Communion and remarriage

[CoffeeHound]

Guys let’s try it this way: Let’s take 100% of the marriage responsibility and simply assign it to the appropriate party. I ask you to test your thoughts before you post because this is highly deceptive.

What marriage responsibility? That makes no sense.

To others: am I being trolled?

 

[Corki]

Let me apologize to Lizaanne I should have been more patient and productive.

Guys let’s try it this way: Let’s take 100% of the marriage responsibility and simply assign it to the appropriate party. I ask you to test your thoughts before you post because this is highly deceptive.

Texas Roofer. Ok, I’ll take you up on what I think you are asking for.

The presumption of the Church is that the first marriage is valid. Whether is actually is or not can only be determined by looking at the facts of the first marriage. Nothing about the current relationship or living situation is relevant. So the first responsibility is to look at that first marriage. The responsibility to do this is the marriage tribunal… They look at all the facts to determine what happened at the point in time where the first marriage was attempted. Attempt does not mean unsuccessful. Attempt might be successful or unsuccessful depending on the facts at the time.

Only after that is done can the current relationship be looked at. If the first marriage is found to be invalid, that doesn 't mean that the new relationship automatically becomes a valid marriage. It only means that the OP becomes free to marry. The responsibilty for what happens at that point is up to the OP and her intended.

I think that takes care of all the responsibility.

How about you explain to her how her life would be different from the convalidation.

The grace of a Sacramental marriage is what will make her life different.

Will she live in a new place?

Maybe. Many couples chose to live apart when preparing for a convalidation. It can make the day a little more special. This isn’t practical for everyone, especially if there are kids involved.

Will it be in the newspaper?

It could be. That all depends on how much attention the couple wants to have on the marriage.

Will all her family and friends come?

That’s a great idea. There will hopefully be lots of people who want to celbrate this time with the happy couple. In our parish, convalidations often happen at a weekend Mass with great joy from the congregation.

What kind of public announcement must occur?

That depends on circumstances. In some parishes, convalidations are listed in the bulletin. I think this is a nice thing to do, especially if the irregular marriage situation was more widely known.

( or will some record be changed in a closed book in the office?)

There will definately be a record made. There is nothing to change since no Sacramental marriage was previously recorded. The record will be made in the parish where the convalidation takes place and also on the Baptismal record where the husband, who is the Catholic, was baptized. If the Baptismal parish is not the same one where the convalidation occurs, I think it would be simply a clerical process without an announcement there.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer. Ok, I’ll take you up on what I think you are asking for.

The presumption of the Church is that the first marriage is valid. Whether is actually is or not can only be determined by looking at the facts of the first marriage. Nothing about the current relationship or living situation is relevant. So the first responsibility is to look at that first marriage. The responsibility to do this is the marriage tribunal… They look at all the facts to determine what happened at the point in time where the first marriage was attempted. Attempt does not mean unsuccessful. Attempt might be successful or unsuccessful depending on the facts at the time.

Only after that is done can the current relationship be looked at. If the first marriage is found to be invalid, that doesn 't mean that the new relationship automatically becomes a valid marriage. It only means that the OP becomes free to marry. The responsibilty for what happens at that point is up to the OP and her intended.

I think that takes care of all the responsibility.

The grace of a Sacramental marriage is what will make her life different.

Maybe. Many couples chose to live apart when preparing for a convalidation. It can make the day a little more special. This isn’t practical for everyone, especially if there are kids involved.

It could be. That all depends on how much attention the couple wants to have on the marriage.

That’s a great idea. There will hopefully be lots of people who want to celbrate this time with the happy couple. In our parish, convalidations often happen at a weekend Mass with great joy from the congregation.

That depends on circumstances. In some parishes, convalidations are listed in the bulletin. I think this is a nice thing to do, especially if the irregular marriage situation was more widely known.

There will definately be a record made. There is nothing to change since no Sacramental marriage was previously recorded. The record will be made in the parish where the convalidation takes place and also on the Baptismal record where the husband, who is the Catholic, was baptized. If the Baptismal parish is not the same one where the convalidation occurs, I think it would be simply a clerical process without an announcement there.

