Catholic marrying a non-Catholic

[scardella]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 20 2005, 09:15 AM'] Okay Perhaps you would prefer this, Non Sacramental marriages can be disolved by the Church without prejudice to the persons involved. Sacramental Marriages cannot be desolved accept by death, THe Church holds people accountable to promises they make in a non Sacramental marriage which would meet the requirments for a sacramental marriage if the people involved where Catholic. However as these promises can be desolved by the Church they are not one the same level as Promises made by Catholics. [/quote]
I think that's called the Pauline privelege... It doesn't disprove my point. Plus, it still has to go through an annulment, I believe. I'd have to check my notes (but I don't think I can get to it until Monday).

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 20 2005, 08:07 AM'] Note: yes it does.   Non sacramental Marriages are contracts, nothing more.  they are immoral and evil for a Christian to enter into, and offer no Grace to the non- Christian.  A non sacramental marriage is of no concequence and the obligations to it are only those agreed to in the contract itself. If non- sacramental marriages  are valid then polygamy, incestous unions, forced marriages, child marriage, all of those then are indeed Valid. Does anyone care to agrue that position.[/quote]
The error in reasoning seems to be that you assume Scardella's statement is reflexive. Scardella said [quote] Just because a marriage isn't sacramental, that doesn't mean it's invalid.[/quote] He didn't say that all non sacramental marriages were valid. That means that some non sacramental marriages could be valid while others, such as the ones you listed, aren't.

Edited May 21, 2005 by MissScripture

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 20 2005, 12:25 PM'] So Don John, If a non-Catholic (and thereby "non-sacramentally" married) husband and wife, enter into the Church, do they have to get married again? Would they be "living in sin"? Can one of them decide to to take up with another woman (man) and marry him (her) on the grounds that he (she) was "never validly married"? After all, according to you "non-sacramental marriages" are no more valid than incestuous unions and the like! Sounds phishy! [/quote]
If 2 Christians who are baptised wanted to enter the Church after being married in the name of the trinity then they are Sacramentaly married. If one of them was not baptrised or both were not baptised then they could get a divorce have the marriage disolved by the Church and take up with new people. Yes, thats the answer, non sacramental marriages can be desolved and new marriages can be formed even sacramental ones. And my point was if all nonsacramental marriages are " valid then incestousmarriages child marriages , and forced marriages are also valid as these qualities alll make a marriage non sacramental. It isn't Phishy itis Church teaching, perhaps you should do some research before you start making accusations about what is an isn't Phishy as you are obviousl ignorant of Church Doctrine on the matter of marriage.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 20 2005, 01:19 PM'] I think that's called the Pauline privelege... It doesn't disprove my point. Plus, it still has to go through an annulment, I believe. I'd have to check my notes (but I don't think I can get to it until Monday). [/quote]
No if they where not baptised no annulment is needed, just dissolution of the marraige, there is no statment that the marriage didn't happen " as an annulment" the non sacramental marriage is simply dissolved, destroyed, put aside or however else you want to say it.

[scardella]

This is from my notes, verbatim, from Christian Marriage, Spring '02, by Prof. Don Asci, STD:
[quote] -a valid marriage possesses an intrinsic indissolubility, whether Christian
  or non-Christian couple
-a valid, consummated, and sacramental marriage has absolute indissolubility
  -no power other than death
  -if not valid, can have an annulment
  -not consummated, "Petrine privilege", still possesses intrinsic
  -divine power invested in pope can dissolve this for just reasons
  -invoked usually when one wanted to enter religious life
  -Peter has keys to kingdom
  -also happens with arranged marriage
  -nonsacramental marriage, "Pauline privelege"
  -if have a pagan marriage, and 1 becomes Christian; if Pagan spouse
    poses threat, hostile to Christianity, etc. then can be dissolved
[/quote]

[quote]-marriage as a sacrament
-[as a] "s[acrament" of] Creation - JPII - "Primordial Sacrament"
  -a sign which announces and realizes a mystery
  -a plan which unfolds in history -> election in Christ
  -helps us to understand that history
  -a sign of God's love for humanity
-[as a] "S[acrament]" redemption
  -fully revealed and accomplished in Christ
  -new law - sign of grace instituted by Christ
  -seven sacraments announce and accomplish that mystery in powerful way
  -each has an accomplishment in a unique way

...

