A question about MARRIAGE and the Church

[1ke]

Ok. Thank you!

I must admit though, that it is weird to me that the Church would actually have the lady NOT join the Church so that she can continue to live in what is considered sinful and adulterous.

If she lives in continence, she CAN join the Church.

 

[iloveangels]

Deborah changed it…she was Baptised as a child, but never practiced.

If she weren’t Christian the Pauline or Petrine Privilige would apply.

The Pauline Privilege only applies in the case that neither the 1st man nor the woman were baptized at the time of marriage. IF she had been baptized prior to entering that union, the Pauline Privilege would not apply.

Also the scenario is that the 1st marriage was not annulled, even though annulment was sought. If there was the possibility of the Pauline Privilege, it would have been caught and used during that proceeding, so I am assuming that it is not available for the 1st marriage. That marriage was valid and not able to be annulled according to the scenario.

 

[Debora123]

If she lives in continence, she CAN join the Church.

Grrr!

No, but that’s the thing though. If she DID try to live with her husband as brother/sister, he would most likely leave her (and have every right to on top of that).

Imagine this:

Basically she would have to come home to her “husband” who is not religious in the least bit and try to explain to him that they actually aren’t married and that she’s technically still married to her ex husband which is why they can no longer live as husband and wife, and must live as brother and sister.

I think most non religious men, even if they are good people, would be completely confused and hurt and angry and betrayed by this. And I think they’d have every right to leave and date/marry someone else. I think very very few would actually say “ok honey, that’s fine… I will now see you as my sister.”

So yes, this would basically be asking the lady to break up her family because that is what would happen.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I missed the moving target.

Is this a valid Baptism or invalid Baptism.

If it was infant Baptism, then she might be Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican…so valid.

 

[iloveangels]

Grrr!

No, but that’s the thing though. If she DID try to live with her husband as brother/sister, he would most likely leave her (and have every right to on top of that).

Imagine this:

Basically she would have to come home to her “husband” who is not religious in the least bit and try to explain to him that they actually aren’t married and that she’s technically still married to her ex husband which is why they can no longer live as husband and wife, and must live as brother and sister.

I think most non religious men, even if they are good people, would be completely confused and hurt and angry and betrayed by this. And I think they’d have every right to leave and date/marry someone else. I think very very few would actually say “ok honey, that’s fine… I will now see you as my sister.”

So yes, this would basically be asking the lady to break up her family because that is what would happen.

OK, then he might leave her. That’s neither here nor there. She has to decide what she’s going to do. She’s made her bed and now she’s sleeping in it, as my father used to say. This girl has some choices to make.

 

[ValPal]

Nope. The tribunal determined that she did indeed meet the standard of a valid marriage at the time.

The tribunal simply determines the validity of the marriage in the context of the Church.

Harshly judging the nonCatholic penitent because she did not follow Catholic rules in another matter altogether, and is flat-out wrong.

 

[ValPal]

If it was infant Baptism, then she might be Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican…so valid.

I heard through the hypothetical grapevine she’s really a Mormon.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Grrr!

No, but that’s the thing though. If she DID try to live with her husband as brother/sister, he would most likely leave her (and have every right to on top of that).

Imagine this:

Basically she would have to come home to her “husband” who is not religious in the least bit and try to explain to him that they actually aren’t married and that she’s technically still married to her ex husband which is why they can no longer live as husband and wife, and must live as brother and sister.

I think most non religious men, even if they are good people, would be completely confused and hurt and angry and betrayed by this. And I think they’d have every right to leave and date/marry someone else. I think very very few would actually say “ok honey, that’s fine… I will now see you as my sister.”

So yes, this would basically be asking the lady to break up her family because that is what would happen.

Or go to Mass. And wait for resolution.

Like a Catholic who is not continent, still must attend Mass and abstain from the Eucharist.

 

[iloveangels]

I heard through the hypothetical grapevine she’s really a Mormon.

LOL.

 

[Debora123]

That is NOT what you wrote. You stated the Church would require her to break up her family. I responded that this is NOT true, as did post 16, 22, and 24 among others.

Refraining from relations is not the same thing as separating and breaking up the familiy. There are a lot of people who have done exactly that in order to be in communion with the Church and to raise their children and protect them from harm.

See my post 101

 

[iloveangels]

Or go to Mass. And wait for resolution.

Like a Catholic who is not continent, still must attend Mass and abstain from the Eucharist.

Correct. Mary Gail’s got it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The Pauline Privilege only applies in the case that neither the 1st man nor the woman were baptized at the time of marriage. IF she had been baptized prior to entering that union, the Pauline Privilege would not apply.
Also the scenario is that the 1st marriage was not annulled, even though annulment was sought. If there was the possibility of the Pauline Privilege, it would have been caught and used during that proceeding, so I am assuming that it is not available for the 1st marriage. That marriage was valid and not able to be annulled according to the scenario.

If she wasn’t a Christian it would segue that she wasn’t baptized

 

[iloveangels]

If she wasn’t a Christian it would segue that she wasn’t baptized

Correct, it’s just a restatement in slightly different words to make the point clear. Sorry, I used to be a schoolteacher.

 

[Debora123]

Or go to Mass. And wait for resolution.

Like a Catholic who is not continent, still must attend Mass and abstain from the Eucharist.

Thanks Mary Gail.

I know you’ve said this multiple times now and I have read it. It just get’s lost in the middle of all the responses I’ve given to the other posters. Sorry if it seems like I was ignoring you.

 

[iloveangels]

Thanks Mary Gail.

I know you’ve said this multiple times now and I have read it. It just get’s lost in the middle of all the responses I’ve given to the other posters. Sorry if it seems like I was ignoring you.

Correct, and sleeping with the 2nd man remains a problem if she does it. He’s not really her canonical husband. Thus it’s adultery if and when it happens.

 

[agapewolf]

The tribunal simply determines the validity of the marriage in the context of the Church.

Harshly judging the nonCatholic penitent because she did not follow Catholic rules in another matter altogether, and is flat-out wrong.

Nope— it determines validity of marriage, period. It’s not “catholic” rules… It simple… Free, total, faithful, fruitful. The tribunal determined they had all these, therefore, valid marriage. There is no “harsh judgement”.

 

[iloveangels]

Nope— it determines validity of marriage, period. It’s not “catholic” rules… It simple… Free, total, faithful, fruitful. The tribunal determined they had all these, therefore, valid marriage. There is no “harsh judgement”.

Correct. It’s not a harsh judgment. If the tribunal found that there was a valid marriage, then that’s what it was.

 

[ValPal]

Correct. It’s not a harsh judgment. If the tribunal found that there was a valid marriage, then that’s what it was.

I quoted this:

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.

Did the tribunal really say she needs to keep her pants on?

If so, I apologize.

 

[Debora123]

I still think God’s will would be for the lady to maintain a marital relationship with her current husband, rather than risk breaking up the family to join the Church. It’s a shame the Church wouldn’t take her though.

 

[iloveangels]

I quoted this:

Did the tribunal really say she needs to keep her pants on?

If so, I apologize.

Probably not in so many words, but then I’m not a canon lawyer either. The question was posed in common language, I answered in common language. And sometimes with these nuisance questions, hypothetical questions, you have to do that. People don’t listen if you tell them in language that sounds hedging, which many people use. They try to find loopholes and you can be arguing for hours over nothing whatsoever.

The other thing about this is that people take all this so lightly. They get married and think if it doesn’t work out they can just get a divorce. And then they marry somebody else, and yada yada. It’s really bizarre. Happens all the time. This is not how it’s supposed to work at all. You can’t treat marriage like it’s something to do when you’re bored.