Bai MacFarlane on Spero News

The canonists have added a fourth “good” of marriage (the partnership) to the three timeless properties of marriage (permanence, exclusivity and procreativity). But a Roman Rota judge explains that “partnership” is not a “good” of marriage, but an “end” of marriage. This sounds trite, but in canon law this makes a huge difference.

To rephrase the problem, in normal-speak, start by recognizing that for a marriage to be valid, both spouses must promise certain things. If they do not promise those things, then the marriage is not valid. The things to which they must promise are named in canon-law-speak, essential elements, obligations, rights or properties.

In married life, spouses experience certain things. How much or how little they experience those things is based on the couple’s choices and nature. The things couples experience in canon-law-speak are named “ends.” If we understand that “partnership” is an end of marriage, then how much, or how little partnership they experience, is based on the choices of both spouses. But, if they experience rotten partnership, i t doesn’t mean the marriage is invalid – it means one or both are sinning and selfish.

If canonists and tribunalists in the USA add a new item to the list of things to which one must promise, that is not supposed to be there, all havoc breaks loose and confusion prevails. For example, if one of the essential things to which spouses must promise was to have a house with a white picket fence, any unhappy spouse could accuse the other of being incapable of contracting marriage because the fence was never provided.