-redemption restores the efficacy of marriage because it is a remedy of
  concupiscence
  -marriage is redeemed when man and woman are redeemed
-key difference between a sacramental and nonsacramental is the baptism of
  the spouses
  -it is the baptism, not state of grace that allows the sacramentality of
    marriage
  -for a Christian couple, it is not possible to have just a natural
    marriage
[/quote]

This is contrasted w/ invalidity here:

[quote]
-annulment/invalidity
  -annulment - there never was a valid marriage between the two people,
  either because of some impediment or flaw in the marriage consent
  -it is not the dissolution of a marriage
  -can only be declared by ecclesiastical authority
...
  -must understand the consent in order to understand the covenant
...
  -reasons that can invalidate a marriage:
  -impediments
    -age-must be at least male 16, female 14; strongly dissuades
    until it is legal to be married
    -impotence-perpetual and antecedent on either person, cannot be
    cured or treated; inability to have sexual intercourse;
    sterility is NOT an impediment
    -existing bond of marriage-case even if it is not consummated
    -Holy Orders/vows - can be dispensed, all rights
    -disparity cult - catholic cannot marry a non-christian unless
    have a dispensation
    -mixed marriage - catholic w/ noncatholic; needs permission
    -abduction/detention - cannot abduct fiancee; abducted party
    must be returned to safe place before marriage
    -crime - cannot kill spouse w/ view to marry another in which
    the other is an accomplice or adultery
    -consanguinity - cannot marry of bloodline, for good of child
    -affinity - legal relationship between persons for same reason
    -spiritual relationship - cannot marry confirmation sponsor or
    godparent; can be dispensed
  -flaws in the consent
    -Canon Law 1095
    -lack sufficient reason - mentally disabled
    -doesn't understand what marriage is
    -those who are unable to assume the responsibilities
    -give consent outside of canonical form
    -marry in presence of priest, deacon, or bishop, and w/ at
      least two witnesses
    -consent given out of force or fear
    -deception regarding significant quality of the person regarding
    marriage
      -ex. wealth, homosexual tendencies
    -intend something other than marriage, if intend
    -don't intend to be for life, children, etc.
    -matrimonial consent -anyone able to make an act of the will is
    able to contract marriage
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 21 2005, 12:17 PM'] If 2 Christians who are baptised wanted to enter the Church after being married in the name of the trinity then they are Sacramentaly married. If one of them was not baptrised or both were not baptised then they could get a divorce have the marriage disolved by the Church and take up with new people. Yes, thats the answer, non sacramental marriages can be desolved and new marriages can be formed even sacramental ones. And my point was if all nonsacramental marriages are " valid then incestousmarriages child marriages , and forced marriages are also valid as these qualities alll make a marriage non sacramental. It isn't Phishy itis Church teaching, perhaps you should do some research before you start making accusations about what is an isn't Phishy as you are obviousl ignorant of Church Doctrine on the matter of marriage. [/quote]
Why then did Christ preach against divorce? After all, at this time there were not yet any sacramental marriages, and any marriages at this time had no more validity than incestuous unions according to you.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 23 2005, 07:06 PM'] Why then did Christ preach against divorce? After all, at this time there were not yet any sacramental marriages, and any marriages at this time had no more validity than incestuous unions according to you. [/quote]
I said that if non sacramental marriages where valid then incestous unions, forced marriages and child marriage which are all reasons a marriage can be non sacramental where valid as well, and technicaly they are, however they can be desolved, destroyed, obliterated, by the Authority of Rome as any other non sacramental marriage can. This is because while marriage can be contracted non sacramentally it is not Marriage in the Christian sense, no union is there beyond the physical mingling of flesh, no Grace is given, no joining by God. It is just a contract a Contractthatthe Church can abrogate at any time.

