Can I attend my son's invalid marriage ceremony?

[Memaw]

That’s why I liked EasterJoy’s suggestion that she talk to her future DIL’s Lutheran pastor about why he would marry them, considering her prior marriage. While the DIL probably won’t want to seek a decree of nullity, the MIL might see a reason that she would likely be granted one. And that might ease her mind considerably.

A Declaration of Nullity only recognizes a fact, a fact which exists independently of the declaration. The first marriage was either valid or it wasn’t, regardless of whether a tribunal rules on it or not.

BTW, can you imagine if the Methodists were to say, the mother and son were baptised Methodist, so they remain Methodist and subject to our rules for the rest of their lives, whether they want to be or not. Nobody would take them seriously. And yet Catholics feel that way about anybody who has been taken into the Catholic Church.

One can never know if the first marriage was invalid until all the facts are studied. Guessing is not good enough. The Catholic Church takes Marriage very seriously. It is a Sacrament. The Catholic Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to never teach error. Adultery should be forbidden in every denomination !! The Catholic Church defends Christ’s TRUTHS. We all have a free will to choose right or wrong but that should never mean others have to go against their beliefs just to please someone. I am not responsible for the choices others make, just the ones I make. Can you imagine if all denominations stood up against adultery ! That would send a strong message to all Christians. God Bless, Memaw

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, I don’t see that staying away from a son’s wedding is a very loving move.
She may be shaking a lot more than dust from her feet.
And I do believe they preach the gospel in the Lutheran Church.
Not like he’s marrying a fire-breathing Satanist.
She may be ensuring that neither her son nor his wife ever consider Catholicism.
As for “relationships”…well, I’d be happy if my son had a solid and loving Lutheran marriage and was a good person, and married a good person and just love them and let God do the rest.
I reckon there will be plenty of Lutherans in Heaven.

First off, there is nothing keeping a Catholic from going to the wedding of two Lutherans who are observing the Lutheran understanding of marriage. This is not two Lutherans. One of this couple belongs to the Catholic Church and has expressed belief in the Catholic Church as an adult, before meeting his present fiancé. So let’s not make this about whether Lutherans are going to Heaven or not.

I am also not saying she should not go. I am saying she should not automatically go because of some idea that loving your son means that you always go to his wedding whether the wedding is licit or not. For instance, I am sure you would not be so pleased if your son were marrying an otherwise wonderful person who just happened to be already married to someone else. If your son’s fiancé was a married woman who had a spouse somewhere, that makes this a different ballgame, wouldn’t you say? If your son were saying he just didn’t care about the marriage laws of the state he lived in, rather than the marriage laws of the denomination in which he has citizenship, would that be different to you? Why? Because the state has real laws, while the Church’s laws are “just rules”? To hear many Catholics talk (although perhaps not you), you’d think this were the case.

That is the main issue, not just that the son (who is Catholic) has left the Church and is marrying outside canon law. The OP is concerned that her son’s fiancé may still be validly married to someone else. If she believes the original marriage is valid, it would insisting on a violation of conscience to require her to go to a wedding in that case, even her own son’s. To commit bigamy is a more serious thing than to fail to get a required dispensation.

 

[MacQ]

First off, there is nothing keeping a Catholic from going to the wedding of two Lutherans who are observing the Lutheran understanding of marriage. This is not two Lutherans. One of this couple belongs to the Catholic Church and has expressed belief in the Catholic Church as an adult, before meeting his present fiancé. So let’s not make this about whether Lutherans are going to Heaven or not.

I am also not saying she should not go. I am saying she should not automatically go because of some idea that loving your son means that you always go to his wedding whether the wedding is licit or not. For instance, I am sure you would not be so pleased if your son were marrying an otherwise wonderful person who just happened to be already married to someone else. If your son’s fiancé was a married woman who had a spouse somewhere, that makes this a different ballgame, wouldn’t you say? If your son were saying he just didn’t care about the marriage laws of the state he lived in, rather than the marriage laws of the denomination in which he has citizenship, would that be different to you? Why? Because the state has real laws, while the Church’s laws are “just rules”? To hear many Catholics talk (although perhaps not you), you’d think this were the case.

