A question about MARRIAGE and the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ValPal said:
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?
Click to expand...
Grammar, ValPal, grammar. I have no idea what you wrote means.
 
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...
What Mary Gail posted is exactly the “live as brother and sister” option with the 2nd husband which would be the least disruptive thing, if they can manage it. She would not be able to receive Holy Communion unless she were abstaining from sexual intercourse with this 2nd man.

In many dioceses, you’d have to go through some degree of counseling to be allowed to come into the Church in this condition. They’d have to be convinced that the couple were willing to do it and could do it.
 
Debora123 said:
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??
Click to expand...
I think the message is that the letter of the law (and likely God’s will, upon further reflection) is that the Church would absolutely expect her to not leave her husband. The confusion, though, is which man you view as her husband. If the first marriage is truly declared valid (despite the circumstances you set forth), then the first man is her valid husband. As someone else said, she’d have been better off keeping her pants on and avoiding him in the first place. In her current situation, it would be up to her, not the Church, whether she wanted to break up her family or not.
 
ValPal said:
Your post refers to Christians. She’s not Christian.
Click to expand...
The OP is a Catholic.

Is the “she” you are referring to the hypothetical woman in the OP’s first post? If so, it is a hypothetical non-Christian who has approached the Church for baptism. That makes it the Church’s business.
 
Debora123 said:
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??
Click to expand...
Correct. She can live in continence with him for the good of the children.
 
Gordon_Sims said:
I think the message is that the letter of the law (and likely God’s will, upon further reflection) is that the Church would absolutely expect her to not leave her husband. The confusion, though, is which man you view as her husband. If the first marriage is truly declared valid (despite the circumstances you set forth), then the first man is her valid husband. As someone else said, she’d have been better off keeping her pants on and avoiding him in the first place. In her current situation, it would be up to her, not the Church, whether she wanted to break up her family or not.
Click to expand...
Gordon, there’s really no confusion here with respect to Canon law. She is still married to the first man canonically. The second man is only her civil husband.
 
1ke said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be perfectly honest, I’d rather skip through reading all those links and have you just straight up tell me.

You say it’s “tiresome” that I think the Church would require her to cease a marital relationship with her current husband and father of her children.

Am I wrong then? Would the Church actually NOT require that she do this??

It’s kind of offensive and makes me feel stupid that you’d say what I’m posting here is “tiresome”… especially when no one else here, including yourself, has corrected me. 🤷
 
iloveangels said:
Grammar, ValPal, grammar. I have no idea what you wrote means.
Click to expand...
English Comprehension, iloveangels, English Comprehension. 🙂

You are harshly judging the penitent. The problem is you are judging the penitent by a standard which they knew absolutely nothing of at the time. That is wrong.
 
Debora123 said:
To be perfectly honest, I’d rather skip through reading all those links and have you just straight up tell me.

You say it’s “tiresome” that I think the Church would require her to cease a marital relationship with her current husband and father of her children.

Am I wrong then? Would the Church actually NOT require that she do this??

It’s kind of offensive and makes me feel stupid that you’d say what I’m posting here is “tiresome”… especially when no one else here, including yourself, has corrected me. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, it is tiresome. The whole scenario has been given in detail. Read Mary Gail’s selection from the CCC. The answer to the original question is right there. And then, what was meant in that section has also been explained in common language in this thread. It’s all there.
 
Debora123 said:
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??
Click to expand...
She can do what Catholics must do in the same scenario. attend Mass, listen to the Liturgy of the Word, abstain from receiving the Eucharist, pray to receive God’s grace.

A Catholic in this scenario can confess if they promise to live in continence. If they cannot they may not confess. In danger of death, all sacraments may be given, so a divorced and remarried Catholic can receive Last Rites.

The woman in your scenario may attend Mass, her children (you don’t say how old, may attend mass and convert) And she might continue to pray for resolution. It might be a deathbed reception into full communion with the Church…

it could also be “Until death do us part” her first husband could die. Then she would be free to enter the Church in full communion
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
She can do what Catholics must do in the same scenario. attend Mass, listen to the Liturgy of the Word, abstain from receiving the Eucharist, pray to receive God’s grace.

A Catholic in this scenario can confess if they promise to live in continence. If they cannot they may not confess. In danger of death, all sacraments may be given, so a divorced and remarried Catholic can receive Last Rites.

The woman in your scenario may attend Mass, her children (you don’t say how old, may attend mass and convert) And she might continue to pray for resolution. It might be a deathbed reception into full communion with the Church…

it could also be “Until death do us part” her first husband could die. Then she would be free to enter the Church in full communion
Click to expand...
Correct. This is the answer to the question that was posed to us.
 
ValPal said:
English Comprehension, iloveangels, English Comprehension. 🙂

You are harshly judging the penitent. The problem is you are judging the penitent by a standard which they knew absolutely nothing of at the time. That is wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope. The tribunal determined that she did indeed meet the standard of a valid marriage at the time.
 
Gordon_Sims said:
I think the message is that the letter of the law (and likely God’s will, upon further reflection) is that the Church would absolutely expect her to not leave her husband. The confusion, though, is which man you view as her husband. If the first marriage is truly declared valid (despite the circumstances you set forth), then the first man is her valid husband. As someone else said, she’d have been better off keeping her pants on and avoiding him in the first place. In her current situation, it would be up to her, not the Church, whether she wanted to break up her family or not.
Click to expand...
Lol I thought it pretty obvious that I was referring to the man she has been with for almost 20 years and is the father of her 3 children… 🙂
 
Debora123 said:
You say it’s “tiresome” that I think the Church would require her to cease a marital relationship with her current husband and father of her children.

Am I wrong then? Would the Church actually NOT require that she do this??
Click to expand...
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.
 
1ke said:
Is the “she” you are referring to the hypothetical woman in the OP’s first post?
Click to expand...
Yes
If so, it is a hypothetical non-Christian who has approached the Church for baptism. That makes it the Church’s business.
Click to expand...
It may be the Church’s business, but the reference specifically refers to “Christians,” not “nonChristians.” If the hypothetical person becomes Christian, then, and only then, is it applicable.
 
1ke said:
Correct. She can live in continence with him for the good of the children.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top