Reasoning behind Catholics living in invalid marriage?

[lonegreywolf20]

And what makes it different when one of the partners in a marriage, as I mentioned earlier, loses the ability to have sex? It happens. Battlefield injuries, automobile accidents, certain cancers, you name it. There are all sorts of reasons a couple can no longer have sex. It’s unfortunate, but it does happen.

Pretty sure that the comparison you are trying to make doesn’t really hold up.

It is one thing to lose the ability to have sex because you physically cannot do it per your examples above. However, for someone who may not agree with church teaching on the subject the fact that church says you cannot have sex ever again while you are married to this person who may or may not have been Catholic when they got married to them, and this person could be in their early 20s or 30s, that is a huge ask and quite frankly, if they don’t agree to it, I cannot truly blame them.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Are you comparing God’s judgement with the court system in the U.S? Because there is no equivalency or similarity between the two. I think this may be the issue. God isn’t legalistic. He isn’t human. And he certainly isn’t “presuming” (your word) anything about the actions of each of us.

No, I am saying that secular, civil society makes certain presumptions about people’s actions, and one of those is that people who spend time behind closed doors, for a certain period of time, when there is a pending divorce situation, can be declared to have committed adultery. I told my attorney that I thought this was kind of messed-up, but he told me that is how the courts see it. It’s about as blatant a violation of due process as I can imagine. OJ Simpson got off a charge of murder, even though he certainly had “means, motive, and opportunity”, simply because the evidence wasn’t judged sufficient by a jury of his peers. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the verdict was exactly what it should have been.

Needless to say, the economy of salvation is nothing like that, as we have the perfect Judge who sees and knows all.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And what makes it different when one of the partners in a marriage, as I mentioned earlier, loses the ability to have sex? It happens. Battlefield injuries, automobile accidents, certain cancers, you name it. There are all sorts of reasons a couple can no longer have sex. It’s unfortunate, but it does happen.

Sometimes Our Lord gives us “huge asks”.

And this is kind of a side point, but where someone is injured in such a way that they cannot perform normal sexual activity, it’s entirely possible that the other partner, contrary to God’s commandments and “not in agreement with Church teachings”, could ask for gratification by other means. (Details are not necessary here.) They threaten to leave if they don’t get this kind of intimacy. What then?

 

[lonegreywolf20]

Sometimes Our Lord gives us “huge asks”.

This is true, but for the spouse who isn’t Catholic or doesn’t agree with church teaching, or what have you, that ask isn’t fair to them.

They threaten to leave if they don’t get this kind of intimacy. What then?

Again, you are asking a person who may not be Catholic, or doesn’t agree with church teaching or what have you to do something that God is asking the Catholic to do. You are in essence telling the other person that you must follow the laws of the church, just because they are the laws of the church.

These are some of the reasons I am leaving the Catholic church. I don’t believe that God puts these kinds of restraints on married people, and that all marriages as long as they are legal are valid in God’s eyes.

So, my answers probably don’t mean much to you with the above statement as has happened with another person on these forums.

 

[Psalm30]

When you force someone to have sex, there’s a word for that, but I won’t use it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect your spouse to have sex with you. Honestly, even God did not design marriage to be without sex.

For someone who is not Catholic and disagrees with the laws of the Church, it’s understandable that they wouldn’t agree to staying in a marriage where their spouse refuses to have sex with them.

You can’t compare this to the “R” word. It’s not a fair or accurate comparison. And I really think you’re pushing your boundaries as far as acting with Christian charity. You think people dislike the Catholic Church now? How much more will they be turned away when one of its members compares a person expecting sex with their spouse to a r*pist?

 

[TrueRomanCatholic]

Get out of that unholy relationship!!

 

[JimG]

With respect to the discussion of radical sanation: Some instances of invalidity can be easily fixes by simple convalidation or radical sanation, with minimal to no (name removed by moderator)ut by the non-Catholic spouse.

But I can imagine that in many cases the n/c spouse might request that no such step be taken, just because they do not want the Catholic Church involved in any way in their marriage.

Admittedly, such things should have been discussed before the wedding. But often religion was never even brought up before the engagement or the wedding planning. For those spouses, it would be something akin to me being asked to have my marriage validated by the Church of Scientology.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

These are some of the reasons I am leaving the Catholic church. I don’t believe that God puts these kinds of restraints on married people, and that all marriages as long as they are legal are valid in God’s eyes.

I hope you don’t go through with it and leave. Find a priest who is faithful to all of the teachings of the Church, and sit down with him and tell him what you have a problem with. I feel confident he will do everything in his power to address your concerns.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

I have already made the decision to leave.

You can find the post here: Saying Goodbye To The Forums and Catholicism

I have spoken with a priest at length and there was nothing he could say that would address those disagreements.

 

[JimG]

Of course it was Jesus himself who gave us the “hard teaching” about the permanence of marriage. No one has the authority to change His teaching.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You can’t compare this to the “R” word. It’s not a fair or accurate comparison. And I really think you’re pushing your boundaries as far as acting with Christian charity. You think people dislike the Catholic Church now? How much more will they be turned away when one of its members compares a person expecting sex with their spouse to a r*pist?

