tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post4681154525494746311..comments2024-01-22T01:52:37.473-06:00Comments on RENEGADE TRADS: Concrete Proposals vis a vis Orthodoxy: RemarriageA Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-64938876477733325052010-04-26T23:58:54.833-05:002010-04-26T23:58:54.833-05:00Well, marriage being essentially a contract...the ...Well, marriage being essentially a contract...the Church as lawmaker does have the power to make conditions for not only the licitity of marriage, but the validity of the Sacrament. Because, it is said, in marriage licitity and validity are basically the same thing, marriage being essentially a "legal" arrangement.<br /><br />However, while I'd say these canonically imposed impediments can invalidate the Sacrament, I don't see why they'd invalidate the Natural Marriage too (except under the theory that Christians either contract a Sacrament or nothing at all; ie, a "putative marriage" which seems such a legalistic concept).<br /><br />Some things are natural impediments. Incest, the people being of the same sex, being already married, etc. These would invalidate the marriage, period. But canonically imposed defects that are not of the Natural Law...like the one about clandestine marriage, I can see invalidating the Sacrament, but not the Natural Marriage. The Church has jurisdiction over the Sacraments, but not over Nature.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-55650399099097086272010-04-26T19:48:43.925-05:002010-04-26T19:48:43.925-05:00Ahh okay I see what you mean now! I have wondered ...Ahh okay I see what you mean now! I have wondered about that myself before. For example, since Trent, clandestine marriages have been considered not only illicit but invalid. I accept that because of faith but I don't altogether understand it. Can the Church change metaphysics with decrees? Of course not. Perhaps your solution is a good middle road!Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17820424612104683658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-43230556052706328732010-04-26T09:24:15.394-05:002010-04-26T09:24:15.394-05:00"You do not seem to suggest how exactly two C..."You do not seem to suggest how exactly two Christians could fail to contract a sacramental marriage while succeeding in contracting a natural one. Aren't the potential failings involved in each case the same (coercion, active desire to not have children, insanity, etc.)?"<br /><br />Ah, well, here's the thing: there are two types of defects in marriages, those that are clearly "natural" defects which would be defects even in a marriage between two non-Catholics, two Jews, two pagans (like incest, coercion, the woman being already married, the two people being of the same sex, etc)...and then there are those defects which are merely canonical, which are simply defects "of form" (the rules about witnesses, permissions from the Church, even aspects of the "psychological maturity" one)<br /><br />So, no, the defects are not entirely the same. There are Canonically imposed defects (which can be dispensed from already) and which could be re-interpreted as invalidating the Sacrament while not necessarily invalidating the natural ("putative") marriage.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-74210401928466509132010-04-26T05:56:07.238-05:002010-04-26T05:56:07.238-05:00Wonderful post! I think your ideas are clear and p...Wonderful post! I think your ideas are clear and pragmatic, except towards the end: "The canonical principle that 'two Christians can either form a full Sacrament, or absolutely nothing at all' needs to be re-examined". Re-examining is fine and well, but this paragraph leaves me unsatisfied. You do not seem to suggest how exactly two Christians could fail to contract a sacramental marriage while succeeding in contracting a natural one. Aren't the potential failings involved in each case the same (coercion, active desire to not have children, insanity, etc.)?Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17820424612104683658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-23587239414660759612010-02-01T22:04:15.209-06:002010-02-01T22:04:15.209-06:00Pope Benedict made an interesting statement to the...Pope Benedict made an interesting statement to the Roman Rota about not giving easy annulments as a matter of "justice".<br /><br />I suppose one thing we often fail to consider when thinking about treating annulments "pastorally" is that, sometimes...there is a partner who DOESNT WANT the annulment. Who thinks the marriage was valid and still wants to try to work things out.<br /><br />I also think that children complicate the situation and should give the tribunals (and the couple) pause. Especially then, people should try to work it out (they got married in the first place for SOME reason, they must have had some sort of connection on some level).<br /><br />However, while many Christians are against "no fault divorce"...I think that trying to blackmail people into staying together unhappily by holding financial or other penalties over their heads is stupid. If the only reason they're staying together is because they don't want to lose money in a "fault divorce"...that's hardly a good reason.<br /><br />When the marriage totally falls apart and BOTH parties want to move on...I think the Orthodox have a point in just assuming that such a marriage did not reach the level of total indissolubility for whatever reason and letting them move on with their lives (albeit with a penitential emphasis).<br /><br />There is something sadistic about the trad emphasis on keeping people together and controlling their sexuality by force; again, like with mandatory celibacy, this belief that we legislate the ideal into existence and everyone just has to suck it up, with little sympathy for human frailty.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-13547756224904353092010-01-29T06:41:32.142-06:002010-01-29T06:41:32.142-06:00i've never been comfortable with the term &quo...i've never been comfortable with the term "putative marriage" either. as you say, a marriage for all natural intents and purposes did happen even if it "fell short" of a full supernatural sacrament. recognizing this I would agree would go a long way towards making annulments seem less like a legalistic loophole, and help to emphasize (as the east does) that either way a human relationship broke down, even it hadnt reached the level of an undissolvable bond for whatever reason.Georgenoreply@blogger.com