Remarriage and Leaving the Church

[catharina]

What I mean is that a marriage is either valid or invalid AT THE TIME the vows are taken, when the sacrament of marriage is administered by the man and woman themselves. The Church neither administers the sacrament nor is it the determining factor in whether or not the sacrament is valid.

The tribunal merely looks over the facts of the case and cross-references those with canon law in order to be able to tell us whether or not the sacrament was valid when it took place. Therefore, it is very possible for the tribunal (because of a lying spouse or witness, or historically, even a spouse with a certain amount of influence in the Church) to judge a marriage that the couple KNOWS for a fact to be invalid to be valid. This judgement does not make the marriage valid - it is still an invalid marriage that was judged wrongly by the tribunal.

Just as I’m sure the tribunals sometimes judge a valid marriage to be INvalid, I am sure the opposite sometimes happens as well.

Nevertheless, the decision of the Church stands.
No one has the authority to override that decision.
One can appeal to Rome. That’s all there is to it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Nevertheless, the decision of the Church stands.
No one has the authority to override that decision.
One can appeal to Rome. That’s all there is to it.

But it’s not the decision of “The Church”. It’s just a tribunal, made up of fallible men who might very well be wrong. In a case that is very convoluted, sure, the tribunal would be the best judge because of their extensive knowledge of canon law and their presumed objectivity, but in a case like the above, where the invalidity of the marriage is clear only to the persons involved because of deception or similar unusual circumstances, I would think it would be no great sin to go against the ruling of the tribunal, since the marriage is invalid regardless of their judgement.

 

[catharina]

But it’s not the decision of “The Church”. It’s just a tribunal, made up of fallible men who might very well be wrong. In a case that is very convoluted, sure, the tribunal would be the best judge because of their extensive knowledge of canon law and their presumed objectivity, but in a case like the above, where the invalidity of the marriage is clear only to the persons involved because of deception or similar unusual circumstances, I would think it would be no great sin to go against the ruling of the tribunal, since the marriage is invalid regardless of their judgement.

Such a decision is not given to us, the laity.
A couple is quite likely to act acc to its own preferences.
The tribunal doesn’t decide in that way.
You can’t “invent” new law and expect it to be accepted!
What you “would think” is simply wrong in this case.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Such a decision is not given to us, the laity.
A couple is quite likely to act acc to its own preferences.
The tribunal doesn’t decide in that way.
You can’t “invent” new law and expect it to be accepted!
What you “would think” is simply wrong in this case.

I know where you are coming from, but if a marriage is truly invalid and a person knows this without a doubt (see above example…such a marriage could never, under any circumstances, be valid), understanding and taking canon law into great consideration despite an unjust ruling by the tribunal, then God knows the truth and knows that the divorced person is in the right, is not lawfully married and is not committing adultery by choosing to move on with their lives. Such a person would certainly not be committing adultery, through their intentions and in reality. I think the sin of disobedience in this case would be mitigated a great deal by the truth of the matter, which is that the person is not a part of a sacramental marriage.

 

[catharina]

I know where you are coming from, but if a marriage is truly invalid and a person knows this without a doubt (see above example…such a marriage could never, under any circumstances, be valid), understanding and taking canon law into great consideration despite an unjust ruling by the tribunal, then God knows the truth and knows that the divorced person is in the right, is not lawfully married and is not committing adultery by choosing to move on with their lives. Such a person would certainly not be committing adultery, through their intentions and in reality. I think the sin of disobedience in this case would be mitigated a great deal by the truth of the matter, which is that the person is not a part of a sacramental marriage.

Your position then is that you (or such a “person”) is not bound by all the teachings and practices of the Church in regard to the Sacrament of Matrimony. Is that your stance? That’s a new one and not consistent with the truth of practices approved by the Church to protect the sanctity of marriage.

It’s like a “Very Special Rule for thoughfulone and her followers.” Correct?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Your position then is that you (or such a “person”) is not bound by all the teachings and practices of the Church in regard to the Sacrament of Matrimony. Is that your stance? That’s a new one and not consistent with the truth of practices approved by the Church to protect the sanctity of marriage.

It’s like a “Very Special Rule for thoughfulone and her followers.” Correct?