This may be too harsh an analogy, it very well could be, but when someone is forced to have sex when they don’t want to, what would be the word for it?

In our modern society, especially when it’s a woman who cannot have sex with her husband, for whatever reason, yet he still insists, what do people think about that? What would feminists call it?

That is why, while accepting the Church’s teaching on it, I personally dislike the concept of the “marriage debt”. When a spouse “pulls rank” on the other spouse and demands sex regardless of what the other spouse wants, when the other spouse has an abundantly good reason for not wanting it, I don’t see a thing Christian about that. Yet I accept the Church’s teaching on it, even though I would never exercise this right.

There are things that happen, both physical and otherwise, that deprive a couple of the ability to have sex, even for an extended period of time. It could be something psychological that can’t be cured. It could be an illness or grave injury. It could be an involuntary absence, such as an unwanted military deployment or the extended disappearance of the spouse. When we go into marriage, we need to realize that something could happen that will make that marriage very difficult — the whole “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health” thing. I’ve walked that road myself. And we don’t always get to choose what that is.

The Catholic Church, in the present era, bends over backward and then some, to accommodate everyone they possibly can, to allow people as much liberty as they possibly can. I hope everyone understands that. Aside from sexual morality, it is actually a very liberal religion. Case in point: canon law allows for dispensation from disparity of cult, or more simply put, allowing marriage to non-Catholics. Has anyone ever heard of this dispensation not being granted? I knew of one case, in the Philippines, a friend of mine was denied this dispensation. He left the Church and married anyway. But that’s the only time I’ve ever heard of it — the reasoning may have been “this is a Catholic country, marrying a non-Catholic is against canon law, you could always find a Catholic to marry”. I don’t know. If the dispensation is never denied, then why have the canon in the first place? The reasoning seems either to be “you’re so strong in the Faith that there is no chance you’ll leave the Church by marrying a non-Catholic”, or “you’re so weak in the Faith that you will leave the Church if you don’t get the dispensation”.

 

[Psalm30]

Of course it was Jesus himself who gave us the “hard teaching” about the permanence of marriage. No one has the authority to change His teaching.

Divorce and remarriage is in and of itself adultery. I’m not going to dispute what Jesus explicitly stated.
However, I think what people — myself included — have a hard time with is the concept that God, who is all loving and merciful, wouldn’t offer a second chance to people who get married, realize they made a mistake, and then leave the situation. Yes, marriage is and should be permanent, or else it wouldn’t carry much meaning. But the other reality is that it’s an imperfect world full of imperfect people who make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are entering into a marriage that wasn’t a good idea to enter into. Is an all loving, merciful God going to dig His heels in and unbudgingly tell a person, “I’m glad you’ve learned your lesson and got out of that bad marriage. But, sorry, while you don’t have to stay with this person, you also don’t ever get to find another person with whom you can have a loving relationship and experience the happiness of a good marriage.”? It just doesn’t match the description of an all loving, merciful God. And this is likely why so many people leave the Church over this very matter.

As I said, divorce and remarriage is, in and of itself, adultery, and I’m not contradicting what Jesus explicitly stated. I would just like to believe that God sees there is a greater good to be had, and in His mercy, offer that second chance to people. There are also plenty of instances in the Bible where Jesus rebuked people for emphasizing the law over love. Advocating for two people who are in love with each other and “married” in the eyes of civil law to have to live as brother and sister…or breaking up a marriage that is happy and loving and possibly involves children…all in the name of a rule…that seems very much like one of those instances. Is this marriage an instance of living in continual adultery? Technically yes. But there’s the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and it really seems like an instance where spirit trumps letter.

Honestly, even the Catholic Church itself recognizes this, and that’s why they have annulments, radical sanctions, etc.

And then there’s the aspect that we’re all sinners. If it’s not one thing it’s another. I’m not in an invalid marriage but I know I fall into the same sins over and over again, even when I try very hard not to. I pray to be forgiven, and to see heaven one day.

May our loving God be merciful to all.

 

[Psalm30]

Psalm30:

You can’t compare this to the “R” word. It’s not a fair or accurate comparison. And I really think you’re pushing your boundaries as far as acting with Christian charity. You think people dislike the Catholic Church now? How much more will they be turned away when one of its members compares a person expecting sex with their spouse to a r*pist?

This may be too harsh an analogy, it very well could be, but when someone is forced to have sex when they don’t want to, what would be the word for it?

In our modern society, especially when it’s a woman who cannot have sex with her husband, for whatever reason, yet he still insists, what do people think about that? What would feminists call it?

Here again, you are using an analogy that doesn’t hold water.

There is a difference between being physically incapable of having sex and not being allowed to have sex.

The words I would use to describe a man who demands that his wife have sex with him, when she is physically incapable of doing so, are not appropriate for this forum.

But I do understand how confused and troubled a non-Catholic spouse would be to have to live in a sexless marriage for the the rest of their life for really no other reason than “the Catholic Church says so.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This may be too harsh an analogy, it very well could be, but when someone is forced to have sex when they don’t want to, what would be the word for it?

