Could a Catholic date or hang-out with a non-Catholic divorcee (of the opposite sex, of course)

  • Thread starter Thread starter foolishmortal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

foolishmortal

Guest
Actually, it would be just more like hanging out, if this gal is serious (she only asks around friends, so it could be her looking for some reaction, though she is friendly with the elderly residents at our common place of employment–a nursing home). I’m 37 and all my friends are married or in other states, and so I’m lonely, but not going to get into a sinful relationship to ease it. I read a couple Catholic sources (hopefully orthodox) saying Protestant marriages are more understood by them as contracts and thus, incomplete in nature. I know you’d need a tribunal to marry one, but what about dating, even if you tell them why you seem to be contradicting your faith in the area of marriage? What if you’re just doing fun things that could border on dating, like if the other wants to kiss?

Thanks!
 
foolishmortal said:
What if you’re just doing fun things that could border on dating, like if the other wants to kiss?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hahaha, don’t you know that kissing is not allowed unless your married? Didn’t you get the memo?

Joking aside, I see no problem with hanging out with them.
 
foolishmortal said:
Actually, it would be just more like hanging out, if this gal is serious (she only asks around friends, so it could be her looking for some reaction, though she is friendly with the elderly residents at our common place of employment–a nursing home). I’m 37 and all my friends are married or in other states, and so I’m lonely, but not going to get into a sinful relationship to ease it. I read a couple Catholic sources (hopefully orthodox) saying Protestant marriages are more understood by them as contracts and thus, incomplete in nature. I know you’d need a tribunal to marry one, but what about dating, even if you tell them why you seem to be contradicting your faith in the area of marriage? What if you’re just doing fun things that could border on dating, like if the other wants to kiss?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hanging out, no problem. Dating gets more tricky. The reason you aren’t supposed to marry a divorced person is that they are still married. It follows that you wouldn’t want to do anything with her that you wouldn’t do with any other married woman.
 
Corki said:
Hanging out, no problem. Dating gets more tricky. The reason you aren’t supposed to marry a divorced person is that they are still married. It follows that you wouldn’t want to do anything with her that you wouldn’t do with any other married woman.
Click to expand...
In addition to this, you’re not supposed to date someone for the heck of it. You only date if there is a possibility of marriage, if she’s divorced the option of marriage does not exist unless it is annulled.
 
Well, I’d think of it as hanging out, but spending time alone with one of the opposite sex could be confused with dating–even by yourself. So, even if you get the lines blurred, is it still dating a married woman if they don’t understand marriage for all it is. On their end, they should acknowledge it’s adultery to remarry after a divorce. How a church could consider itself Christian that goes against New Testament teaching with no ambiguity or seemingly contradicting scripture, I can’t figure.

I guess one of us could scandalize them by spending time with them, when they’re married by biblical definition, but if you told them their marriage may not be a covenant and explain that…well.

I do believe you should date to see if you have a marriage prospect, but, like I said, the boundary between hanging out and dating could get blurred, unconsciously, if the chemistry was right.
 
All things being equal – a person who is “divorced” (even a Protestant) is still presumed to be married. Hence one treats them as such.
 
You could hang out with a member of the opposite sex, but is it the most prudent course of action? One thing leads to another, and before you know it… :rolleyes: Nothing good can come of it.

Being alone with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are attracted is putting yourself in proximate danger of sin. It is a sin to knowingly put yourself in a situation where sin is a possiblity.

We think we are strong and we say, “Oh, I won’t get into a sexual relationship”, but the devil is stronger. First it is companionship. Then laughter. A smile and a look perhaps. Then desire forms in our hearts, then we act.

No, nothing good can come of such a relationship.

We guard our hearts by not getting involved in such situations in the first place.

-Tim-
 
jimmy said:
Hahaha, don’t you know that kissing is not allowed unless your married? Didn’t you get the memo?

Joking aside, I see no problem with hanging out with them.
Click to expand...
Hey, everyone, in case you didn’t get the dig, this was directed at me, for pointing out in an earlier thread that groping, necking, and Frenching women you aren’t married to is an offense against chastity.

No, foolishmortal, you should not be dating a married woman (and definitely not kissing her, unless she’s European and you greet with the double-cheek-kiss or something). And your lady friend is, in fact, married, because “divorce” is an ontological non sequitur. There is no such thing, and no amount of government paperwork can make it otherwise. The presumption must always be that a marriage between two people not bound by canon law is binding, since the couple confers the sacrament on one another, not the priest. It doesn’t matter if they disagree with that assessment. So she’s married, which means you can’t marry her (unless the Church recognizes there was no valid marriage), which means you can’t date her, which means you can’t hang out with her as anything more than friends.
 
Hmm. How can dating a divorced Protestant with possibility of conversion be not prudent? Is one not suppossed to have hope?
 
Thanks! I’ll just presume their marriage is a covenant, even if it’s a contract to them. Wouldn’t it be a nice thing if Protestants really cared what Scripture says? It’s irritating when they talk like we make up unscriptural beliefs.
 
foolishmortal said:
Thanks! I’ll just presume their marriage is a covenant, even if it’s a contract to them. Wouldn’t it be a nice thing if Protestants really cared what Scripture says? It’s irritating when they talk like we make up unscriptural beliefs.
Click to expand...
The Church presumes the marriage between two validly baptized persons is valid (all things being equal) and that such is a Sacrament (for if they are married validly that is what it is).

Contract etc yes can be said to be involved in marriages.
 
foolishmortal said:
Thanks! I’ll just presume their marriage is a covenant, even if it’s a contract to them. Wouldn’t it be a nice thing if Protestants really cared what Scripture says? It’s irritating when they talk like we make up unscriptural beliefs.
Click to expand...
Yes, the important thing is that their attitudes toward marriage don’t matter, because they’re wrong. 🙂
 
It matters because we know Protestants as close friends, who marry divorcees, or close family members marry them, divorcees and/or Protestants, and usually in the invalid way and we have to bother ourselves with them if we don’t go and if we should correct them, when they’ll do it anyway. It doesn’t help when it’s your sibling marrying one and doing it invalidly and your parents, one or two being Catholic, don’t care. They opened a big can of worms with V2 having us all going to each other’s services, especially during a time of rebellion and confusion.
 
sw85 said:
Hey, everyone, in case you didn’t get the dig, this was directed at me, for pointing out in an earlier thread that groping, necking, and Frenching women you aren’t married to is an offense against chastity.

No, foolishmortal, you should not be dating a married woman (and definitely not kissing her, unless she’s European and you greet with the double-cheek-kiss or something). And your lady friend is, in fact, married, because “divorce” is an ontological non sequitur. There is no such thing, and no amount of government paperwork can make it otherwise. The presumption must always be that a marriage between two people not bound by canon law is binding, since the couple confers the sacrament on one another, not the priest. It doesn’t matter if they disagree with that assessment. So she’s married, which means you can’t marry her (unless the Church recognizes there was no valid marriage), which means you can’t date her, which means you can’t hang out with her as anything more than friends.
Click to expand...
I agree that in the Western Rite at least the priest does not marry the parties; they confer the sacrament on one another. The priest is a witness. That being the case, why does the Church have a role in deciding whether the marriage was valid? It is the parties who have first hand knowledge of the facts, not a Church tribunal. In short, if they can join each other, they should have the power to dissolve the relationship.
 
The dang site just lost my message! Anyway, I was just saying that The Church is there to override emotional reasons for doing something as serious as trying to end a marriage. Annullments are there, if one were coerced or fooled by the other to marry, but we should be married during good times and bad and in sickness an in health. Of course, if the other just takes off after a wedding or never intended to have kids, and intended to go that way from the start, you could probably seek an annulment to remarry, because the intention of both wasn’t shared. I’m no canon lawyer, but I’d say that is right, minus some details. How Protestants don’t get annulments, when some want to end Obama policies by finding his eligibility invalid, I don’t see. Still, even then, God let people like Pilate, the Pharisees and K. Herod Antipas in power for a reason and maybe the connection to the people has been consummated in a way, as certain policies’ effects cannot be totally reversed, even if they were not authorized by the laws of the land to lead. Not even Reagan ended all FDR’s programs, though he wasn’t found invalidly inaugurated–but these are arguments I use for sedevacantists. Some God keeps in charge as a punishment and/or a test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top