Is this Non-Catholic Christian Marriage bound by its vows?

[rightness]

I was talking to my loved one about one of her friends that had a divorce and remarriage. I don’t have too much information about it, but the friend, a man, in question is a baptised Christian. The person he married to is also a Christian. If it makes any difference, they are both Anglicans which “has seven sacraments” (quotation because they are probably not sacramental without a validly ordained priest). Without knowing much, they divorced because she left him for another man, again, I don’t know too much.

He has married another woman who is Catholic and is much better for him, though that’s irrelevant to the question. My question is this: Is he bound by his vows to his Christian marriage “til death do us part” and his first marriage is sacramental?

I’m not sure that, without valid ordained priest, if it is sacramental. I feel like it’s not from what I’ve been studying.

My followup if it is sacramental is this: if the first marriage is sacramental, is the Christian man and Catholic woman committing adultery (or whatever sin it might be called) if they are fully aware that the first marriage is sacramental and can’t be broken?

I don’t think it’s sacramental from what I read from similar topics and how the catechism treats non-Catholic marriage. Even if it is sacramental, there might be a case for annulment. In any case, I don’t think neither of them are learned enough about their faith to even ask whether their marriage was valid or not. Maybe this second marriage is also invalid because I’m not sure if they even married in the Catholic church.

 

[TomH1]

In Catholic theology the man and woman are the ministers of their own marriage. So if two Anglicans married they had a sacramental marriage and divorce does not end the marriage. It varies in the Anglican churches whether or not they will marry divorcees. However, in the Catholic Church a divorcee needs an annulment before s/he can marry again.

If this Anglican man married a Catholic woman one of two things must have happened. They got married outside the Catholic Church. Alternatively, without you knowing about it he got an annulment in order to be able to marry the Catholic woman. If the first is what happened the marriage is not valid and yes they are committing adultery.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

A valid marriage between two baptized people is sacramental. It doesn’t matter if it was witnessed by a minister, a judge, or whatever. So the assumption would be that his first marriage was both valid and sacramental.

Marriages involving Catholics have to follow Catholic form in order to be valid. This means the marriage must be witnessed by a priest or deacon or the couple needs a dispensation to be married in some other way.

Was the second marriage Catholic? If so, the first marriage would have been investigated as part of the process.

 

[1ke]

Is he bound by his vows to his Christian marriage “til death do us part” and his first marriage is sacramental?

Non-Catholics enter valid marriages, and when both are baptized, those marriages are also a sacrament.

I’m not sure that, without valid ordained priest, if it is sacramental. I feel like it’s not from what I’ve been studying

This is not correct.

if the first marriage is sacramental, is the Christian man and Catholic woman committing adultery

We don’t know the details of this situation. If the man married a Catholic in the Catholic Church then both parties were determined free to marry during the premarital investigation. This may or may not have included a decree of nullity for the man’s first marriage. It very much depends on details that you don’t seem to have.

If the Catholic in this situation did not marry according to the laws of the Church, and if the man was not free to marry, then yes this second marriage is invalid.

We cannot make such determinations. There is a decided lack of information here.

how the catechism treats non-Catholic marriage.

Non-Catholics marry validly when they marry if there are no impediments. If they are baptized, it is also sacramental and if unbaptized it’s a valid, natural marriage.

I don’t know what you mean by “how the catechism treats non-Catholic marriages”.

 

[rightness]

Yeah, I thought it would still be valid. I just wasn’t sure how to explain why it’s sacramental. I know their Eucharist isn’t sacramental without a validly ordained priest.

I really don’t know enough, and I’ll ask more about it later. I guess, if all my information is correct, and they are committing adultery, the man would need to get an annulment first. I don’t think it is a Catholic wedding because the priest should have not allowed it, but mistakes could be made. If the annulment is possible, all sins can be confessed and forgiven.

I guess there’s one more component to this. Is this a mortal sin if the man and the Catholic woman doesn’t know it’s a sin? Obviously, they said their vows. They knew the man had vows before, so they should have some knowledge about it, but these days, people don’t think seriously about it, so they might even think it’s wrong.

Edit: to 1ke, it might have been my supposition. I thought non-Catholics who marry a Catholic, and the marriage is outside of the Catholic church, need to marry again in a Catholic church.

