A few years ago, I discovered that my marriage was not a sacrament because my wonderful husband is not baptised. We had had a dispensation to marry in the Church with nuptial mass. We went to preparation classes, but the nature of our marriage was not discussed. Apparently it is not sacramental because it does not signify the union between Christ and the Church (The Tablet, 25 October). Was I hurt? Yes!! Angry? Yes!! Can such a distinction be made if you had no control over what happened to you when you were born?
The sacraments do not cause grace. As we learnt in the catechism, a sacrament is "an outward sign of inward grace". The offer of grace is already present to all, every one of us, and the sacraments focus that communication of grace so that Christ’s presence may be effective. My husband is consecrated through me and as we are all, every one of us, wonderfully loved by God, so his grace enables and perfects the love we have for each other (CCC p.366).
My awareness of Christ’s presence may be feeble, not even "hem of his garment" level, but "feeble" is awesome enough! Is the Church the community of those "on the way" or "those who have arrived"?
We have been married for forty one years.
Jean M. Brocklehurst, Derby
Alicia Sloane writes: “When a marriage takes place between a man and a woman neither of whom has been baptised as a Catholic... provided neither has a previous marriage partner still living, the Church recognises such a marriage as valid so long as it is celebrated in a ceremony recognised as legally binding by the civil jurisdiction within which it takes place.”
How can this be?
It is patent that there are many different kinds of marriage. Christian marriage is a one-one relationship, but a Muslim man may have up to four wives. Catholic marriages are indissoluble, but in certain circumstances Anglican and Orthodox marriages are not. For all I know, cohabitation may be binding in some kinds of marriage and not just usual. One feature of every kind of marriage is that the parties enter into a contract with each other, even if it is not formally spelled out; it would be reasonable in most cases to assume that the contract is that specified by the relevant jurisdiction.
The contracts differ in detail from one nation or denomination to another, especially with regard to the circumstances in which the contract may be terminated, so each gives rise to a different kind of marriage, but any one kind has at least some shared features with some of the other kinds, even if there is no lowest common denominator of features that are shared by every kind of marriage.
It is reasonable to suppose that spouses enter into the kind(s) of marriage that tally with their nationality and/or religion (people can contract both a national and a denominational marriage; when this happens, it is confusing).
Marrying is normally a voluntary activity; hence to contract a valid marriage the parties to it must know what they are doing and intend to do it. But Alicia Sloane’s two unbaptised people do not intend to contract a Catholic marriage, and they cannot do so unwittingly. To account their marriage as being of the Catholic kind would appear not only to violate the conditions for a voluntary action but also to be a monstrous act of religious imperialism.
Again, I ask, how can this be?
Dr T C Potts, Wakefield
Loading ...
