children out of wedlock

[kozlosap]

As a single mother for 29 years, I’ve only had one person intimate that I would have trouble attaining Heaven, and that person was a Mormon here at CAF. All other posters here, especially Catholics, have been supportive and loving, especially Easter Joy!
I too struggle with couples who stay together for years but do not marry. Sometimes they do so as to keep their social welfare payments and other times because they are making some kind of personal statement that they just don’t need that “piece of paper” to make their relationship valid. I don’t understand the latter argument, but that is just me! In addition, a woman who is living with her children and partner yet not married, is NOT a single parent, even if their monetary allotment is larger!

Oh my, I’m certainly on my soapbox today!

 

[jediknight]

I think I get what he is asking…

Why punish the parents for their sin, yet welcome the child resulting from the sin?

Well, not welcoming the child punishes an innocent for something it had nothing to do with. and children are blessings, regardless of how they were conceived.

Why is civil divorce recognized, but remarriage without an annulment considered adultery?

Well, marriage is both a legal state and a religious vow (even civil marriages). Divorce can dissolve the legal bond, but not the Sacramental bond. Until a tribunal says there is no Sacramental bond, the couple are still married and both commit adultery if they have other partners.

A divorced person who has remarried and a person who has married someone that was divorced can receive the Sacraments. However, in order to do so, the couple must go to Confession and then live without having intercourse until an annulment is granted.

YES MJJEAN YOU GOT IT !

lol if anyone else found all of this confusing, congrats now you know why I am confused as well, but MJJEAN understands what I mean, so again I find it all confusing now that MJJean has reduced my confusion an thank you… And I do not understand why the sacrament of marriage is valid civilly … basically a civil court is valid to preside over a sacramental marriage ( in which case why then does a Christian couple need to have a marriage in a church ? ) an thusly now the church deems that a civil court can not dissolve a sacramental marriage ??? how so ?, and everything else MJJean has thus stated… and still wrapping my head on why the parents can be punished for creating a child out of wed lock ?

To me it only seems that the Church has taken some very broad strokes of power to judge us in a manner that I suspect is not on the same level that God is judging.

 

[MJJean]

I did not know this. I find that rather strange ( not saying you are wrong). I thought the requirement for annulment is because you are a Catholic. Then wouldn’t it also be spiritually binding for a couple to make private vows to each other, even if not before God? What if unmarried person wanted to marry a non-Catholic man/woman previously married in a civil ceremony?

Sorry, this is off-thread.

It’s all so confusing, huh?

The Catholic Church accepts annulment applications from non-Catholics if, for some reason, a non-Catholic is concerned enough to ask for the Church to investigate their marriage and nullify it.

Usually, though, people who are not Catholic and who are not trying to become Catholic or who are not trying to marry a Catholic in the Church skip annulments altogether and just re-marry civilly or in a Protestant ceremony. Annulment of previous marriage is only required if the couple wish to marry in the Catholic Church. If I were a Lutheran, for example, my previous marriage would make no difference and my current husband and I would be accepted as validly married.

For a marriage to be valid the Church does require witnesses. Usually, a priest and two other witnesses. The priest does not give the couple the sacrament. They give the Sacrament to each other. The priest is the official witness on behalf of the Church.

If an unmarried person wants to marry a previously married person in a civil ceremony they are free to do so as long as the law allows. But that doesn’t mean the Church would recognize the marriage. The Church would assume the previous marriage is valid unless proven otherwise by a tribunal or the previous spouse is deceased.

If the unmarried person marrying a previously married person happens to be Catholic, the Church doesn’t recognize the couple as married because the Catholic failed to follow Church law and marry in front of a priest and because the other persons previous marriage is still assumed valid unless proven otherwise through the annulment process.

Actually, that is my exact situation. My husband was Baptized Catholic and had never been married before. Because he was Baptized Catholic, he was required to marry in front of a priest or get a dispensation to marry outside the Church. He was not a practicing Catholic when we married, so he never bothered with a dispensation and we married in a civil ceremony. I, of course, was previously married and divorced.

