Category: Canon Law

Mary's Marriage

A reader writes:

I was sitting at a wedding this weekend and the Deacon was talking

about how we get married just as God had ordained with Adam and Eve,

Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Mary and Joseph.

Mary and Joseph immediately struck me as odd because, unlike everyone

else, their marriage is distinct from all others in our Catholic

Tradition in that they did NOT have sex.

And then your discussions of impotence and sex (HERE and HERE) came screaming

back to me in that they left the impression with me that in order for

a marriage to be valid, then the husband and wife must be able to as

well as actually share in the marrital act together.

So, I was left wondering… since Mary and Joseph did not share in the

marrital act, is their marriage valid? 

Yes. A valid marriage comes into existence upon the valid exchange of matrimonial consent between two parties that are free to marry each other and not otherwise impeded.

If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble.

Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph’s marriage to be valid.

Could a couple get married

today, always abstain from the marrital act, and still have a valid

marriage? 

Yes. This is known in Church history. It is referred to as "Josephite marriage" after St. Joseph. With a billion Catholics in the world, there are likely a number of such couples out there right now.

If so, then why does impotence really matter? 

Impotence is the inability to perform the marital act. Perpetual and incurable impotence is an impediment to marriage because marriage involves exchanging the right to conjugal relations. Giving valid matrimonial consent means binding oneself to pay the marriage debt if the other party reasonably requests it.

Therefore, if you don’t have the ability to pay the marriage debt then you cannot truthfully promise to render it to another. Consueqently, you cannot give another the right to conjugal relations with you, and thus you cannot exchange valid matrimonial consent.

It is possible, however, to exchange the right to conjugal relations even if neither party plans to exercise that right. To parties can plan never to have conjugal relations and yet exchange the right to do so should one or the other (or both) change their minds.

If Mary and Joseph entered marriage planning on not having conjugal relations then they still granted each other a right even though neither intended to use it.

On the other hand, it may be the case that they planned on having conjugal relations but the intervention of the Holy Spirit in conceiving Jesus before they came together caused them to change their plans.

Couldn’t an

impotent couple marry in the hope – like Abraham and Sarah – that God

will provide in some way?

A couple in which one or both parties was perpetually and incurably impotent cannot marry. However, a couple in which one or both parties are not perpetually impotent (i.e., are sometimes able to pay the marriage debt) or are curably impotent (e.g., via pharmaseuticals or surgery or counselling) can marry.

The case of Abraham and Sarah was different. Abraham and Sarah, though their union was infertile for much of their

marriage, could and did have marital relations. Impotence thus was not

the issue.

Their issue was not impotence (the inability to have sex) but infertility (the inability to have children). The latter is not an impediment to marriage since the parties are still able to pay the marriage debt to each other and so are able to validly exchange consent to marriage.

Excommunication For Simulated Ordinations?

Ed Peters has updated his canon law blog, where he writes:

While sacrilege is never funny, there is something comical about the recent spate of ladies climbing into river boats and play-acting as bishops and priests. Philippe Cardinal Barbarin however, second youngest elector in the College of Cardinals, was not amused when it occurred in the portion of the Lord’s vineyard entrusted to his care (Lyons, France) and yesterday he excommunicated a woman who was “ordained” a-boating by three other women (two of whom had already been excommunicated in late 2002 by then-Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, subsequent to their own “ordinations”—admittedly on a different river). But behind the Lyon and CDF edicts of excommunication, which sensible Catholics are likely to regard as canonical “no-brainers”, there is, I suggest, at least one, perhaps two, aspects of Church law undergoing development here.

GET THE STORY.

“We’ll Get It Blessed Later”

A reader writes:

I understand that Catholics are supposed to obtain a dispensation
to get married in a non-Catholic ceremony. I have a Catholic cousin
who will soon marry a Lutheran man in a Lutheran Church, and I understand
the groom-to-be’s mother is very adamant about it being that way. I asked the
bride-to-be’s grandfather (who is Catholic) if she obtained a dispensation, and he
said they claim the marriage will get blessed by the Catholic Church "later".

I really don’t
know all that’s being done to "keep the peace" or what was said by the local
    priest about a dispensation. They live hundreds of miles away and I have no idea
what kind of "practicing Catholic" the bride-to-be is. My dilemma is: Can I attend
this wedding?  Can I send a gift?

If no dispensation was obtained, but only a promise to "take care of things later" was
made, the wedding would still be "illicit" in form, right?  If the priest promises to
bless the marriage later, is that a valid dispensation?

Unless the Catholic party has received a dispensation from the obligation to observe the Catholic form of marriage then the marriage in question will not only be illicit, it will be invalid. What a priest may say is irrelevant. The diocese, not the local parish, must grant the dispensation. Promises by a priest to convaidate ("bless") the marriage later also do nothing to change the fact that the marriage will be invalid at the time it is contracted.

This means that no actual marital union will be established between the parties and they will be objectively fornicating until such time as they get their marital situation rectified.

Because of this, I cannot recommend that you attend the wedding or otherwise celebrate it (e.g., by giving a gift).

