A catholic shouldn't marry a woman with kids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fabio_rocha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fabio_rocha said:
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?
Click to expand...
**
Per se**, **this type of statement coming from a catholic priest is not in link with the natural moral law of human beings, the evangelical moral law of Jesus-Christ and the teaching of Roman Catholic Church. **Every single man can, per se, get a catholic marriage with the woman of his choice if and only if:

She agrees with the natural marriage, and then the christian catholic marriage and his corollaries

and
**
She is free of all catholic marriage that is not existing, or free of all natural marriage, that is not existing. **That means: a single female (no past catholic marriage) with or without child; female widow (a civil widow or catholic widow) with or without child; a female divorced with catholic declaration of nullity of her previous, “speudo marriage” with or without child; a catholic female divorced without catholic marriage with or without child;

This type of intellectual position, per se, coming from a catholic priest seems to me very not very charitable and full of wrong mentalities, ideologies, heresies. He should purified his thought on this topic.

After, **only the objective and realistic circumstances can modify the point of view and the advice: the casuistry is the rule. **
 
I understand the possible dangers but I paused to think that St. Joseph went ahead and married someone who was pregnant.

I know some very happy families. A daughter of an old neighbor was so happy to introduce her step father who had made her mom so happy.
They have to think about what could happen and put minor children first but there should not be a hard rule about not marrying. Is it better for the kids to be fatherless?
 
marytk said:
Is it better for the kids to be fatherless?
Click to expand...
Dear Marytk–

I don’t think it’s “better” or “worse.” I’ve very proud of the 2 wonderful young women that I raised alone. I think we all have to do the best we can with the hand we are dealt.

Jala
 
I am glad my Dh was open to my young child. I let him know from the start that we were a pkg deal.
They formed a wonderful bond as father n child.
Upon the request of my child for an 18th birthday present the last name was legally changed to that of my Dh.
This scenario is not for all but it can work very well for some
 
DaveBj said:
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
Click to expand...
Might be a state law thing, or perhaps something that can be legally specified in a will or trust. I would think, though, that the policyholder gets to choose who is the beneficiary in most cases, but a good family lawyer would know.
 
fabio_rocha said:
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?
Click to expand...
Did he say why someone shouldn’t marry a woman with children?
Some other questions:
What did he say about marrying a man with children?
What if a woman became pregnant from being raped and is heroically raising this child, should she never marry because of what another person did to her?
What if a woman is a widow, should she have to raise these children as a single mother until they are grown, increasing all of their chances of living in poverty?
What if the woman was a complete slut in years past and isn’t that way any more, are we supposed to hold that against her for the rest of her life?

While I am completely in favor of celibate priests, there is a risk becoming out of touch of some of what us lay people face in our lives. This priest might have been grossly oversimplifying a very complex situation.
 
Jala said:
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
Click to expand...
Maybe they were talking about your retirement fund? Or 401K? Because it is true that your spouse automatically gets that upon your death. But life insurance doesn’t ask about your spouse, they distribute based only on the beneficiaries.

I only know because my mother and my father died last year. When my father died, my mother had been dead for a few months. When we contacted the company for the insurance, they never asked about my mother. They only wanted a form filled out and a copy of the death certificate.

Since you never plan on remarrying it doesn’t matter for you, but if someone is reading this thread, they should make sure they check with their insurance. Because what you are saying is the total opposite of what I know.
 
IneedGod said:
I am glad my Dh was open to my young child. I let him know from the start that we were a pkg deal.
They formed a wonderful bond as father n child.
Upon the request of my child for an 18th birthday present the last name was legally changed to that of my Dh.
This scenario is not for all but it can work very well for some
Click to expand...
I like to hear stories like this. About three years ago, I dated a single mother with a well deserved annulment. I do miss her company. She was smart, hard working, spiritual, funny, and attractive.

Years before we met, she had been granted an annulment, and she had sole custody of her 7 year old boy. Her former husband left when her son was a baby, so her son didn’t remember much about his father. Her situation IMHO was similar to a young widow, and she was free to marry, since she received a decree of nullity. Had we gotten married, I would have pursued adopting her son.

I know some men past 35 dismiss single mothers. I tell them that your chances after 35 (and particularly after 40) of finding someone never married are like trying to find a 1972 AMC Matador 401 to restore (OK - I’m sure you get what I’m saying).

There are some nice single mothers out there, and many have different situations. A lady with an annulment is available for a sacramental marriage, and a widowed lady is available for marriage as well. This girl was 8 years younger than me, and age it was not an issue. I brought our age difference up early (since I was 42 at the time - but I look young) and it didn’t bother her.

However, I do know some men in their 40’s and early 50’s who think a woman 15+ years younger will be interested in them, and quite frankly, many women in their late 20’s and early 30’s find it “creepy” when a man 10-15 years older shows a romantic interest.

I’ll close the box now.
 
IneedGod said:
I am glad my Dh was open to my young child. I let him know from the start that we were a pkg deal.
Click to expand...
On one of my first dates with my wife, I told her that I saw her and our son as a package deal, and that the issue wasn’t open to discussion. I believe the priest the OP mentioned gave poor and uncharitable advice. Had I listened to any of those who gave me similar advice when I was dating my wife, I would have missed out on a strong, wonderful marriage and five (so far) wonderful kids.
 
fabio_rocha said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is not adultery to marry a divorced woman who has obtained a decree of nullity, because the Church has established that the woman was never validly married. In fact, it isn’t that unusual for people who are eligible for an annulment under civil law to get a divorce, instead, because sometimes the paperwork is easier. (I mean that some people who are divorced were actually in situations that the secular state authorities would even have declared null marriages, had the people elected to go to the work and expense to prove it.)

Women with children from previous marriages and those who have had children outside of wedlock are also free to marry, provided (again) that in the eyes of the Church the woman is not under any presumption that she may be validly married to someone else and the proposed marriage doesn’t suffer from any real impediments.

**Can. 1058 **All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

Can. 1075 §1. It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to declare authentically when divine law prohibits or nullifies marriage.

**§2. **Only the supreme authority has the right to establish other impediments for the baptized.

**Can. 1076 **A custom which introduces a new impediment or is contrary to existing impediments is reprobated.

IOW, although it is within the pastoral office of a priest to counsel against a marriage in which impediments exist or may exist–such as immaturity or an incapacity to carry out the duties of marriage–it is wrong for a priest to add impediments that the Church has not imposed. He can tell you that this or that situation will be difficult, but he may not imply there is an impediment in a place where the Church has not established that such exists. But perhaps he meant not that a woman with children has an impediment to marriage but only that marrying someone who already has children entails difficulties which it might be wise to avoid? That is not the same as saying that such a thing is forbidden; in an ideal world, he is very clear about which he means. If he is not, please ask, so you’ll know. You do not want to pass on misinformation with his name on it.
 
From my experience in directing RCIA, it is not unusual for a priest not to know the details of the annulment process. If one has a problem, one should consult with a priest who is familiar with the Tribunal and its processes.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
From my experience in directing RCIA, it is not unusual for a priest not to know the details of the annulment process. If one has a problem, one should consult with a priest who is familiar with the Tribunal and its processes.
Click to expand...
Thank you - that is good advice. I’m familiar a little bit with the annulment process because I was a witness in a case a few years ago. Being a witness, I was required to turn in a packet to the Tribunal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top