Adultery in Non-Catholic Circumstance

[badegine]

Hi all,

I’ve scoured the search pages, but can’t seem to find an answer to this question:

Is the sin of adultery being committed if a Catholic single begins a relationship with a partner in a wholly non-Catholic marriage?

I’ve seen posts which give a dictionary definition of adultery as some sort of proof for it being so, but that doesn’t seem to stand up very well with other aspects of our faith…so I’m left wondering.

I understand that a situation like the one I list would never be ideal [at the very least the married partner would be breaking their - albeit secular - marriage vows], but if the Church has never sanctified the marriage and the married couple doesn’t have any present link with Catholicism at all, then how can ‘Catholic adultery’ [so to speak] have been committed? Surely it’s only a mortal sin if a Catholic union has been broken, because otherwise no ‘marriage’ has really been tainted [and hence not adultery]- only co-habiting singles bound under civil agreement.

There might be a lot of other sins this situation could come under [coveting your neighbour’s possessions, for example] - but I’m really interested only in the technicality of the ‘adultery’ label in such a cirumstance.

If I need to go into further detail I’ll happily do so, but this essay should be done for now

Just interested to know what the experts think…

 

[LilyM]

Hi all,

I’ve scoured the search pages, but can’t seem to find an answer to this question:

Is the sin of adultery being committed if a Catholic single begins a relationship with a partner in a wholly non-Catholic marriage?

I’ve seen posts which give a dictionary definition of adultery as some sort of proof for it being so, but that doesn’t seem to stand up very well with other aspects of our faith…so I’m left wondering.

I understand that a situation like the one I list would never be ideal [at the very least the married partner would be breaking their - albeit secular - marriage vows], but if the Church has never sanctified the marriage and the married couple doesn’t have any present link with Catholicism at all, then how can ‘Catholic adultery’ [so to speak] have been committed? Surely it’s only a mortal sin if a Catholic union has been broken, because otherwise no ‘marriage’ has really been tainted [and hence not adultery]- only co-habiting singles bound under civil agreement.

There might be a lot of other sins this situation could come under [coveting your neighbour’s possessions, for example] - but I’m really interested only in the technicality of the ‘adultery’ label in such a cirumstance.

If I need to go into further detail I’ll happily do so, but this essay should be done for now

Just interested to know what the experts think…

Marriage is marriage is marriage. It’s a sacrament that the couple confer upon each other, with the priest or celebrant being merely a witness. I believe civil marriages can, in certain situations, also be considered as valid and binding, just as non-Catholic religious marriages can be. And a civilly married couple can, in certain circumstances, be denied annulment, so there’s no presumption that a civil marrige doesn’t really exist.

In any event, the sin lies in the breaking of the marital vows or covenant, whether religious or not. Civil marriage vows are binding like other types of civil vows - to break one’s valid and binding marital vows is adultery pure and simple. In fact to break ANY vow or oath is a mortal sin, hence perjury in a court or lying on a statutory declaration or sworn affidavit would also be a sin, be they expressed in religious terms or not.

 

[RobHom]

Committing “adultery” is a sin… and it can also be charged as a criminal offense in some states. The “Catholic Single” knows that it is wrong in the eyes of God. That person is causing either directly or indirectly the other party to commit adultery and is therefore complicit in the sin. Guilt by association and participation.

drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=Adultery&b=drb

The link above is to a search page for the Douay-Rheims and there were quite a few hits on the subject.

Leviticus was particularly stringent on this issue:

Leviticus 20

10 If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour’s wife, let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress.

 

[rwoehmke]

For all practical purposes any marriage whether civil or religious, whether actually valid, or invalid as a marriage outside the Church for a Catholic or two Catholics, is considered a marriage until ruled otherwise by a competent authority. In the instance where an invalid marriage is declared no marriage by a competent authority there would still be a sin of fornication. Trying to sooth ones conscience by deciding there is no marriage on one’s own is not a shortcut to guilt free sexual relations.The mills of morality grind exceedingly fine.

 

[badegine]

Thanks for all the replies.

I hate to play Devil’s advocate with this, but…there’s an aspect of it all which - if there’s proof in the Catechism etc. which would solidify it for me - I’d be very grateful to know of.