 

[HopkinsReb]

If it makes any difference, they are both Anglicans which “has seven sacraments”

The 39 Articles of Religion only accept two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. Marriage is explicitly rejected as a sacrament, as it is in most (all?) Protestant churches.

quotation because they are probably not sacramental without a validly ordained priest

Per the Catholic Church, this depends on the sacrament in question. Marriage is carried out by the couple, not the minister, so it’s generally sacramental in Christian churches, even if the church in question rejects marriage as a sacrament. Baptism does not require an ordained priest; I can baptize someone.

Is he bound by his vows to his Christian marriage “til death do us part” and his first marriage is sacramental?

Probably so, unless there’s some other reason for the first marriage to have been invalid. The Catholic Church does not hold that anybody who is not married within the Catholic Church has an invalid marriage.

Is this a mortal sin if the man and the Catholic woman doesn’t know it’s a sin?

Mortal sin requires not only a grave sin to be committed, but also that it is committed with full knowledge. Therefore it would not constitute mortal sin.

Edit: to 1ke, it might have been my supposition. I thought non-Catholics who marry a Catholic, and the marriage is outside of the Catholic church, need to marry again in a Catholic church.

I think this depends on whether a dispensation was received prior to the marriage outside the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

Yeah, I thought it would still be valid. I just wasn’t sure how to explain why it’s sacramental.

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

I really don’t know enough, and I’ll ask more about it later. I guess, if all my information is correct, and they are committing adultery, the man would need to get an annulment first. I don’t think it is a Catholic wedding because the priest should have not allowed it, but mistakes could be made. If the annulment is possible, all sins can be confessed and forgiven.

I don’t really think this is your business. You don’t know these people. They haven’t asked for your assistance with their marriage. And, you don’t really know enough to help them.

If they ever do ask you, direct them to their Catholic pastor.

Edit: to 1ke, it might have been my supposition. I thought non-Catholics who marry a Catholic, and the marriage is outside of the Catholic church, need to marry again in a Catholic church.

You don’t know whether they married in the Church or not. You are assuming a lot of things.

 

[JulianN]

I really don’t know enough, and I’ll ask more about it later. I guess, if all my information is correct, and they are committing adultery, the man would need to get an annulment first. I don’t think it is a Catholic wedding because the priest should have not allowed it, but mistakes could be made. If the annulment is possible, all sins can be confessed and forgiven.

Just out of curiosity, how is this any of your concern? Have they asked you to help them determine the validity of their marriage? It doesn’t sound as if you even know them personally …

 

[1ke]

I guess there’s one more component to this. Is this a mortal sin if the man and the Catholic woman doesn’t know it’s a sin? Obviously, they said their vows. They knew the man had vows before, so they should have some knowledge about it, but these days, people don’t think seriously about it, so they might even think it’s wrong.

We always place things in the most charitable light possible. You have no facts nor any details, nor are you entitled to them. So you refrain from speculating on mortal sins of other people.

 

[rightness]

You guys seem to have my intentions in the wrong light, and I feel like I’m being accused for asking a question. Yes, I don’t know much about it, and when I do know or meet them personally, I want to have the right answers if it is brought up.

Even if it’s not brought up, I might be compelled to make light of it for their sake to make sure they’re in good standing with God. Isn’t this what this website is about? And it’s not about being accusatory to people who are just asking questions?

 

[rightness]

You’ve ventured from asking factual questions to asking if people are in mortal sin and telling us you plan to confront them about it if you ever meet them. That crosses all sorts of lines into “not OK” territory.

I would encourage you to talk to your own priest about this. He can guide you in how to comport yourself.

I’ll just end this discussion with you with this note. All who are baptized are the Body of Christ. If one falls, we are obligated to help each other. Yes, in the most charitable way, which is why I’m asking these questions to get the right facts. To avoid “their business” is to go against what we’re called to do, to evangelize, to bring truth to sinners, especially our brothers and sisters. St. Paul wrote about this very issue in 1 Corinthians 5, and the sinner repented and corrected himself in 2 Corinthians 2.