According to Church law, our marriage is invalid for two separate reasons. 1) I was previously married, my former spouse is still alive, and I do not have an annulment. 2) Husband is a Catholic who did not marry according to Church law.

In order for our marriage to be recognized by the Church we must get my first marriage annulled and then have a convalidation ceremony.

If I had not been previously married, we would just have to have our marriage convalidated to be recognized.

 

[thewanderer]

YES MJJEAN YOU GOT IT !

lol if anyone else found all of this confusing, congrats now you know why I am confused as well, but MJJEAN understands what I mean, so again I find it all confusing now that MJJean has reduced my confusion an thank you… And I do not understand why the sacrament of marriage is valid civilly … basically a civil court is valid to preside over a sacramental marriage ( in which case why then does a Christian couple need to have a marriage in a church ? ) an thusly now the church deems that a civil court can not dissolve a sacramental marriage ??? how so ?, and everything else MJJean has thus stated… and still wrapping my head on why the parents can be punished for creating a child out of wed lock ?

To me it only seems that the Church has taken some very broad strokes of power to judge us in a manner that I suspect is not on the same level that God is judging.

Ok, well let me take a stab at it. First of all, it is the couple themselves who confect the sacrament. Not the priest, not the witnesses, but the couple themselves. Now, different people have different requirements for getting married validly according to the Church. There are certain rules which apply to all people, and certain rules which apply only to those who have been baptized as a Catholic. The main (perhaps the only?) additional restriction for a Catholic is that they must either have a Catholic marriage in a Church or receive a dispensation from the proper Church authorities to have their marriage elsewhere. Why exactly this is the case I don’t know, but it is. And since Peter was given the keys to loose and bind the Church has the authority to make rules like this that can actually affect the validity of the Sacrament for Catholics. Now, since this rule only applies to those who have been baptized as a Catholic it is not in any way shape or form going to affect non-Catholics ability to marry, assuming they have no other impediments. So it is possible for non-Catholics to marry validly (and even sacramentally if they have both received christian baptism) without being married in the Catholic Church as that requirement only rests on those who have received a Catholic baptism or have become Catholic after having received a Christian baptism.

As for punishing parents for having a child out of wedlock… again, where on earth do you get the idea that that is ok? The Church does not tell us to punish such people, nor does the Church punish such people. There is a difference between having sex outside of marriage and having a child outside of marriage. The first is sinful the second is not. If someone is currently having sex outside of marriage, and intends to continue in this grave sin, then they will be unable to receive communion because of their refusal to repent of the sin of having sex outside marriage. If, however, they stop having sex and go to confession, or get married and go to confession, then they’re all good, they can receive communion again etc. This is true whether or not they have a child. Having a child is a different thing from having sex outside marriage. Having a child is never sinful. Having sex outside marriage, however, is. Does that help clear up anything?

 

[EasterJoy]

YES MJJEAN YOU GOT IT !

lol if anyone else found all of this confusing, congrats now you know why I am confused as well, but MJJEAN understands what I mean, so again I find it all confusing now that MJJean has reduced my confusion an thank you… And I do not understand why the sacrament of marriage is valid civilly … basically a civil court is valid to preside over a sacramental marriage ( in which case why then does a Christian couple need to have a marriage in a church ? ) an thusly now the church deems that a civil court can not dissolve a sacramental marriage ??? how so ?, and everything else MJJean has thus stated… and still wrapping my head on why the parents can be punished for creating a child out of wed lock ?

To me it only seems that the Church has taken some very broad strokes of power to judge us in a manner that I suspect is not on the same level that God is judging.

Remember “what you hold bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven”? It may be you who is taking very broad strokes of power to judge? At any rate, you do need to educate yourself better.

People are held accountable for marital relations outside of wedlock, not for the procreation that results. It is not as if the Church teaches that it is OK to have sex outside of marriage if one uses birth control or is sterile, after all! When there is a grave offense against purity and the sexual faculty, of course it is necessary to tell people that they need to turn from that. I’m not sure what is so hard to understand, other than the reality that people who succeed in getting pregnant also give public evidence of their sex outside of marriage. The matter of sex outside of marriage is not more grave when a child is conceived as a result, then. It is only more obvious.

 

[MJJean]

YES MJJEAN YOU GOT IT !

lol if anyone else found all of this confusing, congrats now you know why I am confused as well, but MJJEAN understands what I mean, so again I find it all confusing now that MJJean has reduced my confusion an thank you… And I do not understand why the sacrament of marriage is valid civilly … basically a civil court is valid to preside over a sacramental marriage ( in which case why then does a Christian couple need to have a marriage in a church ? ) an thusly now the church deems that a civil court can not dissolve a sacramental marriage ??? how so ?, and everything else MJJean has thus stated… and still wrapping my head on why the parents can be punished for creating a child out of wed lock ?

To me it only seems that the Church has taken some very broad strokes of power to judge us in a manner that I suspect is not on the same level that God is judging.

YAY! Sometimes, I actually “get it”!

The civil marriage is recognized because the couple give the Sacrament to each other. Legally, they are making a contract that can be broken through divorce. Spiritually, they are entering into an unbreakable union. Unless, of course, the couple had some mitigating circumstance that prevented them from validly consenting and entering into that spiritual union. Which is why the Church has the annulment process. To determine if the couple entered into a true marriage (unbreakable) or if they just went through the motions, so to speak.

So, legally the court can dissolve a marriage. Spiritually, the court cannot dissolve a marriage. No one can dissolve a valid marriage from a religious point of view. But the Church can look at evidence and determine if there was some defect that made the marriage invalid from the start.

A couple, Christian or otherwise, doesn’t need to have their marriage in a church. The people that choose a religious ceremony do so because that is their preference. Only those Baptized Catholic are required to marry in the Church or receive a dispensation to marry outside the Church to make a valid marriage.

And parents really aren’t punished for having a baby out of wedlock. The couple is punished for the sin of premarital sex. Big difference! They have the option of going to Confession, being sincerely repentant with the intention to never again commit the sin of pre-marital sex, and be granted absolution. Once cleansed of the sin through Confession and absolution, they are free to receive the Sacraments.

Socially, they may still get some grief, but from the Church’s point of view they are clear.

 

[jediknight]

ty for the response Mjjean , it makes sense to a degree… and easterjoy I get it, the church can do no wrong and is perfectly correct on every law that they have ever made where as in the civilian secular world a law can be created and has to be followed yet may not necessarily be morally right. To come out an say I need to educate myself better is a bit out of line considering the logic in which these laws were created in the first place are barely educated in that they are not simple nor clear enough for those outside of the faith to understand.

a child out of wedlock is not in a state of sin, but the parents are thusly considered by the church to be in a state of mortal sin because they pro created outside of marriage aka had premarital sex, the church recognizes other faiths marrying as a valid sacrament , yet for some reason we need as catholics a priest or deacon as an eye witness to the marriage but not if one is marrying in civil court and is not a practicing catholic, but for those non practicing catholics who became married outside of the church and didn’t need a priest or deacon to witness them enter into this sacrament, now they need to have an annulment to undo a sacrament because for some reason a civil divorce is not good enough.

so now these women or couples who have children outside of marriage have put themselves into a situation to be shunned by a community in faith, and are obviously in a state of mortal sin for engaging in " pre marital sex " while others who engage in pre marital sex and do not have children are thusly not shunned because there is no way to prove they did have pre marital sex, yet are still in a state of mortal sin…and some how I am the one who doesn’t get this ?

but in the end one just chalks it up to faith and stops trying to figure it out because if one kept going in to it, then it becomes a debate on where in the world the church came up with creating a law in the first place which then boils down to faith, teachings of Christ, and then the period in age when the laws where being created . and thus a new convoluted discussion arises with no clear out come of understanding, laws make sense to the ones who create it and then just expect others to follow it with out having to explain why it makes sense.

now if anything I have just said has ruffled anyone’s feathers, try explaining any of this to a couple, or sibling who was baptized in the RCC, has fallen out of the Church, an has never really understood anything the Church has ever taught to begin with, I doubt simply saying one needs to educate him or her self would suffice as a compassionate answer. The topic alone could possibly destroy a family or push a couple or single mother away from the Church.

And if anyone here thinks I am being hard headed about this, consider having a family member in your own household who is just as hard headed if not more so but you cant talk to that family member about any of this and you might want better for that couple or person.

All of the rules on this matter may make complete sense to some or many people here but it doesn’t make sense to everyone, and who do they go to , to find out ? Whos’ responsibility is it to inform those individuals who are either apart of our family, or even in our own congregation in our respective parish ? Do we mind our own business and leave this up to God and the respective priest to solve and just pray , or do we with any knowledge on the matter to any degree are we supposed to do something to help educate those people ?

thanks again Mjjean !

peace

 

[thewanderer]

jediknight;11149569\:

so now these women or couples who have children outside of marriage have put themselves into a situation to be shunned by a community in faith, and are obviously in a state of mortal sin for engaging in " pre marital sex " while others who engage in pre marital sex and do not have children are thusly not shunned because there is no way to prove they did have pre marital sex, yet are still in a state of mortal sin…and some how I am the one who doesn’t get this ?
peace

We are not supposed to punish or shun those who have children outside of wedlock. Catholicism teaches no such thing. We are all sinners and following the example of Christ we are not supposed to shun sinners but instead go out to them to help them, just as Christ came to the worst of sinners, and dined with them, to help them experience the love of God and so change their lives to live in accordance with God’s love. Catholicism does not condone the shunning of sinners. Some individual people do, but not Catholicism.

 

[Xantippe]

“…so now these women or couples who have children outside of marriage have put themselves into a situation to be shunned by a community in faith, and are obviously in a state of mortal sin for engaging in " pre marital sex " while others who engage in pre marital sex and do not have children are thusly not shunned because there is no way to prove they did have pre marital sex, yet are still in a state of mortal sin…and some how I am the one who doesn’t get this ?”

I think you’re missing the fact that 1) we have the sacrament of confession, which is done in private and is the normal way of getting absolution for mortal sin and 2) lay Catholics do not generally spend a lot of time figuring out whether other Catholics are or aren’t in a state of mortal sin (see #1). It’s not our job. That can be quite the relief if one comes from a Protestant religious tradition where policing other believers is part of your Christian duty.

 

[EasterJoy]

ty for the response Mjjean , it makes sense to a degree… and easterjoy I get it, the church can do no wrong and is perfectly correct on every law that they have ever made where as in the civilian secular world a law can be created and has to be followed yet may not necessarily be morally right. To come out an say I need to educate myself better is a bit out of line considering the logic in which these laws were created in the first place are barely educated in that they are not simple nor clear enough for those outside of the faith to understand.

a child out of wedlock is not in a state of sin, but the parents are thusly considered by the church to be in a state of mortal sin because they pro created outside of marriage aka had premarital sex, the church recognizes other faiths marrying as a valid sacrament , yet for some reason we need as catholics a priest or deacon as an eye witness to the marriage but not if one is marrying in civil court and is not a practicing catholic, but for those non practicing catholics who became married outside of the church and didn’t need a priest or deacon to witness them enter into this sacrament, now they need to have an annulment to undo a sacrament because for some reason a civil divorce is not good enough.

so now these women or couples who have children outside of marriage have put themselves into a situation to be shunned by a community in faith, and are obviously in a state of mortal sin for engaging in " pre marital sex " while others who engage in pre marital sex and do not have children are thusly not shunned because there is no way to prove they did have pre marital sex, yet are still in a state of mortal sin…and some how I am the one who doesn’t get this ?

but in the end one just chalks it up to faith and stops trying to figure it out because if one kept going in to it, then it becomes a debate on where in the world the church came up with creating a law in the first place which then boils down to faith, teachings of Christ, and then the period in age when the laws where being created . and thus a new convoluted discussion arises with no clear out come of understanding, laws make sense to the ones who create it and then just expect others to follow it with out having to explain why it makes sense.

now if anything I have just said has ruffled anyone’s feathers, try explaining any of this to a couple, or sibling who was baptized in the RCC, has fallen out of the Church, an has never really understood anything the Church has ever taught to begin with, I doubt simply saying one needs to educate him or her self would suffice as a compassionate answer. The topic alone could possibly destroy a family or push a couple or single mother away from the Church.

And if anyone here thinks I am being hard headed about this, consider having a family member in your own household who is just as hard headed if not more so but you cant talk to that family member about any of this and you might want better for that couple or person.

All of the rules on this matter may make complete sense to some or many people here but it doesn’t make sense to everyone, and who do they go to , to find out ? Whos’ responsibility is it to inform those individuals who are either apart of our family, or even in our own congregation in our respective parish ? Do we mind our own business and leave this up to God and the respective priest to solve and just pray , or do we with any knowledge on the matter to any degree are we supposed to do something to help educate those people ?

thanks again Mjjean !

peace

Tell us what you want to change. Maybe we’ll understand what you’ll getting at.

 

[severus68]

It’s all so confusing, huh?

The Catholic Church accepts annulment applications from non-Catholics if, for some reason, a non-Catholic is concerned enough to ask for the Church to investigate their marriage and nullify it.

Usually, though, people who are not Catholic and who are not trying to become Catholic or who are not trying to marry a Catholic in the Church skip annulments altogether and just re-marry civilly or in a Protestant ceremony. Annulment of previous marriage is only required if the couple wish to marry in the Catholic Church. If I were a Lutheran, for example, my previous marriage would make no difference and my current husband and I would be accepted as validly married.

For a marriage to be valid the Church does require witnesses. Usually, a priest and two other witnesses. The priest does not give the couple the sacrament. They give the Sacrament to each other. The priest is the official witness on behalf of the Church.

If an unmarried person wants to marry a previously married person in a civil ceremony they are free to do so as long as the law allows. But that doesn’t mean the Church would recognize the marriage. The Church would assume the previous marriage is valid unless proven otherwise by a tribunal or the previous spouse is deceased.

If the unmarried person marrying a previously married person happens to be Catholic, the Church doesn’t recognize the couple as married because the Catholic failed to follow Church law and marry in front of a priest and because the other persons previous marriage is still assumed valid unless proven otherwise through the annulment process.

Actually, that is my exact situation. My husband was Baptized Catholic and had never been married before. Because he was Baptized Catholic, he was required to marry in front of a priest or get a dispensation to marry outside the Church. He was not a practicing Catholic when we married, so he never bothered with a dispensation and we married in a civil ceremony. I, of course, was previously married and divorced.

According to Church law, our marriage is invalid for two separate reasons. 1) I was previously married, my former spouse is still alive, and I do not have an annulment. 2) Husband is a Catholic who did not marry according to Church law.

In order for our marriage to be recognized by the Church we must get my first marriage annulled and then have a convalidation ceremony.

If I had not been previously married, we would just have to have our marriage convalidated to be recognized.

Thanks. In your case you are Catholic. What if two non-baptised, non-Christians married in a civil ceremony and later divorced. A single Catholic wants to marry the husband/wife. How does an annulment come in?

On non-Christians making private vows, canon law does not apply to them.

 

[severus68]

Ok, well let me take a stab at it. First of all, it is the couple themselves who confect the sacrament. Not the priest, not the witnesses, but the couple themselves. Now, different people have different requirements for getting married validly according to the Church. There are certain rules which apply to all people, and certain rules which apply only to those who have been baptized as a Catholic. The main (perhaps the only?) additional restriction for a Catholic is that they must either have a Catholic marriage in a Church or receive a dispensation from the proper Church authorities to have their marriage elsewhere. Why exactly this is the case I don’t know, but it is. And since Peter was given the keys to loose and bind the Church has the authority to make rules like this that can actually affect the validity of the Sacrament for Catholics. Now, since this rule only applies to those who have been baptized as a Catholic it is not in any way shape or form going to affect non-Catholics ability to marry, assuming they have no other impediments. So it is possible for non-Catholics to marry validly (and even sacramentally if they have both received christian baptism) without being married in the Catholic Church as that requirement only rests on those who have received a Catholic baptism or have become Catholic after having received a Christian baptism.

As for punishing parents for having a child out of wedlock… again, where on earth do you get the idea that that is ok? The Church does not tell us to punish such people, nor does the Church punish such people. There is a difference between having sex outside of marriage and having a child outside of marriage. The first is sinful the second is not. If someone is currently having sex outside of marriage, and intends to continue in this grave sin, then they will be unable to receive communion because of their refusal to repent of the sin of having sex outside marriage. If, however, they stop having sex and go to confession, or get married and go to confession, then they’re all good, they can receive communion again etc. This is true whether or not they have a child. Having a child is a different thing from having sex outside marriage. Having a child is never sinful. Having sex outside marriage, however, is. Does that help clear up anything?

What rules apply to non-Catholics please? Your words I bolded. I understood that canon law only applies to Catholics.

 

[thewanderer]

Thanks. In your case you are Catholic. What if two non-baptised, non-Christians married in a civil ceremony and later divorced. A single Catholic wants to marry the husband/wife. How does an annulment come in?

On non-Christians making private vows, canon law does not apply to them.

Well… its not so much a matter of them having a responsibility to follow canon law as it is a matter of whether or not the Church will recognize their marriage as valid. Canon law has requirements which determine whether or not their marriage qualifies as a valid marriage according to the catholic church. In order to get married in the catholic church you have to be able to prove that you were never married validly before. If you were married in a way that could have been valid, the Church has to investigate it to determine whether or not it was in fact valid according to the church’s understanding of a valid marriage. Thats why non-Catholics still have to get an annulment if they want to get married in the Catholic Church. the Church needs to make sure that their previous marriages weren’t valid according to the Church’s definition of a valid marriage. Does that make more sense?

 

[EasterJoy]

What rules apply to non-Catholics please? Your words I bolded. I understood that canon law only applies to Catholics.

With regards to decrees of nullity, Catholic Church only concerns itself with the non-Catholics who want to marry Catholics. They have to establish whether or not both parties are free to marry: have they been married, if so is the marriage liable to be dissolved, and if the marriage is liable to be dissolved, has it been dissolved?

 

[CaliLobo]

"…so now these women or couples who have children outside of marriage have put themselves into a situation to be shunned by a community in faith, and are obviously in a state of mortal sin for engaging in " pre marital sex " while others who engage in pre marital sex and do not have children are thusly not shunned because there is no way to prove they did have pre marital sex, yet are still in a state of mortal sin…and some how I am the one who doesn’t get this ?"

I think you’re missing the fact that 1) we have the sacrament of confession, which is done in private and is the normal way of getting absolution for mortal sin and 2) lay Catholics do not generally spend a lot of time figuring out whether other Catholics are or aren’t in a state of mortal sin (see #1). It’s not our job. That can be quite the relief if one comes from a Protestant religious tradition where policing other believers is part of your Christian duty.

thewanderer:

We are not supposed to punish or shun those who have children outside of wedlock. Catholicism teaches no such thing. We are all sinners and following the example of Christ we are not supposed to shun sinners but instead go out to them to help them, just as Christ came to the worst of sinners, and dined with them, to help them experience the love of God and so change their lives to live in accordance with God’s love. Catholicism does not condone the shunning of sinners. Some individual people do, but not Catholicism.

The consequences to women like these are the reason why we need condoms…

And what’s wrong with policing other believers? Isn’t that Biblical? Building each other up? It’s nosy alright, but at least it shows that they care.

As jediknight wrote, “Whos’ responsibility is it to inform those individuals who are either apart of our family, or even in our own congregation in our respective parish ? Do we mind our own business and leave this up to God and the respective priest to solve and just pray , or do we with any knowledge on the matter to any degree are we supposed to do something to help educate those people ? [sic]”

 

[savedbygrace71]

When I first met my Catholic husband to be, I was going through a divorce. (I am not Catholic myself). I had many years of infertility behind me and was rather sure that there was no chance of pregnancy, so we weren’t that careful…and within a few months, a baby was on the way. After our son was born, we got married in a civil ceremony and then went to Germany to my husband’s home church for our church wedding and our son’s baptism in one special celebration. The priest was very kind and explained that of course, he would be very happy to baptize the baby, but he couldn’t finalize our marriage vows. I was in tears and said, so it’s ok that we had a baby while not married, but not ok that my first marriage fell apart and made it possible for us to be together in the first place? He said that it is much more complicated than that, but that the essence is what has been mentioned above- the sin of adultery doesn’t come on to the baby. So he called the neighboring Evangelical minister who completed the vows for us in front of the congregation, and satisfied my DH’s family. And my son was baptized. Now, seven years later, I am finally approaching the idea of annulment and am enrolled in RCIA. It’s difficult, but worth it. I am sure that if I had been turned away with my “bastard child” I would most certainly not be trying to join the church today.