As for Christ preaching agianst divorce I would argue that he is indeed instituting it as a Sacrament at that time, by His own authority creating a new binding Marraige which cannot be assundered by a mear writ of divorce. However that form of marriage can only be made by those who are members of his Church.
Further there is no reason that Christ would not preach agianst divorce even in a non Sacramental marriage for even in a state of nature marriage is good, not evil. So it is only fitting that he would want to support the good.

[Don John of Austria]

oh I forgot to mention that additionally Marriage at that time was under The Law which while not grace giving ( like a Sacrament) was still Authoritive and had to be addressed by Christ.

[scardella]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 23 2005, 07:43 PM'] I said that if non sacramental marriages where valid then incestous unions, forced marriages and child marriage which are all reasons a marriage can be non sacramental where valid as well, and technicaly they are, however they can be desolved, destroyed, obliterated, by the Authority of Rome as any other non sacramental marriage can. [/quote]
Wrong, see my notes above. The validity of a marriage is separate from its sacramentality. You're right that incestuous unions, forced marriages and child marriages are invalid because they either have an impediment (incestuous or child marriages) or do not have full and free consent of the will. However, it is quite possible to have full and free consent of the will without impediments to marriage, without both spouses being Christian. Furthermore, for the Church to invoke the Pauline privelege, there must be a grave reason for doing so. Your statement implies that it can blow a nonsacramental marriage out of the water for a song and a dance.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 24 2005, 08:31 AM'] Wrong, see my notes above. The validity of a marriage is separate from its sacramentality. You're right that incestuous unions, forced marriages and child marriages are invalid because they either have an impediment (incestuous or child marriages) or do not have full and free consent of the will. However, it is quite possible to have full and free consent of the will without impediments to marriage, without both spouses being Christian. Furthermore, for the Church to invoke the Pauline privelege, there must be a grave reason for doing so. Your statement implies that it can blow a nonsacramental marriage out of the water for a song and a dance. [/quote]
It can there need be no grave reason for the envokation of Pauline privlige. History is rife with the use of this authority for the desolution of marriage with little reason beyond the wish for someone to get married in the Catholic Church. THe most Famous modern example of this was Earnest Hemingway but it has traditionally not been uncommon. There is no getting around it, inpedements to marriage do not matter in non sacramental marriages or of course there would be none because not being baptised is in and of itself an impediment I allready posted the relevent canon law showing that). Now if a non Christian is ever capable of giving full and free concent of the will is another matter entirely( I would argue that this is impossible that there is no truely free will while one is enslaved by Origional Sin) Regardless the envocation of Pauline Privlige can be aand ussually has been invoked for no more reason than to allow a convert to marry.

[scardella]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 24 2005, 08:41 AM'] There is no getting around it, inpedements to marriage do not matter in non sacramental marriages or of course there would be none because not being baptised is in and of itself an impediment I allready posted the relevent canon law showing that). Now if a non Christian is ever capable of giving full and free concent of the will is another matter entirely( I would argue that this is impossible that there is no truely free will while one is enslaved by Origional Sin) Regardless the envocation of Pauline Privlige can be aand ussually has been invoked for no more reason than to allow a convert to marry. [/quote]
1. Said impediment, if dispensed, means that the marriage IS valid. Otherwise a dispensation is useless and irrelevant. The canon law also only states that it is an impediment between a Catholic and a non-Christian. It does not claim that it is an impediment for 2 non-Christians. I was not limiting the scope of my discussion of non-sacramental marriages to mixed marriages.

2. If a non-Christian was not capable of giving full and free consent, then we would not have an apostolic Church. God does not limit grace to Christians, or else there would be no converts. It would be a chicken or the egg scenario. They wouldn't be able to freely consent to Baptism, so the Baptism would be invalid (unless in the case of infant baptism, where the consent is from the godparents.)

3. I'd have to double check on the Pauline privelege stuff, but from my limited knowledge, that sounds like an abuse of it, similar to the current abuse of annulment.

