Jump to content

Talk:Marriage in the Catholic Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very problematic chapter "History of marriage in the Catholic church"

[edit]

"Paul had suggested that marriage be used only as a last resort by those Christians that found it too difficult to remain chaste.[4]". what ABOSS As far as I know the only reliable source for what Paul suggested and not is his epistles in the Bible; and he states "Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [i.e celibate], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another". Marriage is [accorgin to him] therfore not a "last resort"; it's the lesser good of two good alternatives. The source for this unfounded claim is "Karen Armstrong", a member of the Bible Seminar, a group that for some peculiar reason knows the Bible better than those who wrote it.

Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil" (Letter 22).

In this quote he seems to contradict himself: is marriage good or not? What he actually states is "I do not detract from wedlock when I set virginity before it. No one compares a bad thing with a good." (Letter 22:19) He clearly states that both are good alternatives! WHat a boss Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication" (An Exhortation to Chastity")

This is the worst one! First of all we can ask if Tertullians ideas says anything about catholicism when he was not orthodox/catholic, he was a montanist. I don't find the literal quote in the text (maybe it's just an other translation) but I find the subject and the word "fornication" in chapter 9 in "An Exhortation to Chastity". There he states "Second marriage will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication". This is nothing else than forgery!

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication.

Source?

Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.

Soure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.159.65 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Paul, we have the following from Corinthians:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Hardly a ringing endorsement either for marriage or for sexual contact of any kind? We must avoid being anachronistic here and understand the context - the early Christians urgently believed the end of the world was imminent; any "earthly" ties were to be avoided.
Interesting point about the Bible Seminar though - would be good if we could get hold of someone around today who wrote the Bible to give us their view. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contalado80 - Your interpretation of 1 Cor 7 is very flawed. The Chapter is speaking to Marriage, Virginity, Celibate life and Widowhood. All indications are Paul was a celibate. He starts with referring to a letter he received regarding such questions. Then states - "It is a good thing for man not to touch a woman" - to point out those who are celibate act well and not contrary to Christian theology - and he expands - through marriage, one avoids immorality i.e., sex outside marriage, lust based relationships and adultery. He, in fact, is endorsing marriage as a gift in fidelity one spouse to the other - just as his celibacy is a gift.

He then expands on sexual relations between a husband and wife - obviously - married. To denounce marriage would be an abrogation of the divine call to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis. No authentic Jewish or Christian teacher of any era would denounce marriage.

He is not at all suggesting sexual contact "of any kind" is to be denounced. Clearly, he is stating it is acceptable if one is married. He does - clearly - denounce sexual relations outside marriage as immoral.

Further, the notion of all "earthly ties" as it relates to sex and marriage are to be avoided as a universally accepted dictum in early Christianity is also flawed. Some, indeed, took the idea of a healthy detachment from worldly allurements to extremes and were discredited as a form of Gnostic Christianity and dualism among other false ideas of what Christianity is. This was never the norm. Or, what we today call, "mainstream" as you are attempting to imply. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

It seems odd to me that there is no picture of a modern Catholic marriage which is different (and looks very different) from one in 1445. Does anyone have a modern photograph that could be used? I hope I did this right his my first comment on a talk page. Redtizzy 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"legitimacy" of children

[edit]

I am going to rephrase "(although their children may still be considered to be legitimate)" to "(the children are in all cases considered legitimate, as there is no concept of "illegitimacy" in Catholic theology of Canon Law.)"

Unless someone can cite something to the contrary, of course.Zerobot 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon 1137 of the Code of Canon Law (1983) states, "The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate." So the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children seems to be relevant under Canon Law, although I am unaware of what the consequences of illegitimacy are under canon law. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The last link provided seems to be dead. Could someone please confirm and delete it ?

www.annulmentfaq.com -- Annulment guide (Catholic Annulments)


BTW, is the priest the celebrant, or are the husband and wife ?

  • The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are husband and wife. If either is Catholic and the marriage is not performed before the representative of the bishop (in most cases, a priest), the marriage is invalid as to form. -Binky 05:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is not completly true, the minister of the sacrament in the Eastern Catholic Churches (which are in communion with the Roman Church) is the priest.

Cjrs 79

I thought in CCEO the minister is the couple, but the priest gives the nuptual blessing which is requried for validity. DaveTroy 4 Dec
  • See "The Physical Signs of the Sacrament"

invalid vs. illicit

[edit]
  • An illicit marriage is one which was forbidden but was nonetheless took place, and it would not be annulled on that basis (illicit marriages are not invalid marriages). An invalid marriage can be annulled. A marriage involving at least one Catholic which is invalid as to form is annullable on that basis: it's invalid, not just illicit. - Binky 05:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Disparity of Cult

[edit]

The definition of "disparity of cult" is not between a Catholic and non-Catholic, but rather between a Catholic and a non-baptized person. If the subjects are a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic Christian the proper term is simply mixed marriage (ref: para 1633 Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Impediments to get married

[edit]

Note that vows of chastity of celibacy do not make a marriage invavlid. Before the new canon law revision, religious people that made solemn vows (which were "stronger in some sense" to perpetual vows) that tried to get married, those marriages were null and void, but now there is no real distinction between solemn and perpetual vows, some orders and congregations do keep the distinction but it's made more specific in their respective constitutions. I do not know if the distinction still exists for the marriage to be vaild.

