I think we are living in a culture that simply does NOT have expectations that a couple understands and is committed to upholding their vows. This is why so many men and women don't bother to marry at all but choose to cohabit. Marriage itself is viewed by far too many as either too difficult an undertaking or one without much value.
Marriage IS a difficult undertaking, but we must ask ourselves why every generation before about 1960 eagerly accepted its challenge, whereas current generations do not. To the society now existing around us, marriage is merely a convenience aimed at sexual satisfaction — and has no great advantage to offer that cohabitation does not. Against that backdrop, Christian marriage could really stand out as an alternative to the emptiness that plagues modern relationships — if there are any Christians willing to provide it.
We (the Church/the State) entrust a lot to the married couple: that they remain honestly committed, that they raise their children responsibly, that they engender a family of love and care which spills back over onto society for the mutual benefit of all. Our hope for their success is why we celebrate the accomplishment of their commitment before it is a fait accompli. Perhaps there is no other means of verifying some truths that are works in progress than trusting in and encouraging their eventual realization. And if relationship failure rears its ugly head, even that should be handled delicately with hope, for all of us suffer spiritual defects at birth from original sin.
Consummating the marital act is a private issue. No surveillance cameras, please!
I think that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on the marital act.
Let's consider the wedding vows: "in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse, til death do us part"
This is what I vowed on my wedding day. Regardless of consummating the marital act, I vowed fidelity to my wife.
Consider the scenarios where couples are unable to consummate their wedding. A soldier who is forced to deploy immediately after his wedding. He and his wife remain faithful to one another, accepting the wartime separation as their cross. For the duration of the war, the spouses remain faithful to one another. The soldier dies during the war.
Yes, that's a valid marriage. No one other than the husband and wife needs to know about their marital intimacy.
The vows are a very different thing. They're taken in public, before witnesses. Either we take them seriously, and assume the marital partners will honor them, or...
Or what? That's the point I'm trying to make. We assume that the couple consummated the marriage. Why don't we also assume that-- absent force or fraud-- they knew what they were doing when they took those vows.
Knew what they were getting into? Of course not! Nobody does. But the vows are "for better or worse."
Correct. Did they really know what they were getting into? At some level, they did not. Even the most sincere and devout couple do not know the trials they will face.
However, I think that a couple who have engaged in some sort of courtship and have discussed the potential trials of marriage, are entering into a valid marriage. Those who make no attempt at discerning what marriage entails, e.g., marriages in the heat of passion (e.g., eloping) probably enter into an invalid marriage.
How do we know that a man who receives Holy Orders has given himself fully to God?
How do we know that a Baptized and Confirmed person intends to welcome the promises and gifts to fulfill those promises?
How do we know that a person who presents for Holy Communion -- to participate in the consuming of the sacrificial victim in a way that lends one's will and person to validating the offering -- genuinely validates the offering in his/her life, and with no competing publicly celebrated loyalties (Acts 15)?
How do we know a person who presents for Reconciliation is sorry and intends to at least try to avoid (or decrease) the sin in their lives?
It seems a benefit of the doubt is given to everyone who receives a sacrament.
I think we are living in a culture that simply does NOT have expectations that a couple understands and is committed to upholding their vows. This is why so many men and women don't bother to marry at all but choose to cohabit. Marriage itself is viewed by far too many as either too difficult an undertaking or one without much value.
Marriage IS a difficult undertaking, but we must ask ourselves why every generation before about 1960 eagerly accepted its challenge, whereas current generations do not. To the society now existing around us, marriage is merely a convenience aimed at sexual satisfaction — and has no great advantage to offer that cohabitation does not. Against that backdrop, Christian marriage could really stand out as an alternative to the emptiness that plagues modern relationships — if there are any Christians willing to provide it.
We (the Church/the State) entrust a lot to the married couple: that they remain honestly committed, that they raise their children responsibly, that they engender a family of love and care which spills back over onto society for the mutual benefit of all. Our hope for their success is why we celebrate the accomplishment of their commitment before it is a fait accompli. Perhaps there is no other means of verifying some truths that are works in progress than trusting in and encouraging their eventual realization. And if relationship failure rears its ugly head, even that should be handled delicately with hope, for all of us suffer spiritual defects at birth from original sin.
Consummating the marital act is a private issue. No surveillance cameras, please!
I think that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on the marital act.
Let's consider the wedding vows: "in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse, til death do us part"
This is what I vowed on my wedding day. Regardless of consummating the marital act, I vowed fidelity to my wife.
Consider the scenarios where couples are unable to consummate their wedding. A soldier who is forced to deploy immediately after his wedding. He and his wife remain faithful to one another, accepting the wartime separation as their cross. For the duration of the war, the spouses remain faithful to one another. The soldier dies during the war.
Is this not a valid marriage?
Any thoughts by other readers?
Yes, that's a valid marriage. No one other than the husband and wife needs to know about their marital intimacy.
The vows are a very different thing. They're taken in public, before witnesses. Either we take them seriously, and assume the marital partners will honor them, or...
Or what? That's the point I'm trying to make. We assume that the couple consummated the marriage. Why don't we also assume that-- absent force or fraud-- they knew what they were doing when they took those vows.
Knew what they were getting into? Of course not! Nobody does. But the vows are "for better or worse."
Correct. Did they really know what they were getting into? At some level, they did not. Even the most sincere and devout couple do not know the trials they will face.
However, I think that a couple who have engaged in some sort of courtship and have discussed the potential trials of marriage, are entering into a valid marriage. Those who make no attempt at discerning what marriage entails, e.g., marriages in the heat of passion (e.g., eloping) probably enter into an invalid marriage.
How do we know that a man who receives Holy Orders has given himself fully to God?
How do we know that a Baptized and Confirmed person intends to welcome the promises and gifts to fulfill those promises?
How do we know that a person who presents for Holy Communion -- to participate in the consuming of the sacrificial victim in a way that lends one's will and person to validating the offering -- genuinely validates the offering in his/her life, and with no competing publicly celebrated loyalties (Acts 15)?
How do we know a person who presents for Reconciliation is sorry and intends to at least try to avoid (or decrease) the sin in their lives?
It seems a benefit of the doubt is given to everyone who receives a sacrament.
We don't. We assume that the sacrament is received worthily, unless-- in rare cases-- it is proven otherwise. As we should for marriage.