Most marriages today are invalid, Pope Francis suggests

Hi Lumena
My marriage was also annulled and I was also told that neither the Church nor the State would consider my son to be illegitimate; the Church because, as far as I was concerned, when I gave birth to him I was married; and the State, at least in Ireland, no longer recognises the term 'illegitimate' - all children are legitimate regardless of the conditions under which they were born, the term illegitimate stigmatises the child, who is entirely innocent of any circumstances surrounding his or her conception or birth. I'm not even sure whether the Church still uses the term 'illegitimate' anymore either. While one could argue for or against that position, that is how it now stands in Irish law at least.

 

See response above.

 

Thank you Mario, you can't know how much that means to me.

 

Most catholics are married in a civil sense, their marriages are recongised as such by the civil authorities. But if they contracept at the same rate as non catholics, which apparently they do, according to statistics, then they have (either ignorantly or knowingly) denied the Sacramental Character of the Marital Bond, as it was designed by the Creator of the Bond of Holy Matrimony, Almighty God.

So yes, they are married in a civil sense but in a Sacramental sense they are not. Because they have not fully given themselves to one another, they are witholding certain goods from each other and controlling the whole thing. They are doing it their way and they are going the way of the world. But we are called to be in the world, yet not "of the world."

But it does not follow that just because they do not have a Sacramental union, all of their children are illegitimate. No - because they still have a civil union. (Or possibly had one, before they got divorced, if they are divorced).

Now we all know couples, Catholic or non Catholic, whose marriages have ended in Divorce. Does that make their children suddenly illegitimate? No.

Padraig, you have been on a rant.

(Now we all do this at times. Let him who has not sinned throw the first stone. Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa )

But in your ranting, dear Padraig, you have accorded things to the Holy Father that he did not say, by your conjecturing about the illegitimacy of children of parents whose marriages possibly or probably lack sacramental character.

What the Holy Father seems to be doing, to my way of thinking, (and I am guessing here) is alluding to the fact that there is quite a bit more to Sacramental Marriage than contemporary post Sexual Revolution Catholics realise, and that many are deluded, if they are thinking they have a Sacramental Union.

Meanwhile, in their deluded state, they know all the rules about how it's a sin to "live in sin".

But they are living in sin! Because of the Pill, the IUD, the tubal lgation/ Vasectomy, the Condom, the spermicide, the Diaphram, etc. etc. ad nauseum...

That's an invitation to all to examine whats really going on in their marriages.

Yes, The Holy Father has, in fact, just issued a very BIG wake up Call.

Thank you Holy Father.

Hello Catholic couples!

Guess what?

You might want to do your research and you might find out some things that you didnt know.

Wakey, wakey...

Wake up and SMELL THE COFFEE....

Time is running out.

But at the same time, the Holy Father is extending a certain graciousness to those ignorant souls, catholic or non, who are in un-witnessed, unsanctified unions, (living together but not married) yet, some of whom may well have in a certain sense conferred at least the beginnings of a Sacrament on one another, by comitting themselves one to another, completely, in faithfulness and unity, harmony and love, though they havn't yet taken that step of entering in to formal marriage, for whatever reason. (and these I admit would be more the exceptions thatn the rule).

But let us assume such couples could be out there and that he has on occasion met such couples who witness this kind of comittment, though they are not yet married formally. He' s letting them know that they are "safe " with him. He is holding out his hand to them, saying, in a sense "Come to the water, you who thirst. I do not condemn you for your decision to love someone. There is something of a seed of hope in such a decision. Come, let us reason together. "

Isn't that his job, his role, his vocation as a pastor of souls?

(Now I am putting words in his mouth, I know, but Im guessing here. How would I do it, if I was the Pope and I knew that the power of attraction was drawing sinners to the Church? Would I preach Hellfire and Brimstone to these people as I was dealing with them on the one on one level?

Or would I recognise something planted there that could be nurtured and directed to grow aright and bear fruit, and try to water that little plant with words of encouragement and try to protect that little plant and fertilise it with some teaching about the Sacrament of Marriage - and go from there?)

He has doubtless met such people, who are unbelievers, or lapsed, or whatever, in his pastoral journey, and he has chosen to gently shepherd them along.