Something else, in the "Catholic" Church, meaning Roman Catholic the ministers of the marriage are the spouses who have to follow canonical form for the marriage to be valid, but in the Eastern Catholic Church there has to be a priest present and the priest is the actual minister of the marriage.

Impediments, like cousins, etc, can be "overturned" by the Ordinary of the diocese where the spouses live, or where they intend to live. (The Ordinary in Catholic theology and law is the person with jurisdiction in a certain place or over certain people. In general it relates to Bishops, but Religious Superiors are Ordinaries of their institutes)

Cjrs 79 04:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Public perpetual vow of chasity in a religous congregation (solemn or simple) is an impediment to marriage. Relations in the direct line and 2nd degree are always infallible. I think 3rd degree (1st cousins) can be dispensed. Also antecedent and perpetual impotence, habitual lack of reason, age, crime, public scandal are also impediments. DaveTroy 14 Dec 2005
Ordinary 1st cousins (no identical twins involved) are 4th degree of consanguinity. Infitada (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any expert?

[edit]

I know a bit about the subject, and i was thinking about taking this artile a a project and expanding it, but i want to see if there's anyone out there who can help or has ideas on how to expand it. I was thinking about a section on the RCC views on other marriages, etc.

Cjrs 79 I'm no expert, but I'm from Singapore, and I notice there are several dating sites for single Singapore Christians. The big newspaper here even did a story about Christian dating in Singapore. This is a different generation, I suppose, but I'd like to know if this is becoming a popular way for younger Catholics to meet spouses in the US and Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.11 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

Is it ever possible for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic and the two parties NOT agree to raise the children as catholic, and the marriage still be recognized as valid by the Catholic church?--64.111.138.23 8 July:59 (UTC)

Off hand, I would say yes, so long as there is not an intention against children, which would make the marriage invalid. On the other hand, why would you promise something you don't intend to do?DaveTroy 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are suposed to agree before the wedding if you will raise your children Catholic. You can get married (I believe) if you decide not to, but you are severely looked down upon, as not doing so is a mortal sin (the gravest group of offenses/sins in the Catholic Church).--Veghead13 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic part must (necessarily) promise to do his best in raising the children as Catholic. That doesn't seem to lead necessarily to both of the parents deciding for raising in Catholicim. However, even if they are raised Protestant I think the Catholic part should do his best to (1) explain his Catholicim and (2) have the Catholic direction preferred where Protestantism is undecided - but that's just my thinking. --77.4.66.158 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Does the church acknowledge the legal existence of non-Catholic marriages in any way? For example, are Catholics who have been married outside of the church considered to be living in sin? Are all non-Catholic married people in the world guilty of fornication? If a married couple who is not Catholic converts to Catholicism, are they considered unmarried until they remarry in the church? Rhesusman 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism distiguishes between marriage (civil) and sacramental marriage, as of the 1983 Code. Under the 1983 Code, marriages between 2 people who are free to marry, who are baptized Christians, and neither are Catholic, they are in a sacramental marriage (we presume); the church does, however, recognize all civil aspects of marriage normally (esp as to children)whether or not the couple is Christian as most civil law pertains to the State. If a non Catholic couple validly marries, and then they convert, there is no need for a convalidiation -- prior to conversion they were not subject to merely ecclesial law. The issues arise when a couple contradicts a Divine Positive law (ie man and woman, potency, etc) or Divine Natural Law which bind all people whether or not they are baptized by the nature of the lawgiver -- God. DaveTroy 14 Dec 2005
As far as I know, the previous marriage of converters is considered valid as long as they receive a blessing from their Bishop through a priest or in person.--Veghead13 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --liquidGhoul 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Catholic marriage → Roman Catholic views of marriage – In keeping with the name of the main article page (Roman Catholic Church), this article refers specifically to that denomination and not to churches in the Catholic tradition generally. The proposed renaming is also in line with Christian views of marriage. Fishhead64 00:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments
  • I strongly oppose name with "views" - that would encompass theology (marriage as a symbol) rather than laws. Gimmetrow 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — whose canon law are talking about? This is article is 100% about marriage legally and theologically within the framework of the Roman Catholic Church. — Gareth Hughes 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The typical reader would understand "canon law" without modification to refer to the Romans, as that is how it is used predominantly. If I want to refer to something else, I say "Eastern canon law" or "Anglican canon law". For instance, in the Britannica article on "canon law" all unmodified uses of the term are either Roman, historical (pre-1500), or abstract (the idea of church law). This is similar to why "Church of England" is not ambigous - unmodified uses of that term refer predominantly to one entity, although many other entities use a similar phrase or identical phrase with a modifier, such as the "Evangelical Lutheran Church of England" and the "Old Catholic Church of England." Gimmetrow 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

conditions for valid marriage.

[edit]

I deleted and re wrote this to include only the essencials. I believe this accurately reflects the canons on marriage. It is worth noting that a liturgical act is not required for validity, only licity. However, CANONICAL FORM (which is a different concept) is required for validity.DaveTroy 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 document added

[edit]

Under conditions for valid marriage, I added the two decrees that most affect current marriage law, outside the CIC/83 itself. Should either be linked internatlly? If so, would someone who knows how do it? Thanks!!!

pls correct my intext citation?

[edit]

Hey Ya'll

For what ever reason, my mouse (apple) doesn't seem to like WIKIbuttons. I put in the citation, and corrections, for ratfied, non consumated marriages into the text. If someone could correct it from INTEXT to FOOTNOTE I'd be most grateful. 

