A catholic shouldn't marry a woman with kids?

[fabio_rocha]

My parish priest said that is wrong to marry a divorce woman because we’re commiting adultery. I agree. Also, he said a catholic should not marry a woman with kids, even if she never got married. This doesn’t seem right… or am I wrong?

 

[1ke]

My parish priest said that is wrong to marry a divorce woman because we’re commiting adultery.

This is correct if the divorced person (man or woman) does not have a decree of nullity or has otherwise established their freedom to marry in the Church. If they have not been declared free to marry, then yes they would be committing adultery.

Also, he said a catholic should not marry a woman with kids, even if she never got married.

The Church has no such teaching.

Perhaps he was expressing his personal opinion, he was most certainly not expressing Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[Jala]

Dear Fabio Rocha–

Regardless of the Church’s teachings, I would still advise against it. I cannot speak for every mother, but only for my own situation, but my children ALWAYS come first. ALWAYS. There are always exceptions to every rule, but I think I’m very average and most women would feel the same as I do.

Jala

 

[Joe_Kelley]

From limited observations I would note that in either a divorce or children out of wedlock there was a previous relationship that went sour. Often [usually ?] the problem was not one-sided. It would be well to understand what the problem was, and if it might recur.

Many cases of such marriages go well, but I know several in which history repeated.

 

[tabycat]

No rule agienst a man marrying a woman with chilrdren, if there was I have a great-grandmother thats in trouble. She had four children with her first husband and three with number two (her first husband’s older brother ).

 

[skigirl1689]

That’s a really broad statement…I think it you’d have to look at the specifics of each situation. My uncle is Catholic and is dating a fellow Catholic. They both have kids. But both loss their first spouse to cancer. Some people may judge him without knowing this bit of information.

 

[ValPal]

The children always do come first, but it doesn’t follow that one shouldn’t remarry. Obviously, with children at home, the potential spouse has to be good for the wife AND the children. I’ even know people that went so far as to adopt the children of the spouse (mostly in cases of abandonment by the biological father).

 

[Dubay]

Wrong, unforgiving and total negativity on both scenarios

 

[Jala]

The children always do come first, but it doesn’t follow that one shouldn’t remarry. Obviously, with children at home, the potential spouse has to be good for the wife AND the children. I’ even know people that went so far as to adopt the children of the spouse (mostly in cases of abandonment by the biological father).

Dear ValPal–

My children are too old to be adopted. They still come first, though; blood is thicker, you know! There are other legal issues (such as my new husband automatically becoming my beneficiary of my life insurance, which I do not want) and spiritual/religious issues as well.

Jala

 

[kyria]

Dear ValPal–

My children are too old to be adopted. They still come first, though; blood is thicker, you know! There are other legal issues (such as my new husband automatically becoming my beneficiary of my life insurance, which I do not want) and spiritual/religious issues as well.

Jala

I understand your opinion, as I don’t wish to bring a step parent into my kids lives, but this is YOUR opinion based on your preference, but you are not in a position to advise against it. I have a friend who recently remarried a guy without kids and her kids love their new step dad as they don’t have a relationship with their own dad, and he loves them as he didn’t have kids of his own.

And there is a such thing as a will. I have one which states my kids get my life insurance.

 

[DaveBj]

Dear ValPal–

My children are too old to be adopted. They still come first, though; blood is thicker, you know! There are other legal issues (such as my new husband automatically becoming my beneficiary of my life insurance, which I do not want) and spiritual/religious issues as well.

Jala

I understand your opinion, as I don’t wish to bring a step parent into my kids lives, but this is YOUR opinion based on your preference, but you are not in a position to advise against it. I have a friend who recently remarried a guy without kids and her kids love their new step dad as they don’t have a relationship with their own dad, and he loves them as he didn’t have kids of his own.

And there is a such thing as a will. I have one which states my kids get my life insurance.

Actually, I believe that who gets the life insurance is specified by the policy, not by a will. In any case, although the spouse is considered to be the “normal” first beneficiary, that can be overridden by specifying another “first beneficiary” in the policy itself.

The idea of a man marrying a woman who already has children always reminds me of this Brad Paisley song (yeah, I know it’s country music, but watch the video anyway).

youtube.com/watch?v=BjO1F6oCab8

 

[Jessup]

Oh boy,
I spent most of my secular years, in my early to mid 20’s dating women with kids because in my community they all have them the week they turn 21 so to speak.
Everyone of them emotionally torn and tattered not letting go of the love they had for the father of their child whom was such an "awesome guy " until the cocaine/pot/joblessness got old.
Its an awful mess, you always have to compete with the father of the children for the enthusiasm of the relationship with the mother. At my age now and still being in school, I doubt I’ll marry someone with out kids, by this point in time unless she is a Mormon.
(only girls I know with out kids)
I think if the Catholic church was so concerned about it there would be more emphasis in fellowship for potential courting of spouses like in the LDS single wards.
But its hard to judge because people make a lot of mistakes dating and growing up.
I just know one of my Ex’s now has 3 kids from 3 dads, and I thank God everyday she is my EX
Part of the reason I choose to just stay at home and continue to go to school well into my 30’s I’m in no hurry to raise someone else kids.