No. My position is that God is** just** and understands both our intentions and the truth as it exists in reality, not as a tribunal sees it. A person who is not validly married is free to date and marry. If a person KNOWS that they are not validly married, then they are not committing adultery by dating or marrying. The ONLY things they might be guilty of would be 1.) Disobedience (which is lawful in the face of injustice-see the Church’s stance on disobeying unjust laws) and 2.) Marrying outside the Church (which would not happen if they were not victims of injustice in the first place).

I will grant that the cases in which these particular circumstances apply would be quite rare, but certainly not non-existent.

I see no mortal sin here, and thus, I would be perfectly comfortable receiving communion under these circumstances.

 

[catharina]

No. My position is that God is** just** and understands both our intentions and the truth as it exists in reality, not as a tribunal sees it. A person who is not validly married is free to date and marry. If a person KNOWS that they are not validly married, then they are not committing adultery by dating or marrying. The ONLY things they might be guilty of would be 1.) Disobedience (which is lawful in the face of injustice-see the Church’s stance on disobeying unjust laws) and 2.) Marrying outside the Church (which would not happen if they were not victims of injustice in the first place).

I will grant that the cases in which these particular circumstances apply would be quite rare, but certainly not non-existent.

I see no mortal sin here, and thus, I would be perfectly comfortable receiving communion under these circumstances.

Then in conclusion, you are in dissent to teachings
of the Church - only rarely, but sometimes YES?

 

[davidv]

No. My position is that God is** just** and understands both our intentions and the truth as it exists in reality, not as a tribunal sees it. A person who is not validly married is free to date and marry. If a person KNOWS that they are not validly married, then they are not committing adultery by dating or marrying. The ONLY things they might be guilty of would be 1.) Disobedience (which is lawful in the face of injustice-see the Church’s stance on disobeying unjust laws) and 2.) Marrying outside the Church (which would not happen if they were not victims of injustice in the first place).

I will grant that the cases in which these particular circumstances apply would be quite rare, but certainly not non-existent.

I see no mortal sin here, and thus, I would be perfectly comfortable receiving communion under these circumstances.

God is just, and he appointed the Church to speak on his behalf on matters of faith and morals. Marriages a matter of faith and morals. Your personal feelings and opinions about a particular marriage are irrelevant when it comes to the validity of a marriage. This judgement is reserved for the Church.

#2 above is a grave offense without a declaration of nullity. It is adultery.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

God is just, and he appointed the Church to speak on his behalf on matters of faith and morals. Marriages a matter of faith and morals. Your personal feelings and opinions about a particular marriage are irrelevant when it comes to the validity of a marriage. This judgement is reserved for the Church.

#2 above is a grave offense without a declaration of nullity. It is adultery.

How can one commit adultery if one is not in a valid marriage? Just curious…

 

[catharina]

God is just, and he appointed the Church to speak on his behalf on matters of faith and morals. Marriages a matter of faith and morals. Your personal feelings and opinions about a particular marriage are irrelevant when it comes to the validity of a marriage. This judgement is reserved for the Church.

#2 above is a grave offense without a declaration of nullity. It is adultery.

Yes, David. I agree with the Church and with you! Thanks.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Then in conclusion, you are in dissent to teachings
of the Church - only rarely, but sometimes YES?

On the teaching of marriage and adultery, I am not in dissent. I am merely saying that a tribunal can be wrong, and a tribunal is NOT “the Church”.

 

[davidv]

How can one commit adultery if one is not in a valid marriage? Just curious…

If one has married and remarries without the benefit of a declaration of nullity, the second marriage is invalid and any sexual relations are adultery.

 

[davidv]

On the teaching of marriage and adultery, I am not in dissent. I am merely saying that a tribunal can be wrong, and a tribunal is NOT “the Church”.

The tribunal has been appointed by the Church, therefore they act on her behalf. So, in fact, they are the Church.

 

[catharina]

On the teaching of marriage and adultery, I am not in dissent. I am merely saying that a tribunal can be wrong, and a tribunal is NOT “the Church”.

Are you making this up as you go along?
Of course the Tribunal works with the authority of the Church.
The tribunals are appointed by and approved by the Church.

Do you imagine that tribunals are an offshoot of the KKK or the ACLU?