[the lumberjack]

wow, I've noticed that A LOT of what Don John has posted has been either out of Canon Law...passing what Christ himself said in regards to marriage. or what was said in Corinthians about a Christian marrying a nonChristian.

funny.

but not funny haha.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 24 2005, 10:23 AM'] 1. Said impediment, if dispensed, means that the marriage IS valid. Otherwise a dispensation is useless and irrelevant. The canon law also only states that it is an impediment between a Catholic and a non-Christian. It does not claim that it is an impediment for 2 non-Christians. I was not limiting the scope of my discussion of non-sacramental marriages to mixed marriages.

2. If a non-Christian was not capable of giving full and free consent, then we would not have an apostolic Church. God does not limit grace to Christians, or else there would be no converts. It would be a chicken or the egg scenario. They wouldn't be able to freely consent to Baptism, so the Baptism would be invalid (unless in the case of infant baptism, where the consent is from the godparents.)

3. I'd have to double check on the Pauline privelege stuff, but from my limited knowledge, that sounds like an abuse of it, similar to the current abuse of annulment. [/quote]
[quote]1. Said impediment, if dispensed, means that the marriage IS valid.  Otherwise a dispensation is useless and irrelevant.  The canon law also only states that it is an impediment between a Catholic and a non-Christian.  It does not claim that it is an impediment for 2 non-Christians.  I was not limiting the scope of my discussion of non-sacramental marriages to mixed marriages.  [/quote]

Ah but there is the problem, a despensation is only needed for things that imped the validity of the Marriage, of course the non Christian needs no dispensation, the non Christian is not responsable for following the marriage laws of the Church however they are incapable of receaving grace from the marriage and there marriage exist only until such time as the Church has deemed it prudent to destroy it. This is not marriage in any Christian sense of the term, because Christian marriage [i][b]is[/b][/i] Sacramental and enforced by God.


[quote]
2. If a non-Christian was not capable of giving full and free consent, then we would not have an apostolic Church.  God does not limit grace to Christians, or else there would be no converts.  It would be a chicken or the egg scenario.  They wouldn't be able to freely consent to Baptism, so the Baptism would be invalid (unless in the case of infant baptism, where the consent is from the godparents.)[/quote]

I disagree completly, Baptisms are not invalid because the Chioce was not a free choice. Just because one makes a Chioce does not make it a free choice, even coherced baptisms are indeed valid baptisms, so long as the choice was made by the recipient ( this is differant than a forced baptism), this was all discussed and established in the 9th century. Regardless of this, The gift of Faith is freely offered to all and it is avialable to be accepted by all, but that acceptance is not completly free, because we are all slaves to sin until our baptism. I didn't say that people could not Choose but that a free choice is impossible for those who are unbaptised.


3[quote].  I'd have to double check on the Pauline privelege stuff, but from my limited knowledge, that sounds like an abuse of it, similar to the current abuse of annulment.[/quote]


Boy I sue hope not that would mean virtually every pope for a thousand years has been " abusing their Power"

[scardella]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 24 2005, 02:45 PM']

Ah but there is the problem, a despensation is only needed for things that imped the validity of the Marriage, of course the non Christian needs no dispensation, the non Christian is not responsable for following the marriage laws of the Church however they are incapable of receaving grace from the marriage and there marriage exist only until such time as the Church has deemed it prudent to destroy it. This is not marriage in any Christian sense of the term, because Christian marriage [i][b]is[/b][/i] Sacramental and enforced by God.




I disagree completly, Baptisms are not invalid because the Chioce was not a free choice. Just because one makes a Chioce does not make it a free choice, even coherced baptisms are indeed valid baptisms, so long as the choice was made by the recipient ( this is differant than a forced baptism), this was all discussed and established in the 9th century. Regardless of this, The gift of Faith is freely offered to all and it is avialable to be accepted by all, but that acceptance is not completly free, because we are all slaves to sin until our baptism. I didn't say that people could not Choose but that a free choice is impossible for those who are unbaptised.


