|
Post by tth1 on Oct 19, 2021 16:02:50 GMT
Why is it such a stretch to believe that cohabitation of two individuals that behave the same as a married couple who have received the sacrament of marriage would not be fornication. The Church does after all presume that marriages outside the Church are valid, since the Church requires an annulment before those individuals can be married in the Church. Many states, not certain about other countries have what they call common law marriage, where if two individuals hold to be married and present themselves as married, they are by state definition married. Would this be any different than cohabitation of two individuals who act as if they are married? They may not have a sacramental marriage, but legal marriage and presumed valid by the Church. The Catholic Church will recognise a marriage as valid if it is recognised as valid by the secular laws of a state providing neither party to the marriage is a Catholic. If even one of the parties is a Catholic the couple must either marry according to canonical form or the Catholic party must be granted dispensation from canonical form. When both parties are Catholics they must marry according to canonical form. They could ask for a dispensation but that request has to be made to the Holy See and its rarely granted.
If a couple, Catholic or otherwise, live together 'without the benefit of marriage' they are living in what has commonly been known, among oher terms, as 'living in sin'. The Church continues to teach that sex is wrong outside marriage.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 19, 2021 16:07:30 GMT
No, Catholics are bound by canonical form for validity. A Catholic cannot have a valid common-law marriage.
And pace the comments of Pope Francis (as well as my own poor comments!), all Catholic marriages, conducted according to canonical form, are considered valid unless proven otherwise in a Catholic marriage tribunal.
So if two Catholics get married outside the Church and then later on get divorced, and one or both of them want to get married in the Church, what must be done about their previous marriage in order to get a sacramental marriage within the Church. It would still be considered a putative marriage until the contrary is proven. The couple's marriage will be invalid due to lack of form. However, lack of form must be proven. I believe these cases are handled differently in different places. Here in England & Wales the case has to go to the diocesan tribunal. They will investigate the matter. If the couple were bound to canonical form, did not observe it and were not dispensed from it the tribunal will say their marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form. Couples are strictly instructed by the tribunal that they must not book a date for a future wedding until the tribunal has made its decision. Tribunals here also require the civil divorce to have already been completed.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 19, 2021 16:30:20 GMT
So if two Catholics get married outside the Church and then later on get divorced, and one or both of them want to get married in the Church, what must be done about their previous marriage in order to get a sacramental marriage within the Church. It would still be considered a putative marriage until the contrary is proven. The couple's marriage will be invalid due to lack of form. However, lack of form must be proven. I believe these cases are handled differently in different places. Here in England & Wales the case has to go to the diocesan tribunal. They will investigate the matter. If the couple were bound to canonical form, did not observe it and were not dispensed from it the tribunal will say their marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form. Couples are strictly instructed by the tribunal that they must not book a date for a future wedding until the tribunal has made its decision. Tribunals here also require the civil divorce to have already been completed. So would the first marriage be required to be annulled before they could be married a second time in the Church?
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Oct 19, 2021 17:20:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 19, 2021 17:38:43 GMT
So are you saying the Church does not require annulments for natural marriages before the person can obtain an sacramental marriage within the Church? My hypothetical was two Catholics, ie have been baptised, who had been previously married outside the Church and then got divorced and one or both wished to be married within the Church on the second marriage.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Oct 19, 2021 17:51:12 GMT
No I am saying it's a much less involved process, therefore, quicker and accounting for the numbers being higher at present.