The part I don’t fully understand, I suppose, is how a civil marriage can be considered valid under the Church’s eyes - this, again, is why I see there to be little worth in looking for a dictionary definition of the term or citing that it’s a crime in some States or is mentioned in the Bible: for the first two, surely God does not bow to secular inventions for his description of the term, and - in the second - adultery is surely used in respect to ‘marriages recognised at the time by God as being valid’ [which, I suppose, meant Jewish marriages]?

If there’s any official doctrine that could clear this up, I’d be grateful - though I’m not sure I’m making what I mean obvious enough…does anyone out there understand?

Sorry for all this - it just hit me after RCIA the other day, and no-one there could give me a good answer…thought I’d turn to you guys for help.

Cheers.

 

[1ke]

The part I don’t fully understand, I suppose, is how a civil marriage can be considered valid under the Church’s eyes

Absolutely, the Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid.

Only Catholics are required to marry in the Catholic form. Non-Catholics and non-Christians marry validly when they marry civilly or in a religious ceremony in their own tradition.

Remember, the priest does not confer the Sacrament upon the couple, the couple is the minister of the Sacrament. They confer it upon each other by the giving and receiving of consent. Therefore, between two baptized non-Catholics the marriage is both valid and a sacrament.

Non-Christians marry validly in what the Church calls a good and natural marriage.

Any non-Catholic who is married is married in the eyes of the Church. ** No Catholic should be dating a married person. **

If a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic who has been previously married, that non-Catholic would have to petition for a decree of nullity from the Catholic tribunal, because as has already been stated-- their marriage is VALID unless the Church determines otherwise.

For reference I suggest this section of Canon Law:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

And this section of the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

 

[SilentKnight]

Thanks for all the replies.

I hate to play Devil’s advocate with this, but…there’s an aspect of it all which - if there’s proof in the Catechism etc. which would solidify it for me - I’d be very grateful to know of.

The part I don’t fully understand, I suppose, is how a civil marriage can be considered valid under the Church’s eyes - this, again, is why I see there to be little worth in looking for a dictionary definition of the term or citing that it’s a crime in some States or is mentioned in the Bible: for the first two, surely God does not bow to secular inventions for his description of the term, and - in the second - adultery is surely used in respect to ‘marriages recognised at the time by God as being valid’ [which, I suppose, meant Jewish marriages]?

If there’s any official doctrine that could clear this up, I’d be grateful - though I’m not sure I’m making what I mean obvious enough…does anyone out there understand?

Sorry for all this - it just hit me after RCIA the other day, and no-one there could give me a good answer…thought I’d turn to you guys for help.

Cheers.

A civil marriage can be considered valid in the eyes of the Church in much the same way that work outside of the Church, for example, is recognized as valid. The work (medicine, law, plumbing, accounting, etc.), may not be sacramental (baptizing, prayer for healing, communion, etc.), but it remains very valid nonetheless, right?

Same thing with marriages. There are two levels to marriage, not just one: contractual and covenental. Any valid marriage is a valid contract that must be honored by all. Marriage just doesn’t rise to the “level” of a Sacrament until both parties are baptized.

Does this help?

SK

 

[badegine]

That all does help, yes - thank you.

Two areas I’ve just thought of by extension of it, then:

i. Does the Church recognise homosexual marriages in the same manner ?

ii. If a couple re-writes marriage vows to exclude the '‘till death do us part’ [and related] aspect, presumably - following the logic you give above, insomuch as non-sacramental marriage merely being a ‘contract’ - aspects such as the ‘till death do us part’ aren’t necessarily included…which would remove the adultery aspect?

Sorry for pushing this so far - it’s not as if I have a personal situation which warrants it: just clarifying what hasn’t been made clear to me via RCIA - kinda feel it necessary to learn as much about the Church as possible before ‘signing on the dotted line’, so to speak

 

[1ke]

i. Does the Church recognise homosexual marriages in the same manner ?

No.

ii. If a couple re-writes marriage vows to exclude the '‘till death do us part’ [and related] aspect, presumably - following the logic you give above, insomuch as non-sacramental marriage merely being a ‘contract’ - aspects such as the ‘till death do us part’ aren’t necessarily included…which would remove the adultery aspect?

