Dating Advice for Divorced Catholics

[diggerdomer]

We all read your post and many shuddered.

Wow. You “all” have apparently had a lot of conversation I’ve not been privy to. How cool.

You seem to have a remarkable lack of understanding of what marriage is. A married person cannot date a person they are not married to. That would be a form of adultery.

You presume an incredible amount of knowledge about me based on some posting here on these message boards. Wow. How presumptuous. The OP, as I understood, is not married. So I was not recommending that a married person date anyone. And I clearly stated that issues of faith, religion, etc., should be clearly addressed up front. I was responding to what I presumed (maybe I’m wrong?) was a single person, not a married person. He or she is responsible for the person he or she is dating.

A divorced person without an annulment is still a married person.

Not necessarily, according to the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church, only a person who was validly married and then divorced would need an annulment.

Do you disagree?

Your position is morally reprehensible and as we see in your post, based on (we hope) ignorance.

Wow. Again I am impressed at the “committee” that apparently exists here to police thoughts.

I have no problem admitting I am ignorant in many respects. That’s why I’m here, to learn and grow in my faith.

Condemnations from you (and your “we”) are really quite chilling.

Peace

 

[rpp]

{snip removing uncharitable comments}
Not necessarily, according to the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church, only a person who was validly married and then divorced would need an annulment.

Do you disagree?

{snip removing uncharitable comments}

Whether I agree or disagree with you is immaterial. What matter is what the Church teaches and your interpretation is incorrect. The Church presumes all marriages to be valid until they have been evaluated by a tribunal. A valid marriage is not necessarily sacramental. Therefore to date a person whose previous attempt marriage has not been declared null by the diocesan tribunal is to commit adultery.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church presumes all marriages to be valid until they have been evaluated by a tribunal.

Not always. Easy example: if a Catholic gets married by a justice of the peace (canonical lack of form, assuming no dispensation was received) the marriage is invalid. No need for a tribunal evaluation.

A valid marriage between 2 Christians is always sacramental. A valid marriage in which one partner at least is not baptized is not sacramental. I wasn’t sure if your statement noted those distinctions, for what it’s worth.

Peace

 

[rpp]

Not always. Easy example: if a Catholic gets married by a justice of the peace (canonical lack of form, assuming no dispensation was received) the marriage is invalid. No need for a tribunal evaluation.

A valid marriage between 2 Christians is always sacramental. A valid marriage in which one partner at least is not baptized is not sacramental. I wasn’t sure if your statement noted those distinctions, for what it’s worth.

Peace

The conclusion you drew from your example is incorrect. That marriage is considered valid UNTIL the tribunal evaluates it. ALL marriages must be evaluated by the tribunal. It is the circumstances of the marriage that determine how the tribunal would proceed.

Your second paragraph is immaterial because such a marriage would still need to be evaluated by a tribunal. As will all proceedings, a marriage is condered valid until the tribunal determines otherwise.

Again, you try to speak with a tone of authority, yet again you are wrong. If you do not see a pattern, I will spell it out for you. Stop talking and start reading.

Oh, and stop hijacking threads. That is against forum rules.

 

[Seatuck]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

I would not date a person who is divorced without a decree of nullity.

It implies some things for me that contradict my understanding of marriage.
For one thing the person is not free to date or marry as far as I know. That is very problematic. This is possibly adulterous.

The is a former Catholic. In a Catholic marriage one of the goals is the mutual support of the spouses . This includes helping each other get into heaven. Really questionable that this person is committed to working on a Catholic marriage with a divorce and being away from the church.Again problematic.

I might be friends with this person. That means keeping to activities with other people. Always out in public. Meet them and go home by myself etc. The purpose of dating is to interview a person for the position of spouse. Can’t do that with a person who looks to be married to another. Again that adultery thing.

I would wait for this person to get back into the church and get that decree before a date would happen.

 

[1ke]

Not always. Easy example: if a Catholic gets married by a justice of the peace (canonical lack of form, assuming no dispensation was received) the marriage is invalid. No need for a tribunal evaluation.

A valid marriage between 2 Christians is always sacramental. A valid marriage in which one partner at least is not baptized is not sacramental. I wasn’t sure if your statement noted those distinctions, for what it’s worth.

Peace

You are correct that a Catholic who married civilly lacks canonical form. But, such a Catholic must complete a documentary case and be declared free to marry. It is not a full Tribunal investigation, but there must be paperwork filed.

Non-Catholics do marry validly and when one is not baptized it is a natural marriage.

Neither of the points you make are relevant to the OP’s post. The OP clearly stated the “former Catholic” was married in the Church. Therefore, this person is in a valid marriage until the Tribunal states otherwise. They are married in the eyes of the Church. Dating a married person is adultery.

 

[diggerdomer]

The conclusion you drew from your example is incorrect. That marriage is considered valid UNTIL the tribunal evaluates it. ALL marriages must be evaluated by the tribunal. It is the circumstances of the marriage that determine how the tribunal would proceed.

Your second paragraph is immaterial because such a marriage would still need to be evaluated by a tribunal. As will all proceedings, a marriage is condered valid until the tribunal determines otherwise.

Again, you try to speak with a tone of authority, yet again you are wrong. If you do not see a pattern, I will spell it out for you. Stop talking and start reading.

Oh, and stop hijacking threads. That is against forum rules.

I donm’t know what hijacking threads means. Sorry. I read the rules but didn’t see thta term. If you can clarify for me I’d appreciate it.

I don’t think you’re understanding what I said to your comments about validity. One more try: a 10 year old child who got married would not be in a valid marriage. No need for a tribunal, the marriage would simply be not valid. Ditto for my earlier example (in that case, if the couple later wished to validate their marriage they could…but it would be invalid from the start until they took remedial actions).

 

[Benadam]

I donm’t know what hijacking threads means. Sorry. I read the rules but didn’t see thta term. If you can clarify for me I’d appreciate it.

I don’t think you’re understanding what I said to your comments about validity. One more try: a 10 year old child who got married would not be in a valid marriage. No need for a tribunal, the marriage would simply be not valid. Ditto for my earlier example (in that case, if the couple later wished to validate their marriage they could…but it would be invalid from the start until they took remedial actions).

The start of a marriage is what is evaluated for validity. I thought if it were true that it was a valid marriage it would be true that it always was.

 

[diggerdomer]

The start of a marriage is what is evaluated for validity. I thought if it were true that it was a valid marriage it would be true that it always was.

I think that’s correct

 

[rpp]

I donm’t know what hijacking threads means. Sorry. I read the rules but didn’t see thta term. If you can clarify for me I’d appreciate it.

I don’t think you’re understanding what I said to your comments about validity. One more try: a 10 year old child who got married would not be in a valid marriage. No need for a tribunal, the marriage would simply be not valid. Ditto for my earlier example (in that case, if the couple later wished to validate their marriage they could…but it would be invalid from the start until they took remedial actions).

 

[CoachSTL]

I would not date a person who is divorced without a decree of nullity.

It implies some things for me that contradict my understanding of marriage.
For one thing the person is not free to date or marry as far as I know. That is very problematic. This is possibly adulterous.

The is a former Catholic. In a Catholic marriage one of the goals is the mutual support of the spouses . This includes helping each other get into heaven. Really questionable that this person is committed to working on a Catholic marriage with a divorce and being away from the church.Again problematic.

I might be friends with this person. That means keeping to activities with other people. Always out in public. Meet them and go home by myself etc. The purpose of dating is to interview a person for the position of spouse. Can’t do that with a person who looks to be married to another. Again that adultery thing.

I would wait for this person to get back into the church and get that decree before a date would happen.

Seatuck,

Thank you for your heartfeldt response. I wish we could get more like yours. I wish there was someone out there who has been in this situation and could write in what they did about the situation.

Coachstl