Catholic & married outside the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salena

Guest
I am Catholic and remarried and going through the annulemnt process. When I asked the Abbot if I should abstain from sex his answer was “keep doing what you are doing.” Also, he told me I would not be able to receive the sacraments if we did abstain from sex. My understanding is the sin I am committing is adultery. If this is so, why can I not receive the sacraments if I abstain from sex? Also, in your opinion, should I abstain until I can marry in the Church.
 
Oh my— I would seek the counsel of another priest!! If you are not married in the Church you shouldn’t be receiving the Eucharist at all!! And if you are Catholic and not married in the Church- my understanding is that sex is a big no no!! Also a couple need not be having sex to receive the Sacraments if it is a mutual agreement between spouses… as we have a pretty good example of that kind of marriage between Mary and Joseph!!
 
Shan is correct. It sounds as if the Abbot is way off base. It has always been taught to abstain until the marriage is corrected.
Also, he told me I would not be able to receive the sacraments if we did abstain from sex.
This statement is the most mistaken/confuseing ever heard from a priest. :eek:
Definitly contact another priest.

Kotton 🙂
 
God bless you for wanting to correct his situation. I am in agreement with the others on what the church teaches; you are not to have sex unless you are rightfully married in the eyes of God and His church. Not sure on the abstaining therefore making you eligible for communion. I have heard of people vowing to live as brother and sister until things are cleared up in order to be able to recieve but that could be up to the priest. I know of someone who is doing that but the process is going to take 2 years. She KNOWS she will not abstain and plans to go to confession each time she slips. I n my mind that would make her confession invalid if she knows she will commit the sin again willingly. Perhaps situations like this is why the priest said no. I would think it would be better to not receive communion and get a blessing until your situation is right with God.
Good luck
 
I am a Catholic who has been in a civil marriage for over 24 years. It was convalidated three weeks ago after both my husband and I received annulments of our first marriages. My husband was not Catholic until three weeks ago and this whole process of annulment didn’t start until he entered RCIA 31 months ago at the age of 64.

We asked our Pastor if we could fill out and file the papers for “living as Mary and Joseph” so that he could be confirmed and we could receive the sacraments. He gave me the papers but said he still did not believe we should do that. He said too many people were aware of our situation and that if we went to communion, we would be giving scandal. We have abstained from sex but continued to sleep in the same bed. We just wanted to do things the right way.

We opted to wait and prayed the annulments would be granted. I have friends and acquaintances who are remarried without annulments and continue to present for the Eucharist. They are absolutely WRONG. It is sacriligious to receive the Eucharist until the annulment matters are resolved.

Abstain and follow all the rules. The rewards are fabulous. Do I feel I am newly married? You betcha! Being in a sacramental marriage is wonderful! Now we are receiving “sanctifying grace.”
 
A civil marriage is not “the real thing,” if you know what I mean. The church must bless the marriage.
 
My understanding is that a baptized person (catholic i mean), must marry in the Church. (Sacramental marriage).

But, I don’t think that one can say that ‘civil marriage’ is not the real thing. That couple doesn’t have the blessing needed, nor are they receiving the grace of the sacrament but the contractual part of the marriage (which is needed) can still be valid, unitying the two ‘till death.’

Am I wrong, anyone?
 
40.png
Cephas:
My understanding is that a baptized person (catholic i mean), must marry in the Church. (Sacramental marriage).

But, I don’t think that one can say that ‘civil marriage’ is not the real thing. That couple doesn’t have the blessing needed, nor are they receiving the grace of the sacrament but the contractual part of the marriage (which is needed) can still be valid, unitying the two ‘till death.’

Am I wrong, anyone?
A Catholic must be married in the Church otherwise the marriage is invalid. So, for a Catholic a civil marriage is “not the real thing.” In order for the Catholic to have a sacramental marriage, then it must be valid (obviously) and either between 2 Catholics or 1 Catholic and 1 baptized non-catholic.

The Church does recognize some civil marriages between non-catholics as valid but not sacramental.
 
40.png
Ham1:
The Church does recognize some civil marriages between non-catholics as valid but not sacramental.
I think even this is mistaken.

As I understand it: A marriage cannot exist between two baptized persons except that it be a sacrament, as long as it has been contracted in accord with whatever laws may be binding on the man and woman. If two baptized non-Catholic Christians are not forbidden by their own traditions to have a marriage contracted before a civil authority, then that marriage is valid and sacramental (presuming it is not otherwise impeded)
 
Tee eff em-

what are you meaning when you say sacramental?

Not as in the same as the Sacrament right? just clarify for me.
sorry if it sounds alittle dumb to ask.

Cephas 🙂
 
Tee em off,

You are correct that two baptized individuals are married sacramentally provided that the marriage is valid.

Cephas,

The marriage is sacramental as in “sacrament” and the conferring of grace on the couple.
 
40.png
Ham1:
The Church does recognize some civil marriages between non-catholics as valid but not sacramental.
The term is a ‘natural’ marriage.

It is a case where the Church recognizes that the marriage is not Sacremental, but the parties involved do not incur the sin of fornication.

An example would be 2 married Jews. The Church certainly does not recognize their relationship as sacremental, but it certainly doesn’t say that they are fornicators either.

Most civil marriages between non-baptized persons fall under this classification.

If the parties converted, they would be under no obligation to confess intercourse performed during their civil marriage.(but any other pre-marial sex would, of course, need to be repented of and confessed)
 
40.png
Brendan:
The term is a ‘natural’ marriage.

It is a case where the Church recognizes that the marriage is not Sacremental, but the parties involved do not incur the sin of fornication.

An example would be 2 married Jews. The Church certainly does not recognize their relationship as sacremental, but it certainly doesn’t say that they are fornicators either.

Most civil marriages between non-baptized persons fall under this classification.

If the parties converted, they would be under no obligation to confess intercourse performed during their civil marriage.(but any other pre-marial sex would, of course, need to be repented of and confessed)
If a non-baptized person converted, he wouldn’t need to confess anything at all because all his sins and temporal punishment due to them would be washed away in the sacrament of baptism. I guess that’s one of the perks of being a convert! 😃
 
Attached is the reply I got from the Diocese of Birmingham…Thanks guys!!

You are correct – as long as you are refraining from sexual relations, you should be able to receive the sacraments. You don’t need to sign a piece of paper. Simply telling the Abbot that this is your firm intention should be adequate. Particularly if you have children, it is better for the stability of the family for you to do exactly what you guys are doing.

I talked to Abbot Victor this morning, so now all you really need to do is to set up a meeting with him.

God Bless,

Margaret Poll, JD JCD

Canon Lawyer

Diocese of Birmingham
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top