By being frank (but gentle and compassionate with them) about your reasons for not attending or otherwise celebrating the union, you would be performing an act of charity toward them by indicating (a) indicating to them that they are not really getting married and that what they would be doing after the service is objectively siful and (b) that someone in the family is willing to act in accordance with the truth instead of pretending that their "we’ll get it blessed later" plan is okay when it is not. Sometimes people need the example of others standing up for what is right before they’re willing to stand up for what is right themselves.

If they do proceed with their plan and, at some later date, have their marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church, at that time it would be appropriate to send gifts, etc.

Hope this helps!

20

"We'll Get It Blessed Later"

A reader writes:

I understand that Catholics are supposed to obtain a dispensation

to get married in a non-Catholic ceremony. I have a Catholic cousin

who will soon marry a Lutheran man in a Lutheran Church, and I understand

the groom-to-be’s mother is very adamant about it being that way. I asked the

bride-to-be’s grandfather (who is Catholic) if she obtained a dispensation, and he

said they claim the marriage will get blessed by the Catholic Church "later".

I really don’t

know all that’s being done to "keep the peace" or what was said by the local

    priest about a dispensation. They live hundreds of miles away and I have no idea

what kind of "practicing Catholic" the bride-to-be is. My dilemma is: Can I attend

this wedding?  Can I send a gift?

If no dispensation was obtained, but only a promise to "take care of things later" was

made, the wedding would still be "illicit" in form, right?  If the priest promises to

bless the marriage later, is that a valid dispensation?

Unless the Catholic party has received a dispensation from the obligation to observe the Catholic form of marriage then the marriage in question will not only be illicit, it will be invalid. What a priest may say is irrelevant. The diocese, not the local parish, must grant the dispensation. Promises by a priest to convaidate ("bless") the marriage later also do nothing to change the fact that the marriage will be invalid at the time it is contracted.

This means that no actual marital union will be established between the parties and they will be objectively fornicating until such time as they get their marital situation rectified.

Because of this, I cannot recommend that you attend the wedding or otherwise celebrate it (e.g., by giving a gift).

By being frank (but gentle and compassionate with them) about your reasons for not attending or otherwise celebrating the union, you would be performing an act of charity toward them by indicating (a) indicating to them that they are not really getting married and that what they would be doing after the service is objectively siful and (b) that someone in the family is willing to act in accordance with the truth instead of pretending that their "we’ll get it blessed later" plan is okay when it is not. Sometimes people need the example of others standing up for what is right before they’re willing to stand up for what is right themselves.

If they do proceed with their plan and, at some later date, have their marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church, at that time it would be appropriate to send gifts, etc.

Hope this helps!

20

Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation on Saturday: Part Deux

In response to a recent blog entry, a reader writes:

let’s say I’m Latin rite, and so I must go to Mass on the Feast of the Assumption. Can I go to an Eastern rite liturgy instead, even if they don’t celebrate the Assumption on that day? It’s not just different readings, ceremonies etc., but it’s a daily mass instead of a Solemn mass.

As noted before, here is what the law says:

A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass [CIC Can. 1248 §1].

Note that there is nothing in this about the rite you are attending having to be celebrating the same feast or offering a "solemn Mass" or anything like that. The fact is that by going on such a day you are celebrating the feast and fulfilling your obligation regardless of what is going on around you. By attending "a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite" you are "satisf[ing] the obligation of participating in the Mass." Period.

Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation on Saturday

A correspondent writes:

My mother just called me with a question (I’m the family theologian, I guess!). Her pastor insisted that the Easter Vigil Mass does not count as the Easter Sunday Mass "obligation." My wife and I usually go to the Easter Vigil Mass and Easter morning Mass, so it has never been a question in our minds, but I was always under the assumption that the vigil Mass would work the same way as a Mass of anticipation. As I thought about it, though, I realized that the readings are different, and that the special rites of the Vigil Mass may make a difference. Can you help to clarify this issue for us?

Your mother’s pastor probably had the same thought that you did–that the readings, etc., for Easter Vigil are different than those of Easter Sunday and that, as a consequence, Easter Vigil might not (or, in his opinion, does not) fulfill the Sunday obligation.

The idea that the readings of a Mass must be the same as those of the Sunday or holy day following in order to fulfill the obligation is a common idea, but it is in error. There is no doubt about this in the law.

Here is what the law says:

A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass [CIC Can. 1248 §1].

Note that there is nothing in the law about there needing to be any particular readings or set of ceremonies needed to fulfill the obligation. Any Mass in any rite on the evening of the preceding day satisfied the obligation.

The fact that no readings or ceremonies are required in the law is itself proof of the fact that they are not required, but the matter is doubly proven by the fact that the law provides that a Mass "anywhere in a Catholic rite" is sufficient. The reason is that the different rites have different readings and ceremonies in their Masses. If I were to go across the street to the local Maronite parish, or a few miles one way to the local Chaldean parish, or a few miles the other direction to the local Ruthenian parish, I would hear completely different readings and observe different ceremonies. Yet their Masses would fulfill my Sunday obligation, as the above canon indicates.

So despite the popular misconception, no particular rites or ceremonies are needed, and any Mass on Saturday evening–Easter Vigil Mass included–will satisfy the obligation for Sunday.