S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Is it allowed for a man to marry a protestant woman who has been previously married and divorced? If not, then why not?
- Status
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
B
BeeSweet
Guest
Technically, since divorce is not permissible, the church does not allow any Catholic, male or female to marry any person who has been previously married. What has to be done in these cases is an investigation into the previous marriage to determine whether or not it was sacramental (whether they are Catholic or non-Catholic when the marriage took place). If it was not a sacramental marriage, then the marriage never existed and can therefore be annulled. This is an extremely complicated process and can take more than a year in most cases before a determination can be made. Catholics seeking marriage to any divorced person must proceed with caution knowing the church may not be able to prove the previous marriage never existed, and they may not be able in the end to marry this person.
Each and every case is different, so beyond the description above, you would have to speak with someone who understands canon law, and you would have to have specific details.
Why we do this is because Jesus tells us:
Matthew 5:32 “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9 “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11-12 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
B
BeeSweet
Guest
This thread may answer some of your questions on the subject.
P
Phemie
Guest
No, it determines whether or not the marriage was VALID. Not every valid marriage is sacramental.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
God established that marriage would be for life. Jesus spoke of this in the Gospels that God did not permit divorce and re-marriage to another person as long as the original spouse was still alive. It’s Divine law and applies to everyone.
1
1ke
Guest
Your question is a little vague.
First, a Catholic should seek to marry a Catholic. Mixed marriage is a bad idea.
If a person is insistent on a mixed marriage, they must comply with the laws of the Church. The Church cannot “marry” a person who is valid married to another. Therefore, this protestant woman would have to apply for a decree of nullity through the Catholic Church. IF, and only if, her first marriage is found to be null could she marry a Catholic.
If this is more than a hypothetical question, the Catholic should go see their priest immediately. They are dating a married person, and that is unwise.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
True, thanks for the correction. I thought reeeeaaaallll long and hard before I answered, and I still got it wrong!
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Ok, the reason I asked isn’t hypothetical. My sister was raised in the Baptist church, married, had a daughter, and then got divorced on very legitimate grounds.
A few years later she married a man who was Catholic, they had a son and the Catholic church refused to baptise the son.
It made no sense to me then, and makes none now. Why wouldn’t they baptise him? I thought it was because the marriage was invalid but still that doesn’t make sense to me?
A few years later she married a man who was Catholic, they had a son and the Catholic church refused to baptise the son.
It made no sense to me then, and makes none now. Why wouldn’t they baptise him? I thought it was because the marriage was invalid but still that doesn’t make sense to me?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
sounds like there is more to the story than facts related, and this is not what you asked in OP.
no, baptism may not be denied to the child because the parents are not validly married. However, the pastor may and even must delay baptism (not deny it entirely, delay it) until such time as he receives assurance that the parents and those assisting them will raise the child Catholic, educated him in the faith, and bring him to other sacraments. It may be–and we don’t know, we were not there–that the parents could not provide such assurance.
responding to your OP, all people are bound by natural law, which is that marriage is between one man and one woman, and is for life, whether it is a natural marriage (between two unbaptized persons who are otherwise free to marry) or sacramental marriage (between baptized persons who are otherwise free to marry). Anyone, baptized or not, who is already married is not free to marry again. Civil divorce has no effect on a valid marriage.
Anyone who has been married and divorced, who wishes to marry a Catholic, must submit the first marriage for investigation and judgment by the canon law tribunal of their own diocese, or the diocese where the marriage took place. If, after investigation, the tribunal finds the conditions necessary for valid marriage and consent were NOT in place at the time of the marriage, they will issue a decree of nullity, a statement that the marriage never existed, and both parties will be free to marry again.
The annulment has nothing to do with things that happened after the wedding, but judges the circumstances at the time of the contract, based on testimony of witnesses.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
And you believe this is God’s law?
E
ElizabethAnne
Guest
We believe that when God says He is going to do something, He does it. Which means that when God marries two people, joining them for life, He really does that and it cannot be undone. That’s why the annulment process determines whether or not a valid marriage occurred at the time of the wedding. Once a valid marriage happens; it’s life-long.
I assume your sister and her husband did not get married in the Catholic Church (otherwise this would have come up sooner). If so, this has the opportunity to be a time of great grace for him and a chance to reconnect with his Catholic faith. God is calling him back, and I pray that your brother-in-law will answer that call.
1
1ke
Guest
Of course it’s God’s law.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
Yes, it’s God’s law instituted in the beginning of creation (Gen 2:22-24), confirmed and made plain for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God Incarnate (Mt 5:32, Mat 19:9, Mk 10:11-12 Lk 16:18).
N
NetNuncio
Guest
Bee is kind and wise to point out the scriptural references where this is God’s law.
However, it is important to remember that we are not Protestants. If the law were to be defined through the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition, it would be just as binding and just as much God’s Law. We do not confine God to one book, no matter how sacred that book may be.
O
otjm
Guest
Sister amy, for some reason I have a suspicion that you are not Catholic. Because of that, some of the terms we use may seem confusing. I will answer assuming you are not Catholic.
We consider that there are seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconcilliation (also knowsn as Confession), Marriage, Ordination (there are actuall three stages of Ordination - Deacon, Priest, and Bishop) and Anointing of the Sick (often called Extreme Unction or Last Rites). we believe that Christ gave the Church the seven sacraments, and that they are more than just signs. We consider them an outward sign, which was instituted by Christ, and that they are not just a sign, but a sign that does something. For example, we beleive that in the Gospels, when at the Last Supper Christ said “This is My Body”, and “This is My Blood”, that the bread and wine actually change in susbstance (not accidents) into his Body and Blood. We have a tendency to look at Scripture, and if Scripture says that marriage is permanent, to take that literally. Interestingly, there is a good bit in Scripture about marriage and its pemanency (see, also, St. Paul).
