Advice?

[Anomaly]

Maybe you don’t want to be too blunt with an agenda and obvious judgement.   You may have the opposite effect from what you intended.  

Choose something more subtle.  Be the friendly and kind Catholic coworker who would be there and be supportive if they ever have questions about pursuing having their marriage sanctified in the Church.  

[Lilllabettt]

14 hours ago, Aloysius said:

Hmmm, I guess I was resting on canon 1060 that one should presume validity until/unless proven otherwise.  But I guess that the canons do say it's null if there's no canonical form for a Catholic.

I still think it makes sense to presume all marriages valid unless a proper authority has nullified it, though.  Yes, Catholics are required to observe canonical form to get married (I suppose I was wrong to assert that this was just for it to be licit, as the canon specifies validity there).  But unless you're on a canonical tribunal, it's really not up to you to judge the validity of any marriage, and we are supposed to presume validity until/unless proven otherwise (based on canon 1060, if this marriage failed they would still need an annulment to get married to someone else in the church, for instance)

While it's true that defect of form cases are technically "annulments" - the process looks very different.  They are based on objective fact and I would describe them as automatic. Put in baptismal certificate and marriage certificate, get spit out a lack of form "annulment" decree.  

If you are morally certain of these objective facts it IS your place to judge the validity of the marriage - it would be a crime against reason to reserve judgment in that case and act as if you do not know the marriage is invalid. If a 13 year old girl "marries" a 16 year old boy (e.g. Romeo and Juliette) and you are morally certain of the objective fact of Juliette's age, there is no need on your part to behave as if you do not know their attempt is invalid. 

What is moral certitude in these cases? In some times and places birth certificates were/are not totally accurate. An acquaintance or friend could lack moral certitude of Juliette's precise age. Her mother, on the other hand, is probably morally certain.  Similarly a coworker might not be morally certain that a person is baptized Catholic and was not dispensed to marry on the beach or whatever. A close friend or family member is much more likely to be morally certain of this objective fact, especially if they happen to ask. (Ignorance is bliss in some cases.)

I had to decline to be a bridesmaid at my dear friend's wedding because I was morally certain there was invalidating defect of form. I did still attend and buy a present, hoping that by preserving the relationship she might one day be validly married in the church. I was able to be forthright with her as to why, because have that type of relationship.  

There is a movement to remove this requirement in canon law. I'm in favor of keeping it. People who don't bother to marry in the church are far more likely to need a divorce imo. In which case if they ever return to the church, they are likely to need an annulment.  This way they have one built in. 

 

 

[adoro.te.devote]

20 hours ago, Aloysius said:

Hmmm, I guess I was resting on canon 1060 that one should presume validity until/unless proven otherwise.  But I guess that the canons do say it's null if there's no canonical form for a Catholic.

I still think it makes sense to presume all marriages valid unless a proper authority has nullified it, though.  Yes, Catholics are required to observe canonical form to get married (I suppose I was wrong to assert that this was just for it to be licit, as the canon specifies validity there).  But unless you're on a canonical tribunal, it's really not up to you to judge the validity of any marriage, and we are supposed to presume validity until/unless proven otherwise (based on canon 1060, if this marriage failed they would still need an annulment to get married to someone else in the church, for instance)

I think that canon refers to how we shouldn't presume a marriage is invalid before it is annulled: otherwise, people would just go off and invalidly marry someone else, assuming their first marriage was invalid...however, this is assuming the marriage was proper form to begin with. If it clearly violated one of the other canons or rules - like if it was between those of the same sex, or if Catholics were marrying outside the Church, it is immediately invalid (well even more dramatically for the first case, I'm not trying to say those are the same thing at all)

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

While it's true that defect of form cases are technically "annulments" - the process looks very different.  They are based on objective fact and I would describe them as automatic. Put in baptismal certificate and marriage certificate, get spit out a lack of form "annulment" decree.  