No. The marriage is VALID.

Sorry for pushing this so far - it’s not as if I have a personal situation which warrants it: just clarifying what hasn’t been made clear to me via RCIA - kinda feel it necessary to learn as much about the Church as possible before ‘signing on the dotted line’, so to speak

Look, all I can say is stop trying to find a loophole. There isn’t one. You may not date a person who is married. Period.

 

[SilentKnight]

That all does help, yes - thank you.

Two areas I’ve just thought of by extension of it, then:

i. Does the Church recognise homosexual marriages in the same manner ?

No. Homosexuality is disordered. Therefore, the Church does not recognize (sexual) union of any kind between homosexual persons. If their homosexual orientation cannot be healed (which it seems it can be in the cases of some individuals and not in the cases of others), then homosexuals must live a life of celibacy.

ii. If a couple re-writes marriage vows to exclude the '‘till death do us part’ [and related] aspect, presumably - following the logic you give above, insomuch as non-sacramental marriage merely being a ‘contract’ - aspects such as the ‘till death do us part’ aren’t necessarily included…which would remove the adultery aspect?

I think what you just said was, “If a couple in civil marriage writes their vows in a manner that says something like, ‘Until we both choose to no longer be married’, as opposed to ‘Until death do us part’, then does their marriage only last until they both agree to part from the contract”?

If that’s what you’re asking, then the answer would be that such an alteration in the conventional vows would actually be grounds for nullity inasmuch as even if civil marriage is not a sacrament, it retains a certain immutable quality anyway. That is to say that, even if marriage is not sacramental, the very definition of marriage still means “a, b, and c”.

So, even though the hypothetical marriage above may not be a sacrament, the couple must still profess their love for each “until death do us part”, or this - I do believe - is grounds for nullity.

Sorry for pushing this so far - it’s not as if I have a personal situation which warrants it: just clarifying what hasn’t been made clear to me via RCIA - kinda feel it necessary to learn as much about the Church as possible before ‘signing on the dotted line’, so to speak

Yeah, that makes sense. Not a problem.



SK

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Simply unbelievable are the lengths that the sinful mind will take to justify its actions.

Peace…

MW

 

[whatevergirl]

Hi all,

I’ve scoured the search pages, but can’t seem to find an answer to this question:

Is the sin of adultery being committed if a Catholic single begins a relationship with a partner in a wholly non-Catholic marriage?

I’ve seen posts which give a dictionary definition of adultery as some sort of proof for it being so, but that doesn’t seem to stand up very well with other aspects of our faith…so I’m left wondering.

I understand that a situation like the one I list would never be ideal [at the very least the married partner would be breaking their - albeit secular - marriage vows], but if the Church has never sanctified the marriage and the married couple doesn’t have any present link with Catholicism at all, then how can ‘Catholic adultery’ [so to speak] have been committed? Surely it’s only a mortal sin if a Catholic union has been broken, because otherwise no ‘marriage’ has really been tainted [and hence not adultery]- only co-habiting singles bound under civil agreement.

There might be a lot of other sins this situation could come under [coveting your neighbour’s possessions, for example] - but I’m really interested only in the technicality of the ‘adultery’ label in such a cirumstance.

If I need to go into further detail I’ll happily do so, but this essay should be done for now

Just interested to know what the experts think…

Adultery was first a Jewish law…and then when Jesus came to bring us the new covenant, He was speaking to Gentiles and Jews, about divorce, adultery, etc…

It is sinful, whether one is Catholic or not.

 

[whatevergirl]

Thanks for all the replies.

I hate to play Devil’s advocate with this, but…there’s an aspect of it all which - if there’s proof in the Catechism etc. which would solidify it for me - I’d be very grateful to know of.

The part I don’t fully understand, I suppose, is how a civil marriage can be considered valid under the Church’s eyes - this, again, is why I see there to be little worth in looking for a dictionary definition of the term or citing that it’s a crime in some States or is mentioned in the Bible: for the first two, surely God does not bow to secular inventions for his description of the term, and - in the second - adultery is surely used in respect to ‘marriages recognised at the time by God as being valid’ [which, I suppose, meant Jewish marriages]?