His approach is evangelical.

A year ago I witnessed the marriage of my daughter, who was raised Catholic, to her protestant Christian husband. As I said previously, it was a marriage that took place in an Art Gallery, without the permission of the Bishop, and therefore is civilly valid - but not valid in the eyes of the Church.

There wasnt a dry eye in the house.

I knew that the ceremony was not valid in the eyes of the Church and for this I am sad.

But it was so moving that it melted stony hearts, and contributed towards conversions to Christainity, because their commitment to each other was so incredibly strong. Their innocence and will for the good was so inspiring. Their marriage is not what it should be, yet, from a Catholic and Sacramental point of view, but the seed is there - and I will ever so gently nurture it with prayer and with a certain amount of admiration for how much they desire to please God. And I believe that one day they will come to understand the necessity to give up artificial contraception.

So you could say, I see this great love, first for God and then for each other. This desire they have to remain together no matter what happens and to grow in their faith.

Yes, my eyes are open to the serious defects in their marriage - but I see hope and I see grace when I look at them together.

 

Lumena,

15-20 years ago there was a large group of very holy priests that I knew. They were questioning whether they were validly ordained, because the bishops who ordained them were, let's say, of a questionable nature. So, one at a time they re-took their vows from bishops they knew believed in the faith. Were they right? Wrong? Doesn't the same logic apply to a variety of sacraments? Maybe this was the reason for the widespread pedophilia? Invalid ordinations. Where does it stop?

 

Pic!!!!

You outa be asleep at this hour, surely?

Lol

All I'm saying is that, as defective as my daughters marriage is,( and I do know it has some grave defects,)it is still incredibly moving and inspiring to watch the little seed growing - and ...

I KNOW it has melted very hardened hearts. There is great grace there...

.. and He who began a good work will be faithful to complete it.

So I know what Francis means when he says he is sure the grace of the Sacrament is there in places where you would not expect it to be.

..and think of what we call the" Baptism of desire" - where the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism can be obtained in certain circumstances.

So we know that there are certain mysteries at work when it comes to SACRAMENTS ...

The Holy Father is no fool.

 

I found your comment both heart felt and moving and I could not help but think of the scripture of Samuel and Jeremiah that God looks to the heart and of Peter that love covers a multitude of sins. I also admire your courage in acknowledging their need to regularise their lives in line with Church teaching and the will of God. I find myself asking whose life does not need this kind of attention. I know mine needs this constantly. I agree that we are running out of time and that there is in our present era a special urgency for change but a mother's love always makes time for, and always protects, her children. God bless you and them. God bless the pope. Please excuse this intrusion on your life but I felt compelled to comment.

 

I could not give a long reply , Viv as I was in a campsite in the middle of nowhere and my smart phone is not too smart
in the middle of a forest. But I am doing a single night shift and so can answer your questions (I hope).

What the Holy Father originally said was that the large majority of marriages were invalid. This was later altered by the Vatican Press Office to read that many marriages were invalid. So it is moot whaat the Holy Father means or meant or intends in this. It is like reaidng tea leaves. He says one thing then with 24 hours the Vatican Press Office , 'corrects' things. It is as if he were speaking Manderin Chinese. This process of clarificatio nand correction is a constant. Is it any wonder everyone is baffled?

Perhaps they should declare the Vatican Press office as Pope and cut out Francis the middleman as the Press Office aways gets in the final word.

 

But if I take what the Pope said first time round, before the Press Office fixed things to be true than , no , it does not mean one way or another that folks canonically can remarry one way or the other. At least that is the way I take it. But we might both be better checking with the Vatican Press Office as they seem to know these things better than the Pope or anyone else does. So who knows?I don't think either the Pope or the Vatican Press Office changed dogma. But again it might be better to check with the Press Office just in case.
I know if I were Pope and they kept correcting everything I said there would soon be a few kicked asses.

Pope Francis, though, seems to go along with it all. How extraordinary. It make sme cross eyed trying to keep up.

Go figure.