I’m not going to them and start pointing out their faults right then and there at the first meeting, I know how to create friendly dialogue with people, but to avoid issues altogether is not love. I have real concerns for people I don’t even know because I am earnestly concerned for all people. That is all I’m going to say if you still think I’m not entitled to ask that question about whether this form of unknowing adultery is a mortal sin. I think it’s not because mortal sin requires full knowledge and intention of the sin, but this is why I’m asking the question.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Planning to confront people you don’t even know to tell them about their sins is the sort of thing that gives religion in general a bad name. Christians are often accused of being judgmental and holier than thou and you’re jumping right in to claim the stereotype.

I find myself thinking about when the Pope washes the feet of prisoners on Holy Thursday. I haven’t seen any reports that he starts by telling them they’re sinners and need to repent for the crimes they’ve committed. He simply offers them love and acceptance. That seems much more attractive than accusations.

 

[1ke]

To avoid “their business” is to go against what we’re called to do, to evangelize, to bring truth to sinners, especially our brothers and sisters. St. Paul wrote about this very issue in 1 Corinthians 5

I encourage you to talk to your own pastor about fraternal correction, specifically your misguided notions surrounding it.

Fraternal correction is not an absolute. It is not without boundaries. In fact, it has some pretty specific ones that I don’t believe you meet in this situation.

 

[OnAJourney]

I think your intentions are good, but the way you’re going about this is just all wrong. Not to mention you’re hearing information about this couple second hand, information that was more than likely told in confidence with the expectation that no one else would hear it.

You’re obviously trying to be a good Catholic and you want this couple to have a full relationship with God, but what you’re proposing is just not the right course of action. The Church teaches quite a lot how our good intentions can be corrupted, and I think you knowing as much as you do about their marriage as a secondhand third party would absolutely be a corruption of good intentions

 

[rightness]

I think your intentions are good, but the way you’re going about this is just all wrong. Not to mention you’re hearing information about this couple second hand, information that was more than likely told in confidence with the expectation that no one else would hear it.

You’re obviously trying to be a good Catholic and you want this couple to have a full relationship with God, but what you’re proposing is just not the right course of action. The Church teaches quite a lot how our good intentions can be corrupted, and I think you knowing as much as you do about their marriage as a secondhand third party would absolutely be a corruption of good intentions

Thanks, you seem to have better advice on this situation. If I phrased the question to be more generic and not personal, the responses would probably be more productive for my knowledge. My last question is simply this: Is it a mortal sin if the couple in the second marriage does not have the knowledge about the fact that without annulling the existing marriage, that their marriage is adulterous?

Take all the personal out of the question and this thread wouldn’t be so derailed. I know I still have a lot to know, obviously, I know how to handle this situation, but what is being proposed to me is that I should turn a blind eye to the problem, and because I’m not going to believe it’s none of my problem, I’m not going to get answers. I know the examples of many Saints who would do what they can to help people reach their salvation, so I know my intentions are right, and, with the Word of God, my methods will be charitable and loving.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Mortal sin requires knowledge.

For example, if you’ve never heard of rash judgment you can’t be guilty of it. On the other hand, if you do know about it and choose to do it anyway, there’s a problem.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

 

[rightness]

Mortal sin requires knowledge.

For example, if you’ve never heard of rash judgment you can’t be guilty of it. On the other hand, if you do know about it and choose to do it anyway, there’s a problem.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

Thanks, but we’re talking about divorce and remarriage, not rash judgement. There’s no judgement of any kind except that on me on this forum, as far as I can see. I’ve already been called a sinner, a gossiper, and all sorts already, but I don’t hold that against anybody because it’s the internet.

But, to clarify, you say that their marriage isn’t a mortal sin, right? Since they have no idea it is adultery, they are in good standing with God with their marriage?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We are incapable of determining whether another person is in a state of mortal sin.
We can tell them that their actions may be considered grave matter by the Church, but we do not know enough about any particular person’s state of mind or other circumstances to say, “You committed a mortal sin.”
When someone asks on this forum whether such and such act in thus and so circumstances is a mortal sin, the preferred answer is, “We can’t make that determination. Please speak to a priest.” Or in this case, the man in question that you are concerned about would need to speak, himself, to a priest.