Sin to have relations with ex-spouse?

[Rocks_91]

DOCTRINALLY SPEAKING. As St Thomas Aquinas says, Lust is always a sin - if within the marriage, it’s a venial sin (no laughing matter), and if outside, a mortal sin.

Your characters are heaping sin upon sin.

I wrote that in haste. A venial sin at least. If the motive is lust but the act is within the bounds of the marriage blessings (meaning that he would not do it with any other woman, it’s a venial sin), and if the will was to do it with anyone, it’s a MORTAL sin, even if the act was with one’s spouse.

Be that as it may… Your characters are heaping sin upon sin.

 

[AnneTeresa]

To me, it’s clearly a major sin! The marriage is over and they are committed to other people. Just because they didn’t go through with the annulment yet (or maybe they never will) doesn’t mean they make further errors by hurting the people they are with now! Wow, just wow.

 

[SonCatcher]

remember an annulment means no marriage

I’m well aware of that. I was responding to your query “would civil divorce, calling another your spouse, and producing children, raise to a standard of proving the contrary?”

Simply put, civil divorce et cetera does not rise to the level of proof that a valid marriage did not occur in the first place

so nothing could happen before or after “no marriage”.

Incorrect. We are discussing a putative marriage here, not a “no marriage”. Personal formation and attitudes before the putative marriage took place can affect its validity. Subsequent civil divorce, adultery or anything else has no bearing on its validity.

A putative marriage is one that has all the hallmarks of validity (i.e. first marriage of both spouses).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m well aware of that. I was responding to your query “would civil divorce, calling another your spouse, and producing children, raise to a standard of proving the contrary?”

Simply put, civil divorce et cetera does not rise to the level of proof that a valid marriage did not occur in the first place

agreed, however it would show a level of proof against “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring…”(canon 1055). Let no confuse that with a petition for annulment. Rather let us address how the two thing can coexist, how is calling another your spouse and producing children with another ordered to the goodness of the original spouse and children?

Incorrect. We are discussing a putative marriage here, not a “no marriage”. Personal formation and attitudes before the putative marriage took place can affect its validity. Subsequent civil divorce, adultery or anything else has no bearing on its validity.

A putative marriage is one that has all the hallmarks of validity (i.e. first marriage of both spouses).

I am familiar with the term, putative states could be argued endlessly and thus no need to argue at all, however the problem comes in calling the putative state a marriage which again means “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring…”(canon 1055).

I hope you realize these putative states are used to repeal the accusation of sin against the spouse who validly attempted marriage, who bore children within this attempted marriage, and now faces an annulment. In the case cited here the first husband is found to be the father of the children from the other family, whether an anlument ever occurs! I would bet your ability to sell that to the people in question would be interesting. Personally I like the idea that we tell them who is who’s dad, who is married to who, that is where this interpretation goes counter to the scripture in which the man and woman decide who is married to who.

 

[SonCatcher]

agreed, however it would show a level of proof against…

I doubt any marriage tribunal would give this particular line of reasoning any credence. I also doubt any canon lawyer would seriously consider proposing such arguments.

To demonstrate grounds for annulment, one must show that one or both spouses were incapable of marriage in the first place. None of the suggested evidenciary items (all of which would have occurred after the marriage event) can demonstrate that.

In reality, if the canon lawyer arguing for the annulment argues that the spouses couldn’t have validly married each other because they subsequently successfully “married” other people, the lawyer arguing for the marriage would hold up that very argument as evidence they were indeed capable of contracting a successful marriage in the first place.

 

[Corki]

To me, it’s clearly a major sin! The marriage is over and they are committed to other people. Just because they didn’t go through with the annulment yet (or maybe they never will) doesn’t mean they make further errors by hurting the people they are with now! Wow, just wow.

I think everyone agrees that there might be sin involved, especially against charity or if the new “spouse” was deceived in some way.

However, the original marriage is not over; the parties are simply not living together anymore. When one makes a marriage committment to someone who is not your wife/husband, there is no good that is going to come out of that.

On the other hand, what if this encounter had the effect of drawing the real spouses back together? That would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?