Church and State

[larry85704]

Suppose a couple gets married in a Catholic Church by a priest. Call them Couple A. Couple B gets married in a Catholic Church by a deacon. Couple C gets married under a tree by a minister. My understanding is that in all cases, if the marriage fails they need to get the same type of annulment.

To continue this sad story, suppose they all get an annulment. Now in the eyes of the Church the annulled marriage was not valid. In the eyes of the Church the marriage did not truly exist, at least as a sacramental marriage. So if you ask the husband from couple A if he had ever been married, from a Catholic sense, what would he say? Try and have a yes or no answer.

By the way, don’t all three couples have to get the same annulment, because the church recognizes all three marriages as valid?

But, on to my point. As Catholics we care alot about what the government says and little about what the Church says. Our Faith instructs us to honor the law, within reason. I think we should pretty much take for granted that our government is not our religion and stop expecting it to be.

If you folks remember your history, America was colonized by people that were religiously suppressed. I am not comfortable with allowing religious suppression in this country now. Now, how is abortion not religious suppression? For years the Catholic Church as allowed kids to sip wine at Mass. Because of our faith we say it is ok, it really isn’t wine. But it is providing wine to minors, which is illegal. Catholics need to be sensitive to the freedoms we have as a religion least we be held accountable to the same standards we want everybody else held to.

What I think is that Catholics need to be held to a different standard than the general population. We cannot hold the general population of the world to the standards we have as Catholics. Catholics should be considerably better than the general population. Lower crime rates, lower annulment rates, kids doing well in school, yards mowed better, better golfers. Well, maybe not better golfers. We should be the good guys in the world.

Basically the state and laws should be something we don’t have to care about, because we are held to a much higher standard.

What do you all think

Larry

 

[rwoehmke]

Civil laws are both positive and negative, either requiring action or forbidding action under certain civil penalties. I suppose one who decides to follow, what is in his opinion, a higher law which contradicts a civil law needs to be prepared to suffer the civil consequences of his action or inaction. A yes or no answer is not logically possible without a better defined explanation of what you are trying to get at, i.e. your question needs to be couched in terms that allow a yes or no answer.

 

[puzzleannie]

there can be no hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question about annulments because the key pieces of information about couples A B and C are lacking, namely their baptismal status and freedom to marry.

Also the entire annulment story has nothing whatever to do with the rest of your post so am at a loss in answering you.

The civil law in this country is against selling drinks to minors, or serving minors in commercial establishments. It does not and never has prohibit parents from giving wine to their children, nor has it ever applied to sacramental wine. Even prohibition did not apply to sacramental wine. So that also is a non-issue.

which leaves us still looking for something on which to base an answer to OP.

 

[Ruthie]

So if you ask the husband from couple A if he had ever been married, from a Catholic sense, what would he say? Try and have a yes or no answer.

Well, since “I had a wedding once, but the Church declared it null,” is a lot of verbiage, I’d probably say, “Sort of,” and then explain.

By the way, don’t all three couples have to get the same annulment, because the church recognizes all three marriages as valid?

Yes and no. They have to go through the same process, but it’s not the same annulment. Each one is decided on its individual merits.

We cannot hold the general population of the world to the standards we have as Catholics.

I think I see what you’re getting at here, and I agree, but only up to a point. No, we cannot legislate forcing people to attend Mass on Sundays.

But all law is based on morals. It was once based on the 10 Commandments - yes, back when the US still considered itself a Christian nation, you could be fined for taking the Lord’s name in vain. But the devil’s been working hard to undermine morals, and we’ve gradually chipped away at the 10 Commandments until the only one that is universally agreed on is “Thou shalt not steal.”

We do not have to take this lying down. If we see something that is clearly immoral being made into law, we should not stand idly by. We should fight it. We should also fight for basic morals.

Militantly,

Ruthie

 

[larry85704]

I guess I had a couple of thoughts about being Catholic that I didn’t get across.

Let me first say that if I had an annulment from the Church for the only marriage I had ever been involved in I would say I had never been married. My reasoning is this.

What the government chooses to say about me does not matter as much as what the Church says about me. The Church has defined marriage to involve a Sacramental union of a man and a woman. The Church as reserved to Herself the ability to judge if a union between a man and a woman is a marriage.

The state can say that two people, male, or female, can never see each other, never have sex, or even know one another, and be married. Why should I care? For all I care the state could call it ghak instead of marriage. The state should call it ghak, because the states idea of marriage is not the Church’s idea of marriage.

 

[Ruthie]

Let me first say that if I had an annulment from the Church for the only marriage I had ever been involved in I would say I had never been married.

Yes, that’s true. It leads to a host of problems, though. Granted, they are purely social, and mostly language-based.

For example, I had a wedding when I was 18. We had a friendly divorce 3 years later. It has been declared null by the Church.

How do I refer to it? I usually call it “my teenage mistake,” but he was not my only teenage mistake.

And it would probably hurt his feelings for me to call him anything but my “ex-husband.”

How would you deal with these problems, Larry?

God bless all of us,

Ruthie

 

[larry85704]

It is a difficult subject. People have received annulments that have been married for many years and had children. There is no doubt in the eyes of the Church or the kids who mommy and daddy are. There is also no doubt in the eyes of the Church that a Sacramental marriage never existed between the mommy and daddy.

It is also an interesting dilemma about what to call your dead wife, or husband. (Assume you were married in the Church) Ex-wife doesn’t sound right, so you usually call the dead wife your wife. It is confusing. Suppose the name of your partner is Bill. Why not just call him Bill?

I think husband and wife cannot help but imply marriage. So the term husband and wife should be reserved for spouses in Sacramental marriages. Not dead spouses, not annulled marriages. It is a failure of the Church in that She has not sufficiently differentiated the state of Sacramental Marriage from civil marriage.

If you were to introduce yourself, as a good Catholic you should say I am first a Catholic. Second, I am married to Joan, or Bob, or I am single, or a priest, or a nun. Third, I am a father, or mother, or have no kids. Forth, I am a doctor, or a janitor. You would list things in order of importance.

Additionally, the Church has lost the sense of community that it had as little as 50 years ago. Churches really used to be much more of a family than they are now. I’d bet at one time it was very unusual to be able to hide your marital status from the community. This peer pressure probably contributed to a lower divorce rate.

So as far as calling you ex-husband you ex-husband, do you think he would be offended if you just called him by his name?

As far as the issues of kids, relationships prior to even becoming a Catholic, virginity and extended families I guess I don’t have all the answers.

One of the reasons that I brought this up is the big deal about gay marriage. If I were gay, and I am not, and outside the Church I can see where I would want to get married. You know, just like the heterosexual folks. After all, I am not any different. As a Catholic, I cannot be telling people what to do. God gives us free will. He gives it to me, and to the gay folks. But I must live my life consistently with what I profess. I cannot be a Catholic and not believe in Jesus. I can be a Catholic and a sinner, but I am supposed to try not to sin. So, being a Catholic and talking about my ex-wife seemed a little inconsistent.

Hope this clarified something.

Larry.