B
BlackFriar
Guest
Do you disagree with Original Sin teaching too?
Same principle.
Same principle.
Last edited:
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Punished by whom? By God for uniting them in the first place? Or by the spouse by deserting them?Brendan:
That doesn’t seem fair to the person who was wronged. It is as if they are being punished for the sins of someone else.
L
lanman87
Guest
By the church for forcing them to stay single or not be allowed to participate in the sacraments because of the actions of someone else. It just doesn’t seem very compassionate to say “I’m sorry your spouse was a jerk and left you but you had a valid marriage so you can’t fall in love and marry someone else”
R
Rau
Guest
It is validity of the act of marrying that matters. Were the parties honest with each other? Were they individually capable of making the commitment? Were there impediments to marrying validly? This is what matters. Later bad behaviour cannot invalidate the marriage, or grant a right to abrogate vows (dissolve the marriage) though it may suggest some defect at the time of marriage.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Did not both parties vow until death do us part?
That is not really code for until my partner abandons me.
Maybe it is for some people. If so the marriage was invalid.
But how to prove that?
That is the heart of the issue.
That is not really code for until my partner abandons me.
Maybe it is for some people. If so the marriage was invalid.
But how to prove that?
That is the heart of the issue.
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
So the Church is punishing them by not letting be married to two people at the same time? Where would the Church get that kind of authority?Brendan:
By the church for forcing them to stay single or not be allowed to participate in the sacraments because of the actions of someone else. It just doesn’t seem very compassionate to say “I’m sorry your spouse was a jerk and left you but you had a valid marriage so you can’t fall in love and marry someone else”
L
lanman87
Guest
I know a woman in her 30s’. She married her high school sweetheart, they started a life together, had a couple of kids. His National Guard Unit got deployed to Iraq. When he came home he had PTSD. He started self medicating with alcohol and became an alcoholic. He then had several affairs and even hired a prostitute. After years of trying to make it work, taking him to therapy, taking him to rehab, putting up with the fact he couldn’t hold a job and even being scared for the well being of their children, he left her.
She has had a very difficult time for a long time. Recently she met someone else and started a relationship. It would be cruel to tell this women that she can’t marry this man, especially after seeing what she went through to try and save her previous marriage.
I don’t think Christ is cruel.
R
Rau
Guest
The woman established this restriction when she married (validly). Her situation is desperately difficult for sure.
B
Brendan
Guest
So who has the authority to dissolve the first marriage?Brendan:
I know a woman in her 30s’. She married her high school sweetheart, they started a life together, had a couple of kids. His National Guard Unit got deployed to Iraq. When he came home he had PTSD. He started self medicating with alcohol and became an alcoholic. He then had several affairs and even hired a prostitute. After years of trying to make it work, taking him to therapy, taking him to rehab, putting up with the fact he couldn’t hold a job and even being scared for the well being of their children, he left her.
She has had a very difficult time for a long time. Recently she met someone else and started a relationship. It would be cruel to tell this women that she can’t marry this man, especially after seeing what she went through to try and save her previous marriage.
I don’t think Christ is cruel.
R
Rau
Guest
I speculate he would wish it can be viewed as a civil contract.
L
lanman87
Guest
Legally the state has a right to dissolve a marriage, from a secular point of view.
Spiritually, the church should recognize that an injustice has been done and deam the marriage to be dissolved. Actually, I would say the actions of the husband killed the marriage and the church should recognize that fact.
R
Rau
Guest
If the PTSD is the underlying cause of the husband’s aberrant behaviour, does that make any difference in your mind?
L
lanman87
Guest
At some point we all must take responsibility for our actions. He had a lot of support, had a lot of counseling and therapy, and they went through several rounds of marriage counseling. It was a really sad situation but ultimately he chose alcohol and women over getting better and saving his marriage. He was warned over and over again about the consequences of his actions and how he was hurting his family. He didn’t care.
So yes it makes a difference in that he also was a victim, but at the same time you have to overcome the situation. He didn’t have any desire to overcome the situation.
R
Rau
Guest
Fundamentally the commitment to permanence of marriage is not contingent on future circumstances and behaviors. It seems to me no less “cruel” for a spouse to be “trapped” in marriage to a gravely injured and disabled spouse unable to interact meaningfully with the other party.
I think fundamentally you are saying that marriage ought not involve a permanent commitment. I can understand why one might hold that opinion.
P
Phemie
Guest
Must be careful with terms. Illicit and invalid are two very different things. You can have an illicit valid marriage. You can’t have a licit invalid marriage.
It would be illicit for a priest to celebrate the marriage of a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic without the permission of the bishop. The marriage would still be presumed valid.
If he celebrated the marriage of a Catholic and a non-baptized without a dispensation it would be invalid.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Noone said she cannot marry again and meet a happy Christ when she one day dies.
Noone said she cannot be a member of her parish and be welcomed by them.
(OK maybe not pre 1983).
The issue, presumably, is one of Communion.
If she is unable to abstain she is unable to receive due to her unfortunate but tolerated counter witness to Jesus’s teaching and her own marriage vow.
That seems perfectly acceptable to most Church loving Catholics.
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
A divorced person can still be a participant in the church and in the sacraments… just can’t remarry without annulment. Go talk to the priest.
’
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
By responsibility you seem to be overlooking the vow “in sickness and in health”.
Now no one is superhuman, staying together is not compelled by these vows, divorce is tolerated in many cases.
The difficulty is the remarriage.
And it is only a difficulty so far as Communion is concerned, the remarried are still welcome members of the Church.
Not a big consequence for being unable to witness to a very significant teaching I am thinking.
Now no one is superhuman, staying together is not compelled by these vows, divorce is tolerated in many cases.
The difficulty is the remarriage.
And it is only a difficulty so far as Communion is concerned, the remarried are still welcome members of the Church.
Jesus taught us this is not possible. If one wants to be a Catholic the teaching has to be respected and the consequences manned up to surely? The only consequence is inability to receive Communion.
Not a big consequence for being unable to witness to a very significant teaching I am thinking.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Wasn’t his observation that the Catholic won’t be allowed re-marriage in the Catholic Church and will be advised that to marry civilly (absent dec of nullity) is morally wrong?
Last edited:
- Status