DaveTroy (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural marriage

[edit]

There ought to be a stub on the canon law term of natural marriage, which is the lawful non-Christian union of one man and one woman. The opposite term is sacramental marriage, which is what any lawful marriage between a man and woman who have received a trinitarian baptism. [1] ADM (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is a bit complicated, especially when trying to determine the legal status status of Newt Gingrich's marriage, who only formally entered the Catholic Church during his thirs marriage. According to canon law, a Protestant baptism is equally valid to a Catholic baptism because it is Trinitarian. A Protestant marriage is also an equally valid sacramental marriage because both members are validly baptized. Therefore, according to canon law, Newt has been Catholic since he was first baptized and his first marriage should be considered a Catholic marriage. Therefore, his two successive marriages are invalid in the eyes of the Church and Newt cannot approach communion, since his current marriage is similar to a form of adultery.
Newt Gingrich's marriage is of no relevance to this article so not sure why he has been cited? Contaldo80 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009

(UTC)

Contaldo80 makes a good point. The Gingrich marriage is an example of a complex spiritual journey but not of much use here.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Marriage

[edit]

I was unable to find a source for the definition of marriage at the beginning of this article; therefore, I gave the definition found in Canon Law and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.198.191 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of catholics to non-catholics

[edit]

I think we should spend some time in this article setting out the current rules and the evolution of practice over the centuries. Does anyone have any thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a Christian man could have a concubine"

[edit]

The article previously stated:

The Council of Toledo in 397 affirmed that a Christian man could have a concubine or a wife but not both at the same time.[citation needed]

Looking into it, the council did indeed decree "is qui non habet uxorem, et pro uxore concubinam habet, a communione non repellatur" (§17, meaning he who does not have an "uxor", but has a "concubina" in place of one, shall not be turned away from communion). Given that one often translates uxor as "wife" and concubina as "concubine", this might seem to support the statement from the article.

However this is completely incorrect, and based on a misunderstanding of the Roman Empire's marriage institutions (or of the historical evolution of the terms uxor and concubina). In Ancient Rome, a woman could not be an uxor unless she and the man were of equivalent social standing; if this were not the case, she would be a concubina. There were concubinae in monogamous and loving relationships who were in essence what today we would call wives.

From a Catholic perspective, the old uxor/concubina distinction was irrelevant--both were wives, if the relationship met the criteria for a Christian understanding of marriage. So the council here is saying that whether an uxor or a concubina "in place of an uxor", monogamy is the rule. It is certainly not saying that concubinage, in the later sense of the term, is permitted, rather the language was still at the point of evolving in 397 from a Roman Imperial notion of matrimony to a Catholic one. Therefore I have removed the sentence from the article as it is factually inaccurate and quite misleading. On the other hand I do not think a correct reading of the council's decree says anything noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sex before marriage

[edit]

Finding material that seems to suggest that early Christians would have sex after formal betrothal, before "marriage" which was, in earlier times, a "blessing" by a priest. See http://thewitness.org/archive/april2000/marriage.html. This has a ring of truth to it.

Revert of 23 August 2013

[edit]