3


Boy I sue hope not that would mean virtually every pope for a thousand years has been " abusing their Power" [/quote]
It's on another level, yes, but not invalid automatically. For instance, you could make a point that is based on reasoning alone, and that would be valid. You could reinforce that point with revealed truth, which would be on a different level. One would be a philosophical point, the other a theological point. Both are valid and interact. There's the same idea here. Jesus took purely natural marriage, which existed from the beginning, and raised it to the level of a Sacrament. That does not mean that all purely natural marriages are invalid. Instead, grace builds upon nature.

Based on the personalistic norm, we can see that a natural marriage can fulfill the primary ends of marriage: procreation and union of spouses. Now, it doesn't do that as well as a Sacramental marriage. A Sacramental marriage has the spiritual union in the Body of Christ as well as the physical and willed union that all marriage has.

According to your idea of a free choice, anyone who has ANY sin would be incapable of making a free choice. Also, coersion is a form of forcing. It's still violating someone's free will. It's just not strapping them down to do the forcing. I still contend that, even should someone's will be partially compromised by sin, they are still able to make a free choice.

Examples of abuse/nonabuse of Pauline privelege:
abuse - 2 atheists get married. Woman becomes Catholic. Husband agrees to raise children Catholic, etc. He doesn't pose any moral threats to her. Wife becomes attracted to other guy, and gets marriage dissolved so she can marry this other guy. Let's say this guy is almost a carbon copy of the first guy. Pauline privelege, if used here, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

nonabuse - same initial situation. Husband is pretty anti-religious though. He wouldn't agree to raise children Catholic. He represents a threat to her religion. Here, Pauline privelege is used so that she's not "unequally yoked."

Does that make sense?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 24 2005, 03:21 PM'] It's on another level, yes, but not invalid automatically. For instance, you could make a point that is based on reasoning alone, and that would be valid. You could reinforce that point with revealed truth, which would be on a different level. One would be a philosophical point, the other a theological point. Both are valid and interact. There's the same idea here. Jesus took purely natural marriage, which existed from the beginning, and raised it to the level of a Sacrament. That does not mean that all purely natural marriages are invalid. Instead, grace builds upon nature.

Based on the personalistic norm, we can see that a natural marriage can fulfill the primary ends of marriage: procreation and union of spouses. Now, it doesn't do that as well as a Sacramental marriage. A Sacramental marriage has the spiritual union in the Body of Christ as well as the physical and willed union that all marriage has.

According to your idea of a free choice, anyone who has ANY sin would be incapable of making a free choice. Also, coersion is a form of forcing. It's still violating someone's free will. It's just not strapping them down to do the forcing. I still contend that, even should someone's will be partially compromised by sin, they are still able to make a free choice.

Examples of abuse/nonabuse of Pauline privelege:
abuse - 2 atheists get married. Woman becomes Catholic. Husband agrees to raise children Catholic, etc. He doesn't pose any moral threats to her. Wife becomes attracted to other guy, and gets marriage dissolved so she can marry this other guy. Let's say this guy is almost a carbon copy of the first guy. Pauline privelege, if used here, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

nonabuse - same initial situation. Husband is pretty anti-religious though. He wouldn't agree to raise children Catholic. He represents a threat to her religion. Here, Pauline privelege is used so that she's not "unequally yoked."

Does that make sense? [/quote]
[quote]According to your idea of a free choice, anyone who has ANY sin would be incapable of making a free choice.[/quote] Not at all, once baptised one is no longer enslaved, however the ability to make a free choice would be diminished by the mortal sins on ones soul. That is why one should make a confession before recieving a sacrament such as Marriage.


[quote]
  Also, coersion is a form of forcing. It's still violating someone's free will.  It's just not strapping them down to do the forcing.  I still contend that, even should someone's will be partially compromised by sin, they are still able to make a free choice.[/quote] First forcing is actually straping them down, baptisms by the sword,( be baptised or we will chop off your head) while discouraged where determined by the Church to be valid baptisms during the 9th century. Second if ones will has been compromised by sin or anything else then it is by definition not free.