- Status
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
Yes, they are not the same. One relationship has no objective, marital commitment. The other does. The Pope is saying that to have such a commitment is better than no commitment at all. That’s what the words mean. However, to say that the words also mean that a “civilly married” Catholic is not fornicating is to go beyond that meaning. I would wonder, if you do not call it fornication, what is it? What distinguishes such relations from marital relations between those who are validly married?
Dan
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
The word “fornication” comes from the Latin word “fornix” which means “arch,” and this is because prostitutes used to gather under the archways during Roman times. Therefore, to me, fornication implies sex of a more casual nature.
Nevertheless, what do you call it then? Good question. I suppose you could call it a “disordered union” in the sense that it is not a union ordered toward a marriage united in Christ, and does not carry the same meaning of a Christian marriage.
But don’t get me wrong. I agree that it is proper to bar such persons from the Eucharist. But there are actually people on these boards who actually morally equate civil marriage with, say, a one night stand! One is just as sinful and fornicating as the rest!
D
davidv
Guest
Since the context is Church teaching, one ought to use the Church’s definition.
CCC said:
There no mention of informal in this definition. If the couple in a civil union are not married in the Church’s eyes, then based on this definition their sexual unions are fornication, by definition.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
Thanks for your response. Though I would wager that if I asked the same question of bishops and priests, I would get a wide variety of opinions. Let’s try it. I will ask my pastor this Sunday. You ask your pastor this Sunday. And any other posters reading this: ask the following question, without leading the priest or bishop into your position:
**“If two Catholics are married only civilly, are they engaging in fornication?”
**
I will post my response in about a week. Please do the same.
T
thistle
Guest
This is not complicated.
If two Catholics get married civilly and do not get married in Church any sexual relationship between them is a sin of grave matter.
Here in the Philippines the law requires a civil marriage. The Church cannot marry a couple until they have gone through a civil marriage. After they are married civilly but until they are married in Church any sexual activity between them is considered by the Church a sin of grave matter.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
But ask the next priest or bishop you see the question I asked in bold in the above post. I’m sure there are priests who would agree, but some would have more nuanced answers.
V
VivienneJ
Guest
In South Africa not all priests of any denomination are automatically marriage officers. When my daughter got married, Father J, who was to preside at the wedding was not a marriage officer. Accordingly, Father N, who was a marriage officer would be present at the practise on the Thursday evening, at this time daughter and future son-in-law would exchange vows in terms of legal requirements and would sign the legal documents that would make them married in the eyes of the state. However Father J was most emphatic that they were NOT to consider themselves married at this time and were NOT to consider any physical relations until after their wedding on the Saturday afternoon.
Apart from the evidence quoted elsewhere in this thread, this is sufficient for me to understand that they would indeed have been gravely sinning had they assumed that the civil marriage, to comply with the laws of the land, meant they were married in the sight of God. (As it turned out, Father J was called to a lunch-time meeting with the Bishop on that Saturday, and, as he was afraid he might not make it back in time for the wedding, Father N took the whole thing over, so the legal and church wedding took place at the same time.)
Apart from the evidence quoted elsewhere in this thread, this is sufficient for me to understand that they would indeed have been gravely sinning had they assumed that the civil marriage, to comply with the laws of the land, meant they were married in the sight of God. (As it turned out, Father J was called to a lunch-time meeting with the Bishop on that Saturday, and, as he was afraid he might not make it back in time for the wedding, Father N took the whole thing over, so the legal and church wedding took place at the same time.)
I can’t help wondering why, TheAdvocate, are you seeking a “more nuanced answer” to a very clearly answered question?
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
Don’t get me wrong. I know it would be gravely sinful. But…I just don’t think fornication is the right word, and I just would like for someone (and one reply did) to concede that it is at least not the equivalent to a one night stand. People are actually saying that they are 100% morally equivalent!!
T
thistle
Guest
The answer is yes they would be guilty of fornication. That is the Church position no matter what some individual priest or bishop might think. There are also priests who think contraception is okay and other things. However, that does not make them okay in the eyes of the Church. These things are forbidden by the Church.
B
bben15
Guest
If one is Catholic, then it is an invalid marriage.
However, if none of the parties are Catholic, then it is a valid marriage.
However, if none of the parties are Catholic, then it is a valid marriage.
P
Pug
Guest
It just seems kind of sad to me that two people can be baptized Catholic as kids but their respective parents switch to no religion shortly thereafter, so the kids grow up whatever, non-Catholic anyway. Then they meet and marry as adults, procuring a civil marriage and believing they are married. They have no conscious connection with the Church, yet they are somehow not married, condemned to be that way for their entire marriage, with no hope of remedy unless one of them should happen to convert and find out the truth.
Part of what I don’t understand about Church teaching is why are some marriages dissoluble, like in the OT, yet were still marriages? I understand declaring there was no marriage at all, but I don’t really understand dissoluble marriages. It makes marriage seem open to be halvsies or sort of or there but not quite.
Part of what I don’t understand about Church teaching is why are some marriages dissoluble, like in the OT, yet were still marriages? I understand declaring there was no marriage at all, but I don’t really understand dissoluble marriages. It makes marriage seem open to be halvsies or sort of or there but not quite.
T
thistle
Guest
P
Pug
Guest
Yes, the Petrine Privilege is an example of what I don’t quite understand, leaving me wondering what kind of marriage it is that is dissoluble if marriage is naturally indissoluble, that way from the beginning. It invites the idea of kinds or categories of marriage, that some are dissoluble. Thus I do not fully understand.
I think I do understand the idea of a natural marriage verses a sacramental one, but beyond that I have trouble with categories.
P
Pug
Guest
Are all natural marriages extrinsically dissoluble on principle? Or are some of them impossible to dissolve, even by the Church?
I didn’t mean to derail anything. I brought it up because **if **there are levels or types of marriage, then one would need to know if it was possible that a particular marriage participates in one of them. Of course, that may depend on Church law at the time.
M
Miss_Felicity
Guest
I understand and share in your confusion. It doesn’t sit well with me that civil marriage by Catholics is automatically invalid. When I was going through RCIA I was taught that the church recognized civil marriages. I found out later that was marriages between non Catholics but it is still something I struggle with because shouldn’t the validity of marriage have more to do with the “fruits” of that marriage? If a couple marries civilly, honors their vows believes that marriage is only dissolvable by death. If they are faithful to each other, raise and educate their children well to the very best of their ability it seems like that would be pretty valid. Likewise a couple who does little to none of that who stood in front of a Priest seems like the fruit of their marriage would leave the validity open to question. But I respect that thats not how the church works but I admit I struggle with it.
1
1ke
Guest
No, not at all.
It actually has nothing to do with the “fruit” of the marriage or lack thereof.
M
Miss_Felicity
Guest
I know where the church stands I was stating why I struggle with the church’s stance. For me thats a little disheartening that your actions in your marriage mean very little or at least from the standpoint of the church. I think this is one of those instances where being a convert is hard, my Protestant upbringing on marriage and the things I was exposed to before I converted (even a lot of what I see currently) makes this difficult for me to understand. It would seem that if marriage is about being good to your spouse (and helping them on their path) and raising and educating children to the best of your ability and you do that then you have fulfilled your obligation. Its hard for me to wrap my mind around a couple who marries civilly and one or both parties are Catholic and they stay married until God calls one or both of them home, joyfully welcoming children along the way, being good spouses and parents, loving thy neighbor, giving to charity, having good morals etc. How is that not “valid” I seems to me that God would bless that marriage the same as one that happened in front of a Priest.
N
nodito
Guest
Miss Felicity, I wonder if this analogy would be helpful. Before you converted, I imagine you were learning about the faith at that time and maybe even trying it out a bit. Many catechumens and candidates will attend Mass and read Catholic books, give up old vices, fast along with the Church on days of fasting and abstinence, etc, as preparation for their joining the Church. But before their formal reception into the Church, they are not Catholic, regardless of how many Catholic things they do. Suppose one of them decided not to be baptized at the Easter vigil. Instead he goes home and just starts telling people he’s Catholic. Maybe he gets a friend to pour apple juice over his head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even if he attends Mass every week, tithes to the Church, and welcomes children lovingly with his wife, would we really say he became Catholic?
Marriage is absolutely about living together, having conjugal relations, welcoming children, loving thy neighbor, and being supportive. But it’s more than that. It’s an actual thing that happens to the spouses, an actual bond that forms when the spouses exchange valid marriage vows. If two people do not exchange these vows validly, they are no more married than the man who poured apple juice over his head is really baptized, regardless of what comes after.
- Status