A question about MARRIAGE and the Church

[SwizzleStick]

If you read the section from the cathechism I provided, the Church addresses souch couples. The Church wants them to attend Mass, but they must refrain from the sacraments until they can remain continent.

There are many people in this situation.

Yes. We are in agreement. Such couples must live as brother and sister. Thus, a priest could not advise them to maintain a marital relationship.

 

[Debora123]

Why are people giving you a hard time? Hmmm, for those who follow your threads we’ve seen too often how you try to find fault and loopholes in Church teaching so that they better suit YOUR choices.

After all these months, the only helpful thing I can say about your issue with church teaching on sexuality is that if you sought the truth in honesty you would find it. If you just want to find the wide way that leads to Heaven, I can say that it doesn’t exist.

There are sacrifices you can run away from, like the hard teachings on marriage and NFP, but there are also those you can’t. Read Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio if you are not sure that the Church teaches that love is a call to SACRIFICE.

If your priest told you that in this situation the woman can continue marital relationships with the new husband you should perhaps report it to the higher ranks and switch spiritual director fast.

I really wish people would stop getting so personal on my thread. Please stay on topic and if you have a personal problem with me, please PM me or report me if you think I’m breaking forum rules.

In the mean time please continue in the discussion with charity and objectivity. If you have said all you need to say on the topic, then I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut… and God bless.

 

[Debora123]

I saw it. I saw all your posts in this thread. They are your opinions, opinions yet again in opposition to Church teaching.

I think you are missing one point of where scandal is involved. A small example is publicly claiming that the majority of priests would tell you that this hypothetical woman should go ahead and continue a marital relationship with the second man is scandalous. Don’t you see that?

I strongly suggest that you speak with your spiritual director.

I’ll pray for you to find your way as you seek Truth.

Well, that’s what I think. I THINK most priests would tell the lady to continue to come to mass and continue to pray for resolution, rather than advise her to drop the bomb on her “husband” and officially join the Church.

You are of course, free to *respectfully *disagree that this is not the route most priests would take.

 

[Debora123]

The church doesn’t have to answer for our feelings.
Castello said it has been done and there are people out there, even non-Catholics, who care enough about eachother’s well-being that they can forgo intimacy. **You are trying to get down to the fact that a marriage fails without sex but the reality is that it doesn’t and it shouldn’t. **There simply are situations where love requires abstinence. There is nothing absurd or impossible about that.

Well but that’s the thing - It wouldn’t BE a marriage… since she is technically married to her first husband still. And the man would have every right to obtain a civil “divorce” and find a real wife.

Besides, I’ve also sated that it COULD happen that this man would still stay with her as her brother and be celibate. But it is far from LIKELY. And that’s what I’m trying to say.

 

[Debora123]

First off, I’m sorry some people have been down on you. I applaud you for trying to reconcile matters where your conscience and Church teaching seem not to match up.

About this hypothetical… the husband is basically saying “I didn’t sign up for this religion, you did. If you deny me sex, I’m out.” Right?

Well she wouldn’t just be denying him sex… she would be saying that they are not even actually married - in which case he’d have every right to go and have a valid marriage with someone else. Even according to the Church he would be allowed to do that, though it wouldn’t matter since he’s agnostic. That’s what I’m trying to say.

 

[Havard]

Well but that’s the thing - It wouldn’t BE a marriage… since she is technically married to her first husband still. And the man would have every right to obtain a civil “divorce” and find a real wife.

Besides, I’ve also sated that it COULD happen that this man would still stay with her as her brother and be celibate. But it is far from LIKELY. And that’s what I’m trying to say.

In this hypo, is he an awesome dad? How much does he care about his kids?

 

[mamaslo]

Most men in this scenario would legally “divorce” this woman,

Most men? How on earth could you know this?

 

[choose_to_love]

@deb: FWIW, I’m with GraceDK; I thought it was a reasonable hypothetical question. I confess my thoughts while reviewing the thread were “hey guys, lay off deb”. In addition, I thought you made clear this was an issue you were grappling with understanding, not calling the Church out, so to speak. I hope you do continue to post.

That being said, my understanding is that the couple would in fact be called to live as brother and sister, for the sake of the kids. Yes, that is difficult (understatement), but that is part of picking up one’s cross, no?

How would it be different than if hypothetical wife suffered debilitating injury, and could not have a physical relationship? Is hypo hubby then entitled to disregard vows? The injury being spiritual in this case, of course.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t think we know what “most men” would do, for one. Secondly, why the bombshell, “We are not married, we may no longer have relations!!” cue melodramatic soap opera music.

Does ms. hypothetical arrive at full Catholic knowledge all at once on a Friday afternoon, or is it slow, and studious look at the Church. Wouldn’t she share these things with her husband at all, gradually? Couldn’t her conversion process at all effect her DH in some way?

Sometimes, just the conversion process is the catalyst for a major change in the marriage. The non-converting spouse might say, “WHAT” you’re becoming Catholic. Johnette Benkovic talks about her husband and her conversion process. She reverted first, he taunted her and made fun of her their marriage was almost ruined. Through prayer and patience he reverted as well. It’s a bautiful story.

I guess it would definitely be a possibility that he’d convert with her and be all FOR the “living as brother and sister” arrangement. Though all I’m trying to say here is that it’s far from likely. Though I guess you may disagree and think that such would be very likely, in which case it would be the ideal scenario of course.

 

[mamaslo]

I THINK most priests …

How can you keep speaking for people even if it is what you THINK? Kind of broad and generalized terms…still speaking for them as if you know. This may be your opinion but I wonder if you have taken a poll that would have all the makings of a good poll. Assuming most priests would even answer.

