by Ben2747 » December 8th, 2008, 8:26 pm
John - I wouldn't really compare it to the Mormon doctrine about "time and eternity." Moog is right - the parties did not have to be Catholic for the marriage to be valid. That's because the sacrament is not dependent upon any sort of juridical authority, and is not conducted by the priest. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. The blessing of the Church is a joining of the body of Christ with the couple to do everything we can to assist them in living out their vocation - but two pagans on an uninhabited island can have a valid marriage.
In fact, there is a marked difference with the marriage, in that Catholics don't believe in this sort of perpetual state of marriage and child-bearing. In the next life, the consummation of all love and all relationship will absorb everything which preceded. Like Muslims, Mormons are the victims of a lack of imagination and an inability to be logically consistent. 72 virgins, or being perpetually knocked up - it's basically all a projection (misogynistic, at that) of the things of this world into the next. By "lack of imagination," I mean they just imagine what they qualify as good now, but expand upon it. The ultimate good, in which beatitude must, by definition, consist, must be something other than this, which is the lack of logical consistency. They grant that beatitude must be the attainment of the ultimate good, but then just describe subordinate goods in an exaggerated sense.
Tuke - I'm not sure if your question is serious, or not. I don't see why you would care one way or another. In the second place, you can have "consummation" without marriage - it's called adultery. That's the only tough part about annulment - you basically conclude that the parties have been living together as if they were married, even though they weren't. Although we think that's a serious issue, you can't project any sort of Puritanical value judgement on this. The entire process is very understanding, very nurturing - only seeking to advance each person's relationship with Christ and the pursuit of holiness. If your question is serious, which I'm not sure it is, the key is to understand premises which aren't convertible. All valid marriages are consummated, but not all acts of consummation are valid marriage. In fact, "consummation" really becomes an equivocal term. I don't think this would really be a fruitful debate - you'll probably have to leave it to the Kennedy's and their church. If you are interested in some of the cultural context, I would encourage you to read St. Augustine's Confessions.