 

[Jessup]

My parish priest said that is wrong to marry a divorce woman because we’re commiting adultery. I agree. Also, he said a catholic should not marry a woman with kids, even if she never got married. This doesn’t seem right… or am I wrong?

I agree with the priest for the most part.

 

[Richard320]

It’s his opinion only, but probably based on hearing about a lot of troubled families.

There is no official church teaching against it. I’d argue the opposite, in fact. Either Renconciliation clears the slate, or it doesn’t. If a girl got pregnant, she shouldn’t be condemned to life as a single parent because she chose NOT to have an abortion.

Check out Jesus’ geneology sometime. Rahab was a prostitute. Tamar posed as a prostitute so her father in law would impregnate her.

Nobody’s perfect. Everybody’s commited sins, but not every sin leaves a rugrat as evidence.

 

[Jala]

Actually, I believe that who gets the life insurance is specified by the policy, not by a will. In any case, although the spouse is considered to be the “normal” first beneficiary, that can be overridden by specifying another “first beneficiary” in the policy itself.

Dear DaveBj–

I was told *by my insurance carrier *(because I was once engaged to be married, I checked) that it didn’t matter what my current policy said (of course, I already had named my children as my beneficiaries), or what my will said, or what my personal wishes were: if I were to remarry, my husband immediately and automatically becomes sole 100% beneficiary. This overrides anything else in my policy or in my will.

The only way around it would be for him to willingly sign forms, after the marriage, relinquishing that right; then I could re-name my children as sole beneficiaries. Why should I allow my children’s future to rest in someone else’s hands?

I do not know if this is a policy of that specific insurance company, or the state I live in, or what…

Jala

 

[jmcrae]

My parish priest said that is wrong to marry a divorce woman because we’re commiting adultery. I agree. Also, he said a catholic should not marry a woman with kids, even if she never got married. This doesn’t seem right… or am I wrong?

The Church doesn’t have any specific teaching on the issue of marrying a free woman who has children from prior relationships, but you would really need to look at the circumstances, and realistically assess what you can live with until death ye do part.

 

[jmcrae]

Dear DaveBj–

I was told *by my insurance carrier *(because I was once engaged to be married, I checked) that it didn’t matter what my current policy said (of course, I already had named my children as my beneficiaries), or what my will said, or what my personal wishes were: if I were to remarry, my husband immediately and automatically becomes sole 100% beneficiary. This overrides anything else in my policy or in my will.

The only way around it would be for him to willingly sign forms, after the marriage, relinquishing that right; then I could re-name my children as sole beneficiaries. Why should I allow my children’s future to rest in someone else’s hands?

I do not know if this is a policy of that specific insurance company, or the state I live in, or what…

Jala

In that situation, it is best for your children that you remain single. I would avoid any talk or thoughts of remarriage.

 

[Jala]

In that situation, it is best for your children that you remain single. I would avoid any talk or thoughts of remarriage.

Dear Jmcrae–

Absolutely. I do not care for marriage. I much prefer the company of my daughters and my dogs to the company of men.

Jala

 

[ValPal]

Dear DaveBj–

I was told *by my insurance carrier *(because I was once engaged to be married, I checked) that it didn’t matter what my current policy said (of course, I already had named my children as my beneficiaries), or what my will said, or what my personal wishes were: if I were to remarry, my husband immediately and automatically becomes sole 100% beneficiary. This overrides anything else in my policy or in my will.

The only way around it would be for him to willingly sign forms, after the marriage, relinquishing that right; then I could re-name my children as sole beneficiaries. Why should I allow my children’s future to rest in someone else’s hands?

I do not know if this is a policy of that specific insurance company, or the state I live in, or what…

Jala

This doesn’t sound right. This is a matter I would recommending discussing with an attorney.

 

[ValPal]

Dear Jmcrae–

Absolutely. I do not care for marriage. I much prefer the company of my daughters and my dogs to the company of men.

Jala

I have daughters and dogs (along with many other animals, both large and small), but I still love the company of my wife.

Seriously, no spouse is better than a bad spouse. But a good spouse is a blessing. They’re out there, so don’t give up.