You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Ammi
Guest
I agree that we arent saying much different things. Though I’ve definitely gathered the implication that anyone who chooses not to attend, is being judgmental, unloving and potentially ruining the relationship.
If you say that it’s only what might be perceived by the couple, then ok. I still think any mature adult should know the distinction when a loving parent or friend explains this reason for not attending.
If you believe I have expressed this:
Then show me where, and I will apologize. I certainly understand the couple might be offended. This couple is already offended at the Church for establishing the impediment, and they reject that impediment. If they are offended at the impediment, why would they embrace you who accepts the impediment?
CAF posters who know me, know that I question how tribunals apply many cases to valid impediments. But this impediment has much less room for interpretation to go wrong. And I accept that the Church has authority to formally establish impediments.
If you say that it’s only what might be perceived by the couple, then ok. I still think any mature adult should know the distinction when a loving parent or friend explains this reason for not attending.
If you believe I have expressed this:
…its a threat or accusation or anti-Catholic to tell someone that the couple might be offended
Then show me where, and I will apologize. I certainly understand the couple might be offended. This couple is already offended at the Church for establishing the impediment, and they reject that impediment. If they are offended at the impediment, why would they embrace you who accepts the impediment?
CAF posters who know me, know that I question how tribunals apply many cases to valid impediments. But this impediment has much less room for interpretation to go wrong. And I accept that the Church has authority to formally establish impediments.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
It would have been hypocritical for us to marry in the Church. But, based on what some say here, we should have because that is the “rule”.
If we married in the Church and ended up divorcing, an annulment would have been practically a sure thing, as neither of us, at the time, believed what the Church did, so our marriage would have been invalid anyway.
My marriage was sanated. Perfectly legit in the eyes of the Church from the day of our original non-Church wedding
This is terribly contradicting.
Friend, I really appreciate you saying this. I also apologize if any of my posts were overly argumentative. As I said, our views are not as different as I thought. Peace to you.Then show me where, and I will apologize.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Because it is very complicated. Which us what I have been trying to say all along. Not everything is black and white.
What my husband and I did not believe was that the Church had any authority over us. We tried to do things the right way, the Church didn’t let us. So who gave a rats behind what the Church said?
Was it the “right” thing to do? No.
If I could do it all over again, knowing what I know now, whould I have done things differently? Absolutely.
I guess I am lucky that you were not my Bishop. He actually commended me on presenting a compelling case. Which I did on my own, without the help of a Canon lawyer. My spiritual director/confessor helped me with the filing & what not.
It was a long, hard journey back to the Church. I am blessed that I was met with patience and compassion and not constant reminding that I was “not really married”, otherwise, I would still be estranged from her.
What my husband and I did not believe was that the Church had any authority over us. We tried to do things the right way, the Church didn’t let us. So who gave a rats behind what the Church said?
Was it the “right” thing to do? No.
If I could do it all over again, knowing what I know now, whould I have done things differently? Absolutely.
I guess I am lucky that you were not my Bishop. He actually commended me on presenting a compelling case. Which I did on my own, without the help of a Canon lawyer. My spiritual director/confessor helped me with the filing & what not.
It was a long, hard journey back to the Church. I am blessed that I was met with patience and compassion and not constant reminding that I was “not really married”, otherwise, I would still be estranged from her.
A
Ammi
Guest
Your comments still contradict each other.
If I was your Priest or Bishop, I wouldnt have refused your request to marry in the first place.
I’m not making any sort of judgment on your validity. I’m just saying your comments contradict each other.
This:
If we married in the Church and ended up divorcing, an annulment would have been practically a sure thing, as neither of us, at the time, believed what the Church did, so our marriage would have been invalid anyway
And this:
My marriage was sanated. Perfectly legit in the eyes of the Church from the day of our original non-Church wedding
Contradict each other, no matter how you spin it. It sounds like the Bishop realized they screwed up, and Sanated. It’s a no brainer. Not very spectacular.
