I feel like I want to blame God

[Norseman82]

Divorce in "true" Sacramental marriages used to be rare, but that's just because people made do with the finality of their decision...they were married, so they kept their marriages as their "main" life,

​That's a very good point.  There was no divorce among my parent's generation not the generations before them that I am aware of, and as far as I know there was no adultery, beatings, etc.  So if previous generations can do it, what has changed with recent generations?

[Credo in Deum]

​That's a very good point.  There was no divorce among my parent's generation not the generations before them that I am aware of, and as far as I know there was no adultery, beatings, etc.  So if previous generations can do it, what has changed with recent generations?

I personally believe it was the so called "sexual revolution," or as I call it the sexual devolution, which has caused such damage to the sacrament of marriage.  Of course the poor treatment of other sacraments, IMO, will also lead others to treat the sacrament of marriage poorly.

 

Edited April 4, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[puellapaschalis]

I personally believe it was the so called "sexual revolution," or as I call it the sexual devolution, which has caused such damage to the sacrament of marriage.  Of course the poor treatment of other sacraments, IMO, will also lead others to treat the sacrament of marriage poorly.

 

​I have heard an account, which I find convincing myself, that it 'began' much earlier in the 20th Century, when contraception began to be accepted by the Anglican groups as permissible within marriage. Divorcing the procreative and unitive in sex even between man and wife led to people disregarding the procreative and twisting the idea of the unitive, whether the sex was conjugal or fornication. And if sex is just about 'sharing yourself with someone you love and trust' or 'finding something that works for you' then why, indeed, would you get married and take on all the obligations of it?

[AccountDeleted]

I find it remarkable that there is such a 'romantic' picture of the 'good old days' when marriage was perfect and sacramental and men never treated their wives like property or beat them and never, ever committed adultery (of course not) and wives always knew their place in the marriage so of course there were no problems. Either I am reading a different version of history than everyone else here, or there are parallel dimensions and I just happen to live in a different one than those who remember how perfect the past was. 

One of my brothers has been married to his wife for 35 years and they have never cheated on each other and are as mad in love today as they always were - BUT (and here is the big but) they were not married in the Catholic church in a 'sacramental' marriage and my brother is still an agnostic. 

Yet, on the other, hand, as I mentioned, another brother converted, married in the Church in a 'sacramental' marriage and tried for 20 years to make his marriage work, but it fell apart because the 'cradle Catholic' wife kept cheating on him. What made their marriage sacramental? Just the sacrament itself?

There are good marriages and there are bad ones. I don't think the past had a monopoly on good ones, nor does the Catholic Church. Of course, the ideal would be if all Catholic marriages were good, sacramental ones, but that simply isn't true, today or in the past. And the fact that marriages lasted longer in the past was more a societal issue than a religious one. Women were highly stigmatized if they got a divorce. Men not so much so, but it was still a societal no-no. 

I just don't think it's good to idealize the past as if it were some heavenly place where everyone was good and all marriages were ideal and lasted forever. Some were, some still are today - but a lot only lasted because the wife put up with affairs because she feared divorce more than 'the other woman'. The Kennedy women are a good example of this. And King Henry VIII started his own church so he could get a divorce. History is full of bad marriages, past and present.

 

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

1. I find it remarkable that there is such a 'romantic' picture of the 'good old days' when marriage was perfect and sacramental and men never treated their wives like property or beat them and never, ever committed adultery (of course not) and wives always knew their place in the marriage so of course there were no problems. Either I am reading a different version of history than everyone else here, or there are parallel dimensions and I just happen to live in a different one than those who remember how perfect the past was. 

2. One of my brothers has been married to his wife for 35 years and they have never cheated on each other and are as mad in love today as they always were - BUT (and here is the big but) they were not married in the Catholic church in a 'sacramental' marriage and my brother is still an agnostic. 

3. Yet, on the other, hand, as I mentioned, another brother converted, married in the Church in a 'sacramental' marriage and tried for 20 years to make his marriage work, but it fell apart because the 'cradle Catholic' wife kept cheating on him. What made their marriage sacramental? Just the sacrament itself?

4. There are good marriages and there are bad ones. I don't think the past had a monopoly on good ones, nor does the Catholic Church. Of course, the ideal would be if all Catholic marriages were good, sacramental ones, but that simply isn't true, today or in the past. And the fact that marriages lasted longer in the past was more a societal issue than a religious one. Women were highly stigmatized if they got a divorce. Men not so much so, but it was still a societal no-no. 

