Do divorced non-Catholics ever see themselves as still "married in the Eyes of God"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Moderator
Staff member
A Catholic who is divorced, without an annulment, and not in a “defect of form” situation, is viewed by the Church to be validly married until and unless the marriage is declared invalid. They may not remarry, and at least in contemporary “dating culture”, may not have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex that is unsuitable for a married person. (I say “dating culture” because “dating” is a socially conditioned construct, not a matter of canon law.)

Has anyone ever heard of a divorced non-Catholic who refrains from dating or marriage because they still view themselves as still being “married in the Eyes of God”? I’ve never heard of it.

Exceptions would be an Orthodox Jew who does not have a “get”, and possibly an Orthodox Christian whose civil divorce has not been ratified (or whatever the word is) by their bishop. The latter seems to be a use of economia, the logic of which escapes me. But aside from these exceptions?
 
I’ve never heard of any non catholic like that but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some.

Can I ask an additional question? In some countries, marriages are performed twice. Once in a civil setting and once in a church. When they divorce, do they have to do so twice? Once civilly and again through their religious offices? Always wondered about that!
 
But aren’t you Catholic? Do you know any non Catholics that feel that way?
 
Whoops I misread the title and I guess the first post.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Has anyone ever heard of a divorced non-Catholic who refrains from dating or marriage because they still view themselves as still being “married in the Eyes of God”? I’ve never heard of it.
Click to expand...
I know at least one personally. There are some Protestant denominations or non-denominational congregations who believe that divorce is possible, but only for adultery. The person I am speaking of believes that her former husband cheated on her during their marriage, but cannot prove it, so has not pursued a new relationship after their civil divorce.
 
In actuality, I don’t know that many Catholics who think this either.
 
My maternal grandmother didn’t believe in divorce and remarriage. She was Methodist. She didn’t believe in in having sexual unless you intended to have a child.
I know at least one Protestant who is divorced but does not intend to remarry as she believes she will always be married in the eyes of God.
 
Pattylt said:
I’ve never heard of any non catholic like that but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some.

Can I ask an additional question? In some countries, marriages are performed twice. Once in a civil setting and once in a church. When they divorce, do they have to do so twice? Once civilly and again through their religious offices? Always wondered about that!
Click to expand...
I got married in that fashion, in Europe, and had two ceremonies, the civil marriage in the morning at the county clerk’s office, and the sacramental marriage later that afternoon.

You do not get “divorced twice”. We have a civil divorce but no annulment, and one may never be possible. She has chosen to “remarry” invalidly without the permission of the Church. I remain celibate.
 
My mother does. She is Baptist. The words of Christ are unambiguous on this point. You don’t have to be Catholic to understand that.
 
whatistrue said:
I know at least one personally. There are some Protestant denominations or non-denominational congregations who believe that divorce is possible, but only for adultery. The person I am speaking of believes that her former husband cheated on her during their marriage, but cannot prove it, so has not pursued a new relationship after their civil divorce.
Click to expand...
skelly said:
I know at least one Protestant who is divorced but does not intend to remarry as she believes she will always be married in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...
mrsdizzyd said:
My mother does. She is Baptist. The words of Christ are unambiguous on this point. You don’t have to be Catholic to understand that.
Click to expand...
This is all very inspiring to know. Non-Catholics very often have a “divorce party” to celebrate being “free”, even if it’s just an impromptu knees-up at a local bar or pub.

Incidentally, two non-Catholics can file for a declaration of nullity in the Catholic Church. Oddly enough, being a Catholic is not a requirement. (Yes, I found that strange too.)
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
A Catholic who is divorced, without an annulment, and not in a “defect of form” situation, is viewed by the Church to be validly married until and unless the marriage is declared invalid.
Click to expand...
Not quite correct. I’m currently divorced from a “defect of form” civil marriage (I was lapsed at the time but returned several years later), without an annulment, and am being required to apply for one before being allowed to marry in the Church. It’s an informal case so it won’t actually go before the Tribunal judges, but I did have to send a request to the Tribunal offices.

When I asked why I needed to do this, it was explained to me that the marriage was not invalid but rather illicit. However, the very fact that I was clearly improperly formed (i.e., didn’t know enough to request the dispensation) means that my consent was, at best, questionable.

To address the OP: yeah, I’ve met a couple people who still consider themselves married in the eyes of God following a divorce. They tended to hold to some ultraconservative form of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity.
 
Thanks! If someone weren’t catholic…say Methodist…would they get a church divorce…assuming divorce is permitted within that church in addition to the civil divorce or would the civil divorce just be recognized in the Methodist church?
 
I don’t know about Methodists but in my Reformed tradition no additional procedure would be needed. But then we don’t even marry people, we bless their (civil) union. I’m also from Europe, and a civil wedding is necessary before any religious celebration where I live.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Has anyone ever heard of a divorced non-Catholic who refrains from dating or marriage because they still view themselves as still being “married in the Eyes of God”? I’ve never heard of it.
Click to expand...
My mum never did (dated). I can’t remember but I guess this was part of the reason she didn’t (also cos of us kids).
 
Last edited:
I do not know if the Methodist churches have any kind of annulment procedure. I would guess that they just recognize the civil divorce. I do know that at least one conservative Anglican continuing church does have an annulment procedure similar to ours.
 
Thank you. Do you know if the Catholic church’s marriage is also considered just blessing the civil marriage. I’m sure the church itself might not but how does general society see it? I’m glad to get your perspective!
 
Might I interject here, how 'bout those who are not
married and consider each other as “married in the
sight of God”??
I had a relationship like that, and now am in a similiar
predicament.
 
Pattylt said:
Thank you. Do you know if the Catholic church’s marriage is also considered just blessing the civil marriage. I’m sure the church itself might not but how does general society see it? I’m glad to get your perspective!
Click to expand...
No, from the Catholic standpoint, the civil marriage means nothing. As far as I am aware, the Church does require that evidence of the civil marriage earlier in the day be produced. There could be cases where the Church goes ahead with the Catholic ceremony, but as a general rule, I don’t think that is done. I’ve never heard of it.

General society doesn’t care whether the marriage is performed in the Church or not.
BTypical said:
Not quite correct. I’m currently divorced from a “defect of form” civil marriage (I was lapsed at the time but returned several years later), without an annulment, and am being required to apply for one before being allowed to marry in the Church. It’s an informal case so it won’t actually go before the Tribunal judges, but I did have to send a request to the Tribunal offices.

When I asked why I needed to do this, it was explained to me that the marriage was not invalid but rather illicit. However, the very fact that I was clearly improperly formed (i.e., didn’t know enough to request the dispensation) means that my consent was, at best, questionable.
Click to expand...
If there was defect of form, then the civil marriage is invalid, not just illicit. I suppose there could be cases where a couple wishes to marry, but they cannot have a Church wedding before a priest or deacon because of being impeded for some just cause (for instance, they are in a remote part of the world where a priest or deacon cannot be had for several months). Even then, canon law prescribes that a layperson can be the officiant, with the requisite permission. I don’t know your particulars, so I cannot say.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top