Non-Catholic attended a wedding of a divorced Catholic?

[PRmerger]

In another thread a poster claimed here that:

I know that the catholic will marry someone even if they have been divorced. I was just at such a wedding last Saturday.

This is a statement that creates scandal!

One should know that if you attended a wedding of a Catholic and he/she was previously married, he/she cannot be married again.

Thus, either this wedding that one attends of a divorced Catholic was NOT at a Catholic Church, officiated by a priest.

OR!

This Catholic was never married before hand (i.e received a “declaration of nullity” or “annulment” for his/her previous relationship, but it was NOT a marriage) and he/she is free to marry for the first time in a Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does not feel free to “edit” the words of Jesus to make it more palatable. We obey him when he says, “If you divorce and marry another you commit adultery.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have also been to a wedding of a divorced Catholic in a Catholic Church. They were married before. Your church can and did declare there was not a marriage before. But that is a theological distinction. There was a wedding before. I sat through it. I bought a gift. You get the point. If someone wants to say it did not really happen, you cannot expect people to agree with you. We are not part of your church and what they say did not happen is not going to be persuasive to non-Catholics or the children of that “non-marriage”.

 

[PRmerger]

I have also been to a wedding of a divorced Catholic in a Catholic Church. They were married before. Your church can and did declare there was not a marriage before. But that is a theological distinction. There was a wedding before. I sat through it. I bought a gift. You get the point. If someone wants to say it did not really happen, you cannot expect people to agree with you. We are not part of your church and what they say did not happen is not going to be persuasive to non-Catholics or the children of that “non-marriage”.

Friend, I think you are mistaking “wedding” for marriage. A wedding is a day, a marriage is a lifetime, as the saying goes.

That you attended weddings of these previous couples, I have no doubt. No one says the wedding did not happen.

That they had a sacramental marriage, well, it appear that the first time they did not.

 

[ddarko]

Friend, I think you are mistaking “wedding” for marriage. A wedding is a day, a marriage is a lifetime, as the saying goes.

That you attended weddings of these previous couples, I have no doubt. No one says the wedding did not happen.

That they had a sacramental marriage, well, it appear that the first time they did not.

I think one thing to keep in mind is that the Annulment process has been abused by “Catholics”. Usually in North America, there are tons of lawyers and psychologist who are willing to offer services to get grounds for an annulment. It’s a sad situation but true. Then there is also the problem of some priests and bishops being “sympathetic” to couples.

Therefore it is possible that the above person attended a ceremony at a Catholic Church where a sacramental marriage was contracted and the couple just managed to get an annulment by fooling authorities.

So while Annulments cannot be granted for valid marriages, that is not to say that people have not abused the Annulment process, especially in North America and Europe.

But this is no fault in Church teaching. The Church teachings are very clear on the matter. A Sacramental marriage may never be dissolved and those who fool the church authorities are simply fooling themselves and causing scandal to others.

The Catholics teachings are perfect BUT the people are not perfect.

God Bless

 

[Iron_Donkey]

…But that is a theological distinction.

As is appropriate for a theological question.

 

[ddarko]

I have also been to a wedding of a divorced Catholic in a Catholic Church. They were married before. Your church can and did declare there was not a marriage before. But that is a theological distinction. There was a wedding before. I sat through it. I bought a gift. You get the point. If someone wants to say it did not really happen, you cannot expect people to agree with you. We are not part of your church and what they say did not happen is not going to be persuasive to non-Catholics or the children of that “non-marriage”.

If their was no sacramental marriage, there just isn’t one. Marriage is not a physical enterprise. Living together for a long time, having children etc. do not by themselves mean their was a sacramental marriage.

You have not provided us any useful information on the first marriage other than there was a wedding ceremony and you bought a gift for them. None of that indicates that the first marriage was sacramental.

It is not a matter of theological speculation either. If there is no sacramental marriage, there JUST ISN’T ONE.

I also don’t get the point of saying “it is just a theological distinction”. Are you trying to say that theological distinction means that it is irrelevant?
Do you think the difference between the Bible and Koran is “just theological distinction”, moral good and moral bad are just theological distinctions and hence either is fine?

God Bless

 

[Rightlydivide]

Do you understand the perspective, whether you agree or not, of an outsider? He was married. The state, the church, everyone said they were married. Then…they were not.
I understand there was a distinction and a determination made by the church in order to be annuled.
The state recognized the marriage. So then…they were not. The key PR states is sacramental. But that is a Catholic distinction. Not one that anyone else would recognize. Should we? Should we recognize your sacramental distinction when you do not recognize our religious distinctions?

 

[Nicea325]

Do you understand the perspective, whether you agree or not, of an outsider? He was married. The state, the church, everyone said they were married. Then…they were not.
I understand there was a distinction and a determination made by the church in order to be annuled.
The state recognized the marriage. So then…they were not. The key PR states is sacramental. But that is a Catholic distinction. Not one that anyone else would recognize. Should we? Should we recognize your sacramental distinction when you do not recognize our religious distinctions?