5. I just don't think it's good to idealize the past as if it were some heavenly place where everyone was good and all marriages were ideal and lasted forever. Some were, some still are today - but a lot only lasted because the wife put up with affairs because she feared divorce more than 'the other woman'. The Kennedy women are a good example of this. And King Henry VIII started his own church so he could get a divorce. History is full of bad marriages, past and present.

 

 

 

 

1. Or you're reading the posts incorrectly since no one is saying the past was free of crappy marriges.  What is being said is that society's view of marriage and divorce was better than it is nowadays, and this view is what would have caused couples to take marriages more seriously and to hold marriage in a higher light and work harder to avoid divorce.

 

2. God supplies graces to non-Catholics who live His law to the best of their natural abilities when they are outside of His Church through ignorance.  We also know that people staying together does not always mean they have a good marriage.  There are plenty of marriages that never make it to divorce for the sake of convieniance.

 

3. Their marriage was made sacramental because it was done by Holy Mother Church who has been given, by Jesus Chrsit, the authority to bless it in His Name.  This is the highest dignity a marriage can recive.  It is the dignity which the couple recived when Chrsit was personally present at the marriage in Cana.  Would you ever ask the question about that marriage as you did regarding your brothers? You might as well have said, "pfft what made the marriage in Cana special above all the other marriages?  Was it really just because of Christ's presence with all of His Apostles and Mother?" Yes! It is really just because of that since it was God Himself who was there and who presided over the ceremony.

 

4. No one is claiming the past had a monopoly on good marriages.  Also ALL Catholic marriages are sacramental unless the marriage can be proven otherwise.  Just becuse a catholic marriage ended in divorce does not mean it was not sacramental. There are plenty of valid sacramental marriages which have been discarded through divorce and where Catholics have remarried and are now in adultery.  

Society in the past was more religious than it is now so I don't see how it wasn't a religious one.  Where do you think the societal view came from which treated divorce like lepresey?  It wasn't from a spirit of atheism and birth control which is so prevalent in society nowadays.

 

5.Yes we understand this Nunsense.  You're not the only one with common sense around these parts.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[AccountDeleted]

 

1. Or you're reading the posts incorrectly since no one is saying the past was free of crappy marriges.  What is being said is that society's view of marriage and divorce was better than it is nowadays, and this view is what would have caused couples to take marriages more seriously and to hold marriage in a higher light and work harder to avoid divorce.

 

2. God supplies graces to non-Catholics who live His law to the best of their natural abilities when they are outside of His Church through ignorance.  We also know that people staying together does not always mean they have a good marriage.  There are plenty of marriages that never make it to divorce for the sake of convieniance.

 

3. Their marriage was made sacramental because it was done by Holy Mother Church who has been given, by Jesus Chrsit, the authority to bless it in His Name.  This is the highest dignity a marriage can recive.  It is the dignity which the couple recived when Chrsit was personally present at the marriage in Cana.  Would you ever ask the question about that marriage as you did regarding your brothers? You might as well have said, "pfft what made the marriage in Cana special above all the other marriages?  Was it really just because of Christ's presence with all of His Apostles and Mother?" Yes! It is really just because of that since it was God Himself who was there and who presided over the ceremony.

 

4. No one is claiming the past had a monopoly on good marriages.  Also ALL Catholic marriages are sacramental unless the marriage can be proven otherwise.  Just becuse a catholic marriage ended in divorce does not mean it was not sacramental. There are plenty of valid sacramental marriages which have been discarded through divorce and where Catholics have remarried and are now in adultery.  

Society in the past was more religious than it is now so I don't see how it wasn't a religious one.  Where do you think the societal view came from which treated divorce like lepresey?  It wasn't from a spirit of atheism and birth control which is so prevalent in society nowadays.

 

5.Yes we understand this Nunsense.  You're not the only one with common sense around this parts.

 

 

​You finally got the formatting right Credo. Second time must be a charm.Good for you!   

[Maggyie]

It should be noted that the sacrament of marriage is the only one NOT dispensed by the church. The couple are the ministers of the sacrament. The priest merely witnesses what the man and wife confect together.

Therefore it is not a question of the Church's failure to dispense the sacrament properly but whether Christians are less and less able to properly dispense the sacrament to each other. Unfortunately I'm afraid in our culture, this is true. 

Obviously it is the Church's role to fix the catechesis problem. But it is not the same as a bunch of priests failing to baptize properly. Nor does it require we doubt the Church's "power" to acknowledge the reality of the situation. 

[Credo in Deum]

 

 

​You finally got the formatting right Credo. Second time must be a charm.Good for you!   