If you are morally certain of these objective facts it IS your place to judge the validity of the marriage - it would be a crime against reason to reserve judgment in that case and act as if you do not know the marriage is invalid. If a 13 year old girl "marries" a 16 year old boy (e.g. Romeo and Juliette) and you are morally certain of the objective fact of Juliette's age, there is no need on your part to behave as if you do not know their attempt is invalid. 

What is moral certitude in these cases? In some times and places birth certificates were/are not totally accurate. An acquaintance or friend could lack moral certitude of Juliette's precise age. Her mother, on the other hand, is probably morally certain.  Similarly a coworker might not be morally certain that a person is baptized Catholic and was not dispensed to marry on the beach or whatever. A close friend or family member is much more likely to be morally certain of this objective fact, especially if they happen to ask. (Ignorance is bliss in some cases.)

I had to decline to be a bridesmaid at my dear friend's wedding because I was morally certain there was invalidating defect of form. I did still attend and buy a present, hoping that by preserving the relationship she might one day be validly married in the church. I was able to be forthright with her as to why, because have that type of relationship.  

There is a movement to remove this requirement in canon law. I'm in favor of keeping it. People who don't bother to marry in the church are far more likely to need a divorce imo. In which case if they ever return to the church, they are likely to need an annulment.  This way they have one built in. 

 

 

I didn't know that age could make marriage invalid? what age is the cut off point? 

I'm asking because in some cultures, they used to marry quite young - even back in Our Lord's time, as we can see

but of course for them it was valid, so is this a disciplinary law?

19 hours ago, Anastasia said:

No, you may of heard correctly. However, as I wrote above, much depends on a circumstance. The Eastern Orthodox Church consists of fifteen autocephalous Churches and each may have a different way of handling various issues. Much depends on a situation in a country. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church could not conduct sacramental marriages for almost a century - or better to say it could but the participants would risk severe prosecution. Even to get a baby baptized would be very risky and this is why it was mostly done in secret, at home. In such a situation the absolute majority of the Orthodox believers (not nominal) would only register their marriages at the civil office. Some of them could probably go to some far away village and marry one day.

Unlike many other countries the Russian Orthodox Church is still not considered to be an "official" marriage celebrant... meaning a couple still must register their marriage at the civil office as well. Generally speaking, a priest will not marry a couple unless they are not registered.

This is why now, when the Church is legal (even too legal) some priests would not marry a couple in the church if they feel that those are nominal Orthodox, that they do not really understand what a sacrament is. To them it would be a profanation. I agree by the way. I can see how in other countries where the Church has the official  to "register" marriages the sacrament may be profaned. If a person is baptized but does not live in the Church, does not in its sacraments and does not believe in the reality of the Body and Blood then in my opinion the sacrament of marriage would be quite meaningless. 

Of course, in the countries where people do not need to "marry twice" like in Russia it is very natural for the Orthodox simply do that in the church even if for them it is only a tradition. I do not know what is the rule in the Serbian or Bulgarian etc Orthodox Church re: civil marriage. Very possibly they would prescribe church marriage to all Orthodox.

One thing is sure though: there is no problem for an Orthodox to attend a civil marriage of another Orthodox. The fact that a couple did not marry in the Church would be a subject for sadness like "so pity you/they could marry in the church" but that would be about it. An invited Orthodoxy would hope that a couple would be married in the church one day. We had many quite old couples in Russia getting married in the church after decades of faithful life in a civil marriage.

I see! thank you for the explanation! That must have been really hard for the couples to not even be able to have a Church marriage, like during the Soviet times

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, adoro.te.devote said:

I think that canon refers to how we shouldn't presume a marriage is invalid before it is annulled: otherwise, people would just go off and invalidly marry someone else, assuming their first marriage was invalid...however, this is assuming the marriage was proper form to begin with. If it clearly violated one of the other canons or rules - like if it was between those of the same sex, or if Catholics were marrying outside the Church, it is immediately invalid (well even more dramatically for the first case, I'm not trying to say those are the same thing at all)

I didn't know that age could make marriage invalid? what age is the cut off point? 