That is the main issue, not just that the son (who is Catholic) has left the Church and is marrying outside canon law. The OP is concerned that her son’s fiancé may still be validly married to someone else. If she believes the original marriage is valid, it would insisting on a violation of conscience to require her to go to a wedding in that case, even her own son’s. To commit bigamy is a more serious thing than to fail to get a required dispensation.

The ultimate hope would be that this son returns to catholicsm and brings his wife with him someday.
That’s obviously not happening right now.
The odds of it EVER happening are sorely reduced IMO if the Mom/MIL gets on a high horse and refuses to go to their wedding, telling them they are adulterers in the eyes of her church. Jesus didn’t ask his dinner hosts if they were all observant of the rules before he sat down to dinner with them.

But hey…it wouldn’t be the worst thing that ever happened if they create a solid Lutheran marriage for themselves either.
IN that case, Mom/MIL is either a loving part of it or she’s the MIL-zilla. Her choice.

Not everything happens in the sequence or timeframe we want it to. And for conversions, sometimes a lot has to take place, and time elapses before it happens.

 

[Bonnie]

Not everything happens in the sequence or timeframe we want it to. And for conversions, sometimes a lot has to take place, and time elapses before it happens.

Amen! We can’t micro-manage the lives of others, no matter how much better their lives would be if they would just listen to us!

I love this variation of the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept the people I cannot change,
the courage to change the one I can,
and the wisdom to know it’s me.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Question for the OP - I’ve been reading your posts & trying to understand your logic, but I’m not getting it. Apparently it’s OK with you to be with your son & his girlfriend, even tho they are living together. And you plan on still being friendly with them after their wedding. Yet you want to boycott the wedding to please God.

They are “living in sin” now, and will be after an invalid marriage ceremony. I’m wondering if it is the sin that bothers you, or something else.

I think this is the key to this particular discussion. If they have been treated as a couple until now, and suddenly that treatment is being changed, it would appear to send the wrong message.

It reminds me of the point Benedict made about the prostitute with HIV using condoms in an attempt to do the more moral thing, and that the attempt should be recognized if not wholly supported. Obviously they feel that marrying is a positive move forward in their relationship, and it should be acknowledged that they are acting from positive motives-this would make them more likely to listen to catholic considerations on what else they should do than to attribute their action to some sort of sinful rebellion on their part.

 

[MacQ]

That’s called love??? God Bless, Memaw

Yes. It’s called protecting one’s spouse from abuse.

 

[MacQ]

Amen! We can’t micro-manage the lives of others, no matter how much better their lives would be if they would just listen to us!

I love this variation of the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept the people I cannot change,
the courage to change the one I can,
and the wisdom to know it’s me.

:yup:
That’s my favorite version of it too!!!

We need to just get the heck out of God’s way!

 

[MacQ]

I read a lot about what the Pope says but I try not to put my own spin on it. I look at it through the teachings of the Church and how he really means it. We’re all sinners but we ought not to condone our own sins or anyone else’s or make excuses for them. Like I said before, I would talk to my child, let them know I love them and only want what’s best for them but I cannot condone his decision in this situation and hope they would go talk to a priest and see if it can be worked out They should not expect the parents to “go along with” everything they want, right or wrong!! God Bless, Memaw

Spin??? Where did I “spin”?
I simply said that when the Pope meets people, he doesn’t launch into a litany of telling them their sins or belittling them for it, or citing canon law (in fact he has spoken against such approaches as robbing the Church of her soul and risking becoming an empty bureaucracy). Find me an example that proves otherwise.