The premise you describe is going to be a much more problematic thing to try to unravel. And likely not granted.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 20, 2021 14:21:53 GMT
It would still be considered a putative marriage until the contrary is proven. The couple's marriage will be invalid due to lack of form. However, lack of form must be proven. I believe these cases are handled differently in different places. Here in England & Wales the case has to go to the diocesan tribunal. They will investigate the matter. If the couple were bound to canonical form, did not observe it and were not dispensed from it the tribunal will say their marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form. Couples are strictly instructed by the tribunal that they must not book a date for a future wedding until the tribunal has made its decision. Tribunals here also require the civil divorce to have already been completed. So would the first marriage be required to be annulled before they could be married a second time in the Church? Yes, I am. A competent ecclesiastical authority would have to say with moral certitude that the first marriage was null because of lack of canonical form. Otherwise neither party is free to enter another marriage. The competent authority is the diocesan bishop unless he has decided to delegate the authority to another. I know in England and Wales diocesan bishops delegate this function to their tribunals. I do not know what other countries do.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 20, 2021 14:27:58 GMT
No I am saying it's a much less involved process, therefore, quicker and accounting for the numbers being higher at present. The premise you describe is going to be a much more problematic thing to try to unravel. And likely not granted. farronwolf's hypothetical question is not that difficult and would almost certainly be granted. He is saying that both parties to the marriage are Catholic. Therefore, both are bound to canonical form. However, they got married outside the Catholic Church, i.e. did not observe canonical form. Their marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form. If they can prove they were bound to canonical form, were not dispensed from it (which, anyway, is rare when both parties are Catholic), and did not observe canonical form they will have their marriage declared null. It is generally a straightforward procedure.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Dec 30, 2021 15:25:09 GMT
No, "development of doctrine" is a very specific concept, meaning that doctrine does not change, but the Church's understanding of it deepens over time. I disagree. "Two Catholic bishops in Germany, Franz-Josef Overbeck of Essen and Heinrich Timmerevers of Dresden, have called for major changes in the church's teachings on sexual morality as part of contributions to a new book called Catholic and Queer. Homosexual partnerships, transgender issues and diversity must be re-evaluated on the basis of new understandings of sexuality, Timmerevers wrote in the book, published this week." www.ncronline.org/news/theology/two-german-bishops-question-churchs-teaching-lgbt-relationshipsYou can change almost any teaching using the argument of a "new understanding". In the case of marriage annulments it was a new understanding of psychology. In the case of sodomy and same sex marriage we are now hearing about the new understanding of sexuality. i suppose you can use the same argument to defend contraception on the basis of some new understanding out there.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 30, 2021 16:13:16 GMT
No, "development of doctrine" is a very specific concept, meaning that doctrine does not change, but the Church's understanding of it deepens over time. I disagree. "Two Catholic bishops in Germany, Franz-Josef Overbeck of Essen and Heinrich Timmerevers of Dresden, have called for major changes in the church's teachings on sexual morality as part of contributions to a new book called Catholic and Queer. Homosexual partnerships, transgender issues and diversity must be re-evaluated on the basis of new understandings of sexuality, Timmerevers wrote in the book, published this week." www.ncronline.org/news/theology/two-german-bishops-question-churchs-teaching-lgbt-relationshipsYou can change almost any teaching using the argument of a "new understanding". In the case of marriage annulments it was a new understanding of psychology. In the case of sodomy and same sex marriage we are now hearing about the new understanding of sexuality. i suppose you can use the same argument to defend contraception on the basis of some new understanding out there. Yes, "new understandings" can be a slippery slope, and if one is unconcerned about what the Church has always taught --- "never believed in it to begin with" might be a better way of putting it in some cases --- you could make a case for almost anything. Would we say "we now have a 'new understanding' of the morality of murder, because we now see that some people are just so bad, or annoying, or burdensome, that they just shouldn't be allowed to live anymore" or "we now have a 'new understanding' of how poverty can have generational effects in families, and can degrade one's quality of life, because we now see that sometimes you have to embezzle, rob banks, or mug people to get the money you need and that you can't get any other way"?
WRT annulments, one might be able to say "yes, we had many invalid marriages in the past, marriages that people just had to suffer through, because these same impediments to consent always existed, we just didn't understand the human mind, and we just took ability to provide full willful consent as a 'given' ". And, once again, I echo Pope Francis in saying that the validity of many modern marriages can be questioned because people don't understand what they're doing. Our Lady of Fatima said many marriages are not good, are not of God, and do not please Our Lord. Did she mean "they're all valid, they're just bad"? Or did she mean "they're not really marriages at all"? No way to know.
And WRT sodomy, yes, we understand homosexuality in a way we once did not, though it was always acknowledged and, quite frankly, it wasn't the obsession that it is today. Even Jone in Moral Theology doesn't make all that big a deal about it, in a nutshell, "yes, sodomy is gravely immoral, some people are attracted to the same sex, and sometimes otherwise 'straight' people do homosexual things too", and he left it at that. He didn't write a novel about it. The moral principles are simple. Mortal sin, don't do it.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Dec 30, 2021 16:32:53 GMT
[/div][/quote] The new understanding is that it is not a sin provided the couple are in a loving relationship.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 30, 2021 16:52:10 GMT
[/div][/quote] The new understanding is that it is not a sin provided the couple are in a loving relationship. [/quote][/div]
And that would dovetail nicely with maintaining that contraception is not a sin either. Either way, "loving relationship", resorting to an intrinsically evil and deliberately willed act.
Not all "new understandings" point towards truth and virtue.
