The Great Majority of Christian Marriages are Valid

In The Light of the Law ^ | 6/17/16 | Ed Peters

[marshmallow]

Last time a ranking prelate (Cdl. Kasper) opined that half of all marriages were null his attribution of such a reckless assertion to Pope Francis himself could be dismissed as hearsay, deflected as referring to marriage in general and not Christian marriage in particular, or at least minimized as describing merely ‘many’ or even ‘half’ of all marriages. But none of those qualifications can be applied to blunt the impact of the pope’s startling claim “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”.

If last time was bad, this time is very bad.

Consider: Marriage is that natural human relationship established by God as the normal way for nearly all adults to live most of their lives. God blesses marriage and assists married persons to live in accord with this beautiful state in life. When, moreover, baptized persons enter this quintessential human relationship, Christ adds the special graces of a sacrament and assists married Christians to live as signs of his everlasting spousal union with his Church.

To assert, then, that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null” is really to claim that the great majority of Christians have failed to enter the most natural of human states and have failed to effect between themselves the exact sacrament that Christ instituted to assist them in it. The collapse of human nature presupposed for such a social catastrophe and the massive futility of the Church’s sanctifying mission among her own faithful evidenced by such a debacle would be—well, it would be the matrimonial version of nuclear winter. I am at a loss to understand how anyone who knows anything about either could seriously assert that human nature is suddenly so corrupted and Christ’s sacraments are now so impotent as to have prevented “the great majority” of Christians....

[marshmallow]

How can anyone responsibly even posit such a dark and dismal claim, let alone demonstrate it?

I guess the Pope is irresponsible......

[BigEdLB]

I am baptized Lutheran. My wife is baptized Orthodox. Two different Christians married by a Nazarine Pastor in a chapel in Vegas. I guess we are really in bad shape... No Catholics in the mix.

[Yashcheritsiy]

The problem comes as a result of the false assertion that marriage is a “sacrament,” and thus can only be administered by “Holy Mother Church.”

Since marriage far preceded Catholicism (and indeed, every other human association) and was given to all mankind, marriage is a universal institution. Protestant marriages, Baptist marriages, Hindu marriages, Jewish marriages, Buddhist marriages, Islamic (first) marriages, and all others are just as valid as Catholic marriages.

[Arthur McGowan]

I don’t know what you think the Pope was saying, but the Catholic Church presumes that all marriages are valid. Since you and your wife are baptized, your marriage is a sacrament.

As for what the Pope was saying, the very best thing to do whenever Bergoglio opens his mouth is IGNORE HIM.

[Arthur McGowan]

I don’t think you read the article, because: What you have just asserted, as contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching, IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I.e., the Catholic Church presumes that ALL marriages are valid, just as you said.

When both parties to a marriage are baptized, the marriage is the sacrament of Matrimony.

[scouter]

This is one area with which I may--and I emphasize may--actually agree with Pope Francis.

For Catholics to validly marry, they must, among other things:

1. intend to enter a permanent, exclusive relationship, with no possibility of marrying anyone else during their spouse's lifetime;
2. be open to having children;
3. follow the laws of the Church regarding marriage;
4. never have been validly married before, or if they have, their spouse must have died;
5. intend to be completely sexually faithful to their spouse; and
6. have the requisite maturity, intelligence, and psychological ability to make a vocational commitment.

Certainly these are reasonable requirements. But ask yourself if the majority of people getting "married" in the Catholic Church today really possess ALL of the above qualities. The absence of even one of them makes the marriage invalid.

Given the number of people who enter marriage with the idea that they can get a divorce if it doesn't "work out," or that it's OK to use pornography, or that it's OK to "get a little on the side" as long as your spouse never finds out, or where one of the spouses truly intends NEVER to have children, and the effect of the deplorable state of marriage in both the culture at large and in the Church itself, I think it's plausible that most "marriages" are, in fact, invalid.

I'm not saying that his new rules for annulment proceedings will help the problem. I'm just saying he may be right on this one.

