Help on Dating, the Eucharist, annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_am_learning
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
It is just an anomaly in your posting history. If you showed me a `1000 posts of yours and then this, with no names attached I would never attribute it to the great 1ke!

I suppose the “it is imprudent” part we agree on but I guess even Michael Jordan missed a couple of shots right?

Just in case, can you tell me that you are ok? That someone did not steal your identity online?
Quick, say something 1keish that is dead on…😉
Click to expand...
Ha ha.

I’m not great. I’m human. Yes, some people disagree with me on this one. That’s fine.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
It is just an anomaly in your posting history. If you showed me a `1000 posts of yours and then this, with no names attached I would never attribute it to the great 1ke!

I suppose the “it is imprudent” part we agree on but I guess even Michael Jordan missed a couple of shots right?

Just in case, can you tell me that you are ok? That someone did not steal your identity online?
Quick, say something 1keish that is dead on…😉
Click to expand...
Oh, and if you read carefully, I didn’t say it is “never” grave matter. I said that I don’t think you can make a blanket statement that it is grave matter. Because each case is different. Some may be very straight forwards-- lack of form, Ligamen, Pauline Privilege, or even a formal case can be very clear. Others may be less clear cut. Some might involve Protestants or converts or other situations.

I don’t think we can say in a blanket manner that it is grave matter. I think it lies in the realm of prudential judgment. In some cases it may not be sinful at all. In others it might be venial and in others grave matter.
 
Jimmy Akin (senior apologist of Catholic Answers):

Dating Without An Annulment jimmyakin.com/2006/03/dating_without_.html

Read the whole post from him he gets into various aspects

Spoiler alert…

He ends with these words:

“Bottom line: Dating when you are not clearly free to contract marriage is fundamentally disordered on multiple fronts and just plain wrong.”
 
Just my 2 cents on this one. In today’s society dating is often used to describe a romantic intimate relationship. When a divorced person is in such a relationship without a decree of nullity it very well could be a grave matter, if the person is a Catholic I would presume they know it’s a grave matter and choose to do it any way, therefore a mortal sin.

Just such a Catholic is why I came into the church. I was a non practicing divorced protestant dating a divorced Catholic. I went to Mass with him and enjoyed the Catholic Church but wasn’t sure about converting. One homily was about marriage and Catholic teaching on marriage. I had no idea this was such a serious matter. On the way home I asked my boyfriend if he knew this and what did it mean in terms of our relationship. He did know it and was under the mistaken assumption that an annulment would cause his children to be illegitimate. Our relationship continued but there was a change from that day on.

I did some research online about annulments and found some useful resources on what decrees of nullity really were. I started RCIA and in that process learned so much more, enough that I knew the relationship was wrong on so many levels so I ended the relationship and kept the church. Best decision ever. And yes I confessed my part in my sins with the man I had been dating.
 
1ke said:
In some cases it may not be sinful at all. In others it might be venial and in others grave matter.
Click to expand...
This can only be known after the final decision by the ecclesiastic court, not before.

Pax Christi
 
Tim_D said:
Rubbish. I’ve been out with girls without having romantic intentions. Sometimes people simply like to enjoy life a little. You would prefer people simply sitting in a room alone with the tv for the rest of their lives?
Click to expand...
Poppycock! There are plenty of opportunities to serve others and enjoy human companionship in the process. Of course, it demands of you to give of yourself instead of going after receiving.

Pax Christi
 
Augustine said:
This can only be known after the final decision by the ecclesiastic court, not before.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
Not at all. In the case of lack of form and Ligamen it can be known *before *such a “final decision”.

In the case of the Pauline Privilege it is actually the *new marriage *that dissolves the natural bond. I’m not sure how one would enter a new marriage without having dated someone while still married to the first person, albeit legally divorced.

So, again-- NOT intrinsically evil and NOT a mortal sin. May or may not be venial or grave matter in individual cases.
 
1ke said:
Not at all. In the case of lack of form and Ligamen it can be known *before *such a “final decision”.

In the case of the Pauline Privilege it is actually the *new marriage *that dissolves the natural bond. I’m not sure how one would enter a new marriage without having dated someone while still married to the first person, albeit legally divorced.

So, again-- NOT intrinsically evil and NOT a mortal sin. May or may not be venial or grave matter in individual cases.
Click to expand...
You raise a good point in regard to Pauline (and Favor of the Faith) cases. They require a “new marriage” in order to work.

I’d be more hesitant about ligamen scenarios, though, since those can have unforeseen/hidden problems that make them, in fact, not ligamen.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
You raise a good point in regard to Pauline (and Favor of the Faith) cases. They require a “new marriage” in order to work.

I’d be more hesitant about ligamen scenarios, though, since those can have unforeseen/hidden problems that make them, in fact, not ligamen.

Dan
Click to expand...
My point isn’t that it’s ok to just go dancing through the daisies and “date” with abandon without considering the fact of your prior marriage or that of the person you are interested in.

My point is that I don’t think you can say it’s intrinsically evil and certainly not a “mortal sin” based simply on the fact that there is a prior marriage in the mix. It’s a case by case situation and I firmly believe it’s in the area of prudential judgment.
 
Yes, you’ve posted that same post multiple times, Bookcat. That is Jimmy Akin’s opinion, and I disagree with it.
 
1ke said:
Yes, you’ve posted that same post multiple times, Bookcat. That is Jimmy Akin’s opinion, and I disagree with it.
Click to expand...
It was not addressed directly to you…

In a on going thread - with many posts and opinions expressed I have re-posted yes his excellent article jimmyakin.com/2006/03/dating_without_.html on the matter (there is not need for me to re-invent the wheel that he has done so well in crafting)

… for the sake of new readers who do not read an entire thread.
 
Augustine said:
Breaking one’s presumed vow of fidelity, before being released from it via an annulment, is at the very least venially sinful.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
What if the wife was abandoned by her husband nd she is dating for companionship, but not having sex?
I know someone like that and as far as I know, she’s not seeking an annulment.
 
Faith1960 said:
What if the wife was abandoned by her husband nd she is dating for companionship, but not having sex?
I know someone like that and as far as I know, she’s not seeking an annulment.
Click to expand...
She should still get an annulment. If that husband is married to her through the Church, she is still married without an annulment.
 
I don’t know how bad of a sin it is, but it surely is wrong.
I’ve heard that a number of Priests around here have not been too against dating before an annulment. For example, one Priest said to someone who’s marriage would most probably get an annulment, that they can date, but should get an Annulment started.
 
Part of the discussion seems to revolve around the definition of “dating”. One person put the definition as romantic involvement; another seems to find any circumstance of a male being in any social setting with a female, one of them divorced, to be sinful or so close as to not be identifiably other.

There are many social situations in which someone is put into a very uncomfortable position if they show up single. Having someone of the opposite sex with them has way more to do with form than substance; they may simply be acquaintances.

There are also times where someone is not looking for any sort of romantic attachment; they are simplify friends doing something - often in a group setting - because they enjoy each other’s company. Sadly, in today’s world of sexual super saturation, too many presume that if people of the opposite sex do any more than say “hello”, they are headed for an affair of the bedroom.

Anyone who is divorced needs to be very honest with themselves as to what they do and why. Lack of self honesty leads to serious problems, and not just in this area, but in any area of sin. 1ke is right on the money - in some circumstances dating - meaning doing anything one-on-one with someone of the opposite sex while one of them is divorced with no decree of nullity - is at the least imprudent. It may not be imprudent at all; it may be imprudent because it has a potential to become more serious; or it may be sinful.

Self honesty and prudence are necessary - an not just in this realm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top