 

[AccountDeleted]

 

​

[Maggyie]

 

3. Their marriage was made sacramental because it was done by Holy Mother Church who has been given, by Jesus Chrsit, the authority to bless it in His Name.  This is the highest dignity a marriage can recive.  It is the dignity which the couple recived when Chrsit was personally present at the marriage in Cana.  Would you ever ask the question about that marriage as you did regarding your brothers? 

That's the thing, marriages are not "done" by the Church, the Church has no ability to contract a marriage whether sacramental or not. Only the bride and groom "do" the sacrament. The Church merely witnesses what they have done.

There is a classic Catholic book called "The Betrothed" by Manzoni which illustrates the point. The priest refuses to marry a young couple because of an edict against weddings that an evil nobleman has laid down. However all they must do is declare themselves married in the presence of the priest, and so they come up with a plan to sneak into Fr's house and surprise him before he can run away to avoid hearing their words. Much hijinx ensue. 

[AccountDeleted]

That's the thing, marriages are not "done" by the Church, the Church has no ability to contract a marriage whether sacramental or not. Only the bride and groom "do" the sacrament. The Church merely witnesses what they have done.

There is a classic Catholic book called "The Betrothed" by Manzoni which illustrates the point. The priest refuses to marry a young couple because of an edict against weddings that an evil nobleman has laid down. However all they must do is declare themselves married in the presence of the priest, and so they come up with a plan to sneak into Fr's house and surprise him before he can run away to avoid hearing their words. Much hijinx ensue. 

​Yes, this is true, the couple make their vows and the priest witnesses them. BTW I like the sound of that book - a real hoot!  Some people might have missed the entire point of my post or my question about which marriage was sacramental, but that's ok, others might get it. 

[Maggyie]

I don't see how the idea that most if not all marriages that end in divorce aren't marriages would not logically lead to profound doubt in the Church's ability to dispense the sacrament of marriage, as well as the power of Christ working through His bride. And when did she begin to fail, when did she begin to so rarely dispense this sacrament? In our life time? The last 50 years? How far back can we take the Church's failure? Can it go back to the beginning of Christ mistrity on the Earth? What would be the point in Him condemning divorce if most divorces prove there was never really a marriage in the first place? Also, if the Church fails the vast majority of the time, or so rarely dispenses this sacrament does it not bring doubt also in her ability to dispense other sacraments? Of course, why not?

Also how can it be adultery if there was never a marriage in the first place? There are so many questions that come to mind when we start to doubt the Church's ability to do her duties.

I sound like a broken record, but it's so important in this discussion to get the sacramental theology correct. The church doesn't dispense the marriage sacrament. This is a very common misconception since she dispenses all others! It does not in any way raise doubts about other sacraments, because again, it is dispensed by 2 laymen who have hopefully been properly catechized about marriage so that they can do it correctly. Too often this is not the case  

The other sacraments are dispensed at the hands of professional clergymen who have masters degrees in theology, the graces that accompany ordination, and if they are priests have years of education on top of that. 

[Nihil Obstat]

While the couple are ministers I'd the sacrament, the sacrament itself cannot take place separate from the Church itself, and specifically the priests who are responsible for their preparation. I think it would be a red herring to imply that different ministers makes crapshoot validity any more acceptable.

[Credo in Deum]

 

That's the thing, marriages are not "done" by the Church, the Church has no ability to contract a marriage whether sacramental or not. Only the bride and groom "do" the sacrament. The Church merely witnesses what they have done.

There is a classic Catholic book called "The Betrothed" by Manzoni which illustrates the point. The priest refuses to marry a young couple because of an edict against weddings that an evil nobleman has laid down. However all they must do is declare themselves married in the presence of the priest, and so they come up with a plan to sneak into Fr's house and surprise him before he can run away to avoid hearing their words. Much hijinx ensue. 

Thank you for the clarification and correction Maggyie.  It's a little bit more complicated than just that.  

An unbaptized man and woman can enter into a valid natural marriage which is not sacramental.   

A baptized man and woman who are not Catholic can enter into a sacramental marriage by virtue of their baptism.

A baptized Catholic man and woman must be married in the Church in the presence of a priest and two witnesses in order for it to be a valid sacramental marriage.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

​Yes, this is true, the couple make their vows and the priest witnesses them. BTW I like the sound of that book - a real hoot!  Some people might have missed the entire point of my post or my question about which marriage was sacramental, but that's ok, others might get it. 

Some might miss the point entirely because you did not state whether or not your agnostic brother has been baptized.