I have had to undo a reverting edit that

  1. falsely said the Council of Trent did not reaffirm but only "sought to reaffirm" that marriage is a sacrament (the council did clearly and solemnly reaffirm this statement, already made by other councils);
  2. falsely said that the Byzantine liturgical tradition (that of the Eastern Orthodox Church) is shared with the Oriental Orthodox churches;
  3. falsely said that Catholic marriage annulments "can only be granted by bishops";
  4. falsely said that the Catholic Church "has consistently taken the position that a valid marriage is indissoluble" (the Catholic Church regularly grants dissolution of the bond of valid marriage, if the marriage is not consummated or if it falls within the scope of the Pauline privilege or the so-called Petrine Privilege);
  5. presented as fact one opinion about the reason why the Council of Trent adopted a certain decree (a different opinion not only exists but is even mentioned in the article);
  6. deleted without reply the request to quote the source for the claim that the Encomium matrimonii was "an attack on chastity" rather than on celibacy. It would be interesting to see in which words MacCulloch said Erasmus was in favour of being unchaste, when others say he was in favour instead of being married. Esoglou (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these aren't edits I've been involved in. "Sought to reaffirm" is a perfectly acceptable way of summarising. There is nothing untrue in it. So am changing back unless you can demonstrate that Trent did not seek to reaffirm. The assertion on Tametsi is from the source. Dispute the source if you like. But it's going back in until then. MacCulloch uses chastity and not celibacy. The reference is there - look it up. For the moment it goes backin. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You undeniably involved yourself in all these changes through this edit of yours. Anyone who reads the Council of Trent's reaffirmation of the teaching that marriage is a sacrament can see what nonsense it is to say that the Council only "sought to" reaffirm it. The Council did reaffirm that teaching, it didn't just seek to, try to, aim to, desire to, wish to, endeavour to. So please don't reinsert such nonsense. The teaching was in fact reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. "The assertion on Tametsi is from the source", you say. That I don't doubt. Why then are you so shy about reporting the assertion as the source's? You can't present it as what it is not, namely, an unquestioned and unquestionable fact. You must present it as what MacCulloch says. I take your word for it that MacCulloch also calls Erasmus's downplaying of celibacy "an attack on chastity", although it is difficult to accept this characterization of MacCulloch as unable to distinguish between celibacy and chastity; but it is reasonable to ask for a quotation of MacCulloch's words: Wikipedia states that the "request quotation" inline template, which you have once again deleted without deigning to respond to it, "is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online", as is the case with MacCulloch's book. Esoglou (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're being precious. Why is it incorrect to say Trent "sought to reaffirm". This is a perectly acceptable use of the English language. Your insistence on changing the wording is baffling. And in any case it clearly did not reaffirm the teaching in a good chunk of Europe which by then had become protestant. And what's it got to do with being shy about asserting the source on Tametsi? Are you really suggesting that for every single line of the article we add things like "John Smith said x..." "James Brown said y..." If it's a particularly controversial argument then I accept we can present counter-point and perhaps draw out names on each side of the argument. But you're only using your own hunch that it's controversial, without evidence. And you want it to do it to suggest that the point is an outlier, not accepted by the majority. The onus is on you to prove its not. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Reputedly anti-Catholic Diarmuid MacCulloch..." What the? What level of sheer idiocy is this? You've sunk to a new low. Dispute the argument but do not try to discredit the author. He's Professor of Church History at the University of Oxford. I'm guessing he knows a damn sight more about this stuff than you. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He [Erasmus] soon came under fire from that bastion of traditional theological orthodoxy, the University of Paris, where the leading theologian Josse Clichthove went ino print in 1522 to reproach him for undermining chastity by his praise of marriage". 13:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk)
Grazzi, Contaldo. I take it that what you have given just above is the requested quotation. As for "sought to reaffirm", it is nonsense and unsourced. "Reaffirmed" is realistic and, what is even more important in Wikipedia, sourced. Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to accept the remainder of the changes you have made. If you think it's important to directly name MacCulloch and Beal then I can live with it (with a sight tweak) - although I still think it's over-kill and intended to undermine the reliabiliy of the source. I also don't think there is really a conflict between what MacCulloch and Beal say. MacCulloch has argued that the 16th century began a 'reformation of manners' which saw an increased interest by both catholics and protestants in the regulation of sex and relationships. Beal's comments sound consistent with that ( - I also hadn't noted until now that Beal is Reverend Father John Beal at the Catholic University of America - impartial? He's also a canon lawyer and not a historian.) However, I do have serious concerns about the use of "reaffirmed" in the context of the Council of Trent reaffirming that there are seven sacraments. I'm not convinced this is historically accurate (although I accept it may be the teaching of the magisterium). References were made to seven sacraments from the 12th century onwards - but earlier than that there were less generally cited. Trent certainly established once and for all that there were seven - and marriage was one of them. The point is important because many protestant churches continued to see themselves as catholic and yet did not accept that it had been definitively said that there were seven (and still do not believe marriage is included). Trent may have believed that it had "reaffirmed" but that may not be what others thought. That's why I proposed "sought to reaffirm" - ie for Roman Catholics post Trent (and failing when it came to imposing that position on protestant churches). To fail to address this leaves the article suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is right an other churches are wrong. This is bias. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grazzi għal darb'oħra, Contaldo, for "accepting" that, as the cited source explicitly said, the Council of Trent "reaffirmed" that Christian marriage is a sacrament, thus declaring that, of course, there was no going back on what had already been authoritatively declared by Pope Innocent III, the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Florence. Don't forget, the article is "Marriage (Catholic Church)", not "Marriage (Protestant ideas)" It's a pity that someone depends so much on a paperback by a writer who knows he is generally considered anti-Catholic, but prefers to call himself anti-curialist, and who has the notion that Catholics, who even before the Council of Trent held Christian marriage to be an indissoluble sacrament, needed at Trent to demonstrate that they were "as serious about marriage" as those who said: "No, marriage is no sacrament and you can divorce even from a valid marriage." If ideas of that kind are put in Wikipedia, they cry out for the person who enunciated them to be named, so that they are not attributed to Wikipedia itself. Esoglou (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look I have been prepared to engage in serious debate with you but if you're going to be silly then I won't bother. Trying to dismiss MacCulloch as anti-Catholic and anti-Curialist and then dismiss his book on the Reformation as a "paperback" demonstrates a shocking lack of objectivity and respect for academic discourse. And then to offer Reverend Father Beal as a more "reliable" commentator is simply partisan - he knows nothing about history, only Church law. I've explained why "reaffirmed" is the wrong term to use. There were not always seven sacraments - they developed over time - so it is misleading to imply this. I'll find a better form of wording that avoids making an explicit statement either for or against. But you're going to have to tone down the pro-Catholic agenda if you're going to be trusted to edit in terms of neutrality and objectivity. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contaldo80 - This Article is about how the Catholic Church understands marriage, not various views from every possible POV, or how others understand marriage. Your insistent imposition to transform it into such is extraordinarily disruptive - as your edit history and engaging circular debates indicates - and has all the marks of an agenda.