[scouter]

The problem comes as a result of the false assertion that marriage is a "sacrament," and thus can only be administered by "Holy Mother Church."

That is not at all the Catholic Church's assertion. The Catholic Church believes strongly in both the permanence and validity of non-sacramental marriages.

We also believe that when two Catholics marry, Jesus Christ raised these non-sacramental marriages to the dignity of a sacrament, and the Church has been given, as part of its governing authority, the right to make Church laws regarding the reception of the sacrament by its members.

Further, we believe that it is not the Church who administers the sacrament to the couple, but rather, the spouses themselves who administer the sacrament to each other.

Thus, to take an extreme example, if an unmarried man and woman were stuck alone on a tropical island with little hope of rescue within a reasonable amount of time (e.g., several months), they could validly and sacramentally marry by exchanging vows with each other, provided they were open to having children and they intended their union to be permanent.

[Campion]

I think you have several misunderstandings about actual Catholic teaching.

Marriage was a natural institution which began in the Garden of Eden. For baptized Christians, marriage was raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. So while Hindus and Buddhists have valid natural marriages, only Christians can have sacramental marriages.

I think where some of the confusion arises is that a Catholic is required to obey the Catholic form of marriage, so that if he marries in, e.g., the Baptist church without permission from his bishop, his marriage is invalid.

But two Baptists marrying at Bible Baptist are just as validly married as two Catholics marrying at St. Athanasius Catholic church, in the eyes of the Catholic church.

[TennTuxedo]

That is incorrect. I had to have my 20 year marriage approved of and verified by the Bishop.

A man and a woman marry one another. The priests blesses the marriage.

[piusv]

“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity, but there are local superstitions, etc.” - Francis

This man is a raving, manifest heretic, not just irresponsible. He is not Catholic. He is not a member of the Church let alone "pope". And yet not one Novus Ordo churchmen has the guts to call a spade a spade.

[Arthur McGowan]

The Catholic Church presumes that all marriages are valid.

I don’t know what you mean by saying your marriage had to be “approved” by a bishop.

[Arthur McGowan]

I was responding to someone who was saying that the Catholic Church does not consider the marriages of non-Catholics valid. That is the opposite of the truth.

If a bishop got involved with your marriage, then there must have been some circumstance that created a doubt about its validity.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[Yashcheritsiy]

Wait, what?

I’ve never heard of Sacramento marriages.

Reno and Las Vegas, yes. Sacramento - no.

[cloudmountain]

I am baptized Lutheran. My wife is baptized Orthodox. Two different Christians married by a Nazarine Pastor in a chapel in Vegas. I guess we are really in bad shape... No Catholics in the mix.

I thought that the Orthodox were Catholic, just not ROMAN Catholic. The Nazarine Church is Protestant.

Well, that's one for the local pastor to mull. :o)

I am NOT judging....just the facts, ma'am, as Jack Webb, Badge 714 used to say.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are misunderstanding what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage.

The priest or deacon in a Catholic marriage is not the minister of the Sacrament. The ministers of the Sacrament --- the ones who confer the Sacrament on each other--- are the man and the woman getting married. The bride and groom. The spouses.

Hence it is not like an institutional church "marries" people. They marry each other.

If those two people are baptized --- not just Catholic, but baptized Christians of any flavor--- their marriage is a Sacrament whether they know it or not! God gives them the grace to embody the "Great Mystery" described in St. Paul in Ephesians 5:32, which is that they are a "sign" of the union of Christ and the Church.

But all people of any faith or no faith at all, including all "Protestant marriages, Baptist marriages, Hindu marriages, Jewish marriages, Buddhist marriages, Islamic (first) marriages, and all others" are "just as valid as Catholic marriages."

True! If it's one-man-one-woman and their intent is to form a lasting faithful bond and they are open to the procreation and raising of children, that is "natural marriage," which was founded by God our Creator as one of the great initial blessings of goodness on the human race.

The Catholic Church teaches that. I, as a Catholic teacher, teach that.

[TennTuxedo]

No, the Bishop must approve of all Catholics marrying non-Catholic marriage, when coming into the church.