Divorce

[Luvtosew]

OK, yes, so the Church doesn’t say the two civily married Catholics are living in sin,
just they can’t receive the host?

they can’t receive because they are not following the rules of the Church, not because they are living in sin then.

am I getting this right?

 

[PRmerger]

OK, yes, so the Church doesn’t say the two civily married Catholics are living in sin,
just they can’t receive the host?

they can’t receive because they are not following the rules of the Church, not because they are living in sin then.

am I getting this right?

No.

Let’s get on the same page here: weren’t you originally talking about 2 Protestants getting married and wondering whether the Church considered them validly married?

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes your right, now I"m talking two Catholics. I’m sorry for confusing this. I have always heard that the Church considers anyone (man and woman) married in a civil union to be living in sin and not really married.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes your right,

Ok. So 2 Protestants who marry, given no other impediments, are not considered to be “living in sin.” They are validly married.

now I"m talking two Catholics. I’m sorry for confusing this. I have always heard that the Church considers **anyone **(man and woman) married in a civil union to be living in sin and not really married.

Here you’re mixing it up again.

Your last statement (highlighted in red) is incorrect. The Church does NOT consider “anyone” married civilly to be living in sin. 2 Muslims who marry civilly are considered validly married–the Church does not require those who aren’t in her flock to follow our rules.

But as for 2 Catholics who have not done what they’re supposed to do, and chose to defy the rules and marry civilly, well, then their marriage is indeed invalid.

 

[Luvtosew]

But as for 2 Catholics who have not done what they’re supposed to do, and chose to defy the rules and marry civilly, well, then their marriage is indeed invalid.

Ok, I understand two Catholics in a civil union are not living in sin, just not living within the rules of the Church and only according to the Church the marriage is not valid, I understand, no sin, just not valid . Thank you

so no reason not to receive the Eucharist if not a sin..

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But as for 2 Catholics who have not done what they’re supposed to do, and chose to defy the rules and marry civilly, well, then their marriage is indeed invalid.

Ok, I understand two Catholics in a civil union are not living in sin, just not living within the rules of the Church and only according to the Church the marriage is not valid, I understand, no sin, just not valid . Thank you

so no reason not to receive the Eucharist if not a sin..

Two Catholics in a civil union ARE living in sin BECAUSE they are ‘not living within the rules of the Church’.

Do you think that breaking Church rules is not sinful?

So indeed, no receiving the Eucharist until the marriage is regularized within the Church because by not ‘following the rules’ they are sinning gravely and thus living in their sin.

Let’s see if I can make it crystal clear.

John and Mary are both Catholics. They go down to get married at a justice of the peace rather than ‘have to’ get married in some ‘stuffy old church’. John and Mary, by not following the rules, are living in sin. The sin is that even though they are perfectly free to marry, and ‘legal’ by state law, they know by Church (Divine) law, they need to marry in a church and so they are living in a state of perpetual sin until they regularize and marry in the church.

Paul and Linda are non Catholics. They go and get married at a justice of the peace. They, as non Catholics, are following the ‘rules’ of state law, and are free to marry, ‘legally’ married, and NOT living in sin.

Is it clear now? It is not getting married by a JP that is sinful for ‘all’; it is NOT getting married in the Church if you are Catholic that is sinful.

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes that answers my question, thank you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes that answers my question, thank you.

You’re welcome.

Hope you’re enjoying a nice evening and it’s not too cold. . . brrr. I’m looking forward to summer. . .

 

[Gorgias]

But as for 2 Catholics who have not done what they’re supposed to do, and chose to defy the rules and marry civilly, well, then their marriage is indeed invalid.

Well, I understand what you’re trying to say, but you’re not exactly correct. “Valid” or “invalid” has a particular precise meaning in this context. In “invalid” marriage con be convalidated; in this example (two Catholics who marry in a civil ceremony) they are not in an “invalid marriage” – they can not have their “marriage” convalidated.

If the two Catholics had attempted to follow the proper form, but somehow went wrong (they didn’t use a minister who had the proper delegation to allow him to be the celebrant for the wedding, or they didn’t have two witnesses), then this situation would be known as a “defect of form”. This can be remedied by a convalidation.

If, on the other hand, the Catholics didn’t attempt to follow the correct form (e.g., they just went to the JP), then the situation is known as a “lack of form”. As I mentioned, this cannot be convalidated, and it’s not known as an “invalid marriage”. In order to correct this situation, they would need to go to their parish and go through the whole process, making sure that they have no impediments to marriage, that they follow the form, and they exchange consent during a wedding ceremony.

“Living in sin” isn’t a juridical term (to the best of my knowledge), and so, it’s difficult to use it in this context. However, in an objective sense, it would seem that they’re in a state of grave sin.

Hope this helps…

 

[Luvtosew]

Not too cold here in MI either for a change, but yes looking forward to Spring.
You have a wonderful evening too and thanks for the help.

 

[faithfully]

Faithfully,
I have so been thinking about your post…Oh, also, thanks so much for sharing your painful story with us…reminds me none of us are alone in this type of thing…blessings…

You are welcome, and thank you… A lovely post.

It is all quite a bit to process. I’ve talked and worked closely with a dear priest, and I’m through much of this. I talk with God daily. (don’t worry, I don’t hear him talking back… LOL!) I am truly blessed regardless with my munchkins… and they give me trial after trial day in and out! LOL!

Prayers to all in their daily walks!

 

[rainbow1]

Well, I understand what you’re trying to say, but you’re not exactly correct. “Valid” or “invalid” has a particular precise meaning in this context. In “invalid” marriage con be convalidated; in this example (two Catholics who marry in a civil ceremony) they are not in an “invalid marriage” – they can not have their “marriage” convalidated.

If the two Catholics had attempted to follow the proper form, but somehow went wrong (they didn’t use a minister who had the proper delegation to allow him to be the celebrant for the wedding, or they didn’t have two witnesses), then this situation would be known as a “defect of form”. This can be remedied by a convalidation.

If, on the other hand, the Catholics didn’t attempt to follow the correct form (e.g., they just went to the JP), then the situation is known as a “lack of form”. As I mentioned, this cannot be convalidated, and it’s not known as an “invalid marriage”. In order to correct this situation, they would need to go to their parish and go through the whole process, making sure that they have no impediments to marriage, that they follow the form, and they exchange consent during a wedding ceremony.

“Living in sin” isn’t a juridical term (to the best of my knowledge), and so, it’s difficult to use it in this context. However, in an objective sense, it would seem that they’re in a state of grave sin.

Hope this helps…

Not to make things more complicated but I think sometimes the Church will allow a civil ceremony such as over seas for monetary legal purposes as long as there is no sexual relationship until the Church marriage happens…is this true?

 

[Gorgias]

I looked over what I’d written, and I realized that I need to correct myself…

If two baptized non-Catholic Christians … If their marriage isn’t valid according to their denomination, then the Catholic Church might consider the marriage not valid. (For instance, if the couple was married by a JP.)

Non-Catholic Christians aren’t bound by form; therefore, they marry validly anywhere. So, we would say that even if married by a JP, a marriage of two non-Catholic Christians is something we’d consider valid and sacramental, all other things considered!

 

[Gorgias]

Not to make things more complicated but I think sometimes the Church will allow a civil ceremony such as over seas for monetary legal purposes as long as there is no sexual relationship until the Church marriage happens…is this true?

Well, I’ve never heard of such a thing, but I’m guessing you mean that there’s a marriage (such as overseas) that might be undertaken in order to civilly establish the marriage (for the sake of some civil paperwork, perhaps?). In this case, there’s no notion of the Church “allowing” it. If the couple was non-Catholic, then it would be valid, all other things being equal. If the couple was Catholic, then it wouldn’t be considered a sacramental marriage until they got themselves to a Church and got married…

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by muffindell
I am tired, so tired; I have done nothing wrong, yet I have be punished for someone elses crime.
My journey is obviously incomplete, I don’t know if I have enough energy left to make it to the end, but I will try.

Muffindell,

When I read your words here I couldn’t help but picture our Blessed Lord carrying His cross.

Remaining faithful and always loving an unfaithful and abandoning spouse with a self-sacrificial love that is always open to reconciliation upon her true repentance is not an easy cross to carry. But overtime it does get lighter… for it is less and less me carrying it, and more and more Him carrying it through me. The Blessed Sacrament is so very powerful. Please cling to it my brother. Your wife and I will have a special place in my prayers tonight.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[PRmerger]

Note to lurkers: please be advised that there are some here who, while Catholic, are proclaiming things that are absolutely NOT consonant with Catholic teaching.

Just because someone has “Catholic” under her name does not mean that she is well catechized, so please use discernment when reading posts here–all posts here–and refer to the Catechism, which is the “sure norm” for the Catholic faith. Not necessarily to what some Catholic posters here may profess.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, I understand two Catholics in a civil union are not living in sin,

No, Luv. Catholics in a civil union are in an invalid marriage. Thus, if they are engaging in the marital act, when they are NOT married, they are sinning. Gravely and seriously and mortally sinning.

And thus they cannot receive the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

and according to the Church your living in sin.

If we follow the trail of posts this comment above refers to 2 non-Catholic people who are married.

And, as stated earlier, the answer is NO, they are NOT living in sin.

 

[PRmerger]

If, on the other hand, the Catholics didn’t attempt to follow the correct form (e.g., they just went to the JP), then the situation is known as a “lack of form”. As I mentioned, this cannot be convalidated, and it’s not known as an “invalid marriage”.

I don’t believe this is correct, Gorgias.

Originally posted by Catholic Answers Staff:
A Catholic who has not left the Church by a formal act also must obtain a dispensation to be married in front of a non-Catholic minister. If either of these dispensations is not obtained, the marriage will be invalid.

 

[PRmerger]

If, on the other hand, the Catholics didn’t attempt to follow the correct form (e.g., they just went to the JP), then the situation is known as a “lack of form”. As I mentioned, this cannot be convalidated, and it’s not known as an “invalid marriage”. In order to correct this situation, they would need to go to their parish and go through the whole process, making sure that they have no impediments to marriage, that they follow the form, and they exchange consent during a wedding ceremony.

What would be the process for an “invalid” marriage, as you define it, to become convalidated?

It would be the same “whole process”, as the one you describe for a situation that has the “lack of form”, no? That is, it would still be required that they show they have no impediments to marriage, that they follow the form, and that they exchange consent during a wedding ceremony.

“Living in sin” isn’t a juridical term (to the best of my knowledge), and so, it’s difficult to use it in this context. However, in an objective sense, it would seem that they’re in a state of grave sin.

Yes–we weren’t really talking in juridical or legal terms, but rather apologetic or catechetical terms.