But I agree you were right in bringing it to their face.
If I was your Priest or Bishop, I wouldnt have refused your request to marry in the first place.
I’m not making any sort of judgment on your validity. I’m just saying your comments contradict each other.
This:
If we married in the Church and ended up divorcing, an annulment would have been practically a sure thing, as neither of us, at the time, believed what the Church did, so our marriage would have been invalid anyway
And this:
My marriage was sanated. Perfectly legit in the eyes of the Church from the day of our original non-Church wedding
Contradict each other, no matter how you spin it. It sounds like the Bishop realized they screwed up, and Sanated. It’s a no brainer. Not very spectacular.
But I agree you were right in bringing it to their face.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
No, it’ how you are spinning something that you do not know all the intricacies of and making blanket statements based on the letter of the law.
What I have been trying to tell you is that yes, everything you say is correct. But, people who are being married, and are not following the “rules” usually know that, and usually don’t care. And anyone telling them, no matter what their intention, is not going to endear with party to the Church.
And, FWIW, my sanation was granted because my husband flat out refused to convalidate. I would,have been denied the Sacraments, even though I reconcilled with the Church.
Now, you can say whatever you want about husband being petty, or childish, or selfish or whatever. But for him, this was a matter of principle that I understood and was willing to accept. To me, that is the kind of love that Jesus commanded us to.
What I have been trying to tell you is that yes, everything you say is correct. But, people who are being married, and are not following the “rules” usually know that, and usually don’t care. And anyone telling them, no matter what their intention, is not going to endear with party to the Church.
And, FWIW, my sanation was granted because my husband flat out refused to convalidate. I would,have been denied the Sacraments, even though I reconcilled with the Church.
Now, you can say whatever you want about husband being petty, or childish, or selfish or whatever. But for him, this was a matter of principle that I understood and was willing to accept. To me, that is the kind of love that Jesus commanded us to.
A
Ammi
Guest
Bottom line, is you made comments that you could have gotten an annulment or Radical Sanation. But it’s not a choice. It was either valid or not.
Based on the fact that you approached the Church to be married, but were wrongly denied by a stubborn (mentally declining?) Priest, AND the Vicar/Bishop/diocese dropped the ball on supporting you at the appropriate time (along with FIL and any other Catholic from either of your parishes who was aware), I would say it’s possible you validly married. But I dont know all the details of your “disbelief”. It’s possible you needed convalidation. Your husband should have been open to convalidation. What I wouldn’t have done, is give a decree of nullity, if I would give Sanation. It has to be one or the other. Whether you broke up and filed divorce is irrelevant. The decision is based on what happened and the time of marriage, and what you believed.
If I was your friend and fellow parishioner, I would have joined you in petitioning the Diocese and Bishop. I believe eventually they would open their eyes. And eventually they did. It just happened to be later than would have been nice.
I still wouldnt accuse anyone who declined to attend wrong. And I wouldnt have encouraged you to go elsewhere to marry. But you did, and I wouldnt have judged you. I would have wanted to hear the response of the Bishop.
As for trying to tell someone to “go marry in the Church”, I havent said this is what we should say to anyone. If they dont believe the tenants of the faith, they shouldnt marry in the Church. That doesnt mean they should attempt marriage somewhere else. Or that I would attend.
It’s not because I dont understand or appreciate the heart of the law. It’s because I dont like clergy abusing their positions, and I dont like clergy who use their authority to grant annulments or Sanation based on what appears nice. Those decisions must be based on conviction of truth. Mercy and love comes by trying to lead others to the truth.
Based on the fact that you approached the Church to be married, but were wrongly denied by a stubborn (mentally declining?) Priest, AND the Vicar/Bishop/diocese dropped the ball on supporting you at the appropriate time (along with FIL and any other Catholic from either of your parishes who was aware), I would say it’s possible you validly married. But I dont know all the details of your “disbelief”. It’s possible you needed convalidation. Your husband should have been open to convalidation. What I wouldn’t have done, is give a decree of nullity, if I would give Sanation. It has to be one or the other. Whether you broke up and filed divorce is irrelevant. The decision is based on what happened and the time of marriage, and what you believed.
If I was your friend and fellow parishioner, I would have joined you in petitioning the Diocese and Bishop. I believe eventually they would open their eyes. And eventually they did. It just happened to be later than would have been nice.
I still wouldnt accuse anyone who declined to attend wrong. And I wouldnt have encouraged you to go elsewhere to marry. But you did, and I wouldnt have judged you. I would have wanted to hear the response of the Bishop.
As for trying to tell someone to “go marry in the Church”, I havent said this is what we should say to anyone. If they dont believe the tenants of the faith, they shouldnt marry in the Church. That doesnt mean they should attempt marriage somewhere else. Or that I would attend.
It’s not because I dont understand or appreciate the heart of the law. It’s because I dont like clergy abusing their positions, and I dont like clergy who use their authority to grant annulments or Sanation based on what appears nice. Those decisions must be based on conviction of truth. Mercy and love comes by trying to lead others to the truth.
Last edited:
What you are asking, essentially, is for a person who doesn’t want to be Catholic to live a life of celibacy.If they dont believe the tenants of the faith, they shouldnt marry in the Church. That doesnt mean they should attempt marriage somewhere else.
If someone who was raised Catholic rejects the Church, they are still going to lead “regular” lives in other aspects of life. This may include falling in love, getting married, and raising children. Since they don’t want to be Catholic, they’re not going to achieve this goal the Catholic way. They are going to achieve it another way—in another church, or strictly in the civil sense.
In their mind, they are married. In their mind, it’s the most important day of their life, especially for women. And in the eyes of the law, they are married. In another post, you yourself said you would refer to your hypothetical daughter’s invalid husband as your son-in-law in the civil sense. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Give to God what is God’s.” They wouldn’t be married in the eyes of God or the Church, but they would be in the eyes of the law. And they would be married according to their own beliefs and conscience. I’m not saying they are married, since objectively speaking, only those married according to Church law are really married. But we’re talking about the perspective of a bride and groom who have rejected Catholicism.
So, to them, someone as close to them as a parent—especially a mother to a daughter—not being with them on what they perceive as their wedding day is going to be viewed as choosing a religion with strict rules—that the child doesn’t agree with—over their own child. That’s going to cause some very hurt feelings, especially when there isn’t a concrete rule that the parent absolutely may not attend, and compromises can be made (making it known that the parent doesn’t approve and hopes they will reconcile with the Church, etc.). I’m not sure it’s fair to compare this to a temper tantrum, in every case. It’s acting out of a hurt that runs deep. Because the parent can’t agree to disagree on matters of religion but still be there for their child on one of the most important occasions of the child’s life.
I hope you can understand that.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
There is alot of grey area in a wedding outside the Church.
Was there divorce with one of the candidates? Is one a non Believer/unBaptized? Is this a religious ceremony or justice of the peace? Does the Catholic still receive Communion sometimes? Did they formally leave the Catholic faith? Was it Infant Baptism only and no adult consent, etc.
Lots of variables.
Was there divorce with one of the candidates? Is one a non Believer/unBaptized? Is this a religious ceremony or justice of the peace? Does the Catholic still receive Communion sometimes? Did they formally leave the Catholic faith? Was it Infant Baptism only and no adult consent, etc.
Lots of variables.
Last edited:
Yes, there are a lot of variables. I’m referring to a situation similar to what seems to be going on with the OP’s friend—a person raised Catholic who doesn’t want to be Catholic. It’s not really a fair expectation to say they can’t/won’t get married because they aren’t going to get married in the Church. If they reject the Church and her laws, they aren’t going to “not attempt marriage elsewhere,” as you mentioned here:
If they fall in love and want to get married, there are two options: marry in the Church or outside of the Church. So, it can set up a “forced” situation where if they want to be married under Mom and Dad’s approval or can’t bear the thought of Mom and Dad not being with them at their wedding, they will get married in the Church for the sole reason of pleasing their parents.
The parents aren’t consciously “forcing” this. It’s just a possible course the entire situation could take.
In other words, the marriage is going to happen, outside the Church or inside.As for trying to tell someone to “go marry in the Church”, I havent said this is what we should say to anyone. If they dont believe the tenants of the faith, they shouldnt marry in the Church. That doesnt mean they should attempt marriage somewhere else.
If they fall in love and want to get married, there are two options: marry in the Church or outside of the Church. So, it can set up a “forced” situation where if they want to be married under Mom and Dad’s approval or can’t bear the thought of Mom and Dad not being with them at their wedding, they will get married in the Church for the sole reason of pleasing their parents.
The parents aren’t consciously “forcing” this. It’s just a possible course the entire situation could take.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
Yes, in this situation, I would let them go where they want to go (I wouldnt coerce or give them the ultimatum of marrying in the Church or face censure). And I would refrain from the ceremony. I would acknowledge the civil marriage. According to the State of Wisconsin (or wherever they live), they are husband and wife. According to Jesus, they are cohabitating. Since this relationship is not receiving the grace of marriage, could go pick up an “annulment” at any given point, and are objectively unable to receive Eucharist in a worthy manner, I would not be able to attend in good conscience. If their relationship with Jesus is in peril, so is their relationship with the whole body. I dont believe attending the wedding would help them at all. It would just make them think it’s ok to each have their own opposing beliefs, and those beliefs are just rules without truth.
By not attending, they will always see that their father believed something very serious is not right with their choice, yet he still shows he has no contempt for them.
If you went to the wedding, you would be doing it for the same reason, just with a different emphasis. Your emphasis would be your relationship with them. My emphasis would be their relationship with Jesus.
I will say one thing that would possibly make a difference. Did they ever accept the faith as a teen, or did they pass on the Sacraments like Confirmation? If my child never believed and willfully received these things, but only Infant Baptism apart from assent of faith, then I would likely attend a civil ceremony with a justice of peace, and perhaps a Christian denomination of their fiance.
By not attending, they will always see that their father believed something very serious is not right with their choice, yet he still shows he has no contempt for them.
If you went to the wedding, you would be doing it for the same reason, just with a different emphasis. Your emphasis would be your relationship with them. My emphasis would be their relationship with Jesus.
I will say one thing that would possibly make a difference. Did they ever accept the faith as a teen, or did they pass on the Sacraments like Confirmation? If my child never believed and willfully received these things, but only Infant Baptism apart from assent of faith, then I would likely attend a civil ceremony with a justice of peace, and perhaps a Christian denomination of their fiance.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Actually, no annulment would be given. In the case of 2 Catholics marrying outside the Church, there is no “marriage” so there is nothing to annul. It is purely paperwork attesting to the lack of form.could go pick up an “annulment”
I understand that. And I don’t entirely disagree with it.By not attending, they will always see that their father believed something very serious is not right with their choice, yet he still shows he has no contempt for them.
The point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was simply that it’s possible for the couple in a situation like this to have the mindset of “I don’t believe in the Catholic Church, but it breaks my heart that Dad won’t be at the wedding. If we have the wedding in the Catholic Church, Dad will come to the wedding.” And so they have the wedding in the Catholic Church so Dad will attend, even though they don’t believe in it or intend to keep the promises they are required to make.
If that’s the way things go, Dad has not consciously or intentionally given them an ultimatum or coerced them into marrying in the Church; however, the result of Dad not attending is that couple has married in the Church without really wanting to, because Dad wouldn’t attend their wedding and they really wanted him to.
Can you see my point? I’m not saying this is what will happen or what always happens, but that it is a possibility.
A
Ammi
Guest
That is my point
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
And my point is you are using the wrong terminology. Annulmenta and “lack of form” are two totally different things.
Lumping them together just creates more confusion. The Church uses precise language, so should we.