The Church looks at marriage in terms of a sacrament. This is where language gets confusing, because the State also looks at marriage; but not as a sacrament but rather as a contract. The State can look to see if the contract is valid (there are also annulments in State law; for example, you cannot marry someone too closely realted to you; it would not be a valid contract; or you can’t be forced to marry - the “shotgun” wedding). The sate can say that you have a valid marriage, but you are now divorced if there is a trial for divorce - to break a valid contract.
The Church says it has no authority to break a valid sacrament; God, through His Son Christ revealed that in the New Testament.
However, there is still the issue of whether onr not a sacrament actually occured. The issue is intent. To have a vlaid sacrament, one must not have any impdeiments. one of the impediments to a valid marriage is that one of the parties is not free to marry; and one is not free to marry if one is already married to someone else.
Again, note: the State doesn’t say anything about the validity of a sacrament; it only says something about the legal contract; either you didn’t have one(the State annuls the marriage) or you did have one and the State breaks the contract.
On the other hand, the Church doesn’t say anything about the contract (that is the State’s business) but only says whether or not there was a valid sacrament. If the Church says there was no valid sacrament in the previous contract, then one is free to marry sacramentally, as one has not been married sacramentally up to that point.
(continued in next post)
O
otjm
Guest
Sister Amy: continuing, The Church, if it grants an annulment (actually, it is technically called a decree of nullity - nullity meaning there was never a sacrament), it does not, as I noted, say anything about the legal contract. That means, it does not say that legally the two people were not married; it only says they were not married sacramentally. That is why the Church never says that children born of that relationship are illegitimate; that is a State issue.
The issues the Church looks at in a marriage case have to do with impediments such as a previous marriage, or being too closely related. It also looks at issues of intent, such as, for example the “shotgun” marriage (was one party pregnant at the time of the wedding? This can go to intent - the parites may be marrying only because of the child on the way, and not because they intend a permanent sacramental marriage). There can be psychlogical impediments which would prevent one from forming the proper intent. Whatever may be the impediment, it had to exist at the time of the marriage.
It may be that in your sister’s first marriage, her then husband had an impdeiment that would prevent them from having a sacramental marriage. she would have to apply to a Catholic tribunal to have that first marriage looked at to see if it was a sacrament or not. Mny people who are not Catholics feel that what they did is no business of the Catholic Church’s, and they will not go through the process (some find it a blessing; others find it to be very painful as it brings up all the issues of the previous marriage). If her current husband is going to wnat to practice his faith - that is, be an active Catholic - then she will need to go through the process - for him, if not for her. If the Church did decide that the first marriage was not a sacrament, again, it would not say anything at all about the legitimacy of her daughter; the daughter is legitimate, no questions asked.
If she did go through the process, adn the Church did find that the marriage was not sacramental, then she and her current husband would need to go through a rpivate ceremony ahving the marriage blessed.
And if that all happened, and he still wanted his child to be baptized, he would still need to show that he was willing to raise that child Catholic. We do not take the sacraments lightly.
i hope that helps.
The issues the Church looks at in a marriage case have to do with impediments such as a previous marriage, or being too closely related. It also looks at issues of intent, such as, for example the “shotgun” marriage (was one party pregnant at the time of the wedding? This can go to intent - the parites may be marrying only because of the child on the way, and not because they intend a permanent sacramental marriage). There can be psychlogical impediments which would prevent one from forming the proper intent. Whatever may be the impediment, it had to exist at the time of the marriage.
It may be that in your sister’s first marriage, her then husband had an impdeiment that would prevent them from having a sacramental marriage. she would have to apply to a Catholic tribunal to have that first marriage looked at to see if it was a sacrament or not. Mny people who are not Catholics feel that what they did is no business of the Catholic Church’s, and they will not go through the process (some find it a blessing; others find it to be very painful as it brings up all the issues of the previous marriage). If her current husband is going to wnat to practice his faith - that is, be an active Catholic - then she will need to go through the process - for him, if not for her. If the Church did decide that the first marriage was not a sacrament, again, it would not say anything at all about the legitimacy of her daughter; the daughter is legitimate, no questions asked.
If she did go through the process, adn the Church did find that the marriage was not sacramental, then she and her current husband would need to go through a rpivate ceremony ahving the marriage blessed.
And if that all happened, and he still wanted his child to be baptized, he would still need to show that he was willing to raise that child Catholic. We do not take the sacraments lightly.
i hope that helps.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Thank you for that very thorough answer–you are right to assume that I’m not Catholic. I’m kind of irritated at my brother-in-law though (unfortunately, I usually am for various reasons) for not working this issue out before they got married. My sister’s previous husband had been raised Catholic but joined the Baptist Church to get married. I don’t really know all the details, just that for a while after the boy was born they were really upset about the church not wanting to baptize him.
And truthfully I can kind of see that now–if you look at the baptism as not an act itself with meaning but symbolic that the family would raise him Catholic. Given the circumstances I can see why a priest would not see that to be the likely outcome and maybe he thought being strong against them would help. I don’t know.
But thanks for your answer.
And truthfully I can kind of see that now–if you look at the baptism as not an act itself with meaning but symbolic that the family would raise him Catholic. Given the circumstances I can see why a priest would not see that to be the likely outcome and maybe he thought being strong against them would help. I don’t know.
But thanks for your answer.
- Status