Reasoning behind Catholics living in invalid marriage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize that you are not the “typical American Catholic family”, right?

I too am a parish catechist. We had parents actually fight us over teaching our 9th graders basic sexual morality because it was “not inclusive of gay, bi-sexual and transgender relationships”.

Parents, in my experience, want their kids to be ‘sacramentalized’ not ‘catechized’
 
CilladeRoma said:
I too am a parish catechist. We had parents actually fight us over teaching our 9th graders basic sexual morality because it was “not inclusive of gay, bi-sexual and transgender relationships”.
Click to expand...
That’s tragic. I hope you were able to educate those parents.
 
babochka said:
A person was already in an invalid marriage upon converting to or returning to Catholicism and leaving such a marriage would destroy an intact family.

For example: A fallen away Catholic woman marries a divorced man outside of the church. Fifteen years and three children later, she feels a strong pull to return to the Church of her childhood. She goes to confession, only to discover that her marriage is not recognized recognized in the church. She and her husband are raising three children together. Her husband, not being Catholic, cannot wrap his mind around the idea that they should live as brother and sister. It seems to him that the church desires to tear apart his happy marriage of 15 years. What does she do?
Click to expand...
This is basically the reason I would say a Catholic may be living in an invalid marriage.

I will add to this. When I’ve seen this happen with people very close to me and there is a sincere desire to return to the faith, God finds a way to allow people to return to the faith. There is a way out there to be found to return to the faith. Perhaps this solution is not simple, it won’t happen overnight, it requires some creativity, and the solution is painful in some ways, but there is a solution.

I really believe God is merciful. People aren’t always though.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
It has to begin in the home. If it’s not taught in the home, classroom catechesis is little more than rescue and damage control.

I too am a catechist, albeit a homeschool one. We have religion/philosophy (yes, philosophy) class two days a week, two hours total, with Catholic/Christian themes permeated through the entire curriculum (history, science, literature, even math, in that math demonstrates the concept of absolute truth). In addition to my single student charge (my son), catechism class is open to anyone else who wishes to participate — in our case, my elderly parents. My mother, whose grasp of the faith is very, very simple, often contributes useful insights. And lest anyone think we have some kind of pious, ethereal ideal Catholic home, I can say that we are quite ordinary. (Think more The Conners and less Leave It To Beaver .) We do the best we can. We use the Baltimore Catechism with other texts, and, at my son’s request, we are going to study the Seven Deadly Sins this week. (He saw this in a video game and asked about it.)
Click to expand...
All right…

I was simply answering your question as to why a Catholic would want to marry someone whose philosophies are not in line with Catholic teaching. I hope you gained some insight from my post.
 
Sadly, no. They don’t want to be catechized. Ask any priest, in just about any parish, in just about any diocese in the USA, this is typical.
 
It’s not the job of one who sees what is objectively a sin to try to wash it away to the point that one walks away from a brother or sister in apparent need. One needn’t assume they are going to hell to tell them they are in objective sin. The appearance is enough.

Regarding illicit relationships, there are no such mitigating factors. One cannot be married to someone who is already in a sacramental marriages to another. It can only ever be adultery. These laws are not only divinely revealed but naturally knowable. Everyone is culpable. Hence the hubbub about allowing divorced and remarried while maintaining illicit sexual relations to the eucharist. It’s never okay no matter who says otherwise.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
Regarding illicit relationships, there are no such mitigating factors. One cannot be married to someone who is already in a sacramental marriages to another. It can only ever be adultery. These laws are not only divinely revealed but naturally knowable. Everyone is culpable. Hence the hubbub about allowing divorced and remarried while maintaining illicit sexual relations to the eucharist. It’s never okay no matter who says otherwise.
Click to expand...
The three conditions of mortal sin:
  1. Grave matter.
  2. Full knowledge.
  3. Complete consent of the will.
Yes, being in an invalid marriage is always 1 (grave matter — either adultery or fornication). I’m not debating that. But 2 and 3 (lack of full knowledge and/or full consent of the will) can make being in an invalid marriage not a mortal sin and reduce or eliminate a person’s culpability.

This is Church teaching regarding mortal sin. If you say otherwise you are saying something contrary to the Church.
 
I’m saying you can’t know it’s not a sin and that full consent exists unless it was a shotgun wedding.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
I’m saying you can’t know it’s not a sin and that full consent exists unless it was a shotgun wedding.
Click to expand...
Okay…

You also can’t know that it is a sin with all conditions met.

