Talk:Marriage in the Catholic Church

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "legitimacy" of children

message: *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)
thread_title:  invalid vs. illicit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any expert? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Children 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Fishhead64 00:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  conditions for valid marriage. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pls correct my intext citation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of Marriage 

message: 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)
thread_title: Marriage of catholics to non-catholics

message: 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.
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)
thread_title:  "a Christian man could have a concubine" 

message: I have had to undo a reverting edit that
# 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);
# falsely said that the Byzantine liturgical tradition (that of the Eastern Orthodox Church) is shared with the Oriental Orthodox churches;
# falsely said that Catholic marriage annulments "can only be granted by bishops";
# 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);
# 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);
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Revert of 23 August 2013 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "Just not good enough". Praise indeed, coming from such an expert on the issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spare us your analysis" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for this profound contribution to the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! It's nice to be appreciated! Student7 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sought" vs "does"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mocking statement by Jerome 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree fully with what you have said of the lead and so have lightened it.  Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lead

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Personal comments, interpretations and deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Post factum" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Divorce 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dissolved by human power 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lighthearted comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Marriage (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130901141441/http://old.usccb.org:80/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624072000/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624072000/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818210304/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010223175311/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus-roman-curia_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus-roman-curia_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160613085642/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910053311/http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647 to http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403045736/http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/03/for-catholics-open-attitudes-on-gay-issues/ to http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/03/for-catholics-open-attitudes-on-gay-issues/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622095840/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313095306/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/nigerian-catholics-congratulate-president-making-same-sex-marriage-crime050214 to http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/nigerian-catholics-congratulate-president-making-same-sex-marriage-crime050214
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20090622095840/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005012332/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Medieval%20Papacy/AlexanderIIIKP.html to http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Medieval%20Papacy/AlexanderIIIKP.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004220142/http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/catechism/catechism_18.pdf to http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/catechism/catechism_18.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221104452/http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-non-catholic-marriages-valid-in-the-eyes-of-the-catholic-church-what-if-a-catholi to http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-non-catholic-marriages-valid-in-the-eyes-of-the-catholic-church-what-if-a-catholi
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023213813/http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=2&SecNum=2&ChapNum=3&articlenum=7&ParSecNum=0&subSecNum=0&headernum=0&ParNum=1601&ParType=4 to http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=2&SecNum=2&ChapNum=3&articlenum=7&ParSecNum=0&subSecNum=0&headernum=0&ParNum=1601&ParType=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation

message: — Assignment last updated by Selfrink (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations

message: UPDATE:  I went ahead and started work on the subtopic.  It's a work in progress. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Subtopic on Matrimonial Consent?