 

[severus68]

Well… its not so much a matter of them having a responsibility to follow canon law as it is a matter of whether or not the Church will recognize their marriage as valid. Canon law has requirements which determine whether or not their marriage qualifies as a valid marriage according to the catholic church. In order to get married in the catholic church you have to be able to prove that you were never married validly before. If you were married in a way that could have been valid, the Church has to investigate it to determine whether or not it was in fact valid according to the church’s understanding of a valid marriage. Thats why non-Catholics still have to get an annulment if they want to get married in the Catholic Church. the Church needs to make sure that their previous marriages weren’t valid according to the Church’s definition of a valid marriage. Does that make more sense?

Yes, it does, thanks.

 

[severus68]

With regards to decrees of nullity, Catholic Church only concerns itself with the non-Catholics who want to marry Catholics. They have to establish whether or not both parties are free to marry: have they been married, if so is the marriage liable to be dissolved, and if the marriage is liable to be dissolved, has it been dissolved?

Thank you.

 

[EasterJoy]

The consequences to women like these are the reason why we need condoms…

And what’s wrong with policing other believers? Isn’t that Biblical? Building each other up? It’s nosy alright, but at least it shows that they care.

As jediknight wrote, “Whos’ responsibility is it to inform those individuals who are either apart of our family, or even in our own congregation in our respective parish ? Do we mind our own business and leave this up to God and the respective priest to solve and just pray , or do we with any knowledge on the matter to any degree are we supposed to do something to help educate those people ? [sic]”

It does not make any sense to “police” those not under your jurisdiction, and we give our bishops more than they have the time to handle as it is, anyway. If someone asks, you ought to be ready with a respectful and charitable answer. If they don’t ask, consider that they probably aren’t interested in our opinion about how to run their lives.

As for the condom line, I fail to see why that helps. Would prostitution be OK, if only we had fail-safe contraception? We are not objects and (more to the point!)* we are not our own*, free to spread ourselves around for the sexual gratification of others. We have been purchased, and at a price, and are to glorify God in our bodies. Sex is meant to be kept in the context of a permanent and mutually-giving relationship, and the Church certainly isn’t going to change on that.

 

[thewanderer]

The consequences to women like these are the reason why we need condoms…

And what’s wrong with policing other believers? Isn’t that Biblical? Building each other up? It’s nosy alright, but at least it shows that they care.

As jediknight wrote, “Whos’ responsibility is it to inform those individuals who are either apart of our family, or even in our own congregation in our respective parish ? Do we mind our own business and leave this up to God and the respective priest to solve and just pray , or do we with any knowledge on the matter to any degree are we supposed to do something to help educate those people ? [sic]”

??? I really don’t understand how my post would lead you to the idea that people having sex outside marriage need contraception. My point is that Catholicism does not say we should shun such people. Beyond which, even if said people are being shunned by enough people that they want to avoid the consequences there are other methods, such as NFP, though, of course, no method, not even sterilization is 100% foolproof, except complete abstinance of course.

Secondly, the Church does not ask us to be busybodies. We are not supposed to go hunting down the people who are sinning so that we can shun them or shame them or some such thing. Thats just wrong, not to mention impossible, because, as I said, we are all sinners, we would have to hunt people down not just for their sexual sins, but for all of their sins, including our own sin of being a busybody and trying to learn about knowledge that we have no right to. There is a difference between building others up and policing their beliefs or being a busybody. Pleases recognize the fact that the Church does not encourage either shunning, judging others, gossiping, or being a busybody. Your rant against the Church is severely misplaced.