Lumping them together just creates more confusion. The Church uses precise language, so should we.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
They are both invalidity, right?
S
sunrise
Guest
This whole situation makes me incredibly sad. I think it’s an example of religion dividing, not uniting.
We have a couple, which I assume in charity and because there is no evidence otherwise, is loving, understands the nature of marriage and is committed to love and support each other for life, and will presumably be wonderful parents for their kids.
The daughter (bride) was baptized catholic, but no longer believes. But, because she was baptized, she can never be validly married except in the church. The church declares they will be living in sin and tells all other Catholics that going to the marriage ceremony is wrong. (Ok, there is some room for prudential judgement).
If the daughter had not been baptized, this same couple would be in a valid, non-sacramental marriage.
Mom decides not to go and celebrate her daughter’s joy and marrying (validly in her mind) the love of her life. While I don’t know these two people, it is reasonable to assume the relationship will be severely damaged if not totally severed, But Mom is doing what the church says to do. It’s dividing, even shattering, the relationship. One thing about skipping the wedding is that it can never be undone. The stain on the day is there forever, there are no do-overs.
Mom may rarely, if ever see her daughter again. Same for the future grandchildren.
I don’t think this is what God wants. I’m sure if we asked Jesus, he would say 1) Don’t shatter your relationship with you daughter, 2) Love and support your daughter where she is, 3) Celebrate her civil marriage in the hope of her return to the church, and 4) work on getting her to return to the church later.
I’m sad because I fear that won’t happen here.
We have a couple, which I assume in charity and because there is no evidence otherwise, is loving, understands the nature of marriage and is committed to love and support each other for life, and will presumably be wonderful parents for their kids.
The daughter (bride) was baptized catholic, but no longer believes. But, because she was baptized, she can never be validly married except in the church. The church declares they will be living in sin and tells all other Catholics that going to the marriage ceremony is wrong. (Ok, there is some room for prudential judgement).
If the daughter had not been baptized, this same couple would be in a valid, non-sacramental marriage.
Mom decides not to go and celebrate her daughter’s joy and marrying (validly in her mind) the love of her life. While I don’t know these two people, it is reasonable to assume the relationship will be severely damaged if not totally severed, But Mom is doing what the church says to do. It’s dividing, even shattering, the relationship. One thing about skipping the wedding is that it can never be undone. The stain on the day is there forever, there are no do-overs.
Mom may rarely, if ever see her daughter again. Same for the future grandchildren.
I don’t think this is what God wants. I’m sure if we asked Jesus, he would say 1) Don’t shatter your relationship with you daughter, 2) Love and support your daughter where she is, 3) Celebrate her civil marriage in the hope of her return to the church, and 4) work on getting her to return to the church later.
I’m sad because I fear that won’t happen here.
A
Ammi
Guest
Did you marry outside the Church?
If your marriage is valid, then you did not. You were rejected by an unlawful member, but married in the Church, in spirit.
Your Bishop was guilty of dropping the ball, or delaying attention and discernment.
I would have waited for his awakening. And hoped that he attended to my own petitions, with my own wife.
If your marriage is valid, then you did not. You were rejected by an unlawful member, but married in the Church, in spirit.
Your Bishop was guilty of dropping the ball, or delaying attention and discernment.
I would have waited for his awakening. And hoped that he attended to my own petitions, with my own wife.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
For God’s sake, why???Mom may rarely, if ever see her daughter again. Same for the future grandchildren.
This is an evil accusation to make of anyone simply refraining from one ceremony (of which is an offense against Jesus’ own Church)!I don’t think this is what God wants. I’m sure if we asked Jesus, he would say 1) Don’t shatter your relationship with you daughter,
But that means being truthful and admonishing too.
- Love and support your daughter where she is,
Is the wedding only a secular, justice of the peace situation, or is it a religious ceremony?
- Celebrate her civil marriage in the hope of her return to the church,
How about work on the relationship right now!
- work on getting her to return to the church later.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.