So the state and Catholic church said he was married? Did he marry inside an official RCC? If was married Catholic before and got the previous marriage annulled,then I believe it is legit. However,if he did not get an annullment,then if I am correct it is not legit and there is no way he could have re-married again sacramentally by the church.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Do you understand the perspective, whether you agree or not, of an outsider? He was married. The state, the church, everyone said they were married. Then…they were not.
I understand there was a distinction and a determination made by the church in order to be annuled.
The state recognized the marriage. So then…they were not. The key PR states is sacramental. But that is a Catholic distinction. Not one that anyone else would recognize. Should we? Should we recognize your sacramental distinction when you do not recognize our religious distinctions?

You should recognize that we see a distinction, and when talking to other Catholics about what occurred, you should recognize that they would see a distinction and so not leave those details out.

In an analogous way, not too long ago I had a protestant friend come to mass with me. I informed him that when he saw us genuflecting to the tabernacle, we were showing reverence for the Eucharist, because I did not want him to do something he believed to be wrong simply because he saw me and my family do so.

That is, honesty required that I give him information that I was reasonably certain he would use to come to a conclusion that I thought was wrong.

In a similar way, if you are talking to a Catholic and say you know two divorced people who remarried, honesty mandates that you pass on the information that they received an annulment first (or at least not make it seem as if they did not and/or act as if the fact is completely irrelevant to the Catholic part of the issue), regardless of whether you personally think that matters.

You would, of course, be free to debate the the truth of the Catholic teaching with him, but to give him the impression that what was going on was contrary to Catholic teaching and thus that there is an inconsistency in the faith by withholding that sort of information would be dishonest and wrong.

I am not trying to accuse you of doing or being the sort of person to do any of that, but just pointing out how these sorts of distinctions should be handled, in a way that respects both views even if only one of them (obviously) is believed to be correct.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The point I am making Nicea is it is not realistic for people outside of your church to not recognize this as a divorced Catholic getting married again in a Catholic Church. Yes, married by Catholic Church, in a Catholic Church, and then an annulment and another marriage.
I understand your system and beliefs. I do. But why should we, or anyone, see it as anything other than a marriage and divorce and a marriage? The Catholic Church makes that distinction, not anyone else. I can give several examples. Lets take any of the other sacraments that other churches use…holy orders, baptism. Churches do these. But Catholics do not recognize them. Thats fine. But it works both ways. When Catholics are joined in holy matrimony but then a few years later the same guy is joined in holy matrimony AGAIN in a Catholic Church…from our perspective, the states etc…he is divorced. I hope I am being clear. I understand your beliefs. But you cannot realistically expect other people to recognize a theological distinction (ie the concept of marriage not really occuring).
I am saying your not personally Nicea but a big collective Catholic “your”!

 

[Rightlydivide]

You should recognize that we see a distinction, and when talking to other Catholics about what occurred, you should recognize that they would see a distinction and so not leave those details out.

In an analogous way, not too long ago I had a protestant friend come to mass with me. I informed him that when he saw us genuflecting to the tabernacle, we were showing reverence for the Eucharist, because I did not want him to do something he believed to be wrong simply because he saw me and my family do so.

That is, honesty required that I give him information that I was reasonably certain he would use to come to a conclusion that I thought was wrong.

In a similar way, if you are talking to a Catholic and say you know two divorced people who remarried, honesty mandates that you pass on the information that they received an annulment first, regardless of whether you personally think that matters.

You would, of course, be free to debate the the truth of the Catholic teaching with him, but to give him the impression that what was going on was contrary to Catholic teaching and thus that there is an inconsistency in the faith by withholding that sort of information would be dishonest and wrong.

I am not trying to accuse you of doing or being the sort of person to do any of that, but just pointing out how these sorts of distinctions should be handled, in a way that respects both views even if only one of them (obviously) is believed to be correct.

I suppose I assumed they were annuled. I believe someone told me it would have had to been when I heard about his second wedding. Not to be flippant but it was not on the invitation or ever personally explained to me. Its also not the kind of question I would ask someone…if that makes sense.
But I understand your point.

 

[ddarko]

Do you understand the perspective, whether you agree or not, of an outsider? He was married. The state, the church, everyone said they were married. Then…they were not.
I understand there was a distinction and a determination made by the church in order to be annuled.
The state recognized the marriage. So then…they were not. The key PR states is sacramental. But that is a Catholic distinction. Not one that anyone else would recognize. Should we? Should we recognize your sacramental distinction when you do not recognize our religious distinctions?

Well to be honest, I think you have a big issue with being “fundamental”.

But that’s beside the point. The Catholic teaching is UNIVERSAL. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not, IT IS TRUE.

As to whether “fundamental” is right or wrong, that belongs in a different thread. For the purpose of this thread, YOUR religion is not recognized as TRUE and the Catholic teaching is considered TRUE.

