I am dating a divorced Catholic... Should I refrain from communion?

[Speak_Up]

Thank you for your insight, and for your prayers.

Does you know if there is any official Church teaching on this issue? Perhaps I just need to inform my conscience…

The official Church teaching is that dating, and since you mentioned a physical relationship, having sex with, a married man is adultery. Period, end of story, no long fancy argument. And rejecting the Eucharist in order to continue living in adultery is the kind of action that puts one’s soul in the gravest of danger. From your casual attitude toward it, I don’t think you really, truly understand what the Eucharist is.

 

[whatevergirl]

The official Church teaching is that dating, and since you mentioned a physical relationship, having sex with, a married man is adultery. Period, end of story, no long fancy argument. And rejecting the Eucharist in order to continue living in adultery is the kind of action that puts one’s soul in the gravest of danger. From your casual attitude toward it, I don’t think you really, truly understand what the Eucharist is.

*And there you have it, shewho.

I take too long to say the same things other can muster in a few sentences. Ah well, but this is the Truth of the Church, shewho.

shewho, when you went through RCIA, did they not touch upon these teachings at all?*

 

[Speak_Up]

Shewho, putting all religious issues aside, any guy who dates you for four years and still isn’t sure he wants to marry you is a) a cad or b) someone so immature or damaged that he cannot seriously be considered marriage material.

Either he chooses to constantly dwell in his pain and allow it to rob him of the here and now, or he just likes the way things are, because he’s gotten everything he wants without having to sacrifice or obligate himself to you in any real way to get it. You know how many guys that tell some woman that he doesn’t want to marry, or is unsure he could because of past pain, or that he doesn’t believe in marriage, after they break up, end up married to someone else inside of a year or two? It’s not that they don’t want to marry, they don’t want to marry you.

And women who string themselves along telling themselves different waste their lives, and don’t value themselves enough to hold out for the guy who is willing to give everything of himself to her.

 

[joandarc2008]

Thank you for your insight, and for your prayers.

Does you know if there is any official Church teaching on this issue? Perhaps I just need to inform my conscience…

Here is what the Cathechism says about it:

1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the "]Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart/COLOR]. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble.159
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Knowing now that he is married this is what the CCC says about adultery:

In case that is not completely clear since you now have seen that Church defines your bf as married here is what the catechism says about adultery:

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173

2381 Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union.

Just think about it like this - would you continue to date this man if he had a ring on his finger?

Just my :twocents:

 

[agapewolf]

Whether or not we have been dating as a means to marriage, or purely out of enjoyment of each others company is not an issue I care to have up for debate here. Whether others approve of a dating relationship as lengthy as the one we have is also not an issue I care to have up for debate.
The facts remain that we have been dating for a certain length of time, have a wonderful relationship, and I have only just realized that I may be going against Church teaching by doing so.

As a side note, I am confident that his intentions were pure from the beginning and have remained so. I also don’t believe that he was previously familiar with the annulment process, or the time frame that it usually takes.

And yes, I think he has grounds for an annulment. Thanks for asking.

Dating for “enjoyment of company” is building bonds that are most likely going to be broken later. That is not healthy to anyone. The purpose of dating is to find a spouse.

 

[Sierrah]

Ok so what if you’re dating someone who is divorced and going through the annulment process and you’ve always had a strong feeling of goodness attached to the person. I mean that they are someone honorable??

 

[SpaceNeedle]

for Whatevergirl: you would be AMAZED how this gets glossed over in RCIA. It’s really something.

But in general: I don’t think it is our place to judge where anyone’s relationship should be after four years, especially someone who already has a child. You always tread more carefully when there are little ones involved. If they have taken things slow and are comfortable with that, especially with her previously being a non-denominational protestant, I fail to see what the issue is re: four years dating.

BUT; now the OP is Catholic, and things change a bit. For the OP If he cares for you, he’ll get to moving on an application for declaration of nullity. And even though it might be because of you, it may result in something that is a great burden-lifter for him

 

[Speak_Up]

Ok so what if you’re dating someone who is divorced and going through the annulment process and you’ve always had a strong feeling of goodness attached to the person. I mean that they are someone honorable??

Your feelings are not truth. Look for independent confirmation that the person is good and honorable. Look at their actions, the way they live their life, the causes they support. Look at how they treat people other than you, especially those that could be considered subordinates. Look at how he treats his ex and his kids. If all those things back up your feelings, then you are likely on the right track.

 

[Shewho]

shewho, when you went through RCIA, did they not touch upon these teachings at all?*

They did a session on annulment, but I don’t remember there being anything said in regards to dating a person before their previous marriage was annuled. We had a couple (2nd) married or engaged couples who were waiting on previous marriages to be annuled. That was about the extent of it.

BUT; now the OP is Catholic, and things change a bit. For the OP If he cares for you, he’ll get to moving on an application for declaration of nullity. And even though it might be because of you, it may result in something that is a great burden-lifter for him

Yeah, I think he would persue that if I asked him, and it may move in that direction even without my asking. I hope your right about it being a burdon lifter.

joandarc2008, Thank you for the quotations… and all of you. It’s a lot to meditate on.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Hi again, shewho…

I hope we didn’t come at you too strongly with this information. We just don’t want to see you doing something that will cause your soul harm, that’s all…or the man you’re dating. I hope you figure out what to do…and again, praying for you.

As an aside, that’s a little disconcerting that ‘‘engaged’’ couples who hadn’t even received declarations of nullity for their previous marriages, were teaching RCIA. I am wondering …is there an assumption by most, that it will just automatically go through, so they go on with their lives as if it has gone through? You know what I mean? That’s interesting, finding that you from you, here. (and spaceneedle, I noticed you made a point about that also) Hmmm*.

 

[Shewho]

Whatevergirl, Sorry, I may have mis-spoke… The couples I was referring to in RCIA were going through RCIA, not teaching it.

I do very much appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Thank you.

 

[Shewho]

Joand,
I was reading the references you quoted, and came across #2386. This seems to be the case relating to my boyfriend… But, how do you apply it to this situation?

It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

Edit: Also, when you look at the verse in Matt 16:18, the verb “apolyo” translated as “putteth away” seems to be translated exclusively for proactive usage. In other words, it’s only talking about the person who caused the divorce. Either the person who sent the other spouse away, or the one who did the leaving. Both are proactive, and neither refer to a spouse who was left in spite of their intentions.

Then there is the Pauline Privilege which makes an exception when an unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage because they disagree with the other spouse’s faith. I can understand that, but what happens in the same circumstances if the first spouse leaves for a different reason… especially considering the above?

 

[quiet52]

Your pastor is wrong – this is simply and absolutely NOT a subjective matter of personal conscience. It is an objective matter: in the eyes of the Church, your boyfriend is MARRIED until the tribunal finds that his marriage was not a valid one (and that decision must be based on certain grounds). No one may date a married person.
Please call the diocesan Tribuinal Office for proper guidance, since your pastor is not well-informed.

 

[Sierrah]

Your feelings are not truth. Look for independent confirmation that the person is good and honorable. Look at their actions, the way they live their life, the causes they support. Look at how they treat people other than you, especially those that could be considered subordinates. Look at how he treats his ex and his kids. If all those things back up your feelings, then you are likely on the right track.

Well from what I know of him and how he behaves toward his children and the way he has always treated me he seems honorable.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I’m glad he’s honorable. But he is sadly misinformed. It is simply not okay for a divorced Catholic to date, without a decree of nullity.

In my RCIA class, there was an engaged couple, with a big diamond ring and everything, and they were just waiting for his annulment to come through so they could set the date. It wasn’t until I was looking into things for my own reasons that I discovered that this was actually a big problem.

 

[joandarc2008]

Joand,
I was reading the references you quoted, and came across #2386. This seems to be the case relating to my boyfriend… But, how do you apply it to this situation?

Edit: Also, when you look at the verse in Matt 16:18, the verb “apolyo” translated as “putteth away” seems to be translated exclusively for proactive usage. In other words, it’s only talking about the person who caused the divorce. Either the person who sent the other spouse away, or the one who did the leaving. Both are proactive, and neither refer to a spouse who was left in spite of their intentions.

Then there is the Pauline Privilege which makes an exception when an unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage because they disagree with the other spouse’s faith. I can understand that, but what happens in the same circumstances if the first spouse leaves for a different reason… especially considering the above?

This is why the process of anullment exists. If this is the case with your boyfriend than you have just started making the case for his anullment. However, until his anullment is decided and his sacrament is anulled he is still married.