St. Paul acknowledges the quasi-marriage of couple 4.
It is good for the law to draw a clear line, but the theology comes up with different answers. If all 5 couples approach me as a priest and ask what they should do to get right with God, couple 1 should get married, couple 2 should stop pretending to be married, couple 3 should break up, and couple 4 is not really a couple unless there is a child.
Meanwhile, couple 0, what would you think I should say to them? What should Clare say to her brother if the question ever came up? Obviously, be a Catholic and marry in the Church. But let us say that this is not going to happen yet. What should we say then? Abandon your wife and children? That is the legal answer, but is very obviously not the moral one. Love your wife and children and stay faithful? Technically, legally, a sin, but also what he should do, so not actually a sin. And if it would be a sin for him to abandon her, they are clearly mostly married.
Yes, but also no. 🙂
Legally, lines should be very clear and marriage should be only marriage. Everyone who is not with us is against us. -Luke 11:23
Theologically, we recognize the seeds of goodness everywhere: ecclesial communities, invalid marriages, even the love of homosexual couples. Everyone who is not against us is for us. -Luke 9:50
Just have the marriage blessed.
Marriage is like pregnancy: you either are or you aren’t. You can’t be mostly married or mostly pregnant, sort of married or sort of pregnant. The question for the first would be, “Does a marriage bond exist? For the second, “Is there a baby?” It’s a yes or no question, not a scale.
A relationship that is not a marriage may have many positive features, but cannot appropriately include the marital act. Regarding couple #1 above, Christian morality does not say that a partner in parenthood should be abandoned. The tough requirement is that a non-married partner needs to say, “I can’t have sex with you,” even if they’re raising children together.
St. Paul seems to disagree with you at 1 Corinthians 6:16. He quotes the marriage language with reference to a man and a prostitute.
I don't see how marriage is like pregnancy at all in the way you describe. "Does a marriage bond exist?" is a legal question. "Is there a baby?" is a question of fact.
It seems to me that St Paul in I Cor 6:16 quotes the language of marriage to show the profanation of what should be a marital act. A sexual act with a prostitute does not bring about a quasi-marriage, but rather is an abomination precisely because it profanes what is sacred. Yes, the two are literally one flesh, but temporarily and in a manner that is sordid rather than beautiful, showing selfishness rather than love.
“Does a marriage bond exist?” is also a question of fact. Canon law recognizes the existence of the bond, but does not create it. The bond is created by the consent of the couple, but is then a fact that exists beyond their control. I can’t revoke my consent and end my marriage and a change in canon law cannot end it, either.
If a scientist wants to know whether a woman is pregnant, they can, without any information about her past, run various tests or do an ultrasound. That is a fact. There is no such similar test for marriage bonds. That is why pregnancy is not a good analogy.
You say that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple". But in the particular case under discussion, the couple did give their consent. So the bond was created. But canon law says that it was not, because the man did not have the Church's permission to give his consent. Someone who believed in the Church's authority in that matter would not have given their consent, since they would have given it while simultaneously believing that they did not have power to give it. But, in this case, since he does not believe in the Church's authority nor even know that the Church claims this authority, he gave his consent in good faith. Does that not create a marriage bond?
If it does, then they are at least a little bit married. If it does not, then your statement that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple" is incorrect. Perhaps you think that you could restate your statement until it included all the edge cases, but it has been proven by logicians that this is impossible. Language can never be that precise when it is about real life. Law can draw bright lines, but they are just lines on paper. Real life is too complicated.
So it is in St. Paul's example in Corinthians. The question is not why he quotes the language. You are right about the reason. The fact is that he does quote the language. Since he quotes the language, he must have thought it was applicable. If the marriage language is applicable to fornication, then fornication is at least a quasi-marriage.
This is only sordid rather than beautiful. Of course you are right. A sordid quasi-marriage.
"It profanes what is sacred." What is sacred? Marriage. It profanes marriage. It could not profane marriage without being a quasi-marriage.
"Yes, the two are literally one flesh" (this is marriage according to Jesus and Genesis) "but temporarily" No, the possibility of a child proves that no such act can ever be temporary. Even if the child is murdered, the two still have a child.
I know that the marital bond is formed by the consent of the spouses and I know that the Church has the power to regulate the sacraments; I would love to hear a full explanation of how those two premises fit together!
Physical analogies are useful, although limited, in understanding spiritual realities because we can grasp more easily that which is apparent to our senses, even if the spiritual is in a way even more real.
There is no provision in Catholic thought for “a little bit married” any more than a man may be “sort of a priest.” If you had attempted to say Mass the day before your ordination, it would have been a lie. In the same way, a couple engaging in intercourse the day before their wedding is engaged in a lie. Fornication is wrong not because the couple is only “a little bit married,” but because they are not married at all.