Question about the house of an invalid marraige

[Vico]

Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea mentioned in this video that it is a sin to go over to the house of someone who is in an invalid marriage, I understand why it would be a sin, but does the church actually have an official stance something as specific as this? Around the beginning he talks about what I mentioned. Skip to 8 minutes in the video, he mentions what I am talking about around 8:44
youtube.com/watch?v=av3ukTIKG-I I agree with him that it would be a sin.

In the 1983 Canon law the shunning (vitandus) of the excommunicated was eliminated. However there is the teaching of the Church to avoid giving scandal.Catechism of the Catholic Church

II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

**2284 **Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” 85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. 86

**2286 **Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” 87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, 88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

**2287 **Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!” 89

85 Mt 18:6; Cf. 1 Cor 8:10-13.
86 Cf. Mt 7:15.
87 Pius XII, Discourse, June 1, 1941.
88 Cf. Eph 6:4; Col. 3:21.
89 Lk 17:1.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM

 

[johnnyt3000]

Children need hugs more than a lecture on doctrine. The best doctrinal lecture is being a nice person and a decent role model for your kids.

Don’t forget church teaching and dogma, warm feelings are not always the answer to children’s questions.

 

[johnnyt3000]

I couldn’t imagine any child under the age of, say, 17 or 18, would even ask about valid vs. invalid marriage.

They just don’t care. And nor should they.

Of course, if they can’t visit *any *of their relatives because Daddy won’t go over, they might ask why. But really, at that point they aren’t asking about the marriage, just why Daddy won’t visit.

They should care, it is their eternal soul of the relative in an invalid marriage that is at risk, something to be concerned about.

 

[maryjk]

They should care, it is their eternal soul of the relative in an invalid marriage that is at risk, something to be concerned about.

A child needs to be worried about school. About learning to sit still during Mass. About how to go to Confession.

They are still learning the basics of their faith. Heck, they are still learning about life.

As they mature, they can learn about more and more. And when they are old enough, they will learn about invalid marriages.

 

[phil19034]

A child needs to be worried about school. About learning to sit still during Mass. About how to go to Confession.

They are still learning the basics of their faith. Heck, they are still learning about life.

As they mature, they can learn about more and more. And when they are old enough, they will learn about invalid marriages.

I think when children start dating or have the interest in dating that they need to know about invalid marriage. Thy should also be taught the difficulties of marrying non-Catholics and non-Christians, the spiritual and practical cons of premarital sex, trial marriage, etc.

They should also learn about dispensations, the truth the divorce doesn’t automatically excommunicate you, about annulments, and that con-validation and radical sanations exist to normalize an illicit marriage (assuming both can validly marry) BEFORE they get engaged.

They need to know so they don’t make uninformed or misinformed decisions or conclusions. But not too early, don’t rob their childhood.

 

[larsont7]

Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea mentioned in this video that it is a sin to go over to the house of someone who is in an invalid marriage, I understand why it would be a sin, but does the church actually have an official stance something as specific as this? Around the beginning he talks about what I mentioned. Skip to 8 minutes in the video, he mentions what I am talking about around 8:44
youtube.com/watch?v=av3ukTIKG-I I agree with him that it would be a sin.

Thanks for posting this link. I’ve forgotten how much I love listening to Fr. Relyea. I just saw him here in town back in May, and I’ve heard him do talks similar to this one in the past.

I don’t think the Church speaks officially on what Fr. Relyea is talking about regarding your question, but what he says makes sense. Two people entering into an invalid marriage are committing a grave offense against God, and oftentimes are doing it in the presence of His Son in the Blessed Sacrament. Scandal is also a grave offense, and to show direct or even indirect approval of a grave sin can potentially be a cause of scandal to others.

I like his analogy of a father not wanting to go and witness his son offend God by killing someone, so why would a father want to go and witness his son offend God by marrying outside the Church. The father shows more love for his son in not attending and letting his son know why than by cooperating in a grave evil that could have eternal consequences. The same argument could then apply to visiting his son’s home after the wedding.

This talk on hell is certainly opposed to societal norms, will make most people uncomfortable in parts, and is contrary to what the majority of the clergy are preaching nowadays. I can see why many people would be put off by it. However, for those truly striving for Christian perfection, I highly recommend giving it a listen.

 

[johnnyt3000]

Well, I just remembered, my friend who I have known since I was 9 or 10 years old, his mom is divorced and remarried. I have been going over his house for years, we are both 17 now. I sure hope it was just his opinion.

 

[RyanBlack]

I like his analogy of a father not wanting to go and witness his son offend God by killing someone, so why would a father want to go and witness his son offend God by marrying outside the Church. The father shows more love for his son in not attending and letting his son know why than by cooperating in a grave evil that could have eternal consequences. The same argument could then apply to visiting his son’s home after the wedding.

And to refuse to visit the home after the wedding likely would greatly hinder–if not destroy–one’s opportunity to attempt persuade those involved in the invalid marriage to be reconciled to the Church. Furthermore, it would likely entirely cut one off from the grandchildren produced by the invalid marriage, which might cut those children off from the only family members who would seek to bring the child up in the faith. I know that for a lengthy time, my father-in-law took two of my wife’s nieces, whose mother was divorced and remarried outside the Church, to their CCD classes (had he not taken them, the would not have been taken at all). Had he refused ever to visit the home of my sister-in-law, it would likely severed his relationship with his daughter, as well as with his entirely innocent grandchildren.

 

[larsont7]

And to refuse to visit the home after the wedding likely would greatly hinder–if not destroy–one’s opportunity to attempt persuade those involved in the invalid marriage to be reconciled to the Church. Furthermore, it would likely entirely cut one off from the grandchildren produced by the invalid marriage, which might cut those children off from the only family members who would seek to bring the child up in the faith. I know that for a lengthy time, my father-in-law took two of my wife’s nieces, whose mother was divorced and remarried outside the Church, to their CCD classes (had he not taken them, the would not have been taken at all). Had he refused ever to visit the home of my sister-in-law, it would likely severed his relationship with his daughter, as well as with his entirely innocent grandchildren.

First off, I want to make it clear that I don’t have a dogmatic stand on this issue one way or the other. I can see from Fr. Relyea’s arguments the dangers of scandal inherent in maintaining close ties with someone living in an invalid Catholic marriage. I also know that there are cases like the one you mentioned where it could do more harm than good to avoid all contact.

I have heard of an example where the parents avoided contact with their son who was living in an invalid marriage, and after a few years, the son ended up coming back into the Church and getting his marriage blessed. It can work both ways.

The most important thing for Catholics in these cases, though, is to never condone such living arrangements and make known our beliefs so as to avoid the sin of scandal.