Meanwhile, here is an example of how he does greet people:

“Since many of you do not belong to the Catholic Church and others are non-believers, from the bottom of my heart I give this silent blessing to each and every one of you, respecting the conscience of each one of you but knowing that each one of you is a child of God.”

No spin.
I think we would do well to adopt the spirit of that as we figure out how to relate to non-Catholics.

 

[EasterJoy]

The ultimate hope would be that this son returns to catholicsm and brings his wife with him someday.
That’s obviously not happening right now.
The odds of it EVER happening are sorely reduced IMO if the Mom/MIL gets on a high horse and refuses to go to their wedding, telling them they are adulterers in the eyes of her church. Jesus didn’t ask his dinner hosts if they were all observant of the rules before he sat down to dinner with them.

But hey…it wouldn’t be the worst thing that ever happened if they create a solid Lutheran marriage for themselves either.
IN that case, Mom/MIL is either a loving part of it or she’s the MIL-zilla. Her choice.

Not everything happens in the sequence or timeframe we want it to. And for conversions, sometimes a lot has to take place, and time elapses before it happens.

They’ve already moved in together before marriage, so his mother has already presumably called them on what the Lutherans also consider a violation of moral law. Reminding someone that they are committing adultery when that is obviously what they’re doing is actually our duty, after all, as today’s Scripture readings attest.

On that account, I don’t think the mother is causing any scandal to anybody by going to the wedding, because the couple is not making their public situation worse by this marriage. Their intention is to make it better, and I don’t think the MIL can doubt that. On that account, I believe she could attend with a clear conscience.

As you imply, as the mother of the groom, there is a strong social expectation that she go to the ceremony itself unless she is trying to cut ties with the couple over their decision to marry. That is not her intention. She has raised the objection to her son that he is not marrying according to canon law, as he is bound to do. That is now on his head, not hers. If there were no doubt that her son was entering into a bigamous marriage, that might not be the case, but if she were to give them the benefit of the doubt and express the hope that they’ll get it cleared up some day.

My intention is not to say she should not go. My intention is to help her to see her way to find this a defect of form rather than a marriage of her son to a woman not free to marry, if that is possible. If not, I’d defend her if she does not go because she discerns this is a violation of her conscience. If her son and his civil wife decide to cut her off for that, that is their choice, and not her fault. They are not duty-bound to take her that way or treat her that way. It is, unfortunately, not unlikely that they will do just that.

 

[MacQ]

They’ve already moved in together before marriage, so his mother has already presumably called them on what the Lutherans also consider a violation of moral law. Reminding someone that they are committing adultery when that is obviously what they’re doing is actually our duty, after all, as today’s Scripture readings attest.

On that account, I don’t think the mother is causing any scandal to anybody by going to the wedding, because the couple is not making their public situation worse by this marriage. Their intention is to make it better, and I don’t think the MIL can doubt that. On that account, I believe she could attend with a clear conscience.

As you imply, as the mother of the groom, there is a strong social expectation that she go to the ceremony itself unless she is trying to cut ties with the couple over their decision to marry. That is not her intention. She has raised the objection to her son that he is not marrying according to canon law, as he is bound to do. That is now on his head, not hers. If there were no doubt that her son was entering into a bigamous marriage, that might not be the case, but if she were to give them the benefit of the doubt and express the hope that they’ll get it cleared up some day.

My intention is not to say she should not go. My intention is to help her to see her way to find this a defect of form rather than a marriage of her son to a woman not free to marry, if that is possible. If not, I’d defend her if she does not go because she discerns this is a violation of her conscience. If her son and his civil wife decide to cut her off for that, that is their choice, and not her fault. They are not duty-bound to take her that way or treat her that way. It is, unfortunately, not unlikely that they will do just that.

No argument there.
My whole point was that maintaining a loving relationship with her son AND his wife ought to be her priority, rather than over-scrupling over canon law and severing it (and along with it any hope of their eventual return and conversion). Just because it isn’t happening in her timeframe doesn’t mean it never will.

 

[EasterJoy]

No argument there.
My whole point was that maintaining a loving relationship with her son AND his wife ought to be her priority, rather than over-scrupling over canon law and severing it (and along with it any hope of their eventual return and conversion). Just because it isn’t happening in her timeframe doesn’t mean it never will.

Yes. It is the son who is putting his mom between a rock and a hard place, not the other way around. Canon law does have authority over us and is meant to be a guide towards following moral law, and not just some bureaucratic busywork meant to keep lawyers and obsessive compulsives happy. It is unfortunate that people make it out to be the latter. We do have to do what we can to keep the reputation from gaining traction, where we can.

I heard a homily this weekend that talked about the Lord’s phrase of those who would not turn from an offense, even after being confronted with their offense: “Treat them as you would a tax collector or a Gentile” The homilist’s reminder was to remember how the Lord treated tax collectors and Gentiles. I took that to mean this: When a brother or a sister in the faith will not follow the faith, perhaps it is time to treat them as if they are not of the faith. Don’t act as if nothing is wrong, but don’t presume them to be lost. Step back and start the conversion process for them all over again. If they won’t have any of it, shake the dust and let God take them from there, rather than arguing it to death.

The son is not behaving like a fellow Catholic who wants to have his cake and eat it, too, marrying outside the Church but availing himself of the life of the Church as if nothing is wrong. He is acting as if he is a non-Catholic in every way. Well, perhaps it is time for his mother to see him as someone who needs conversion from Square One. That might actually make it easier to be patient. It is something to ask her pastor about.

 

[MacQ]

Yes. It is the son who is putting his mom between a rock and a hard place, not the other way around. Canon law does have authority over us and is meant to be a guide towards following moral law, and not just some bureaucratic busywork meant to keep lawyers and obsessive compulsives happy. It is unfortunate that people make it out to be the latter. We do have to do what we can to keep the reputation from gaining traction, where we can.

I heard a homily this weekend that talked about the Lord’s phrase of those who would not turn from an offense, even after being confronted with their offense: “Treat them as you would a tax collector or a Gentile” The homilist’s reminder was to remember how the Lord treated tax collectors and Gentiles. I took that to mean this: When a brother or a sister in the faith will not follow the faith, perhaps it is time to treat them as if they are not of the faith. Don’t act as if nothing is wrong, but don’t presume them to be lost. Step back and start the conversion process for them all over again. If they won’t have any of it, shake the dust and let God take them from there, rather than arguing it to death.

The son is not behaving like a fellow Catholic who wants to have his cake and eat it, too, marrying outside the Church but availing himself of the life of the Church as if nothing is wrong. He is acting as if he is a non-Catholic in every way. Well, perhaps it is time for his mother to see him as someone who needs conversion from Square One. That might actually make it easier to be patient. It is something to ask her pastor about.

Well, I don’t know whether the OP has said her son intends to continue going to Catholic Mass or not.
I would not be to quick to dust him off my feet even if he intends to go to Lutheran services with his wife.

I would continue to pray for both of them to come to the fullness of the Catholic Church. Someday. But meanwhile, I’m with Mother Theresa on that…better a good (Buddhist, or Lutheran) than a bad Catholic. I’d just be happy they were pursuing a spiritual marriage. Pope Francis has said…there is no “Catholic” God.

As far as converting people (which is what your repeated reference to scripture is about) I’m with Pope Francis on that: you can’t convert people unless you are setting a loving example and have a relationship with them first. Neither would be exemplified by refusing to attend a wedding and saying it violates your conscience.

 

[Memaw]

No argument there.
My whole point was that maintaining a loving relationship with her son AND his wife ought to be her priority, rather than over-scrupling over canon law and severing it (and along with it any hope of their eventual return and conversion). Just because it isn’t happening in her timeframe doesn’t mean it never will.

What makes you all think her son won’t have anything to do with her if she doesn’t attend. He would have to be a very selfish person to do that and it wouldn’t say much for his character! Some love to go to extremes to try to prove their point! My mom had a large family, (10) and more than half were married out of the Church to begin with and she never attended any of their invalid marriages. But they still loved her and she still was friendly to their spouses and of course loved to pieces the grandkids. They knew she was unhappy about their situations and they also knew they were wrong and all later got their Marriages Blessed and all but one spouse became Catholic. My husband was not Catholic when we got married but later when we were having our 3rd baby baptized, he asked Fr. how he could become Catholic. She was his great example. He loved her dearly. It is so foolish for a Catholic to say ‘maintaining a loving relationship over Canon Law’, should be her priority. God must always come first in our life, ( That’s the First Commandment) God Bless, Memaw

 

[EasterJoy]

What makes you all think her son won’t have anything to do with her if she doesn’t attend…

Because the OP said in the opening post “To reject his wedding ceremony, would be (in his eyes) to reject him and his fiancé.”

He’s set the ante high, and unless she gets him to dial back on that, she has to believe he might make good on what he says.

 

[Kelt]

The lady’s son was still a child when they converted to Catholicism. Posters have said that he can’t go back on what he promised when he became a Catholic. But what choice did he have then? He would have gone along with his mother’s religious beliefs and non beliefs and then followed her into Catholicism…that’s what kids mostly do. Kids go along with what adults tell them as they usually want to please them. Even if they do feel like objecting, it just makes life difficult. They don’t have enough experience of life to do otherwise than go along with what their parents do. Now he’s making up his own mind using his own knowledge gained through experience - just like his mother did in the past.

 

[Petersmate]

God must always come first in our life, ( That’s the First Commandment) God Bless, Memaw

well If you persecute anyone then God if he wanted to, could give you a knock you off your donkey experience and ask ‘why you persecute him’?
When you put people first you put God first.

 

[MacQ]

What makes you all think her son won’t have anything to do with her if she doesn’t attend.

What makes me think that? The OP thinks so.
In truth, it may not come to having nothing to do with her (tho that would be a very human reaction)…it may just be that he does his duty by her and nothing more. That’s the usual case. But if she wants to be part of their life, I think she’s off to a bad start. She’s not going to stop the wedding.
It would take an inordinately gracious person to reach out to a mother in law who refused to attend your wedding calling it sacreligious, and try to make her part of your family life. But perhaps this Lutheran lady will reach out in love and include her anyway…if so, she would be truly a wonderful Christian.
SHE would be ‘putting God first’.

I think the right thing to do is embrace her son and new DIL in love (even if she’s a professed atheist).
As I said before, we disagree (and that’s ok by me).

 

[MacQ]

It is so foolish for a Catholic to say ‘maintaining a loving relationship over Canon Law’, should be her priority. God must always come first in our life, ( That’s the First Commandment) God Bless, Memaw

Jesus said “Love God and love one another”.
Yes, God comes first, but as our Holy Father has said, “I believe in God, not a catholic” God."

 

[Memaw]

Jesus said “Love God and love one another”.
Yes, God comes first, but as our Holy Father has said, “I believe in God, not a catholic” God."

I think your misreading what he meant!. God is NOT a Church, He founded a TRUE Church in His Son Jesus Christ. ALL Catholics are expected to follow the teachings of their Faith. Love GOD first and then love our neighbor as our self. If we go around condoning sin, that is NOT following Our Lord or the teaching of HIS Church.
God Bless, Memaw

 

[MacQ]

I think your misreading what he meant!. God is NOT a Church, He founded a TRUE Church in His Son Jesus Christ. ALL Catholics are expected to follow the teachings of their Faith. Love GOD first and then love our neighbor as our self. If we go around condoning sin, that is NOT following Our Lord or the teaching of HIS Church.
God Bless, Memaw

Why do you think I “misread” what he meant?