If there’s any official doctrine that could clear this up, I’d be grateful - though I’m not sure I’m making what I mean obvious enough…does anyone out there understand?

Sorry for all this - it just hit me after RCIA the other day, and no-one there could give me a good answer…thought I’d turn to you guys for help.

Cheers.

The official doctrine being the 10 Commandments.

 

[jmcrae]

That all does help, yes - thank you.

Two areas I’ve just thought of by extension of it, then:

i. Does the Church recognise homosexual marriages in the same manner ?

No, since the Church’s definition of a marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for the purpose of mutual assistance and the founding of a family.

ii. If a couple re-writes marriage vows to exclude the '‘till death do us part’ [and related] aspect, presumably - following the logic you give above, insomuch as non-sacramental marriage merely being a ‘contract’ - aspects such as the ‘till death do us part’ aren’t necessarily included…which would remove the adultery aspect?

If they specifically stated that the marriage was “until we fall out of love,” or some other caveat that would nullify the idea of “until death we do part” then they would have good grounds for a Declaration of Nullity after the divorce, should they choose to pursue one. But the marriage would be assumed to be valid until such time as they were to seek out a Declaration of Nullity.

Sorry for pushing this so far - it’s not as if I have a personal situation which warrants it: just clarifying what hasn’t been made clear to me via RCIA - kinda feel it necessary to learn as much about the Church as possible before ‘signing on the dotted line’, so to speak

Good for you.

The teaching on Marriage is one of the most striking examples of how the Church has never compromised, or “done a deal with the Devil,” in the world.

 

[rwoehmke]

Simply unbelievable are the lengths that the sinful mind will take to justify its actions.

Peace…

MW

The assumption seems to be that someone is trying to justify a liaison with a married woman. Why that assumption? Seems unwarranted by the evidence at hand. Explain please.

 

[lizaanne]

Since when does the Catholic Church have exclusive rights to the Sixth Commandment?

It applies to EVERYONE - without exception. Period.

Sheesh

~Liza

 

[rpp]

Just interested to know what the experts think…

Well, if you are looking for self-described experts, you are in the right place.

On the other hand, if you are looking for real experts, I would start with your priest or call Tribunal in your diocese.

The Catholic Church presumes all marriages between a man and a woman valid until proven otherwise. However, A Catholic cannot receive communion until the marriage has been blessed by the Church, either by a Nuptial Mass (if not civilly married) or convalidation. In unusual circumstances, a radial sanation may be granted when one of the spouses refuses to consent to a Catholic convalidation.

The original post did not say if the other person is divorced. I presume they are. If not, then it is certainly adultery.

Now, as for dating a person who is a non-Catholic and who is divorced, I have recently come to the conclusion that this indeed is also adultery.

This is being discussed on another thread. To see the evolution of my opinion, take a look.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=245809

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi all,

I’ve scoured the search pages, but can’t seem to find an answer to this question:

Is the sin of adultery being committed if a Catholic single begins a relationship with a partner in a wholly non-Catholic marriage?
…

I used to say there were no dumb questions, but I may have to revise my opinion.

Having sex outside marriage is a sin.
When two unmarried people do it, it is called fornication.
When one of the parties is married to someone else, it is called adultery.

what part of “no sex outside marriage” could you not find when you did your search?

 

[rpp]

I used to say there were no dumb questions, but I may have to revise my opinion.

Having sex outside marriage is a sin.
When two unmarried people do it, it is called fornication.
When one of the parties is married to someone else, it is called adultery.

what part of “no sex outside marriage” could you not find when you did your search?

I do not think the OP poster mentioned anything about sex. Rather, I interpreted the question to refer to a chaste dating or courtship relationship.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am assuming what seems to be a commonly accepted definition of “relationship” in this depraved culture, which as near as I can tell means a few casual conversations leading to the bedroom asap. If I err, mea culpa, but what does the religion of the married person in this scenario have to do with the question? No, a Catholic cannot form a romantic attachment with a married person, whether Moslem, Lutheran, Hindu or undecided.