Talk:Natural marriage

Removing PROD

The article does have some sources, however inadequate. I think the article could be deleted or merged to Catholic marriage, but there is enough here to warrant a proper AfD discussion.  Tigerboy1966  08:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Un-natural marriages

The Catholic Church has a policy saying that marriages that involves children or pre-teens, performed in a Trinitarian Christian Church or not, are invalid? AFAIK people aged 10-14 could marry until relatively recently even in some Western countries, so it presumably would be a recent rule. Lguipontes (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

1983 Code of Canon Law: Can. 1083 §1 A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year. This corresponds to Canon 1067 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with the same ages listed. Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :)

I'll add that to the article. If someone has a source, it would be nice to back up this. Lguipontes (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends ... a marriage can be invalid but still be natural. For example, a marriage between a man and a woman is invalid if it is made under false premises, or if it is never consummated, but it is still natural because it involves two people of the opposite sex. Therefore it is wrong to confuse the concepts of invalid marriage and un-natural marriage. 132.208.197.73 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you. From my understanding, an invalid marriage is no marriage at all. It is neither sacramental nor natural, it is simply null and void. You will need to provide reliable secondary sources to back up your claim that a marriage can be both invalid and natural. Also, an unconsummated marriage can still be valid. The difference between a consummated marriage and an unconsummated one is that an valid consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any means. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree w/ Elizium23. Marriage requires validity (and therefore "natural" status) to be considered "marriage". The phrase "invalid marriage" is essentially metaphorical, for an invalid marriage cannot truly exist, since the existence of a marriage requires validity. "Natural" in canonical jargon does not denote a heterosexual contract, but a valid marriage between two persons who are legally capable. This of course means that the contracting parties must be of the opposite sexes, but this is not the sole prerequisite for a natural/valid marriage. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 05:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Top sections need some work

The first several sections are problematic from several perspectives. One, they are more specific than needs to be. The only criterion for a non-sacramental or natural marriage is that at least one of the parties is not baptized. The church makes no distinction in law between Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Two, they only treat the case of "Catholic + 1", where actually it does not matter if one person is Catholic, Protestant, or unbaptized, a natural marriage is a valid marriage where one or two parties is not baptized. So Hindu marriages, for example, are valid natural marriages, as long as they do not suffer from impediments specified in the canons. Three, when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, permission or a dispensation is required for (1) marrying a baptized person ("mixed marriage") or marrying a non-baptized person ("disparity of cult") and (2) possibility of having a non-Catholic ceremony, that is, not inside a church and not witnessed by a priest or deacon of the Catholic church. These permissions are available, but when they are not obtained, the marriage is invalid, which means it doesn't exist from the point of view of the Catholic church. So, in my view, these sections can be simplified and clarified, and I will work on finding good sources, which will not be a problem, because every diocese and apologetics site has its own frequently asked question lists about marriage, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Elizium23 (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, because a marriage can be both invalid and natural under canon law. For example, a marriage between a man and a woman is invalid if it is made under false premises, or if it is never consummated, but it is still natural because it involves two people of the opposite sex. 132.208.197.73 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But if the hypothetical man and woman are subject to canon law, their marriage is invalid, for if they are subject to canon law, one of them must be Catholic, and the canonical laws to which they are subject regulate the validity of the marriages of Catholics.

Can. 1059 The marriage of catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.

Now canon law specifically states

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.

Therefore, their marriage would be invalid (and therefore not natural) under canon law. If the two are not subject to canon law, then their marriage would not be "under canon law" in the first place. Therefore, no marriage can be both invalid and natural under canon law.

I hope this clears some things up.

Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk