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

[GLam1761]

Yes, something like that, except that we aren’t living
together and we’re BOTH single.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So, you don’t live together, you are both single, and you two are in a long term relationship of some kind?

Assuming you are both free to marry, if you want to get married then by all means do so.

If one or both of you is not free to marry, I’d rethink the romantic nature of the relationship until you are both free to marry.

 

[OddBird]

@HomeschoolDad said it all

 

[PaladinSword]

in some forms of paganism, but it wouldnt prohibit them from remarrying

 

[Wannano]

Pattylt:

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!

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.

Not quite correct. I’m currently divorced from a “defect of form” if 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.

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.

If from the Catholic standpoint a civil marriage means nothing, it seems strange that the Church requires people to secure a civil divorce before trying for anulment.

I know of several non-Catholics who have been divorced and will not seek remarriage because they still see themselves as married in God’s eyes.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If from the Catholic standpoint a civil marriage means nothing, it seems strange that the Church requires people to secure a civil divorce before trying for anulment.

That has struck me as odd too, but supposedly the thinking is that the Church wants proof reconciliation is not possible, and certainly a finalized civil divorce provides that kind of proof. I would also imagine that if the Church did declare marriages null and void without a divorce first, someone could charge alienation of affection, or that an outside third party intervened to try to destroy the marriage. They still have “heart-balm” or “mother-in-law statutes” in some states.

Do not ever let third parties into your marriage.

 

[ltwin]

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?

Today, the United Methodist Church allows divorce and remarriage. As far as I know, there is no church approval needed, though individual ministers might refuse to marry someone they know is divorce. I’m not sure. When it comes to clergy, each conference (like a diocese) decides its own policy on divorced clergy.

This acceptance of divorce and remarriage was not always the case in the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church’s 1908 book of discipline stated that no divorce except in the case of adultery was lawful, and no minister could solemnize a marriage when either party had a divorced spouse still living (except in case of adultery).

 

[lilypadrees]

If they did, they wouldn’t marry someone new after their divorce.