In our modern society, especially when it’s a woman who cannot have sex with her husband, for whatever reason, yet he still insists, what do people think about that? What would feminists call it?

First of all, it’s not because “the Catholic Church says so”. It is because one (or both) of the spouses are, according to the teachings of the Church regarding indissolubility of marriage, still married to a previous spouse. That makes sexual relations with anyone else adultery. Adultery is a sin that merits eternal punishment. Adultery has been taught to be a sin ever since the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses. Some people believe that marriage can be dissolved. We as Catholics do not. It is not because some men in Rome say so. It is not just a “policy” or a “ban”. It is infallible moral teaching that, ultimately, comes from the Bible. It is much more than just “the Catholic Church saying so”.

So what I’m hearing here is that if a partner cannot have sex with the other partner because of some grave physical, mental, or psychological reason (or an involuntary absence, such as that partner being in prison, or in a coma or vegetative state, or what have you), that is something the other partner is just going to have to live with. (Many people are in prison for life, or remain in a coma or vegetative state for life.) But if it is because of a divine moral teaching that can be proven by the clear words of Scripture, and that the first partner believes to apply to that situation, well, that’s unreasonable, because that’s not as compelling a reason, as some kind of handicap such as I noted above. We’re then saying, in effect, that temporal considerations are more important than spiritual considerations. Or, possibly, the world, life, and nature often do not have mercy, but God does have mercy, and we should expect Him to bend His own “rules” to accommodate us… because He is merciful?

And does this apply to allowing people who cannot have “normal” sex to do other things, sexually satisfying things, if that is all they can do? If not, why not? What makes “bending the rules” on adultery OK and “bending the rules” on sodomy (whether heterosexual or homosexual) not OK? Where does it end? Something to consider.

 

[JimG]

The Church takes Jesus at his word that marriage is permanent and divorce is not allowable. The only possible remedy is to determine whether or not a valid marriage actually took place. If it did not, then a determination of nullity can be issued. But I remain a little astonished that so many marriages are now determined to never have been marriages. I don’t doubt it, but it is astonishing.

 

[Psalm30]

It is much more than just “the Catholic Church saying so”.

Yes…but a non-Catholic is not going to see it that way.

Or, possibly, the world, life, and nature often do not have mercy, but God does have mercy, and we should expect Him to bend His own “rules” to accommodate us… because He is merciful?

Yes, exactly. You don’t see it that way, but some people do, especially non-Catholics.

And does this apply to allowing people who cannot have “normal” sex to do other things, sexually satisfying things, if that is all they can do? If not, why not? What makes “bending the rules” on adultery OK and “bending the rules” on sodomy (whether heterosexual or homosexual) not OK? Where does it end? Something to consider.

Because there is a greater good — leaving a happy, loving marriage in tact, not breaking up a family…everything discussed in this thread. Also, a marriage between a man and a woman still fits God’s design and can yield procreation, while homosexual unions cannot.

I believe I am very close to bowing out of this discussion, as I feel I am saying the same things over and over. I would just like to say, though, if you do indeed wish to evangelize to people in invalid marriages, please don’t go about it the way you are here. Your hyperbolic analogies, your inability to see the forest for the trees, and your incorrect use of terminology regarding “objective mortal sin” will only drive them further away.

 

[Vico]

… why not just make peace with the fact that each person will be held accountable for their own actions and pray for their preservation from mortal sin.

Not leading others into error is also important.

From Familaris Consortio of St. John Paul II (1981):

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p..._jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

And, from Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1994:

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive holy communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” In such a case they may receive holy communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful | EWTN

 

[Emeraldlady]

The Church takes Jesus at his word that marriage is permanent and divorce is not allowable. The only possible remedy is to determine whether or not a valid marriage actually took place. If it did not, then a determination of nullity can be issued. But I remain a little astonished that so many marriages are now determined to never have been marriages. I don’t doubt it, but it is astonishing.

I’m not that astonished by it. I have enormous gratitude that God blessed me with a mate that was willing to accept pre-marital continence. He wasn’t practicing the faith when we met but was willing to accept my boundaries. I was aware though that of all the Catholic marriages of our friends and family, that the vast majority were already either cohabiting or sexually active. The question is then, is it possible that a couple can marry with the fullness of faith in sacramental grace, without comprehending the meaning of the exclusive conjugal union to marriage? I have read documents where then Cardinal Ratzinger posited the same doubt. I believe it to be a matter of ongoing study and prayerful contemplation for the Church.

 

[dochawk]

and I will revise my original post accordingly.

I’ve revised the title.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

and I will revise my original post accordingly.

This was implicit in the way the question was originally worded, but I can see that this is more precise. Thank you.

Non-Catholics, as a general rule, regard any marriage as “valid” that is contracted pursuant to the civil law, and they regard civil divorce as either dissolving the marriage, or as ratifying a dissolution or disintegration that has already taken place on the spiritual or interpersonal level. I have never heard of a non-Catholic, unless it would be an Orthodox Jew who does not have a “get”, regarding themselves as still being married or unfree to remarry after a civil divorce.

Get (divorce document) - Wikipedia