I'm asking because in some cultures, they used to marry quite young - even back in Our Lord's time, as we can see

but of course for them it was valid, so is this a disciplinary law?

This is "ecclesiastical law" not divine or natural law. Traditionally ecclesiastical law can be dispensed and/or changed. The cut off for valid marriage is 16 for males and 14 for females. I vaguely remember there was a plan or may still be a plan to raise the age to 16 for females. 

Disparity of cult is in the same ballpark. Due to ecclesiastical law, if a baptized Catholic and a non Catholic try to get married, their marriage is automatically invalid - Unless they receive a dispensation, which around here they are handed out like candy. Very easy to get for whoever wants one. Dispensation from form is harder. "I want to get married on the beach" doesn't usually cut it. Though I have heard of it being done for serious pastoral reasons, eg the brides parents are anti Catholic and won't step inside a church. 

 

[adoro.te.devote]

59 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

This is "ecclesiastical law" not divine or natural law. Traditionally ecclesiastical law can be dispensed and/or changed. The cut off for valid marriage is 16 for males and 14 for females. I vaguely remember there was a plan or may still be a plan to raise the age to 16 for females. 

Disparity of cult is in the same ballpark. Due to ecclesiastical law, if a baptized Catholic and a non Catholic try to get married, their marriage is automatically invalid - Unless they receive a dispensation, which around here they are handed out like candy. Very easy to get for whoever wants one. Dispensation from form is harder. "I want to get married on the beach" doesn't usually cut it. Though I have heard of it being done for serious pastoral reasons, eg the brides parents are anti Catholic and won't step inside a church. 

 

Thanks for the information!

[Anastasia]

7 hours ago, adoro.te.devote said:

That must have been really hard for the couples to not even be able to have a Church marriage, like during the Soviet times

I think not being being able to marry in the church would be not nearly as hard as often being unable to receive communion. In many cases, being seen in the church during Liturgy would mean a loss of a job and many other problems (in the cities).

Edited August 1, 2020 by Anastasia

[adoro.te.devote]

11 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I think not being being able to marry in the church would be not nearly as hard as often being unable to receive communion. In many cases, being seen in the church during Liturgy would mean a loss of a job and many other problems (in the cities).

That's really, really difficult  I mean, it's hard not being able to go to church with covid, but at least it's temporary, and there's no persecution for going to church

[MIKolbe]

On 7/30/2020 at 6:59 PM, Aloysius said:

Where are ppl getting the idea that this marriage is invalid?  Canon law would presume it valid (sacramental if they were both baptized, non-sacramental but still a natural marriage if they were not both baptized) unless there was some impediment.  It is illicit, sure, but not invalid.  a priest is not necessary for a marriage to be sacramental, just two baptized people.

If at least one of the parties is catholic, and there has been no dispensation to have the marriage take place outside of the church; it is invalid as it is lacking form.

[fides' Jack]

On 7/30/2020 at 5:21 PM, Aloysius said:

Hmmm, I guess I was resting on canon 1060 that one should presume validity until/unless proven otherwise.  But I guess that the canons do say it's null if there's no canonical form for a Catholic.

I still think it makes sense to presume all marriages valid unless a proper authority has nullified it, though.  Yes, Catholics are required to observe canonical form to get married (I suppose I was wrong to assert that this was just for it to be licit, as the canon specifies validity there).  But unless you're on a canonical tribunal, it's really not up to you to judge the validity of any marriage, and we are supposed to presume validity until/unless proven otherwise (based on canon 1060, if this marriage failed they would still need an annulment to get married to someone else in the church, for instance)

I think it makes sense to presume that after the fact, but I wouldn't apply that reasoning to whether or not to support it in the first place.

On 8/1/2020 at 9:00 AM, adoro.te.devote said:

That's really, really difficult  I mean, it's hard not being able to go to church with covid, but at least it's temporary, and there's no persecution for going to church

That persecution is already starting in some place.  Very soon it will be widespread.