Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can
dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons **is dissolved **by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without aVront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.
Can. 1144 §1. For the baptized party to contract a new marriage validly, the non-baptized party must always be interrogated whether:
1/ he or she also wishes to receive baptism;
2/ he or she at least wishes to cohabit peacefully with the baptized party without aVront to the Creator.
§2. This interrogation must be done after baptism. For a grave cause, however, the local ordinary can permit the interrogation to be done before baptism or can even dispense from the interrogation either before or after baptism provided that it is evident at least by a summary and extrajudicial process that it cannot be done or would be useless.
Can. 1145 §1. The interrogation is regularly to be done on the authority of the local ordinary of the converted party.
This ordinary must grant the other spouse a period of time to respond if the spouse seeks it, after having been advised, however, that his or her silence will be considered a negative response if the period passes without effect.
§2. Even an interrogation made privately by the converted party is valid and indeed licit if the form prescribed above cannot be observed.
§3. In either case, the fact that the interrogation was done and its outcome must be established legitimately in the external forum.
Can. 1146 The baptized party has the right to contract a new marriage with a Catholic party:
1/ if the other party responded negatively to the interrogation or if the interrogation had been omitted legitimately;
2/ if the non-baptized party, already interrogated or not, at first persevered in peaceful cohabitation without aVront to the Creator but then departed without a just cause, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1144 and ⇒ 1145.
Can. 1147 For a grave cause, however, the local ordinary can allow a baptized party who uses the pauline privilege to contract marriage with a non-Catholic party, whether baptized or not baptized; the prescripts of the canons about mixed marriages are also to be observed.
Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.
§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed.
§3. Keeping in mind the moral, social, and economic conditions of places and of persons, the local ordinary is to take care that the needs of the first wife and the others dismissed are sufficiently provided for according to the norms of justice, Christian charity, and natural equity.
Can. 1149 A non-baptized person who, after having received baptism in the Catholic Church, cannot restore cohabitation with a non-baptized spouse by reason of captivity or persecution can contract another marriage even if the other party has received baptism in the meantime, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1141.
Can. 1150 In a doubtful matter the privilege of faith possesses the favor of the law.
While getting this, I came across this:
Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.
What’s the problem? Back to my Babe Ruth example (not that he killed his wife, just the laid back acceptance of his “legitimizing” his adultery).
And this:
Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.
What if someone has marriage A. Gets divorced, remarries B. Gets divorced and wants to remarry C, and goes to get B anulled. B gets anulled because of marriage A not being anulled. So said someone goes on to get A anulled. Well, how does that not now create an impediment for C on the basis of B?
on the ancient canon on remarriage after adultery:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3160345
) ,but it said it means the sacrifices in the Jewish religion…how are you using it in the (extremely long, drawn out, circular, yet somehow inescapeable) context of this thread? In other words, what do you mean when you are saying “we recognize corban when we see it?”
Oh, I agree it would be more merciful and compassionate to allow for this, BUT the bible seems to take a less merciful and compassionate standpoint; PLEASE, 2 things: answer the ? re: how can you allow divorce and remarrige in the face of scripture, and WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CORBAN? :banghead: