A question about MARRIAGE and the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debora123 said:
Lol so then you’re saying that it WOULD be what God intends! I guess this is where we disagree.
Click to expand...
NO. You have it BACKWARDS.

God intended for this girl to keep her pants on and marry correctly in the first place. And once married to stay with her commitment.

SHE is the one who screwed it up royally and got herself in this mess. SHE is the one who needs to be the PENITENT for the wrong doing she has brought upon herself.
 
Debora123 said:
Lol so then you’re saying that it WOULD be what God intends! I guess this is where we disagree.
Click to expand...
If she does not join the Church now, there could be resolution in the future.

She can attend Mass, and trust that if her desire is to be Catholic, God would help her fulfill that desire. He does do these things.
 
iloveangels said:
NO. You have it BACKWARDS.

God intended for this girl to keep her pants on and marry correctly in the first place. And once married to stay with her commitment.

SHE is the one who screwed it up royally and got herself in this mess. SHE is the one who needs to be the PENITENT.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you quite understand what I’m saying.
 
But where does God’s mercy come in, in this situation? Or doesn’t it?
 
Debora123 said:
I don’t think you quite understand what I’m saying.
Click to expand...
I DO understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that the Church should just accept her, messed up life and all, and in violation of the Church’s laws about marriage. This is WRONG, it’s BACKWARDS and it’s not how these things work.

If this girl expects this, she has a big attitude problem.
 
ebonykawai said:
But where does God’s mercy come in, in this situation? Or doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think God’s will would be for her to stay with her husband.

And this is where I am conflicted because this isn’t what the Church would have her do. Not according to the letter of the law, anyway. Though I’m sure the vast majority of priests out there would agree that staying with her husband would indeed be the right thing to do.
 
ebonykawai said:
But where does God’s mercy come in, in this situation? Or doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
God’s mercy is paired with God’s justice. She can come to Mass and live a good life with God’s help if she tries. Perhaps sometime in the future, things will get better for her if she stays with it. And then at the end of her life, she can speak to God about it, who will be merciful to her if she has turned her life around and fixed this AWFUL attitude problem of hers.

The Church is in no way required to accept wrong-doing just to make people pleased with themselves. Ever.
 
Debora123 said:
Honestly, I think God’s will would be for her to stay with her husband.

And this is where I am conflicted because this isn’t what the Church would have her do. Not according to the letter of the law, anyway. Though I’m sure the vast majority of priests out there would agree that staying with her husband would indeed be the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Please go to my post and read the Catechism quote I provided. Here, I’ll provide it again.
Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
Click to expand...
1651 **Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
Click to expand...
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace.161 **
Click to expand...
 
Debora123 said:
Honestly, I think God’s will would be for her to stay with her husband.

And this is where I am conflicted because this isn’t what the Church would have her do. Not according to the letter of the law, anyway. Though I’m sure the vast majority of priests out there would agree that staying with her husband would indeed be the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you’re conflicted about that. She has to choose God or her sexual relationship with this man.

She needs to evaluate whether she can live brother-sister with this man, and if so, perhaps that is the best way to live out this mess that she’s created for herself and everyone around her. If she can’t, then she can’t. This girl has some choices to make.
 
I was reading along and was thinking this whole approach is backwards, when Iloveangels finally started getting to it.

The church is upholding marriage in this situation. This has nothing to do with “mercy” or “forgiveness”. This has to do with actual valid marriages and vows made. The church is HONORING her by believing her when she made vows the first time. Once determined to be in a valid marriage, the church in no way can encourage someone to live in adultery with someone else. If she truly believes in the Catholic church’s teachings, then she realizes she is still married to the first guy. This is Christ’s teachings that one can only be married to one person until death.

If the church were to “show forgiveness” as some want to call it, and just look the other way, then that pretty much discredits the church for any marriages in her view. Why should any vows be upheld then?
 
iloveangels said:
NO. You have it BACKWARDS.

God intended for this girl to keep her pants on and marry correctly in the first place. And once married to stay with her commitment.

SHE is the one who screwed it up royally and got herself in this mess. SHE is the one who needs to be the PENITENT for the wrong doing she has brought upon herself.
Click to expand...
I keep having these flashbacks of Dana Carvey doing the Church Lady dance on an old episode of Saturday Night Live.
 
agapewolf said:
i was reading along and was thinking this whole approach is backwards, when iloveangels finally started getting to it.

The church is upholding marriage in this situation. This has nothing to do with “mercy” or “forgiveness”. This has to do with actual valid marriages and vows made. The church is honoring her by believing her when she made vows the first time. Once determined to be in a valid marriage, the church in no way can encourage someone to live in adultery with someone else. If she truly believes in the catholic church’s teachings, then she realizes she is still married to the first guy. This is christ’s teachings that one can only be married to one person until death.

If the church were to “show forgiveness” as some want to call it, and just look the other way, then that pretty much discredits the church for any marriages in her view. Why should any vows be upheld then?
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Debora123 said:
So WHY would the Church require her to do this if it’s not what God intends?
Click to expand...
Your assertions that the Church “requires” something that it in fact does NOT require is really quite tiresome Debora. The Church does not require the family to “break up” in such a case.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

google.com/search?q=vatican.va+divorce+remarriage&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html
Debora123 said:
Could the letter of the law actually ever have some grey areas?
Click to expand...
No, the law does not have grey areas.

The pastoral response to the person who is in an irregular marriage in a concrete situation is another matter entirely.
 
Well, either this is completely hypothetical and we’re just pandering with canon law, OR someone really is in this situation and someone is whining. One or the other, not sure which.
 
Debora123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the marriage ceremony that took place for the first marriage and whether she or her ex husband were Baptised in any faith? Was it dispensed as to form or did they marry in the Church? Second, the exact reason for the denial of the annulment. I would agree that a person of 18 or 19 might not have understood the implications of marriage and that’s it’s permanent and entering into it cannot be entered into without a certain maturity and understanding of what you are doing – and that this is to be forever. Without knowing whether either or both were Baptised in any faith and what ceremony took place, it’s hard to know why it was denied.

I read somewhere on here where a woman was denied in one Diocese and granted in another when she moved. I’m not advocating Diocese shopping – but could some mistake have been made and was there an appeal? I know they are not frequently granted on appeal. Did the “ex” obstruct the process? She had her advocate and the Church had their advocate so I would ask what the Church’s advocate argued against the decree of nullity.

I’d be more inclined to find out answers as to the validy or non-validy of first marriage before telling this woman to break up the family or live a sexless existence.

You don’t have to answer – these are just my own doubts as to what happened in the process.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Please go to my post and read the Catechism quote I provided. Here, I’ll provide it again.
Click to expand...
I read it but I don’t completely understand it. Is the Church itself saying then that the lady such as the one in my hypothetical situation should indeed NOT leave her husband to become a full member of the Church??
 
iloveangels said:
NO. You have it BACKWARDS.

God intended for this girl to keep her pants on and marry correctly in the first place. And once married to stay with her commitment.

SHE is the one who screwed it up royally and got herself in this mess. SHE is the one who needs to be the PENITENT for the wrong doing she has brought upon herself.
Click to expand...
You may have missed the part about her not be a Christian. Do you really expect people that no nothing of Catholicism to live and be judged by the Catholic Church rules?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top