Thank you Corki

We have a complete communication disconnect. Let try again along the line :

How responsible is the husband for the marriage? (if he were 100% responsible the wife’s actions and thoughts would be indifferent= have no meaning in a marriage)

How responsible is the wife for the marriage? (if she were 100% responsible the husband’s actions and thoughts would be indifferent= have no meaning in a marriage)

How responsible is the Magisterium for the marriage? (if 100% responsible the husband and wife’s actions and thoughts would be indifferent= have no meaning in a marriage)

Priest, Bishop, etc

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What marriage responsibility? That makes no sense.

To others: am I being trolled?

Please see the response to Corki, I assure you are not being trolled.

 

[Corki]

Thank you Corki

We have a complete communication disconnect. Let try again along the line :

How responsible is the husband for the marriage? (if he were 100% responsible the wife’s actions and thoughts would be indifferent= have no meaning in a marriage)

How responsible is the wife for the marriage? (if she were 100% responsible the husband’s actions and thoughts would be indifferent= have no meaning in a marriage)

How responsible is the Magisterium for the marriage? (if 100% responsible the husband and wife’s actions and thoughts would be indifferent= have no meaning in a marriage)

Priest, Bishop, etc

So you want us to identify a single person or entity and assign them 100% of the responsibility to correct the irregular marriage situation? Makes no sense.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So you want us to identify a single person or entity and assign them 100% of the responsibility to correct the irregular marriage situation? Makes no sense.

Only if a single person bears all responsiblity. It is a really simple question. How much responsiblity does the husband bear (?), wife (?), others ?

 

[CoffeeHound]

Only if a single person bears all responsiblity. It is a really simple question. How much responsiblity does the husband bear (?), wife (?), others ?

I really don’t understand what you’re asking. Responsibility for what? To maintain a healthy marriage? To contract marriage? To correct an irregular situation?

And why does responsibility need to be a zero-sum game? If I’m responsible for our children, and my spouse is responsible for our children, that doesn’t mean that I’m 50% responsible - we are both responsible. It’s not like I can say “well, here’s 50% of the food I’m responsible to feed you”, if the children are hungry, one or the other feeds them. We don’t keep count.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I really don’t understand what you’re asking. Responsibility for what? To maintain a healthy marriage? To contract marriage? To correct an irregular situation?

And why does responsibility need to be a zero-sum game? If I’m responsible for our children, and my spouse is responsible for our children, that doesn’t mean that I’m 50% responsible - we are both responsible. It’s not like I can say “well, here’s 50% of the food I’m responsible to feed you”, if the children are hungry, one or the other feeds them. We don’t keep count.

Can you be 50% responsible and he 50% responsible? Would that not be a big problem?

 

[CoffeeHound]

Can you be 50% responsible and he 50% responsible? Would that not be a big problem?

If the kids died of starvation, would I be assigned 50% of the sentence? Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. And I still don’t get where this is going.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If the kids died of starvation, would I be assigned 50% of the sentence? Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. And I still don’t get where this is going.

So maybe no one is responsible? Is the action of the parties all indifferent? When a tribunal meets what to they look at the indefferent actions, the responsiblities of the church, or something else?

 

[Corki]

Only if a single person bears all responsiblity. It is a really simple question. How much responsiblity does the husband bear (?), wife (?), others ?

I think I get what you are asking now.

The husband, as the Catholic party, had 100% of the responsibility to make sure that the marriage he was entering into followed canon law.

The couple together share 100% of the responsibility for doing whatever is necessary to get the marriage convalidated.

The RCIA teacher is 100% responsible for giving wrong information (if indeed it wasn’t just a misunderstanding)

The pastor has 100% responsibility to make sure all the steps are followed in order to get this couple “right” with the Church and the Sacraments. Of course he can delegate some of that 100%, especially for the administrative steps.

 

[CoffeeHound]

So maybe no one is responsible? Is the action of the parties all indifferent? When a tribunal meets what to they look at the indefferent actions, the responsiblities of the church, or something else?

Or maybe everyone is responsible.

A tribunal does not meet to assign blame or responsibility. A tribunal meets to investigate the circumstances of the marriage when it occurred to determine if it was valid. If one of the requirements for marriage is not met (for example, one or both of the couple were not open to marriage or one or both of the couple were not free to marry), then they rule that the marriage was invalid.

There’s no responsibility, there’s no blame, there’s no divorce. Either the couple met the requirements for marriage or they didn’t.

 

[noclevername]

I can’t believe ya’ll are still talking about this. I was just asking about communion.

But things have changed. My husband hasn’t been a practicing Catholic for quite sometime. He was raised in the Catholic church. However, he pulled away from the church a while ago because there were a lot of things he just didn’t agree with. I have been Methodist since birth (and yes, I am a baptized Methodist) and am very active in my church. My husband has found a church home in my church and is thinking about joining. He had no intention of taking communion (and they didn’t even have a communion at this wedding) - I was the one who was wondering.

So, we will continue to attend our Methodist church where our marriage is valid and recognized and where we aren’t judged as being sinners and where everyone is welcome at the communion table. And I don’t mean any disrespect to any of you, it’s just how we choose to live our life.

Oh and we use birth control. We have plans to have kids soon but we jsut can’t right now. Also, I have to use BC because of a medical issue I suffer from and going off of them will be really hard on my but I’ll do it to have a kid. But as soon as I can, I’ll have to start taking them again.

 

[CoffeeHound]

I can’t believe ya’ll are still talking about this. I was just asking about communion.

I think we’ve moved on to something entirely different.

He had no intention of taking communion (and they didn’t even have a communion at this wedding) - I was the one who was wondering.

It’s sad that he’s leaving the Church, and hopefully he returns one day, but this is the way to handle it in the meantime.

So, we will continue to attend our Methodist church where our marriage is valid and recognized and where we aren’t judged as being sinners and where everyone is welcome at the communion table. And I don’t mean any disrespect to any of you, it’s just how we choose to live our life.

I don’t want to get in to a Catholic vs. Methodist argument, but does it really matter how others see you? Shouldn’t you care how God sees you? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6908021&postcount=6

Oh and we use birth control. We have plans to have kids soon but we jsut can’t right now. Also, I have to use BC because of a medical issue I suffer from and going off of them will be really hard on my but I’ll do it to have a kid. But as soon as I can, I’ll have to start taking them again.

Regarding a case like yours (a non-Catholic spouse that wants to use birth control): forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135215

 

[noclevername]

I think we’ve moved on to something entirely different.

It’s sad that he’s leaving the Church, and hopefully he returns one day, but this is the way to handle it in the meantime.

This is his choice. He had left the Catholic church long before I ever met him. But when he met me, he started going to chruch with me.

I don’t want to get in to a Catholic vs. Methodist argument, but does it really matter how others see you? Shouldn’t you care how God sees you? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6908021&postcount=6

Well, you and others on this forum sure were judging our marriage.

Regarding a case like yours (a non-Catholic spouse that wants to use birth control): forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135215

Hey, don’t put all the blame on me for this one. He wants to use BC as much or more than I do right now. Remember, it takes two to tango. So don’t make me out to be the heathen. Ya know, it sure is funny how ya’ll automatically think that the nonCatholic in these scenerios are the “bad” guys. My husband and I (and my church) believe that BC is OK to use.

 

[1ke]

So, noclevername, if someone is sinning is it wrong to tell them so that they can stop sinning and turn back to God?

Was Paul wrong to call out the Corinthians regarding their bad behavior and sinful practices in his letters to them? Were the other apostles and disciples acting inappropriately when they taught right and wrong? In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus himself tells us if a brother sins we are to correct him privately and if he will not listen take it before the Church. Was Christ wrong here?

What should someone do when they encounter someone doing something against God’s law? Look the other way?

I’m not exactly sure why you are so upset at people giving *Catholic *responses (based on the bible, Church teaching, and Canon Law) on a *Catholic *message board to questions *YOU *asked?

 

[CoffeeHound]

Well, you and others on this forum sure were judging our marriage.

I’d be judging you if I said your marriage was “bad” or “wrong” or “evil” or if I called you names. All I did was take the information you gave to indicate that it’s probably an invalid marriage based on the guidelines of the Church.

If someone told you “My neighbor’s alarm clock wouldn’t go off, so I broke his window, climbed in, and turned it off.” would it be judging that person to tell them what they did was probably illegal? Telling them that they’re a bad person for doing that would be judging them, but telling them that it’s illegal is simply relaying a fact.

Hey, don’t put all the blame on me for this one. He wants to use BC as much or more than I do right now. Remember, it takes two to tango. So don’t make me out to be the heathen. Ya know, it sure is funny how ya’ll automatically think that the nonCatholic in these scenerios are the “bad” guys. My husband and I (and my church) believe that BC is OK to use.

This is a good example of how you assume that you’re being judged when you’re actually not. I didn’t call you a “bad guy” or a “heathen”. Nor did I imply that you’re either.

You made a statement about birth control as if it was an impediment to your husband being Catholic. I simply gave you a link to the Church teaching on the issue when one party is Catholic and one is not. You and your husband can choose to believe that teaching or not, but you should be informed about what you agree with or oppose. Your statement sounded as if you were not aware of Church teaching, so I posted it.

 

[CoffeeHound]

One thing I want to add: Catholics don’t view non-Catholics as inherently being “bad guys”. There are certainly many bad Catholics and many good non-Catholics (and good Catholics and bad non-Catholics and neutral… you get the picture).

Non-Catholics are not bound by Canon Law in many regards and Christians (including Methodists) are seen as being in partial-communion with the Catholic Church because their teachings represent most of the Truth.
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

[Discussing non-Catholic Christians] the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

The problem is that in your case, your husband is a Catholic, and thus is subject to Canon Law. Leaving the Church is a sin, as is being disobedient to Canon. Only God knows how this will affect the ultimate disposition of his soul, but given the Church’s power to bind and loose, I wouldn’t be very comfortable in his position.

 

[1ke]

I can’t believe ya’ll are still talking about this. I was just asking about communion.

As if it were ever “only” about Communion.

Church teaching is integrated. The question about whether or not he can receive communion is connected to the status of your marriage. However, whether or not he can receive communion is connected to more than just your marriage status.

But things have changed. My husband hasn’t been a practicing Catholic for quite sometime. He was raised in the Catholic church. However, he pulled away from the church a while ago because there were a lot of things he just didn’t agree with. I have been Methodist since birth (and yes, I am a baptized Methodist) and am very active in my church. My husband has found a church home in my church and is thinking about joining. He had no intention of taking communion (and they didn’t even have a communion at this wedding) - I was the one who was wondering.

Based on what you relay above, your husband is also ineligible to present himself for communion because he has violated several grave commandments. He has not been attending Mass, which is a violation of the 3rd commandment. He also cannot receive the Eucharist if he has not been to Confession while in a state of mortal sin. Moreover, publically defecting from the faith (i.e. joining the Methodist church, if he does so) is also a grave offense against the first commandment. His personal culpability depends upon full knowledge and free will. Objectively these are grave matters, but whether or not he has committed mortal sin would depend upon other factors that should be discussed with a priest.

So, we will continue to attend our Methodist church where our marriage is valid and recognized and where we aren’t judged as being sinners and where everyone is welcome at the communion table. And I don’t mean any disrespect to any of you, it’s just how we choose to live our life.

You seem to be under the impression that the laws of God are somehow subjective. That the things your husband is doing (or you are doing) are only sins for Catholics. God’s law is universal. You can choose to ignore it, but it does not change.

Oh and we use birth control. We have plans to have kids soon but we jsut can’t right now. Also, I have to use BC because of a medical issue I suffer from and going off of them will be really hard on my but I’ll do it to have a kid. But as soon as I can, I’ll have to start taking them again.

And the point of this statement is, what? Are we in the 7th grade? Na-na-na-boo-boo? I mean, really, you aren’t interested in what the Church teaches, you and your husband have no intention of listening or attempting to conform to Church teaching, and you know full well what those teachings are (or maybe you don’t, because use of hormonal pills to treat a medical condition is not a violation of any Church teaching, even if they have an effect of sterility).

So, what’s the point of posting this little tid-bit?

 

[CoffeeHound]

I’d be judging you if I said your marriage was “bad” or “wrong” or “evil” or if I called you names. All I did was take the information you gave to indicate that it’s probably an invalid marriage based on the guidelines of the Church. Determining an invalid/valid marriage is the first step in determining your husband’s “state” (i.e. an irregular state from an invalid marriage).

If someone told you “My neighbor’s alarm clock wouldn’t go off, so I broke his window, climbed in, and turned it off.” would it be judging that person to tell them what they did was probably illegal? Telling them that they’re a bad person for doing that would be judging them, but telling them that it’s illegal is simply relaying a fact.

This is a good example of how you assume that you’re being judged when you’re actually not. I didn’t call you a “bad guy” or a “heathen”. Nor did I imply that you’re either.

You made a statement about birth control as if it was an impediment to your husband being Catholic. I simply gave you a link to the Church teaching on the issue when one party is Catholic and one is not. You and your husband can choose to believe that teaching or not, but you should be informed about what you agree with or oppose. Your statement sounded as if you were not aware of Church teaching, so I posted it.