There exists already numerous Articles on Marriage on Wikipedia which readers can access with ease. What are you attempting to accomplish here exactly? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Spare us your analysis"

[edit]

I'm sorry - I beg your pardon? My analysis? And you should be spared it? If you're going to edit then show some manner of courtesy and a degree of professionalism. The sentence which I restored is not my analysis at all but is taken from a highly acclaimed and weighty book on the Reformation. Dispute the source by all means. But don't use lazy arguments to do it. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what "courtesy" and "professionalism" are? You are one of the most offensive and unprofessional editors I have had the misfortune to encounter for a long time. So you can spare me your patronising hypocrisy as well. Afterwriting (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see how your extremely vague and poorly worded edit on canon law and annulments, which you only supported with a reference to a book on the history of the Reformation around 500 years ago, contributed anything of any real relevance to the article. It is just not good enough. Afterwriting (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Just not good enough". Praise indeed, coming from such an expert on the issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sought" vs "does"

[edit]

Obamacare seeks to improve medical care for all Americans. A SSM marriage law legalizes SSM. Both are enforceable statutes. The first "tries". We have no preknowledge of the actual affect. The second one actually accomplishes something. The Council of Trent states canonical (church legal) requirements for marriage. Without following them, people are not legally married within the church. By following them, they are. We know the affect. Using "seek" in an offhand manner seems to violate WP:CLAIM IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this profound contribution to the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! It's nice to be appreciated! Student7 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insistent removal of "reaffirmed"

[edit]

Removing once again the statement that the Council of Trent reaffirmed the teaching that for Christians marriage is a sacrament:

  1. is silly. The Council's action in affirming again what had already been clearly affirmed by Pope Innocent III in 1208, the second ecumenical council of Lyon in 1274 and the ecumenical council of Florence in 1439 was clearly a reaffirming of it. A denial of this is silly. I am not saying that the editor is silly. At times, intelligent people do silly things. However, "accepting" that it was a reaffirmation and afterwards withdrawing acceptance of something so obvious does remind one of Proverbs 26:11: "Bħal kelb li jerġa' jiekol dak li jaqla', hekk l-iblah li jtenni bluhatu."
  2. contravenes Wikipedia rules in that an editor has chosen to ignore the explicit statement of a cited reliable source, without being able to cite any source that says that the Council did not reaffirm the teaching (there is none). If the editor who removed "reaffirmed" can surprise by showing that the source already cited in the article is not a valid source, will he accept other sources that likewise state explicitly that the Council of Trent reaffirmed that marriage is a sacrament? Sources such as this and this and this and this and this and this.
  3. raises questions about the probable purpose of an edit that, in spite of the information given immediately before in the article about earlier declarations by the Catholic Church that Christian marriage is a sacrament, insistently presents the Council of Trent's declaration in terms that would let it be thought to be a novelty. Esoglou (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you are Maltese. That explains a lot. I remain uncomfortable with the use of "reaffirmed" as it smacks of Catholic triumphalism and does not need to be used in this article - unless the intention is indeed Catholic triumphalism. I do not disagree that the bishops at the Council of Trent believed they were reaffirming that there were seven sacraments, and that the Catholic Church today teaches that Trent reaffirmed seven sacraments. But that is not the same as a neutral and disappassionate historical statement. Before the Council of Lyon of 1274 there is no record that mentions seven sacraments. Unless you can draw our attention to something. And even in the context of Lyon it was in a profession of faith by Michael Paleologus where the seven sacraments are listed; and not one of the decrees of the Council. As I stated before I think it is wrong in this article to present the information in a way that suggests that the Roman Catholic church is correct that there has always been a recognition of seven sacraments, and that several protestant churches are wrong (and I've noticed your efforts to underline the protestant permissibility of divorce). I can accept text which makes clear that Trent reaffirmed the position of Lyon - but that was not what your edits had done. Can I also make yet another plea that you edit less as a faithful servant of the Roman Catholic Church and more as if you are an objetctive and neutral editor just wanting people to understand things better. I think we'd all benefit. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a Wikipedia editor needs to be faithful to is the cited sources, without suppressing parts that the editor may be unhappy about. Esoglou (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are manipulating sources to push a pro-Catholic POV again and again and again. It is draining and it is damaging the articles. I am unhappy about nothing other than historical accuracy. But I will not tolerate using articles to push a particular agenda. It is wrong to state from the historical record that there have always been seven sacraments and that any protestant challenge to that is invalid. The source cited talks about Trent reaffirming in relation to Lyon.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is stated isn't that the sacramentality of Christian marriage was always recognized, which is what you seem to imagine, but only that Trent "reaffirmed" what was already stated in 1208, 1274 and 1439. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't make that clear does it? Let's be totally honest. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the "it" that doesn't make what clear? The statement that you have kept deleting says that Trent reaffirmed (affirmed again) the then existing teaching that Christian marriage is a sacrament. The statement does make that clear. If you want to insert a statement that marriage (like the other sacraments) was not always recognized as a sacrament, find a reliable source that says so and insert it at an appropriate point. That appropriate point is obviously not the time of Trent, since by then marriage was not only generally recognized in the Church as a sacrament but had even been several times dogmatically declared to be such. You'd also have to explain the significance you think you see in the fact that in this respect marriage is in no way different from the other sacraments, none of which was or could be recognized as a sacrament until a theology of sacraments was developed. Isn't that obvious?
As for the latest edit, which said that the Council of Trent reaffirmed the existing teaching only "from their perspective", that is an utterly silly, unsourced, imaginative addition that contrasts with the clear decisive statement of the Fathers of the Council, who certainly wouldn't have dreamt of adding phrases such as "from our perspective" to their clear reaffirmation of the existing teaching! The edit was no more than wishful-thinking violation of the "no original research" rule. Rather, the word "research" in no way applies to this edit. Esoglou (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section on the counter-reformation is as good as we're going to get it (in light of things)> Time to turn attention to the medieval church, which needs some work. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all coming together quite well now. I still remain unconvinced, however, that Augustine explicitly said marriage was a sacrament. Can we find a source that puts this beyond doubt please. I suspect he spoke about the special nature of marriage, and that this has then been interpreted as him indicating that it is sacramental. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - an engagement of infinite regression - with Contaldo80- taking center stage. It can only be repeated. This is an Article about how the Catholic Church understands marriage. This in not an Article debating how the Catholic Church understands marriage. Let it be an Article. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking statement by Jerome