And your shotgun wedding exception is a bit odd. Even then you don’t know exactly what goes on in a person’s heart, soul, and intellect. Only God does.
 
Last edited:
Unless one’s intellect is too limited one is capable of using reason to know that it is a sin, one is not obviously ignorant of its sinful nature. Further we have divine revelation. That means one has sufficient knowledge if it is not beyond one’s natural ability to use the sufficient capability to reason the matter or has heard the divine revelation. It is not necessary to believe it. Knowledge or one’s duty to reason or access to divine revelation is sufficient for guilt.

The shotgun wedding was an instance of a lack of full consent. However, even then we are to be willing to die before committing a grave sin, so… the really are no acceptable reasons.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
Unless one’s intellect is too limited one is capable of using reason to know that it is a sin, one is not obviously ignorant of its sinful nature. Further we have divine revelation. That means one has sufficient knowledge if it is not beyond one’s natural ability to use the sufficient capability to reason the matter or has heard the divine revelation. It is not necessary to believe it. Knowledge or one’s duty to reason or access to divine revelation is sufficient for guilt.

The shotgun wedding was an instance of a lack of full consent. However, even then we are to be willing to die before committing a grave sin, so… the really are no acceptable reasons.
Click to expand...
Do you really not understand that some people really might not know that what they’re doing is wrong? Or that they don’t like their situation anymore than the Church does but are not 100% free to leave the situation (breaking up a marriage would hurt children, etc.)?

And if you commit any sin with a gun to your head, it’s not mortal. That definitely eliminates the condition of complete consent.
 
Psalm30 said:
Do you really not understand that some people really might not know that what they’re doing is wrong?
Click to expand...
Of course I am. Not knowing what one is capable of knowing is not sufficient to make one inculpable. One has to be incapable of knowing, that’s why I keep saying that.
Psalm30 said:
Or that they don’t like their situation anymore than the Church does but are not 100% free to leave the situation (breaking up a marriage would hurt children, etc.)?
Click to expand...
This is not a valid excuse to continue in sin, let alone grave sin. They are free to leave the situation. Teaching ones children that one may commit grave sin in order to prevent suffering is another grave sin, that of scandal. It is never permitted to commit a grave sin under any circumstance.
Psalm30 said:
And if you commit any sin with a gun to your head, it’s not mortal. That definitely eliminates the condition of complete consent.
Click to expand...
It’s forgivable, but I can’t say I agree that it lacks full consent. Are we free to offer incense to the emperor because we are going to be tortured and killed or are we called to martyrdom, that is to take up our cross and follow Christ?
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
This is not a valid excuse to continue in sin, let alone grave sin. They are free to leave the situation. Teaching ones children that one may commit grave sin in order to prevent suffering is another grave sin, that of scandal. It is never permitted to commit a grave sin under any circumstance.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Catholic Church believes it’s better to break up an otherwise happy but invalid marriage sending children to live in multiple households than to recognize our lives are not as neat and tidy as a black and white reading of the law would indicate?
 
Isaac14 said:
Are you saying the Catholic Church believes it’s better to break up an otherwise happy but invalid marriage sending children to live in multiple households than to recognize our lives are not as neat and tidy as a black and white reading of the law would indicate?
Click to expand...
The church affirms God’s law, she doesn’t write it. God would prefer we didn’t disobey and create such situations in the first place, but when we do, there are consequences for our actions.

Had we loved God, this wouldn’t have happened. When we behave as sons and daughters of perdition we, not God, create suffering.

That said, the church says they live as brother and sister. They need not leave the home but they may not continue their illicit relations.
 
Last edited:
Even the Church does not demand that a couple in an invalid marriage break up.

You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot put your beliefs out there like they are Church teaching.
 
He should move to W. Va. there is no cost for an annulment here. I believe in most other states also.
 
TARRAT said:
He should move to W. Va. there is no cost for an annulment here. I believe in most other states also.
Click to expand...
The Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston (which is coterminous with the state of West Virginia) has a rather unique funding source. About 100 years ago, a wealthy Texas woman left the diocese some prime oil-producing land, and it generates $15 million a year in revenue for the diocese. They use this to fund parishes in poor rural areas that otherwise could not sustain themselves. They may fund annulment expenses (staff, etc.) out of these proceeds as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top