marriage of non practicing Catholics

[Sponsa-Christi]

7 hours ago, Kevin said:

The bar isn't "high", rather, it's a completely arbitrary. It's like an obstacle course where the judges change the rules whenever they feel like on a whim---like, they see a guy with a haircut they don't like, so they disqualify him. He asks, what does my hair have to do with this obstacle course? And then he notices another guy with the same haircut as him doesn't get disqualified---he was born and raised with that kind of haircut, but you we know you were born and raised with a normal haircut, so your required to run this race with that haircut. And again he asks, what on Earth does my haircut have to do with running an obstacle course? And he gets the same answer.

I can appreciate where it might feel arbitrary to someone without an insider's view of the process (and perhaps you're just needing a place to vent your feelings, in which case technical explanations won't be very helpful). But the criteria of what makes a valid marriage truly is not arbitrary. It's possibly that individual tribunals might have abused some of the provisions of the law, but that doesn't mean the Church officially endorses this.

Also, to try to put some things in perspective...if a marriage is invalid, it's invalid for a specific reason. This reason is called a "ground." Sometimes the grounds for a marriage trial aren't immediately obvious to tribunal staff, so they have to ask a lot of general questions to get a sense of why specifically the marriage was invalid. Because of this, a person going through the process might have to answer a lot of questions that are irrelevant to their own particular case. For example, someone petitioning for a declaration of nullity because they felt forced into a marriage might wind up being asked questions about possible drug or alcohol abuse, because substance abuse can support an argument on a completely different ground. 

Skilled tribunal staff should be able to determine the relevant grounds fairly quickly, and should therefore be able to avoid asking unnecessary uncomfortable questions. But if this doesn't always happen, it means we're dealing with an imperfect situation, not that the Church herself is being arbitrary. 

[Lilllabettt]

31 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

 

Can someone please explain to me if I'm right? 

You are correct. You are kind of being trolled.

[Sponsa-Christi]

4 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

mmmm I think you underestimate how few marriages meet the above criteria. 

How many people today really believe that divorce and remarriage are not options for couples that "fall out of love?"  I would venture to say that even among Christians the vast majority do not believe marriage is life-long as the Church understands it.

It seems plain on its face that people who follow the form solely out of obligation to family are far more likely to enter invalid marriages than those that follow the form out of personal respect for and devotion to the Church's teaching.  

You can actually be unclear on a theoretical level on the Church's teachings on divorce and have a valid marriage, as long as you yourself intend to have a life-long union when you make your wedding vows. E.g., on your wedding day, you can be thinking: "Divorce and remarriage is okay for most people, but my beloved and I will be together forever because our love is so special!" and still have a valid marriage. 

During a Catholic wedding, the couple explicitly promise to have a life-long union, and the Church presumes that people actually mean what they say when they make promises like this. For this to be a ground for nullity, you would have to prove that either you were somehow totally unaware of what the Church taught in this regard (which would be hard to argue under most non-extreme circumstances), or else that you were consciously and deliberately lying when you pronounced your wedding vows. 

I would imagine, also, that most people who bother to get married at all these days do so because they like the idea of a permanent union and do in fact intend it in some basic way at the time of their wedding. 

[Lilllabettt]

11 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

You can actually be unclear on a theoretical level on the Church's teachings on divorce and have a valid marriage, as long as you yourself intend to have a life-long union when you make your wedding vows. E.g., on your wedding day, you can be thinking: "Divorce and remarriage is okay for most people, but my beloved and I will be together forever because our love is so special!" and still have a valid marriage.

[...]

I would imagine, also, that most people who bother to get married at all these days do so because they like the idea of a permanent union and do in fact intend it in some basic way at the time of their wedding. 

I disagree.

I think the vast majority of people believe, when they get married, both that there is a reasonable possibility their relationship will not work "forever," and that in the case it does not, they can divorce. 

I have been a bridesmaid many times and nearly always hear some version of this during preparations for the wedding:

"Are you nervous?"

"Maybe a little."

"But you're saying 'I do.' People change you know? What if he changes into someone you don't love anymore? People grow apart."

"That's true, but there's always divorce." 

It's very common for unchurched people to accept the possibility that divorce may end their relationship at some point. Very, very common for unchurched people to think marriage is a promise to be exclusive until one partner needs a divorce.  

There are a whole bunch of reasons the Church has to give individuals the benefit of the doubt in presuming they have a valid marriage. But I think on a statistical level its readily apparent how rare valid marriage is in this day and age. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 minute ago, Lilllabettt said:

I disagree.

I think the vast majority of people believe, when they get married, both that there is a reasonable possibility their relationship will not work "forever," and that in the case it does not, they can divorce. 

I have been a bridesmaid many times and nearly always hear some version of this during preparations for the wedding:

"Are you nervous?"

"Maybe a little."

"But you're saying 'I do.' People change you know? What if he changes into someone you don't love anymore? People grow apart."

"That's true, but there's always divorce." 

It's very common for unchurched people to accept the possibility that divorce may end their relationship at some point. Very, very common for unchurched people to think marriage is a promise to be exclusive until one partner needs a divorce.  