[edit]

An editor has inserted a phrase attributing to Jerome the statement, "I should like every man to take a wife who cannot manage to sleep alone because he gets frightened at night". The source given is Sex in History by Reay Tannahill, which is not accessible on the Internet. Understanding the significance of the statement requires knowledge of its context, so what is the work by Jerome in which he is said to have made this remark? Besides, Tannahill's book is cited in this anthology of quotations for the statement in the form "I should like ... every man to take a wife who cannot manage to sleep alone because he gets frightened at night". This suggests that the article is inaccurate in attributing that phrase to Jerome, since it appears to omit part even of what Tannahill says he wrote. We also need a citation to show that the article's description of Jerome as "mocking" is not merely an interpretation or comment by a Wikipedia editor. Esoglou (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source from which the quotation is taken is Letter 50 by Jerome, written to a Roman called Domnio. You're right, however, to draw attention to the suggestion that part of the qute is missing. In fact it is not so I'm not sure why Tannahill left the gap. The correct quote is: "Indeed— and this I say to make my meaning quite clear to him— I should like every one to take a wife who, because they get frightened in the night, cannot manage to sleep alone." I'm not necessarily attached to the word mocked, although it is the word chosen by Tannahill, but you can rest assured that it's not my interpretation as you are inclined to insinuate. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections required by Contaldo80's edits of 1 October 2013

[edit]

It is generally held that Saint Paul was not the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Neither did Paul defend anything against the Antinomians, who were of later date. There is no evidence that Paul's words "were seen as suggesting that marriage be used only as a last resort by those Christians that found it too difficult to exercise a level of self-control and remain chaste": there is evidence only that, on the part of later writers such as Tannahill his words are seen as suggesting that. McManners did not write the words that you attribute to him, but that were actually written by Markus. McManners was only the book's editor. Please read it. Your unsupported word is not enough for your claim that Armstrong said that both Cyprian and Augustine made exactly the same remark. Read Template:Request quotation, which states:

Please add this template after an unquoted reference to a source that you think may be inaccurate.

This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly.

This is particularly helpful for: sources that are not available online; sources that are difficult to obtain

So please, instead of deleting the requests, answer them. You know that claims by an editor who refuses to provide support for them can be deleted. Your editorial insertions of "however" and "nevertheless", implying a contradiction that may not exist, also need to be sourced. Esoglou (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're being rather tedious on this point. But I will show good will and clarify that Cyprian said (Treatise II, On the Dress of Virgins): "The first decree commanded to increase and to multiply; the second enjoined continency. While the world is still rough and void, we are propagated by the fruitful begetting of numbers, and we increase to the enlargement of the human race. Now, when the world is filled and the earth supplied, they who can receive continency, living after the manner of eunuchs, are made eunuchs unto the kingdom. Nor does the Lord command this, but He exhorts it." Augutine in De bono coniugali 10 said, :"What they say would happen if all persons wished to abstain entirely from sexual intercourse? Would that all did wish to do this, as long as they did so in chartiy from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. The city of God would be filled much more quickly so that the end of the world would be hastened." Can I add separately that I was rather concerned at one of the edits that you made - which thankfully seems to have been removed and which states, "This held even for Jews, though the Church was naturally more opposed to wedlock between them and Christians, even than with pagans, owing to the intense Jewish hatred for the name of Christ". Language about "hatred" for the name of Christ seemed inflammatory and was not supported by the source so I can only guess it was your personal view and not indeed in the source. Perhaps you could kindly clarify? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for kindly responding to my requests. Now we can provide readers with access to the statements by Cyprian and Augustine.
I make bold to remind you that it was you who inserted the statement that the Church was more opposed to marriage with Jews than with pagans, which in that form sounds like an accusation of anti-Semitism. What I did was to indicate the reason that the cited source gave for the distinction, which was not simply the fact of being Jewish or non-Jewish. You are mistaken in saying that this is not supported by the source. Not only does the source support it: the source, which is now in the public domain, states it. I simply quoted the source, omitting only the word "sacred". Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain that the opposition of the Church to marriage with Jews had a strong element of anti-semitism; and certainly Church history has sadly shown a rich vein of often violent persecution of Jews. But I did not think it appropriate to include the subsequent material that it was due to "hatred for the name of Christ" as that was an inflammatory statement in my opinion - as it was not clear to me whether it was neutrally presenting the beliefs of earlier Christians, or that it was the author's personal view (or justification). As a remnder, the source is the "Catholic Encyclopaedia" which has the nihil obstat and the imprimatur. But the additional material is no longer there so there's nothing more to say.
Incidentally readers had access to the words of Cyprian and Augustine all along - they were just summarised. And it's abundantly clear that the summary did justice to what is being said. Secondary sources are perfectly sensible reference works - it's not always better to go ourselves to primary sources and then give our spin on what was sad. This risk Original Research. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality issue - in this instance - is that the position of the Catholic Church on marriage be presented - not opined and challenged. The title of the Article speaks for itself. Let it be an Article as titled. It appears Contaldo80 is attempting to transform the Article into something else.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

One editor seems to have problems with summarising material. I find they are including lots of long quotes with superfluous material, while rejecting perfectly adequate summaries by good academic sources which make the same points more succinctly and clearly. This presents a risk of making the article unwieldy and clunky to read. Rather than enlightening a reader I fear it is bogging them down in detail which is simply not relevant. Any advice please? I also think the lead reads very badly - there is too much material in it and seems to have been written far too densely. Material at this level needs to be left to the main body. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with what you have said of the lead and so have lightened it. Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote that I noticed said "when the world is full [of people]" or something like that. I got the impression that this was summarized to say, "Now that the world is filled.." Emphasis mine. There is a bit of difference between saying the world is now full, and people should endeavor to maintain chastity instead of saying when this happens, then they should become completely chaste. [No comment on others, if any]. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments, interpretations and deletions

[edit]

Contaldo has today endeavoured to make Wikipedia a mouthpiece of his own ideas both by making additions of his own coinage and by deletions of what he dislikes.