 

[Debora123]

@deb: FWIW, I’m with GraceDK; I thought it was a reasonable hypothetical question. I confess my thoughts while reviewing the thread were “hey guys, lay off deb”. In addition, I thought you made clear this was an issue you were grappling with understanding, not calling the Church out, so to speak. I hope you do continue to post.

That being said, my understanding is that the couple would in fact be called to live as brother and sister, for the sake of the kids. Yes, that is difficult (understatement), but that is part of picking up one’s cross, no?

How would it be different than if hypothetical wife suffered debilitating injury, and could not have a physical relationship? Is hypo hubby then entitled to disregard vows? The injury being spiritual in this case, of course.

Thanks for the kind words.

To answer your question, the last paragraph would be a different scenario entirely, because they would actually be married.

My scenario is different. The lady is converting by herself… her husband is still agnostic. It would be established that they are not actually married to begin with. The man would have every right to go off and have a legit marriage to someone else, since he’s supposedly not married to her.

The conflict here is that if he were to do that (which realistically speaking, it would be very likely that he would) it would break up the family and cause a civil divorce. Which is why I don’t think it would be the best route.

 

[Debora123]

How can you keep speaking for people even if it is what you THINK? Kind of broad and generalized terms…still speaking for them as if you know. This may be your opinion but I wonder if you have taken a poll that would have all the makings of a good poll. Assuming most priests would even answer.

It is my opinion, and I am free to have my opinion, as you are free to respectfully disagree. Please look at the big picture here.

 

[choose_to_love]

But from his agnostic POV, he is married to her. Why would he accept her position re: the validity of the marriage?I do not think he would bail, certainly not short-term. Wouldn’t he try to convince her the her “new church” was wrong, or hope that her newfound religion is a fad, so to speak, that passes?

 

[JDB823]

So here’s a scenario:

A young woman who was never brought up in any type of religion gets married at an early age… maybe 18 or 19.

She is married to the man for 3 years but then they get divorced due to irreconcilable differences… something that is common when people get married very young and then change a lot once they mature more.

So the two get divorced, and since they have no children they go their separate ways and never see/hear from each other again.

Several years later, the woman, being close to 30 now and more mature, meets the man she believes she is meant to be with. They get married and quickly begin having children. Fast forward 15 years and the couple has 3 children and a healthy, happy marriage.

The woman discovers Catholicism and wants to get baptized and go through RCIA. She tries getting an annulment from her very short first marriage, but is not granted one.

Is she then required to leave the man who is the father of her children and whom she has been “married” to for almost 20 years?? Would it be morally permissible for her to stay with her current spouse as to not break up the family? What should she do in this case?

Thank you for the responses.

I am going to challenge the hypothetical in that it is extremely unlikely that an annulment would not have been granted in her case.

These are the grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church. This blog post is a good summary of the grounds.

eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2006/03/marriage-annulment-grounds-in-catholic.html

In this case, Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099), Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099), and Grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties (due to immaturity) (Canon 1095) almost certainly apply. Other factors may apply as well.

 

[mamaslo]

It is my opinion, and I am free to have my opinion, as you are free to respectfully disagree. Please look at the big picture here.

Its just that the wording of an opinion speaking for others bothers me. There is my opinion. I don’t think my opinion can include what I think “most” would do. It is too broad and generalized.

Like when my child says “mom, you ALWAYS do this” and it just isn’t true…I don’t ALWAYS do anything.

Do you see what I am saying? I am seeing an over generalization of what others might choose to do in your opinion.

 

[ValPal]

God’s laws on marriage are the same for all of us. The vows are until death for all of us. Many don’t seem to be aware of that or deny it, but that is the reality.

No it is not the reality. Some vows are permanent because they meet certain rigid standards. Even when they meet these standards, the marriage may still be dissolved under specific circumstances (Pauline and Petrine privileges).

Be careful when talking in absolutes when absolutes don’t apply. We’re not dealing with a situation involving two Catholics, but instead two nonCatholics. NonCatholics marriages are not the same as Catholic marriages. The couple might not believe in the permanency of marriage. The couple would not have valid vows if investigated by a Catholic tribunal in this case. There are even examples, such as the temporary marriage in Islam, where the vows are simply not valid from a Catholic perspective.

 

[Debora123]

Its just that the wording of an opinion speaking for others bothers me. There is my opinion. I don’t think my opinion can include what I think “most” would do. It is too broad and generalized.

Like when my child says “mom, you ALWAYS do this” and it just isn’t true…I don’t ALWAYS do anything.

Do you see what I am saying? I am seeing an over generalization of what others might choose to do in your opinion.

Sorry it bothers you.

Best not to dwell on it and stick to the original issue at hand. I won’t say it again.

 

[Debora123]

But from his agnostic POV, he is married to her. Why would he accept her position re: the validity of the marriage?I do not think he would bail, certainly not short-term. Wouldn’t he try to convince her the her “new church” was wrong, or hope that her newfound religion is a fad, so to speak, that passes?

Could be the case, though I honestly doubt he would see it that way. Especially because if he believed his marriage was valid then he’d also believe he had the right to marital debt.

In his POV he’s probably feeling very betrayed. At least I know I would in his shoes.

 

[ValPal]

I really wish people would stop getting so personal on my thread.

Why? That is what makes this forum so fun.

The main reason I’m a revert is because there were to many obnoxious individuals on the other side in real life. I don’t see that in Catholicism too much, other than on forums like this. I find it amusing more than anything.

 

[Castello]

It is not scandal. Scandal would be allowing the woman to convert while continuing the relationship as it stands. There is a reason the Church wishes to resolve the marital issue before conversion.

A priest telling someone to keep committing fornication is scandal.