There are a whole bunch of reasons the Church has to give individuals the benefit of the doubt in presuming they have a valid marriage. But I think on a statistical level its readily apparent how rare valid marriage is in this day and age. 

To be fair, neither of us can know what "the vast majority of people believe," since neither of us has taken a comprehensive survey! We're both speaking from our own experiences, with the limitations that implies. 

In my own experience, though, I have known a number of lapsed Catholics who chose to marry only civilly, who nevertheless intended to marry for life. So this is a situation that can and does happen. 

Also, nervous mumblings on a wedding day aren't always the same thing as a stated intention or deeply-held belief. I can imagine a situation where bride might have muttered "there's always divorce..." just to get a chatty friend to stop talking! (Not accusing you of being that chatty friend, though!) That being said, though, if you were a first-hand witness to that, you would be a really good witness to call upon in case (God forbid) the bride ever did petition for a declaration of nullity. 

[Lilllabettt]

Just now, Sponsa-Christi said:

To be fair, neither of us can know what "the vast majority of people believe," since neither of us has taken a comprehensive survey! We're both speaking from our own experiences, with the limitations that implies. 

In my own experience, though, I have known a number of lapsed Catholics who chose to marry only civilly, who nevertheless intended to marry for life. So this is a situation that can and does happen. 

Also, nervous mumblings on a wedding day aren't always the same thing as a stated intention or deeply-held belief. I can imagine a situation where bride might have muttered "there's always divorce..." just to get a chatty friend to stop talking! (Not accusing you of being that chatty friend, though!) That being said, though, if you were a first-hand witness to that, you would be a really good witness to call upon in case (God forbid) the bride ever did petition for a declaration of nullity. 

 I am not that person who agrees to be a bridesmaid and then spends the next year sighing loudly at the bride-to-be about why she shouldn't get married.

That said -- these are not nervous wedding-day mumblings. I have heard them in different settings from brides-to-be and grooms-to-be, faithful Catholic, fallen away Catholic,  and not Catholic.  I have heard them from people in relationships as they talk about the possibility of marriage and whether marriage is for them. These words reflect a deeply ingrained cultural orientation towards divorce and remarriage as something that is permissible if the situation warrants it. The secular world looks at this thinking as a sign of mature reflection and an indication that one has realistic expectations for marriage and relationships. 

Of course it can and does happen that secular people today are idealistic and counter-cultural enough to really believe in marriage for life, for their own relationship at least.  It is rare. Sad to say, believing that your marriage is for life, come what may, is a rather high bar for the modern world. 

 

[Kevin]

3 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I feel like you are posting here to debate with me and I'm making this thread to seek help not to debate anyone. No it doesn't mean the Church is wrong on non infallible issues because the Church has authority to make canon law. My friends wedding would depend on her disposition and intent. I don't know that. I was asking something else. 

Neither does it mean the Church is right. If the Church had to be right on such a mater, it would be an infallible teaching, but it isn't. As we both know, the requirements for the Catholic form for baptized Catholics can and has changed. So it may in fact be that the rule will change and he requirement dropped before your friends get married. Or maybe not. It all depends on a choice that might be right or wrong.

But even if I am bitter and exaggerating, there is no question in my mind that your friend's marriage would be invalid--that is, if it ended, the Church would pretty easily annul it--because there was no real intent on their part to remain Catholic. You already know the answer to this question---either your friend converts back to the Church and does everything to get right with the Church, which includes going to confession, or her marriage is invalid because it was performed under false pretenses.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Kevin I think the way it works is being an unpracticing Catholic doesn't in itself invalidate a marriage in the Church but intent to divorce / not have kids does. I cant say how it is with my friend. Its different if a Catholic gets a non Catholic wedding with no permission or a priest there - that's not valid for sure. However for the first case the Sacraments might be received in sin which is bad. And theres a chance of it being invalid too if the intent is wrong.

Anyway I'll ask my priest about that to check if I'm right. Thank you to everyone who replied. This thread is causing me some anxiety and I think I'll just ask my priest. Thank you to the people who answered my question. Kevin I think you are trying to interpret Church teaching on your own and making conclusions that the Church doesn't make. I'd recommend talking to a priest I will. But some who replied here have studied canon law and their conclusion is different. I think you are relying on a personal understanding of the Church teachings and that can be incorrect for anyone. Also just because something is not infallible doesn't make it wrong. 

Edited December 21, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maggyie]

11 hours ago, Papist said:

If a Catholic friend of yours told you he/she does not attend Mass intentionally. Then one day attends with you, would you instruct that he/she ought to refrain from receiving Communion?  Why?

I would not, because I don't know in the interim if they went to confession, if they had a vision of Jesus and just experienced perfect contrition, if what they told me wasn't the whole story (maybe they said they intentionally missed but there are mitigating circumstances etc). Nor is it appropriate to interrogate someone on whether any of the above has taken place.