The OP was merely explaining what the Catholic teaching IS. So for you to go and argue that it does not apply to me is irrelevant. As far as Catholics are concerned, if you or anyone in your “fundamentalist” (Christian?) religion had contracted a sacramental marriage and then divorced and remarried, that would be a sin.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The point I am making Nicea is it is not realistic for people outside of your church to not recognize this as a divorced Catholic getting married again in a Catholic Church. Yes, married by Catholic Church, in a Catholic Church, and then an annulment and another marriage.
I understand your system and beliefs. I do. But why should we, or anyone, see it as anything other than a marriage and divorce and a marriage? The Catholic Church makes that distinction, not anyone else. I can give several examples. Lets take any of the other sacraments that other churches use…holy orders, baptism. Churches do these. But Catholics do not recognize them. Thats fine. But it works both ways. When Catholics are joined in holy matrimony but then a few years later the same guy is joined in holy matrimony AGAIN in a Catholic Church…from our perspective, the states etc…he is divorced. I hope I am being clear. I understand your beliefs. But you cannot realistically expect other people to recognize a theological distinction (ie the concept of marriage not really occuring).
I am saying your not personally Nicea but a big collective Catholic “your”!

Ok as far as I can see, this is not just a problem with Divorce and marriage.

What you are asking can be asked about everything Catholic i.e. “Why should I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman?”, “Why should I believe that contraception is immoral?” etc. In short, you are asking why should YOU believe in the Catholic Church.

You should believe in the Catholic Church and not in your “fundamentist” religion because it is the rational option. But this is beyond the scope of this thread.

God Bless

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I suppose I assumed they were annuled. I believe someone told me it would have had to been when I heard about his second wedding. Not to be flippant but it was not on the invitation or ever personally explained to me. Its also not the kind of question I would ask someone…if that makes sense.
But I understand your point.

Indeed. I think I overstated my case (then edited slightly because I’m a compulsive editor). What I meant was that though you may not think that it matters, it should be understood that we think that it is of extreme importance.

Not that you must bring it up all the time, but rather that it must be recognized as something that would make a difference to us and so not glazed over should it appear to come up, and not ignored should the issue of divorce and remarriage be raised with a Catholic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok as far as I can see, this is not just a problem with Divorce and marriage.

What you are asking can be asked about everything Catholic i.e. “Why should I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman?”, “Why should I believe that contraception is immoral?” etc. In short, you are asking why should YOU believe in the Catholic Church.

You should believe in the Catholic Church and not in your “fundamentist” religion because it is the rational option. But this is beyond the scope of this thread.

God Bless

Credit. Not many people can manage to proselytize in a thread over marriage

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well to be honest, I think you have a big issue with being “fundamental”.

But that’s beside the point. The Catholic teaching is UNIVERSAL. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not, IT IS TRUE.

As to whether “fundamental” is right or wrong, that belongs in a different thread. For the purpose of this thread, YOUR religion is not recognized as TRUE and the Catholic teaching is considered TRUE.

The OP was merely explaining what the Catholic teaching IS. So for you to go and argue that it does not apply to me is irrelevant. As far as Catholics are concerned, if you or anyone in your “fundamentalist” (Christian?) religion had contracted a sacramental marriage and then divorced and remarried, that would be a sin.

God Bless

Its a distinction that as best as I can tell no other religion and only certain groups of Christians make. Thats fine. It just does not mean anyone else has to. I think it is perfectly acceptable and understandable response to why someone might say say “Joe, who is Catholic, was married to Zoe but then got divorced and married Michelle at St. Thomas. Same church. Different priest. I hope this one works out”. Which is a real life example of the general statement from the first thread! Thats how I see it anyway.
God bless you as well and have a nice day. Its a lot cooler today.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that practically speaking, Rightlydivide is correct. It is not really reasonable to expect most non-Catholics to know the intricacies of Catholic theology. A lot of Catholics don’t know it, so why would non-Catholics?

People who say these things are really not likely making any kind of deliberate misrepresentation, and probably are not even making a political statement. They just don’t know much about Catholic sacramental theology. Demanding they should is a bit like saying all Catholics should know the ins and outs of Mormon theology, so they don’t offend Mormons by misrepresenting their beliefs accidentally.

I think if individual Catholics feel many people misunderstand their views on divorce and remarriage, it may be because to the average person Catholics marriages look pretty much like all the others. They have the same number of divorces, remarriages, and so on. Most people learn about other religions mostly by meeting people who belong to those religions, so it should not seem strange that non-Catholics draw conclusions about Catholic views of marriage from observing the Catholics they know personally.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you understand the perspective, whether you agree or not, of an outsider? He was married. The state, the church, everyone said they were married. Then…they were not.

Let’s take it to the next step–if all that’s required is to declare one married, then Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell–who have stated that they are married “in their own eyes”, even if they’re really only living together and fornicating–are actually married?

 

[PRmerger]

Should we recognize your sacramental distinction when you do not recognize our religious distinctions?

Rightly, it is not our “sacramental distinctions” but Christ’s.

You can try to edit his message to make it more palatable, but, unfortunately, Catholics ought not feel the freedom to do this.

 

[PRmerger]

I can give several examples. Lets take any of the other sacraments that other churches use…holy orders, baptism. Churches do these. But Catholics do not recognize them.

In regards to baptism, you are incorrect. The CC recognizes all other denominations’ baptisms, provided they were done with water, using the Trinitarian formula.

And we do recognize others’ marriages as well.