W
w_stewart
Guest
The Church does not recognize civil marriage as valid marriage. If one of the partners engage in an extra relationship, does he/she not commit adultery?
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.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
When two unmarried people engage in sexual actions they commit fornication.The Church does not recognize civil marriage as valid marriage. If one of the partners engage in an extra relationship, does he/she not commit adultery?
1
1ke
Guest
This is not accurate. The Catholic Church recognizes the civil marriages of non-Catholics. These marriages are valid. If the two non-Catholics are baptized, the marriage is also sacramental. If one or both are unbaptized, the marriage is a valid natural marriage. (This presumes that there are no impediments such as a prior marriage.)The Church does not recognize civil marriage as valid marriage. If one of the partners engage in an extra relationship, does he/she not commit adultery?
The Catholic Church maintains authority over the form in which *Catholics *are married. not non-Catholics. Catholics married civilly without a dispensation are indeed in an invalid marriage. But, Catholics can receive a dispensation from canonical form, so you cannot universally state that a Catholic married civilly is in an invalid marriage.
As to your question, the person would indeed be committing adultery.
As the previous answers suggest, you really needed to be more specific with your question. Are you asking a question about two people of whom neither are Catholic? Or are you asking about two people, at least one of whom is Catholic?The Church does not recognize civil marriage as valid marriage. If one of the partners engage in an extra relationship, does he/she not commit adultery?
My personal opinion would be that in the case where at least one person was Catholic then any relationship between one of the married persons and a third person could technically not be the sin of adultery. But adultery is also recognized by most people in the civil sense so I would consider it imprudent for anyone to get involved with someone while civily married to another.
W
w_stewart
Guest
My question pertains to both baptized Catholics civilly married.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
It would not be adultery in a “legal” sense, but most certainly morally.My question pertains to both baptized Catholics civilly married.
S
Spirithound
Guest
nodsWhen two unmarried people engage in sexual actions they commit fornication.
W
w_stewart
Guest
But they are civilly wed. So I think any relationship outside of the civil marriage is adulterous legally. And I think they are morally culpable but the offense is not necessarily adultery.It would not be adultery in a “legal” sense, but most certainly morally.
My guess is that NewEnglandPries meant “legal” from a canon law point of view, not from a civil law point of view.But they are civilly wed. So I think any relationship outside of the civil marriage is adulterous legally. And I think they are morally culpable but the offense is not necessarily adultery.
My concern about such matters is that involvment with another, even when the marriage is objectively invalid according to canon law, would give scandal to those who know there is a marriage but are unaware of the status of the marriage.
W
w_stewart
Guest
I agree. But in the eyes of the Church, does the party who has a relationship (not necessarily sexual) outside civil marriage violate any Church law/doctrine?My guess is that NewEnglandPries meant “legal” from a canon law point of view, not from a civil law point of view.
My concern about such matters is that involvment with another, even when the marriage is objectively invalid according to canon law, would give scandal to those who know there is a marriage but are unaware of the status of the marriage.
I think this is one of those gray areas where there is no absolute answer as to whether or not the situation is sinful. But it wouldn’t technically be the sin of adultery.I agree. But in the eyes of the Church, does the party who has a relationship (not necessarily sexual) outside civil marriage violate any Church law/doctrine?
But causing scandal can be a serious sin. (When I was young the good sisters seemed to give us the impression that causing scandal was about the worst sin there was.) And respecting civil law is important too. I guess it depends on the nature of the relationship.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
If the people have made a vow and feel they are married, even if technically they are not, then they are in a sense committing the act of adultery. Just as if you thought you were willfully murdering someone, but were mistaken that it was a real person, mentally you would have committed murder.
Also, my understanding is that even in a case like this, until the Church rules that there was no marriage, the people are bound by the vow they have made. They don’t get to decide that it isn’t a valid marriage, even if it is a pretty clear case.
If the person is using the lack of a sacramental marriage as an excuse to allow adultery, then it implies several things. One is knowledge that they did not do what they should have as far as obedience to the Church and their responsibility to God and the other person involved. And the person is using a technicality to try and get past God’s rules, which is probably worse than adultery.
If they were unaware when they married civilly, they should get it con validated or seek a divorce and annulment. Morally they cannot have relations or date until those things are finished. At that point, it would be plain old fornication.
Sins are not always absolute things. They have a relation to the understanding, intent of the sinner, and even the persons ability to be really responsible or how much personal cntrol the individual has. So I’m not sure that a question like this really gets to the point.
Also, my understanding is that even in a case like this, until the Church rules that there was no marriage, the people are bound by the vow they have made. They don’t get to decide that it isn’t a valid marriage, even if it is a pretty clear case.
If the person is using the lack of a sacramental marriage as an excuse to allow adultery, then it implies several things. One is knowledge that they did not do what they should have as far as obedience to the Church and their responsibility to God and the other person involved. And the person is using a technicality to try and get past God’s rules, which is probably worse than adultery.
If they were unaware when they married civilly, they should get it con validated or seek a divorce and annulment. Morally they cannot have relations or date until those things are finished. At that point, it would be plain old fornication.
Sins are not always absolute things. They have a relation to the understanding, intent of the sinner, and even the persons ability to be really responsible or how much personal cntrol the individual has. So I’m not sure that a question like this really gets to the point.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Fornication?I agree. But in the eyes of the Church, does the party who has a relationship (not necessarily sexual) outside civil marriage violate any Church law/doctrine?
W
w_stewart
Guest
What if there was no sexual relationship? Meaning, a civilly wed party dates another who is not his wife/her husband?Fornication?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well, if he is a Catholic, why hasn’t he convalidated or applied for divorce and annulment? The CC assumes the marriage is valid until they rule otherwise, no matter what the circumstances. People are not supposed to take this on themselves. They are supposed to fulfill their obligations until the decision is made. I am not sure how dating could fit into that.What if there was no sexual relationship? Meaning, a civilly wed party dates another who is not his wife/her husband?
Also, a vow, or promise was made - probably a promise to remain with and love that person for life and forsake all others. Catholics are bound by promises unless there is a good reason not to fulfill them.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Yes. The Catholic is still bound by the civil promises made. Threre is an assumption that faithfulness is part of civil marriage in most countries.Well, if he is a Catholic, why hasn’t he convalidated or applied for divorce and annulment? The CC assumes the marriage is valid until they rule otherwise, no matter what the circumstances. People are not supposed to take this on themselves. They are supposed to fulfill their obligations until the decision is made. I am not sure how dating could fit into that.
Also, a vow, or promise was made - probably a promise to remain with and love that person for life and forsake all others. Catholics are bound by promises unless there is a good reason not to fulfill them.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
I meant “legally” in the sense of the Church’s canon law. That’s why I used “” around legally.But they are civilly wed. So I think any relationship outside of the civil marriage is adulterous legally. And I think they are morally culpable but the offense is not necessarily adultery.
When someone has made a promise (even if its just a civil promise) to a life long commitment with someone it would atleast be highly immoral to then cheat on that person.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
This raises a question for me. It seems to me morally that if two Catholics marry civilly for really any reason, although the Church says it is a defect of form and they can get an annulment relatively simply (compared to other reasons for an annulment), they have in fact made a solemn promise and a legal commitment - and thus their moral obligation ought to be to get the marriage convalidated and live up to the commitments they have willingly made.
The only reasons I can think it would be morally reasonable to get an annulment would be the same ones that invalidate a sacramental marriage.
So why is that not the direction of the Church? I have heard any number of people advised that it was just fine to get an annulment because of a defect of form, when the real reason they want to have it annulled is just because they don’t want to be married any more - their reasons would never be considered for a sacramental marriage. It’s as if their promise is somehow irrelevant.
The only reasons I can think it would be morally reasonable to get an annulment would be the same ones that invalidate a sacramental marriage.
So why is that not the direction of the Church? I have heard any number of people advised that it was just fine to get an annulment because of a defect of form, when the real reason they want to have it annulled is just because they don’t want to be married any more - their reasons would never be considered for a sacramental marriage. It’s as if their promise is somehow irrelevant.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.