Marriage: Why is it necessary?

Marriage is necessary for mankind’s better good, individually and collectively.
Unlike most animals which become independent and self-reliant days after birth, the human is completely dependent on adult direct care for several months, on adult provision of food for several years and on guidance and advice - emotional dependence - for many more years.
It is therefore clear that at least the mother must be available during much of this time if the child is to develop physically, intellectually and emotionally into a healthy, secure and independent adult.
Bonding between the mother and baby is especially important during the first year of life and is crucial to the feeling of security of the child.

As the mother, for best results, needs to be constantly available to the child during these formative months and years, she cannot readily absent herself to seek and perform income- and food-earning work to sustain her child and herself.
Thus the need for the father to fulfil the latter role.
We can see from this the necessity for the family as the primary unit and institution of society - primary to the State at all it’s levels.
Because of these factors, the father as well as the mother, has to be made responsible for the welfare of the child whom they both are responsible, under God, for producing.
There is no way that this responsibility to the child during it’s years of dependency, can be discarded without an injustice to the child.
This is one of the great anti-personal and anti-social consequences of divorce, which is especially harmful when the children are developing and during the teen-age years when the children most need emotional security to handle problems of self-identity.
There is no way that these children can be better off.

A study by the British Rowntree Foundation featured in a B.B.C. program in Feb. 1994 showed that children whose families undergo a series of disruptions and changes are more likely to have health, educational and social difficulties than families that remain intact despite strained relations between parents :
most of the children had great difficulty coming to terms with the new relationships which their parents had formed :
those from families who had broken up were more likely to suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties with friends or at school and a range of psychosomatic health problems.
Another survey, a U.S. sociological one, referred to by St Charles Forum in 1994, reported that at least one third of children from divorced families showed severe emotional and psychological injury, one third showed no apparent ill effects and the remaining one third showed slight to moderate injury.
Another survey quoted by the Archbishop of Denver showed that ‘children of single-parent families are six times more likely to have emotional and behavioural problems, more likely to fail in the classroom, to get pregnant as teen-agers, to abuse drugs and to get into trouble with the law : children of divorce suffer deep and lasting trauma’.
The U.S.Census Bureau in 1990 reported
1 - The U.S. illegitimate birth rate now stands at 30% :
2 - The rate is now fastest in white women over age 20.
3 - 50% of all abortions are performed on women in age group 15-24.
4 - Behavioural and emotional problems of children in mixed families are even higher than in single-parent families.
5 - Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest homicide rate, four times higher than France, the next highest.
6 - Homicide rates are the same - and low - among people, both black and white, who live in married, intact families.
7 - Homicide rates are the same - and high - among people in single-parent families and are highest in areas where there is a large concentration of single-parent families
8 - 89% of children living in poverty are in single-parent families compared to 11% living with both parents.
9 - Infant mortality is 1.7 times higher for babies born to unmarried mothers.
Washington, DC, had 21 illegitimate births per 1,000 births in 1991, twice the national rate.

A grave responsibility lies, therefore, with parents to keep their marriages intact and to make their homes as happy as possible, not only for the benefit of the parents themselves but especially for the well-being of the vulnerable growing, dependant children.

In Christian marriage, Christian love - properly understood as an unselfish love in which each party desires the well-being and happiness of the other, for that other person’s sake - should be the primary reason for that marriage.
Persons united in sacramental marriage are now no longer two but one.
Jesus said
“ For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one, so they are no longer two but one “
(Mark 10).
In valid marriage, man and wife become one in the same way that two elements bonded by Superglue become one and cannot be separated without injury to the two elements.
A selfish motive such as to receive satisfaction of one’s own desires and needs is not a good basis for Christian marriage.
A marriage structured upon selfishness can easily lead to frustrations because of unmet desires, irritations because of the needs of the other partner or children of the marriage, and problems arising out of the conflicting demands of motherhood and career.
Such a selfish motive for marriage provides a basis for the introduction of a destructive competitive spirit in place of the co-operative spirit which recognises the complementarity of both parties in the promotion of the family’s welfare.
Selfishness can promote a desire for mothers to enter the work-force and to compete there with men instead of recognising that caring for the family at home is a much more important, fulfilling and rewarding career and one in total conformity with woman’s nature and destiny and the well-being of society in general.
How is caring for one’s family at home more important and therefore more rewarding than an outside career ?

Parents co-operate in marriage and procreation, not just with each other, but more importantly they co-operate with God, whose decision it is that a child should be born.
It is the primary responsibility of the parents, not just to provide for the material and social needs of their children, but, more importantly, to teach them about God and the true reason for life, to prepare them, in this passing world, for the real and eternal world with God.
This is why the Church has always insisted that the parents are the primary and natural educators of their children and that schools are acting only in locus parentis - in the name of and with the consent of the parents - who must be satisfied with the general content of what they are taught, especially in regard to matters of faith, morals, truth and knowledge of God.

