1
1ke
Guest
Right. It is true. Their marriage is valid or not valid. If it’s valid, it’s also a sacrament. If it’s not valid, it’s not anything at all.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Thinking of all of my friends and family (most are non-Catholic in my family, about half of my close friends as well) who have been married, none of them have gone into marriage thinking that way. They intend lifelong partnership.where one or both spouses has in mind “this marriage, or others just like it, can be dissolved”
Sure, there are some people out there who think outrageous things, but, in my experience they are the minority.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
No joking, this strikes me as a poem or song lyric. Beautifully phrased.If it’s not valid, it’s not anything at all.
T
TomH1
Guest
What a particular denomination teaches is not the same as the will of the individual. I live in the UK and the Church of England over here accepts divorce and remarriage. However, if two people marry is the Church of England it does not mean they do not make valid consent.
Whilst some people may withhold marriage consent I doubt the majority of people spend their wedding thinking I can get divorced is this does not work out.
Whilst some people may withhold marriage consent I doubt the majority of people spend their wedding thinking I can get divorced is this does not work out.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Chances are I’m misunderstanding, but does this mean for a polygamist convert that (s)he can choose which spouse to keep, instead of “first in first out”?
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Yes, the person has at least some ability to choose.
Dan
Dan
C
commenter
Guest
I wonder if the canon lawyer is compensated for each wife he “resolves”, or if there is a fixed set fee.
(Just joking, I know church workers are chronically underpaid)
(Just joking, I know church workers are chronically underpaid)
Last edited:
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
So why is that? I thought the Church presumes validity in sequential order of serial natural marriages of the unbaptized. Why wouldn’t the Church presume the first marriage is valid until it is demonstrated not to be, and then the second marriage valid, etc.? Or is the assumption that the polygamist’s understanding of marriage is so deformed (due to polygamy) that all of the marriages are presumed invalid?
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
The “first marriage” would have some presumption of validity.
Reasons which justify choosing a subsequent wife (we’ll ignore the chance that it could be a woman with multiple husbands) have included, historically, the first wife’s opposition to the Christian faith of the convert and his practice of the faith, the absence of the wife (abducted or whatever the reason might be), the man’s inability to remember which woman he married first. The current canon simply says he can choose a subsequent wife “if it is hard to remain” with the first one. The “hardship” should be, I would think, something objectively difficult.
Whichever woman he chooses, he has to marry after his conversion. This would dissolve any valid marriage bond he might have.
Dan
Reasons which justify choosing a subsequent wife (we’ll ignore the chance that it could be a woman with multiple husbands) have included, historically, the first wife’s opposition to the Christian faith of the convert and his practice of the faith, the absence of the wife (abducted or whatever the reason might be), the man’s inability to remember which woman he married first. The current canon simply says he can choose a subsequent wife “if it is hard to remain” with the first one. The “hardship” should be, I would think, something objectively difficult.
Whichever woman he chooses, he has to marry after his conversion. This would dissolve any valid marriage bond he might have.
Dan
1
1ke
Guest
His marriage to one of the others dissolves the natural marriage to the first. It’s not a presumption of validity until proven invalid. It may be a valid natural marriage. But a natural marriage can be dissolved. And under the Pauline Privilege, the act of contracting the new marriage dissolves the first.So why is that? I thought the Church presumes validity in sequential order of serial natural marriages of the unbaptized. Why wouldn’t the Church presume the first marriage is valid until it is demonstrated not to be, and then the second marriage valid, etc.?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.