By rejecting the authority of the Tribunals in the matters
of annulment, of course you are in dissent to teachings of the Church.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If one has married and remarries without the benefit of a declaration of nullity, the second marriage is invalid and any sexual relations are adultery.

As I said, I think that in the interest of justice, God would understand if a person was compelled to marry outside the Church because of a true lack of fairness and obfuscation of the truth. He knows our hearts and our intentions. If the Church refuses to oversee a perfectly valid marriage between two people, then I doubt God will see marrying in another church as a mortal sin.

 

[catharina]

As I said, I think that in the interest of justice, God would understand if a person was compelled to marry outside the Church because of a true lack of fairness and obfuscation of the truth. He knows our hearts and our intentions. If the Church refuses to oversee a perfectly valid marriage between two people, then I doubt God will see marrying in another church as a mortal sin.

So you are attempting to justify “beliefs” that
spring from your own imagination about God.

BTW, re-read the sentence bolded above.
Not certain what you intended to say???

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The tribunal has been appointed by the Church, therefore they act on her behalf. So, in fact, they are the Church.

Not exactly, no. The “Church” is the infallible, dogma-declaring stand-in for Christ on Earth…a marriage tribunal, your local priest, etc. are NOT “the Church”. Just as when you are in confession and a certain priest mistakenly tells you that contraception is o.k. in some circumstances, we all know he is not speaking for “the Church” and that his judgement is fallible and he may be wrong.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

So you are attempting to justify “beliefs” that

spring from your own imagination about God.

If the tribunal fails to judge correctly, thus refusing a decree of nullity, thus refusing the person the right to enter into what would actually be a perfectly valid marriage with another individual, then I see no grave sin in marrying in another Church as a result of being refused justice in the Catholic Church.

 

[vera_dicere]

Are there a lot of people that remarry who have tried to get an annulment but it was denied, so they feel they can’t be a practicing Catholic, therefore they leave to become Protestant?

I just tried for a moment to put myself in their shoes. I am single and celibate so I really had to think on this one. If the day comes where I wake up and say I want to date and find a husband (highly unlikely as I don’t have the desire, the time to date, possible denied annulment if applied, etc…) would I leave the church? WOW that is really tough and I feel so bad for those whose annulments were denied and they got remarried anyway. I might do the same. I guess any one of us can fall to mortal sin at any time so if its one thing I have learned on this forum, Don’t judge others!

Anyway, just wondered what the statistics were and what you would do if faced with such a situation. If your annulment was denied would you stay single and celibate or would you try to remarry (if you don’t like the single life) and stay within the church feeling like an outcast or would you join a Protestant church where remarriage is not a sin?

What if instead of divorce/remarriage without an annullment it was a foetus discovered to have Downs? Would you stay and have the baby and be socially outcast for being so irresponsible to bring such a “baby” into this world or should you just leave teh Church and find some Protestant one where “abnormal foetus abortion” was not a sin?

Mortal sin is mortal sin. Period. And you wouldn’t be able to claim ignorance if you purposefully went into a Protestant denomination knowing that it wasn’t a sin there but one in the Catholic Church, there’s your full consent and full knowledge.

My mum is sort of in the same situation. My dad’s an adulterer. They got divorced several years ago. They were married for 23 years. Chances are good my mum could get an annullment because of some stuff I wont’ go into detail here. But there’s always the chance my mum might not get an annullment. She’s told me she’s lonely at times, and would like a male companion, but she’d also like to remain in the Church receiving the Euchraist, she has made angry statements against the Church for if annullment was granted that means my dad is free of marriage also. But I don’t think she’d leave God’s Church for some man’s church to get remarried.

Its not easy, but hey, nor’s being single in this day and age.

And its not about judging people, its about informing people of the truth and encouraging them when they’re a bit down on the harder parts of the faith. Judging is more to do with saying where said person is going post death. We’re not allowed to do that, but we’re allowed to correct, in fact we’re meant to!

 

[catharina]

If the tribunal fails to judge correctly, thus refusing a decree of nullity, thus refusing the person the right to enter into what would actually be a perfectly valid marriage with another individual, then I see no grave sin in marrying in another Church as a result of being refused justice in the Catholic Church.

So then, you are clearly in dissent.