The primary function of a career is to provide resources for one’s family to meet it’s needs, both material and spiritual.
It is not to satisfy one’s ego and pride by ambitious striving to reach positions of influence, wealth, luxury and power.
Modern society, by it’s pervasive propaganda inculcates into gullible women and mothers the idea that home-making is not fulfilling and that it does not enable a woman to realise her true potential.
In secular society’s view, the mother at home is a prisoner at the beck and call of husband and children with no one considering her needs and status in life.
Some of the more degraded ‘feminists’ even refer to mothers as ‘baby machines’.
What a travesty on and trivialization of the wonder of pregnancy and motherhood.

A great measure of blame for the present deplorable attitude to marriage and motherhood must be assigned to the so-called feminist movement - a term which is yet another example of double-speak, where women devoted to anti-woman activity arrogate to themselves a euphemistic term totally inappropriate to what they in effect do.
One would expect a true feminist movement to support women and girls to carry through their crisis pregnancies and not encourage them to destroy their children, an act which, in many if not in most cases, leaves behind in these unfortunate women, emotional scars of guilt and the scars of irretrievable loss.
One would expect them to be opposed to the degradation of womenhood by pornography : some are but it’s not official.
One would expect them to be opposed to the trivialization of sex by precocious and irresponsible sexual activity :
One would expect them to be opposed to divorce which leaves mothers and their children exposed to the often grave hardships of fatherless families.
Instead we find many of these so-called feminists - who should be more correctly referred to as anti-feminists - supporting and promoting abortion, divorce and homosexuality and providing no assistance in the community battles against pornography and precocious and irresponsible sexual activity.
They do often support women in their battles against sexist behaviour of some men but, in truth, one can often attribute this to a general anti-male resentment and to exploitation of all opportunities to foment social discord.

A secondary reason for a career is to play a part in providing for the legitimate needs of society in it’s daily course.
As in all such matters, when a conflict between the primary and secondary purposes appears, the primary purpose must take precedence.
This is not by any means to condemn any woman who trains for and enters a career outside the home.
Such a course is very prudent, principally as a measure to ensure financial security in the event of non-marriage or abandonment and to ensure against entering marriage solely to obtain such security.
When a married woman who has a career receives one or more children, she now has a primary and over-riding responsibility to that family which cannot easily be satisfied by a dual role of careerist and home-maker.
In the event of conflict, the family must come first as also must come openness to new life.
It is an affront to the Creator and an insult to His children, to regard as a burden or inconvenience, the children whom He has created with our co-operation and placed in our care.

One of the deadliest forces operating against marital happiness is, not only pre-marital intercourse and intra-marital infidelity, but also the use of immoral methods of birth-control, such as the Poison Pill and diaphragm methods and the mutilating operation of tubal ligation.
In the use of the Pill, the hormonal system is unnaturally deranged with the primary purpose of preventing ovulation.
In the use of diaphragm, a physical barrier is erected against the sperm and is frequently associated with chronic infection which also tends to cause abortion when birth prevention fails.
Let it be noted that these practices make demands upon the wife while leaving the husband totally free of any encumbrance.
In essence, the wife is made responsible for the occurrence of any ‘accidental’ pregnancy and she can easily come to be seen as an object to be used rather than a person to be loved.
The sexual act is totally structured by nature to promote conception of an infant : that it does not necessarily happen does not deny this fact.
The act provides a husband and wife with a physical means to show their love for one another, and to seek, as the fruit of their love, the blessing of that new life.
The pleasure of sexual union is associated with the act to encourage the parents to do what is necessary to produce new life.

When the act is carried out, but a mechanical or chemical obstacle - and this includes use of the ‘Pill’ to artificially prevent ovulation - is deliberately interposed for the specific purpose of preventing the procreative effect of the act, then the act has become an unnatural one, an intrinsically evil one that cannot be justified for any good reason.
It is not the artificiality but the unnaturalness of these methods that render them sinful.
There is a distinct difference between these methods of unnatural birth prevention and use of the natural methods such as the Rhythm, Temperature and Ovulation Methods where pregnancy is avoided by restriction of intercourse to infertile times
In these cases, there is no unnatural direct interference with the act when it is carried out. ( See chapter on Natural Family Planning )
This is not, as some no doubt will say, splitting hairs.
There is a fundamental difference
It can be accepted that God, knowing the varying conditions of married life, has provided us with a natural means of avoiding pregnancy when there is a truly unselfish reason to postpone it.
This natural means enables married couples to take advantage of the natural infertile periods of the woman’s cycle.
The use of hormonal methods such as the’Pill’, causes an unnatural disruption of the natural cycle in which ovulation is hormonally suppressed over many cycles.

It is extremely important to understand the crucial part that God, our Creator, takes in the conception of every human person.
Marriage and pregnancy involve not just two persons but three - the wife, the husband and God - in effect, theologically, a Nuptial Trinity.
Every single person born, whether following voluntary intercourse or the involuntary intercourse of rape, is singly and individually chosen for birth by God.
God uses the father and mother as His agents to co-operate with Him in every conception and birth.
Obviously every act of intercourse does not result in conception.
No man and woman can decide that they are going to have a baby.
They can decide that they are going to try to do so.
Does the particular sperm, one out of competing millions, that goes to form a particular baby, successfully fertilize the released target ovum by mere chance ?
I hardly think so.
The Creator of Life could hardly be expected to leave such a vital event to mere chance even if there was such a phenomenon as mere chance.
No one is conceived by mere chance of intercourse but by a deliberate choice and act of God.
How many persons during the act of intercourse, within or outside marriage, realise that God is present and deciding whether to send new life or not.?
It is an awesome fact that God chooses and presides over every conception and, at that moment of conception, infuses into the material body it’s spiritual essence - it’s soul, consisting of it’s intellect, memory, and will.
We can now see how precious every single person is in God’s sight - however humble, defective, poor or apparently useless he/she may appear to us.
What a reassurance to any of us who wrestles with problems of identity and self-worth, to know that each one of us was specifically and deliberately chosen for birth by God.
How can one feel unimportant or valueless knowing this fact ?
This is the basis for the dignity of the human person - our choice for life by God.
‘Pro-choice’ denies God’s choice.

When we use unnatural methods of birth prevention we are deliberately interfering with one of God’s most awesome actions, the creation of a human life in God’s own image.
What a crime against the Almighty !
The mortal sin committed with every act of contraceptive intercourse deprives the soul of the Actual graces of Christian marriage and leaves the marriage at the mercy of the unhealthy influences of a sinful world.
When we carry out abortion we commit an even greater crime against the Author of Life and will one day have to answer for it to a God who is a God of Justice as well as of Mercy.
The coin of Mercy has on it’s other side, Justice, just as the coin of Rights has on it’s other side, Responsibility.
While we live we are offered the mercy of God : when we die we are exposed only to His justice.
Fools indeed rush in where angels fear to tread.

----------------------------------------------------


Declaration of Nullity

Every diocese has a Marriage Tribunal presided over by a judge with two advocates, one supporting the application, the other opposing it.
The fee for each determination varies but is not excessive and can, in certain circumstances be waived.
The fee is the same whether the application is approved or rejected.
Appeal against a judgement can be made to a higher tribunal at the Vatican.

There are three basic grounds for the Catholic Church declaring a marriage regarded previously as a valid marriage to be null and void.

If one of the persons in the marriage was at the time of marriage unwilling, unknowing or unable to be married.

Unwilling
If one partner was at the time forced or pressured into the marriage.
If one partner at the time of marriage had declared his/her clear intention to be unfaithful during the marriage.
If one partner at the time of marriage had declared his/her hostility to having children.
If one or both parties had stated at the time of marriage, their intent to divorce in the event that the marriage did not work out to their satisfaction.

Unknowing
If one partner was at the time so intellectually immature as to not understand the nature and responsibility of marriage.

Unable
If one partner was truly unable at the time of marriage to observe the physical obligations of marriage.

The Marriage Tribunal will require reliable, corroborative evidence to the effect that these obstacles to a valid marriage truly existed at the time of marriage .
The word alone of either party will not be acceptable but testimony from a reliable third party unequivocally confirming the claim of the applicant will be required.

As in all trials, the outcome depends upon the truth of the evidence received and accepted.
It can happen that a spurious favourable decision can be rendered because of untrue evidence or because of improper application of the Canon Law provisions of the Church by the Tribunal.
It is currently felt by responsible elements within the Church that a scandalous number of spurious favourable decisions have indeed been rendered by Tribunals throughout the U.S ecpecially over the past several years.
In such cases, even though these outcomes have led to objectively adulterous re-marriages, the responsibility for this lies with the Tribunal personnel, as presumably those who re-marry act in good faith.

There are innumerable persons in present-day society, who exist in adulterous and sinful marriages because of ‘re-marriage’ following civil divorce while the true spouse is still alive.
These can be truly described as sinful structures despite society’s acceptance and promotion of civil divorce with re-marriage.
Each and every time such couples engage in sexual relations they commit the mortal sin of fornication.
Our Lady told Jacinta at Fatima that the sins that send most to Hell are sins of the flesh and that many marriages are not good, do not please God and are not of God.