  • He has tried to make Wikipedia say that the impact of the Christian teaching on the superiority of virginity over marriage is noted, "particularly as Christian anxiety about sex intensified after 400". That is Contaldo's personal interpretation of a passage that is quoted in full in the article. Wikipedia accepts what reliable sources (such as the text of the quotation) say, not an editor's personal interpretation.
  • He has tried to make Wikipedia say that "the Church Fathers of the Latin or Catholic Church did not condemn marriage outright", suggesting that they did condemn marriage, though not outright. In fact, they upheld marriage, not condemned it. With the phrase "Latin or Catholic Church", Contaldo also tried to make Wikipedia suggest that the Eastern Fathers of the Church did not belong to the Catholic Church.
  • He has deleted the context of a phrase quoted from Cyprian's On the Dress of Virgins, thus giving the false impression that the phrase was about marriage. In reality the short treatise made no mention of marriage but instead urged the consecrated virgins it was addressed to to maintain their chastity, not indulge in excessive ornamentation and to avoid going to bawdy marriage parties and to the public baths, where they would look on naked men and be seen naked by them. It could well be argued that the phrase should be removed as irrelevant to marriage, but at least it should not be presented shorn of its context
  • Apparently for no reason other than that he dislikes it, he has removed from Wikipedia the (sourced) indication given in the Christian Texts Ethereal Library of the lack of learning of the monk who accused Jerome of condemning marriage and whom Jerome derided in his Letter 50 to Domnio.
  • He has tried to put in Wikipedia's voice a single writer's view that Augustine's teaching had an apocalyptic dimension, instead of presenting it as that writer's view
  • Cutting a quotation down to "This held even for Jews, though the Church was naturally more opposed to wedlock between them and Christians, even than with pagans", he has tried to suppress the part that gave the concrete reason for the Christian Church's greater opposition to marriages with Jews, and has thus suggested that the opposition was inspired by anti-Semitism, a suggestion that he tried to reinforce by adding a reference to the prohibition of marriages of Christians with Jews by a local council in 589, while ignoring similar prohibitions of marriages of Christians with pagans both before 589 and later. Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is a pattern here. It seems Contaldo80 is not engaging - or willing to accept - that the Article topic is the Catholic understanding of marriage as the Title and Lead topic frame the scope of the Article. Not that there has not been legitimate contribution by this editor, however, there appears to be an unwillingness to stay within the scope of the Article and attempts to expand it beyond its scope while championing a POV. Sorry to see you were site banned, but you make some valid points here. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Post factum"

[edit]

I don't think "post factum" is the same as "ex post facto". "Ex post facto", as in ex post facto law implies retroactivity, making effective from an earlier date something that at that earlier date was not in fact effective until retroactively made so. "Post factum" merely means "after the event". It is applied here to evidence about something later than the marriage that is seen as grounds for believing that the marriage was in fact valid or invalid from the start but that doesn't alter its original validity or invalidity. "Post factum" is simply the opposite of "pre factum", a contrast illustrated by the various publications you will find here. I have therefore reverted the linking to "ex post facto" - at least until evidence is presented that they are the same thing. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce

[edit]

It is confusing to say that "divorce is only accepted in Catholic theology" in regards to dissolving natural marriages while the fact is that it is standard practice, at least in the USA, to require a civil divorce before proceeding with a declaration of nullity case: example from Nashville diocese. While this kind of divorce has no actually effect on the bond of a putatively valid marriage, the divorce is considered to indicate that the "lived experience of a couple's partnership has been irremediably damaged. Divorce puts an end to the binding contractual relationship which exists between spouses relative to civil law." Archdiocese of St. Louis. Elizium23 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the eyes of the Church, the civil divorce leaves the marriage really untouched, but the Church normally requires it in order to ensure that a person whose marriage the Church declares invalid is considered also civilly free to marry. For a similar reason, in France, where church weddings have no validity in civil law, the Church normally requires that the civil wedding ceremony is carried out before the (real) marriage is celebrated in church. Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolved by human power

[edit]

I think what you're asserting here is that marriages dissolved by the Holy See are dissolved by a divine rather than human power. I think you're on shaky ground with this. I would suggest leaving the phrase only where it is directly applicable in the negative, to describe a valid, sacramental, consummated marriage. Elizium23 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is by more than "merely human authority" that the Church dissolves natural marriages in favorem fidei (and for no other purpose). The proposition, "According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority", has been condemned. Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia article says: "Civil authority, indeed, even according to the natural law, has no such right of dissolving marriage" (emphasis added). Maybe the article is wrong. Maybe merely human authority is sufficient to dissolve natural marriages. But I think it is certain that, when the Church dissolves natural marriages in favorem fidei, it does not claim to be doing so on the basis of "merely human authority". Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthearted comment