 

Not an intrusion, no. Never say that! You are welcome

 

But actually I can make afair guess what Pope Francis has done in this case and in previous cases. In the first instance he says what he actually means.

ie That the large majority of Catholic marriages are invalid. This is the statement that will stick in folks minds and the one he wants to have stuck in peoples minds because it is the one he meant.

However if he left things like this there would be a huge storm in the Church of outrage.

So now the Vatican Press Office comes in and runs interference for him. They say what he really meant was that some marriages are invalid.

Then he just kept quiet and let things lie. For of ocurse he has what he wants, the best of both worlds. His first statement is the one makes the impact, the second Press Offfice one deflects criticism from the first while the first still effectively stands.

Only a Jesuit could come up with such a strategy and get away with it.

....and they wonder why people get confused. But I am not as confused as I once was.

But it is a very bad way of doing buisness.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Padraig. I hope your head gets a rest.

 

Better that they are forewarned enough to know that their so called marriages are sacramentally invalid than they die (or endure "the Warning' ) and find out when they meet their maker.

Forewarned is forearmed.

At least now they have a chance to do some deep soul searching and rectify matters.

Yes, Francis is a Good Shepherd, and in his own way he is preparing us for things unexpected.

He has put us on notice.

 

Here's someone without the rose tinted glasses on:

American canonist Dr. Edward Peters

Point One. Cohabitation is not marriage. Largely overlooked amid the furor caused by Pope Francis’ rash claim that “the great part of our sacramental marriages are null”—an assertion reckless if false (which it is) and brimming with despair if true (which it is not), a claim followed not by an apology, an official retraction, or even a bureaucratic ‘clarification’ but instead by an Orwellian alteration of the pope’s words in Vatican records—overlooked, I say, in this greater mess was the pope’s later but equally problematic comment about his being “sure that cohabitating couples are in a true marriage having the grace of marriage”. Though multi-facetedly wrong (theologically, canonically, pastorally, socially) the pope’s equating cohabitation (‘faithful’, whatever that means) with Christian marriage did not, mirabile dictu, get edited down to a platitude or deleted completely: his words are still there, “in queste convivenze … sono sicuro che questo è un matrimonio vero, hanno la grazia del matrimonio…”

Let’s be clear: marriage is marriage but cohabitation (as that word is nearly universally understood in social discourse) is only cohabitation.

 

I'm sure you mean well, but you are very mistaken. Yes, contraception is a very great evil - I'm not trying to downplay this point. But its use to intended use does not make a marriage null or deprive it of its sacramental character:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/are-many-marriages-today-invalid/


The fact of the matter is that the argument that most Catholic marriages are invalid is a very shaky one that goes against 2000 over Catholic doctrine and tradition. I am somewhat surprised that there are some who would try to defend such a position.

 

If we were to accept that the large majortiy of marriages are invalid the obvious question that springs to mind is what about the other sacraments? Clearly what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Take priestly ordination for instance. If a proportion of priestly ordinations are invalid then clearly some of our priests are not realy priests at all. So there ar elots of masses that are not really masses, baptisms that are not really abptisms and so on. ..and of course if these priests who are not really priests try to ordain otehr priests then they are not priests either and so on.

You see what a house of cards the Holy Father has constructed? For once you say that in most cases it does not work the whole edifice begins to crumble. ..and in case you think this example is ridiculous consider the position of the priesthood in the Middle ages whyen the priestly vocation had sunk to such a low. No one ever suggested the sacrament did not work, or was invalid.

No one in the history of the Papacy has pulled a rabbit out of the hat as Pope Francis has in this matter. He has, effectively gutted the legitmacy of the Sacrament.

 

" To exclude the right to have children, whether for a time, indefinitely or forever, whether on the part of one or both parties, or by mutual agreement, invalidates the marriage. Numerous couples have invoked the Winnipeg Statement to assert a “right” to exclude children and have brought this intention into a defective marital consent."

- Monsignor Vincent Foy

 

Would yo agree with Pope Francsi then that large majority of sacramental marriages are invalid?

 

Pope Francis “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these co-habitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity,”

This is simply not Catholic.

Marriage is marriage.

Cohabitation is cohabitation.

 

the winnipeg statement is an abomination

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=329580&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=