The Church in our day bends over backwards to accommodate everyone, but sometimes, there are Rubicons that just cannot be crossed.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Dec 31, 2021 17:34:23 GMT
Can I still get an annulment if my ex-spouse doesn’t agree?Yes. Your ex-spouse’s participation and agreement are not necessary to the Catholic annulment process. The tribunal will get in touch with the ex-spouse, let them know the marriage is being investigated for an annulment, and give them an opportunity to participate. However, their agreement or lack thereof will not inhibit an annulment from being granted. Including the ex-spouse is primarily to give them the opportunity to review any investigative materials, and to have an equal opportunity to participate in the proceedings. A friend of mine whose cousin is in England had her marriage declared null without the spouse even being contacted. That was on the basis that he was unreasonable and vengeful to a degree that could result in violence. All of those personality factors contributed evidence as to why the marriage was not entered into validly in the first place. I know you posted this over three months ago but I've only just seen this post today when CCS informed me there was new activity on the thread. You may, of course, have omitted much detail but from the bare bones of what you say there could be a problem with the validity of this annulment. The spouse who hasn't petitioned for the annulment must be informed and has a right to respond. They may not respond and it's not uncommon for people to think that such a lack of response will stop the annulment proceedings. It won't but it can slow them down. However, not informing the other spouse that proceedings have been instigated is quite wrong and a valid annulment cannot be granted if that person isn't at least informed of what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Jan 1, 2022 20:28:11 GMT
Can I still get an annulment if my ex-spouse doesn’t agree?Yes. Your ex-spouse’s participation and agreement are not necessary to the Catholic annulment process. The tribunal will get in touch with the ex-spouse, let them know the marriage is being investigated for an annulment, and give them an opportunity to participate. However, their agreement or lack thereof will not inhibit an annulment from being granted. Including the ex-spouse is primarily to give them the opportunity to review any investigative materials, and to have an equal opportunity to participate in the proceedings. A friend of mine whose cousin is in England had her marriage declared null without the spouse even being contacted. That was on the basis that he was unreasonable and vengeful to a degree that could result in violence. All of those personality factors contributed evidence as to why the marriage was not entered into validly in the first place. I know you posted this over three months ago but I've only just seen this post today when CCS informed me there was new activity on the thread. You may, of course, have omitted much detail but from the bare bones of what you say there could be a problem with the validity of this annulment. The spouse who hasn't petitioned for the annulment must be informed and has a right to respond. They may not respond and it's not uncommon for people to think that such a lack of response will stop the annulment proceedings. It won't but it can slow them down. However, not informing the other spouse that proceedings have been instigated is quite wrong and a valid annulment cannot be granted if that person isn't at least informed of what is happening. That's about as much detail as I know about the case but today I went to the site Canon Law Made Easy and yes, the case may be problematic as far as being a valid annulment. The site seems to say that declarations of nullity have been common in such circumstances due to safety concerns of the petitioner. There are some awful situations brought to the Church and I can understand her sometimes merciful response is questionable as far as the letter of the law. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/10/27/can-i-get-an-annulment-without-my-spouse-knowing-about-it/
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 2, 2022 15:02:30 GMT
I know you posted this over three months ago but I've only just seen this post today when CCS informed me there was new activity on the thread. You may, of course, have omitted much detail but from the bare bones of what you say there could be a problem with the validity of this annulment. The spouse who hasn't petitioned for the annulment must be informed and has a right to respond. They may not respond and it's not uncommon for people to think that such a lack of response will stop the annulment proceedings. It won't but it can slow them down. However, not informing the other spouse that proceedings have been instigated is quite wrong and a valid annulment cannot be granted if that person isn't at least informed of what is happening. That's about as much detail as I know about the case but today I went to the site Canon Law Made Easy and yes, the case may be problematic as far as being a valid annulment. The site seems to say that declarations of nullity have been common in such circumstances due to safety concerns of the petitioner. There are some awful situations brought to the Church and I can understand her sometimes merciful response is questionable as far as the letter of the law. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/10/27/can-i-get-an-annulment-without-my-spouse-knowing-about-it/I'm afraid I don't place much trust in that website. A far better one is Canonlaw.Info.
I'm not a canon lawyer and have no canon law qualifications. However, the subject interests me and I've read quite a number of books on Canon Law and annulments and I have several Canon law commentaries. A common concern among petitioners is that the respondent will stop the process. They cannot. The worst they can do is delay it by refusing to cooperate. However, it is part of the Church's mercy and applying natural justice that the respondent must be informed that the petitioner has requested their marriage be declared null.
Obviously, there are cases where the respondent can be an absolutely dreadful person who may be someone who resorts to emotional, physical and spiritual abuse even violence. They would also have had to know that the civil dissolution of marriage was happening. I am certain the Church were Her extensive experience has ways and means of dealing with these circumstances.
|
|