tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post5693924639140889749..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: On MarriageDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-77870281679293741862015-11-09T08:06:14.221-05:002015-11-09T08:06:14.221-05:00I believe Brandon is right here. As far as I under...I believe Brandon is right here. As far as I understand, the factor that invalidates the marriage is the intention to never have children -- to intend (at the time of the vows) the marriage to be completely infertile by deliberate design and action. (Infertility doesn't signify here, because it is not a deliberate choice, which is why infertile couples can marry.) One of the signs of a marriage is openness to fertility and to fruitfulness, which is not counterindicated by infertility, but is by a choice to permanently cut off fertility. People who enter into marriage with an intention to contracept for some period of time are certainly sinning, which may weaken the marriage vows, but since they understand and accept at some level that the ends of marriage include the acceptance of children, that contraception doesn't invalidate consent.<br /><br />I think that something key to remember is that the idea of marriage is not difficult or esoteric, even if the lived experience of it may be more challenging. Most people understand that marriage is "happily ever after", even if they might give more weight to the "happily" than to the "ever". Most people understand that marriage is about family, and that family includes children. However, this understanding has been weakened by two or three generations of divorce and loudly proclaimed contraception. ("We didn't intend to have kids at all; little Johnny here was an accident" -- that might certainly give poor Johnny the idea that kids are just an accident to marriage.) MrsDarwinhttp://darwincatholic.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-26068624249115465032015-11-08T22:21:39.724-05:002015-11-08T22:21:39.724-05:00My understanding -- which is considerably less tha...My understanding -- which is considerably less than knowing for sure -- is that it is not itself something showing that the marriage is invalid; but it can be a form of evidence that combines with other evidence to make a case that it is. And the following discussion seems to confirm at least something like this:<br /><br />http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/11/21/contraception-and-marriage-validity/Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-85106313097177498232015-11-08T21:18:57.845-05:002015-11-08T21:18:57.845-05:00First of all, this is a wonderful article, in cont...First of all, this is a wonderful article, in contrast to a terrible piece I read on Patheos today, that suggests that people should be given fast track annulments because the Church has failed to teach them what marriage means. I still can't get over that article, and the implication that people somehow don't "get" the basic idea of marriage. Nonsense.<br /><br />But... Agnes's comment has me thinking. I truly believe that people go into marriage expecting, or at least hoping for, both permanence and exclusivity. But true openness to fertility? That one most people, including most Catholic couples, don't really have. Sure, most people getting married expect to have children at some point. In fact, many couples who cohabit for years finally get married because they want to start a family. I know that a marriage is invalid if no children are ever intended, although it's obvious that one or both of the people getting married would have to be lying for that part of the vows, if the wedding takes place at a Catholic church. But what affect does the intention to use artificial contraception have on the validity of the vows? Does anyone know for sure?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-30939404732236603742015-11-07T18:22:24.917-05:002015-11-07T18:22:24.917-05:00Perhaps I didn't express myself well. I meant ...Perhaps I didn't express myself well. I meant that during the preparation for marriage, it should be specifically addressed that the engaged couple aren't influenced by the modern secular opinions ("after all, it's only realistic to face that most marriages end in divorce", "in this age, we can determine how many children we want and when they are convenient" etc.). I was referring to the increasing, by now huge chasm between what is assumed by people with Christian background and by those completely without it. Lots of times we have different concepts and different vocabulary.Agnesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-86011066097426635612015-11-07T16:35:22.069-05:002015-11-07T16:35:22.069-05:00@Agnes - The Church kinda has to assume the marria...@Agnes - The Church kinda has to assume the marriage was valid. Innocent until proven guilt sort of thing or in other words both parties acted in good faith. Otherwise, why have a tribunal? If ignorance is assumed then, by default, the marriages are invalid. If they are assumed invalid, priests would be acting in bad faith to give couples Holy Communion, blessing people's marriages...<br />Same sorta thing with being in the state of grace or even with the secular police. Unless they have reason to suspect otherwise, they should be assuming ppl are on the up-and-up. Otherwise, priests would have to have a small interrogation for every communicant, just as police would question every citizen. It just can't work if you assume the default is that ppl are not on the up-and-up.Douglas Naadenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219210297788787751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-91218162701933885962015-11-07T12:01:22.983-05:002015-11-07T12:01:22.983-05:00I remembered that there was a previous blog spot s...I remembered that there was a previous blog spot some months before about marriage preparation <br />http://darwincatholic.blogspot.hu/2015/06/making-marriage-hard.html<br /> and several commenters shared opinions on marriage prep classes. I think it's practically impossible to create a marriage prep class which is useful for everyone since people come with such diverse backgrounds and attitudes. And administrative measures can't accomplish too much (forcing people to become registered parishioners before they marry won't make them active participants in parish life).<br />I think there is truth in both the original writer's and the canon law expert's opinion: if those issues in the questionnaire aren't dealt with in the marriage preparation it's going to be bad. And the preparation for marriage doesn't start and end with the pre-Cana class. I had, starting from high school age, a lot of teaching/discussion in youth groups/retreats focused on marriage preparation/dating/relationship development etc. I can definitely agree with whoever said the basis of the preparation needs to happen before you are starry-eyed in love. <br />It's interesting to read what "ignorance" actually means, although I'm inclined to think it's not right to assume the engaged couple does understand that the Church really means those concepts (lifelong, exclusive, open to fertility) given the very contrary modern assumptions and experiences.<br /> Agnesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-9886082948053098812015-11-06T18:45:38.571-05:002015-11-06T18:45:38.571-05:00I'm really not sure I understand your canonist...I'm really not sure I understand your canonist's intention in his nitpicking of the writer. Is it really better that the Church NOT attempt to improve marriage preparation? Personally, I've come to the conclusion that marriage prep would benefit from more input from those whose marriages have failed, partly because the current model of "mentoring" with lots of stories from couples whose marriages are thriving really plays into the modern assumption that "love conquers all." I don't think marriage prep needs to be longer; I think it needs to be more focused on the things we know prevent sacramental marriages from being formed and hamper sacramental marriages from thriving. You may not be able to inspire moral character in an individual during a weekend retreat--you may, however, give weight to his/her intended's already-present doubts. <br /><br />In any case, I think the nitpicking between ignorance (and I do know a few cases tried on those grounds, including that of a woman whose husband had an undisclosed STD) and defect of consent is sort of incidental. Not unimportant, but beside the point to the observation that there might be better ways to do marriage prep. <br /><br />The argument that doing more or different marriage prep would somehow remove the motivation to support families in forming children seems pretty silly to me, somewhat like arguing that prolife work is a distraction from teaching people to be chaste. It's a package deal--people need to hear the message at all turns, and we ought all seek to do what we can wherever we have the ability to make an impact. Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03787892622804373968noreply@blogger.com