[edit]

Perhaps Wikipedia should indeed use a purist style and exclude "homogenous" from meaning "homogeneous" – in spite of what has been said: "try[ing] to keep the words separate ... is a lost cause in popular usage. And the change is not new; people have been using homogenous in place of homogeneous throughout the English-speaking world for at least a century, and homogenous is now several times more common than homogeneous outside scientific writing, so trying to preserve the distinction is probably a losing battle." Oxford Dictionaries says: "From the evidence of the Oxford English Corpus, the spelling homogeneous has become significantly less common since 2000, and around a third [a lower proportion than in the other comment] of citations for the word now use the form homogenous. This can now be regarded as an established variant." I feel confident that the variant "homogenous" is more likely to win, than that the variant "homogeneous" will make "homogeneized milk" the usual expression. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let this Article to be an Article.

[edit]

Over the past six years or so Contaldo80 - and others of like mind - have been editing in this Article. In that time, he (and some) have engaged a consistent pattern of slipping into disruptive editing, such as: wholesale reverts, reverts without explanation, material editing without use of Talk and then circular debates in Talk once they do so while making claim to be motivated by neutrality. The Article is titled: Marriage (Catholic Church). Though empathizing with the "cause" and the heart of intention of some. Let the Article be an Article.

It is abundantly clear Contaldo80 and others do not agree, or adhere to, what the Western Roman Catholic Church understands as marriage. Yet, insist his [and their] understanding be imposed here while confusing neutrality with what an Article actually is.

Articles are not an "all things considered" forum. They are topic specific within the scope of the topic set by the lead. Nor, should the scope of an Article be unilaterally and randomly expanded to include topics wholly - or materially - separated and divorced from the title and lead. This is where some editors are going wrong. And so, is wrong.

Let an Article be an Article. This pattern points to an agenda and championing a POV - not authentic editing of an encyclopedia. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful with what your implying. I don't like it. If you make the claim that I'm pushing a POV then be clear what that point of view is and back it up. I note also that your approach, and arguments, are very similar to an editor (Esoglou) who was banned from this site. And you began editing after he was banned. I very much hope that you are not one and the same person. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We now agree on most of the current wording of the section on Same-Sex Marriage.

I have no idea who Esoglou is, but have read what this editor had to say here. This editor made some valid points - some not - and aware this editor was banned by following the history. But, not familiar with the whole "case". First, may I suggest letting go of attempts at intimidation. I have served several tours of duty with honor in the US military in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula as a member of United States Army Rangers . So it won't work here. Now to the facts. Contaldo80 what seems to be happening here is fairly obvious.

You have made it pristinely clear in Talk you do not care for the Catholic Church and where it stands on marriage. You're entitled, however, this is not a small point as it can taint objectivity. As I said, I empathize with your cause, and admire your passion, but its not an excuse for bad editing. Nor, do I think you embrace questionable editing. What was in the content edited was not relevant to the Article. At the bottom that's what I'm saying in that edit. And, the edit was limited to that point. And, we're almost there.

We can agree - I think - this is not an Article about LGBT civil or human rights and is outside the scope of the Article. It's an Article about how the Catholic Church understands marriage. What some seem to be attempting - by all appearances - is to implicate and infuse here is that the Catholic Church's understanding of marriage is ipso facto discrimination. It simply is not. It's what it understands marriage to be.

By including words such as discrimination which are actually applicable to topics covered by some of the RS's while some are not at all relevant to this Article such as the reference to the UN? It comes across as a tactical move to convict the Catholic Church of discrimination regarding marriage than sound and appropriate editing.

It short, it seems a form of weaseling and word smith work to "sandwich in" a POV spin. This Article is about how the Catholic Church understands marriage as the title and lead make abundantly clear.

In placing a series of RS's - some of which - are full of interpretive allegations of discrimination that are wholly off topic which do not even discuss marriage is odd. It is within reason to challenge their inclusion here. It's leading the reader to a conclusion while some the RS's and their content are very distant from the topic of the title and lead.

If one breaths? They have a POV. But, when a POV takes an Article way off topic, leads a reader and uses words such as discrimination or presumes the guilt or intention of discrimination? It does not belong there. Let the Article be an Article. Simple.

By the way, you have also reverted edits that included valid RS's - so let's be clear on that. This happens most often in good faith, but it happens. I presume good faith on your part - but sometimes a POV needs reigning in or a check to preserve neutrality and balance. This includes you and I. So, we keep one another diligent. Integrityandhonesty

"I have served several tours of duty with honor in the US military in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula as a member of United States Army Rangers . So it won't work here". Is that a threat? Are you implying that if someone disagrees with you then you are prepared to use violence? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marriage (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Marriage in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marriage in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marriage in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marriage in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marriage in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

[edit]

Since, unlike Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church sees marriage as a sacrament, should this be added to the category "Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church"? Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Selfrink (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Selfrink (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Subtopic on Matrimonial Consent?

[edit]

UPDATE: I went ahead and started work on the subtopic. It's a work in progress. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a dedicated subtopic on matrimonial consent. Canon 1057 (1) of the Code of Canon Law (1983) states that it is consent that makes a marriage, and there is an entire chapter in the 1983 Code of Canon Law on matrimonial consent (Canons 1095-1107). Based on these canons, the most important grounds for declaring a marriage null and void relate to defective consent. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church&oldid=1203898076"