When attending Mass of any kind including wedding Masses, I am not the Holy Communion police for the other faithful. Frankly laity are rarely qualified to perform that task since they don't have any spiritual authority over others' souls. If one has "feels" about whether others are in the state of grace, one must ascribe these to pride or scruples and squelch them. 

Now definitely it's important to make sure people are instructed in general about Holy Communion and the need for proper disposition. But the only person qualified to tell someone they specifically can't receive Holy Communion due to unworthiness is their pastor, spiritual director, bishop etc. it ain't me, and it ain't MLF or any of us here. 

[Kevin]

2 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Kevin I think the way it works is being an unpracticing Catholic doesn't in itself invalidate a marriage in the Church but intent to divorce / not have kids does. I cant say how it is with my friend. Its different if a Catholic gets a non Catholic wedding with no permission or a priest there - that's not valid for sure. However for the first case the Sacraments might be received in sin which is bad. And theres a chance of it being invalid too if the intent is wrong.

It really isn't different. If the heart of the person getting married is much that they do not agree with the Church, then a Priest should not consent to marry them under the Catholic form in the first place. I'm not speaking from bitterness here. This seems to me pretty cut and dry.

[MarysLittleFlower]

If they don't have the right intentions and disagree with the Church position on marriage that could make it invalid and the priest might not marry them. If my friend ever gets engaged then I'd probably suggest for her to speak to my priest. I also pray for her conversion. What I got confused about is the part you said about not being her friend. We can be a friend yet not support sinful actions or incorrect views. Even if we don't attend a wedding we could still intend to be a friend. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Kevin]

45 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

If they don't have the right intentions and disagree with the Church position on marriage that could make it invalid and the priest might not marry them. If my friend ever gets engaged then I'd probably suggest for her to speak to my priest. I also pray for her conversion. What I got confused about is the part you said about not being her friend. We can be a friend yet not support sinful actions or incorrect views. Even if we don't attend a wedding we could still intend to be a friend. 

You seem to be of a party with this fellow: you believe that attending an invalid marriage (invalid according to the Church perfect and also changeable rules) would lead to a scandal, because people who saw you at that wedding would be confused about whether or not you approved of their marriage. I'm telling you, if that's what you believe, why don't you stop acting by half-measures and cut this friend out of your life to avoid scandalizing people, because there's certainly a possibility it will.

 

[Kevin]

Okay, I'm getting too wrapped up and I want to not be bothered by the thought of this thread. So, I'll say, obviously you shouldn't stop being friends with your friend. I have been uncharitable, and I'm sorry for that. Though I think it is true that you're friends marriage, were it to take place would be invalid.

[Papist]

11 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I would not, because I don't know in the interim if they went to confession, if they had a vision of Jesus and just experienced perfect contrition, if what they told me wasn't the whole story (maybe they said they intentionally missed but there are mitigating circumstances etc). Nor is it appropriate to interrogate someone on whether any of the above has taken place.

When attending Mass of any kind including wedding Masses, I am not the Holy Communion police for the other faithful. Frankly laity are rarely qualified to perform that task since they don't have any spiritual authority over others' souls. If one has "feels" about whether others are in the state of grace, one must ascribe these to pride or scruples and squelch them. 

Now definitely it's important to make sure people are instructed in general about Holy Communion and the need for proper disposition. But the only person qualified to tell someone they specifically can't receive Holy Communion due to unworthiness is their pastor, spiritual director, bishop etc. it ain't me, and it ain't MLF or any of us here. 

It is not about being prideful or holier than thou. It is about protecting the Eucharist and the person receiving.  You are adding hypothetical ifs into the situation. I believe differently. If I am aware of one's actions, I need to act accordingly to what I know, not what maybe, might be. etc.  I assume that people I do not know that receive communion are receiving worthily, as the Church does.  However, if I know my sister does not attend Sunday Mass and then attends Christmas Mass with me, I am protecting the Eucharist and protecting and instructing her when I explain the situation (1 Corinthians 11:27). Of course, I do not say, Hey sis you're a wretched sinner that never goes to Mass and if you receive the Eucharist without going to confession then you are going to hell. No, I confirm what I believe I know is true, and then kindly explain the Church's teaching. It is still her choice to receive or not. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Papist

[MarysLittleFlower]

11 hours ago, Kevin said:

You seem to be of a party with this fellow: you believe that attending an invalid marriage (invalid according to the Church perfect and also changeable rules) would lead to a scandal, because people who saw you at that wedding would be confused about whether or not you approved of their marriage. I'm telling you, if that's what you believe, why don't you stop acting by half-measures and cut this friend out of your life to avoid scandalizing people, because there's certainly a possibility it will.

 

Yes I believe we shouldn't attend an invalid marriage. No I don't know if my friends wedding would be invalid: I'll ask my priest. It depends on her intent because even being in sin doesnt invalidate a Sacrament. No it doesn't mean I have to stop being friends with her even IF I can't go to the wedding. Its not "half measures". Im sorry but this will be my final reply here. I just can't participate in this debate anymore - I have asked twice for no debates because I came here to get help. If you have a difficulty with the Church please speak to a priest who is trained in canon law. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower