wedding present and card for other people's invalid marriages?

[janine7]

My cousin and his wife (both left Catholic Church in their teens (1970’s) for Evangelical Protestantism. They divorced 3 years ago. My cousin married again a couple months ago.

My question I would like to ask both ways: from the vantage point of them being ex-Catholics and from the vantage point of what if they had always been Protestants—yet baptized Protestants. Baptized Protestants are considered by the Church to have valid sacramental marriages. When they marry again therefore it would be an invalid marriage from the Catholic point of view.

Question: I recognize that the Catholic Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over Protestants, but as far as a Catholic condoning and congratulating them/attending wedding, wouldn’t this be giving scandal by expressing joy and approval at something that is wrong? This gives the couple (and others) that someone who is even a strong Catholic approves.

Romans 7:1-3 says “Are you unaware ,brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.”

Don’t get me wrong. I still plan on attending family functions and being as friendly as always.

 

[Think_About_It]

My cousin and his wife (both left Catholic Church in their teens (1970’s) for Evangelical Protestantism. They divorced 3 years ago. My cousin married again a couple months ago.

My question I would like to ask both ways: from the vantage point of them being ex-Catholics and from the vantage point of what if they had always been Protestants—yet baptized Protestants. Baptized Protestants are considered by the Church to have valid sacramental marriages. When they marry again therefore it would be an invalid marriage from the Catholic point of view.

Question: I recognize that the Catholic Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over Protestants, but as far as a Catholic condoning and congratulating them/attending wedding, wouldn’t this be giving scandal by expressing joy and approval at something that is wrong? This gives the couple (and others) that someone who is even a strong Catholic approves.

Romans 7:1-3 says “Are you unaware ,brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.”

Don’t get me wrong. I still plan on attending family functions and being as friendly as always.

Imagine if they were wondering the same thing about you, how absurd it would seem…

 

[lizaanne]

My cousin and his wife (both left Catholic Church in their teens (1970’s) …

I recognize that the Catholic Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over Protestants,

They are still very much Catholic whether they like it or not. They are bound by the laws of the Catholic Church. Period. This is absolutely scandalous - they are living in an adulterous situation.

I would not acknowledge such a thing.

~Liza

 

[hellopeople]

They are still very much Catholic whether they like it or not. They are bound by the laws of the Catholic Church. Period. This is absolutely scandalous - they are living in an adulterous situation.

I would not acknowledge such a thing.

~Liza

lol, this is too much IMO. Go to the wedding and support them. Treat them like the family that they are.

 

[1ke]

lol, this is too much IMO. Go to the wedding and support them. Treat them like the family that they are.

Spoken as someone who is not Catholic.

If one is Catholic it is not “too much” it is, rather, “the truth.”

 

[1ke]

My question I would like to ask both ways: from the vantage point of them being ex-Catholics

They are not “ex-Catholics.” They are still very much Catholic, and bound by canon law-- which binds all baptized Catholcis-- and certainly by God’s moral law-- which is universally binding on all people.

and from the vantage point of what if they had always been Protestants—yet baptized Protestants. Baptized Protestants are considered by the Church to have valid sacramental marriages. When they marry again therefore it would be an invalid marriage from the Catholic point of view.

Yes, this is correct, an attempted “re-marriage” of any two persons is adultery unless and until the Catholic Church has ruled regarding freedom to marry (nullity or dissolution of the natural bond).

Question: I recognize that the Catholic Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over Protestants, but as far as a Catholic condoning and congratulating them/attending wedding, wouldn’t this be giving scandal by expressing joy and approval at something that is wrong? This gives the couple (and others) that someone who is even a strong Catholic approves.

Yes, it could be scandalous.

 

[Joe_5859]

My cousin and his wife (both left Catholic Church in their teens (1970’s) for Evangelical Protestantism. They divorced 3 years ago. My cousin married again a couple months ago.

My question I would like to ask both ways: from the vantage point of them being ex-Catholics and from the vantage point of what if they had always been Protestants—yet baptized Protestants. Baptized Protestants are considered by the Church to have valid sacramental marriages. When they marry again therefore it would be an invalid marriage from the Catholic point of view.

Question: I recognize that the Catholic Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over Protestants, but as far as a Catholic condoning and congratulating them/attending wedding, wouldn’t this be giving scandal by expressing joy and approval at something that is wrong? This gives the couple (and others) that someone who is even a strong Catholic approves.

Romans 7:1-3 says “Are you unaware ,brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.”

Don’t get me wrong. I still plan on attending family functions and being as friendly as always.

I think sometimes we Catholics can overstimate our own importance by assuming that we will cause scandal by attending this-or-that wedding. No one is probably paying much attention to you on that day. Certainly, we don’t want to dismiss such a possibility altogether, but given most people’s understanding of marriage these days, whether you attend or not will probably have zero impact.

From a canonical standpoint, any baptized Catholic (whether they leave for a Protestant church or not) is still bound by Canon Law (i.e. must be married in a Catholic Church, etc.). A clarification was recently put out by the Vatican making that even more clear. As such, they are to follow Canon Law to be validly married in the eyes of the Church. Thus, when they married the first time it was probably still invalid.

But it’s not really up to us individual Catholics to play Tribunal Office. There’s no reason you can’t go to the wedding and give them a gift. You may want to avoid certain wedding cards that express sentiments you don’t think accurately describe their relationship, but there’s no obligation to boycott it. A priest I once asked about it told me, “Think of it as a party.”

 

[hellopeople]

Spoken as someone who is not Catholic.

If one is Catholic it is not “too much” it is, rather, “the truth.”

I thank God that not all Catholics follow this “truth.”

 

[hellopeople]

I think sometimes we Catholics can overstimate our own importance by assuming that we will cause scandal by attending this-or-that wedding. No one is probably paying much attention to you on that day. Certainly, we don’t want to dismiss such a possibility altogether, but given most people’s understanding of marriage these days, whether you attend or not will probably have zero impact.

From a canonical standpoint, any baptized Catholic (whether they leave for a Protestant church or not) is still bound by Canon Law (i.e. must be married in a Catholic Church, etc.). A clarification was recently put out by the Vatican making that even more clear. As such, they are to follow Canon Law to be validly married in the eyes of the Church. Thus, when they married the first time it was probably still invalid.

But it’s not really up to us individual Catholics to play Tribunal Office. There’s no reason you can’t go to the wedding and give them a gift. You may want to avoid certain wedding cards that express sentiments you don’t think accurately describe their relationship, but there’s no obligation to boycott it. A priest I once asked about it told me, “Think of it as a party.”

The problem is that these people don’t care if the church thinks their marriage is valid or not. Why would they? They don’t agree with the teachings of the church but you think they should follow these teachings because they were baptized before they had a choice?

 

[Dee123]

The problem is that these people don’t care if the church thinks their marriage is valid or not. Why would they? They don’t agree with the teachings of the church but you think they should follow these teachings because they were baptized before they had a choice?

Because they were baptized in the Catholic Church, they are Catholics for life whether they like it or not. Not marrying in the Catholic Church automatically made their first marriage invalid. HOWEVER, if two Protestants who had never been baptized in the Catholic Church got married outside the RCC, and were baptized, yes, their union is considered sacramental.

Here’s my situation. I am a cradle Catholic. Due to improper catechesis and a bit of a turning away on my part, I married civilly to a non-church-going christian in 1995. In 2001 we had our marriage convalidated in the RCC. It wasn’t until about 2 years ago that —after studying the faith and realizing that the RCC is in complete obedience to the Holy Spirit —that I found out I had married invalidly and was living in sin prior to our convalidation—but my husband was O.K.!! Fair or not? It doesn’t matter, it’s the truth that matters. To one who is given much, much is expected…

 

[Think_About_It]

Ironically enough, it’s pride that makes you think so lowly of your family’s choices as to not celebrate their love. Imagine a world where you could just love people for who they were without religion poisoning it…

 

[Langdell]

I think sometimes we Catholics can overstimate our own importance by assuming that we will cause scandal by attending this-or-that wedding. No one is probably paying much attention to you on that day. Certainly, we don’t want to dismiss such a possibility altogether, but given most people’s understanding of marriage these days, whether you attend or not will probably have zero impact.

From a canonical standpoint, any baptized Catholic (whether they leave for a Protestant church or not) is still bound by Canon Law (i.e. must be married in a Catholic Church, etc.). A clarification was recently put out by the Vatican making that even more clear. As such, they are to follow Canon Law to be validly married in the eyes of the Church. Thus, when they married the first time it was probably still invalid.

But it’s not really up to us individual Catholics to play Tribunal Office. There’s no reason you can’t go to the wedding and give them a gift. You may want to avoid certain wedding cards that express sentiments you don’t think accurately describe their relationship, but there’s no obligation to boycott it. A priest I once asked about it told me, “Think of it as a party.”

I agree.

.

 

[grace_singh]

as a Catholic Christian, it is your responsibility and your calling to differentiate between what the world sees as ok and cool, and what the CC rules and mandates.

according to the CC, they are in an adulterous and wrong situation. people may be happy for them and they may be very happy, but doubtless there are happy couples and happy wedding guests at gay marriages, too. doesn’t mean that those same-sex marriages are ok by the CC, though, or events that Catholics should attend or congratulate.

if you go, isn’t that basically a way to say “i’m happy for you and am celebrating your marriage with you”? it’s your call, and with family involved it will likely be a sore point. and yes, people may think you’re a jerk if you don’t go, or don’t send a card.

but if you show up at a wedding, people take that as a sign that you are genuinely happy for them, approve of their union, and are there to give your blessings, so to speak. if from a Catholic pov you’re not happy, don’t approve, and don’t see God blessing this union, why go?

 

[1ke]

Ironically enough, it’s pride that makes you think so lowly of your family’s choices as to not celebrate their love. Imagine a world where you could just love people for who they were without religion poisoning it…

We are not to celebrate sin, participate in it, or encourage others in sin.

It is not love that would be celebrated, it would be adultery.

 

[Think_About_It]

We are not to celebrate sin, participate in it, or encourage others in sin.

It is not love that would be celebrated, it would be adultery.

And of the tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity, you think yours to be so exalted that you wouldn’t even chance celebrating with family members if the opportunity arose. I’m astounded that people make these kinds of decisions based on creeds and beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence. When peoples’ religion makes them unable to celebrate what would normally be a joyous occasion (if not for dogma), that’s when I take offence. You’re whole belief system is set up to excempt people from your good graces if they don’t believe exactly as you do. There could be no truer sense of the word bigot. That is what you must be to be true to the Christian faith. It’s disgusting.

 

[hellopeople]

We are not to celebrate sin, participate in it, or encourage others in sin.

It is not love that would be celebrated, it would be adultery.

That is just your opinion though. It might be the opinion of the church as well, but not the church of the people that the people getting married follow. How would you feel if one of your cousins said that you were committing adultery because you weren’t getting married in a Mormon church (just a random example) and that you were living in sin. What would be your reaction?

You would probably think “well the mormon church is not right, that belief is stupid, and I don’t really want anything to do with this person that thinks I am living in sin.” So, the question is, do you think that you think it is worth it to burn bridges with your relative because you don’t agree with their CHRISTIAN marriage.

 

[grace_singh]

And of the tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity, you think yours to be so exalted that you wouldn’t even chance celebrating with family members if the opportunity arose. I’m astounded that people make these kinds of decisions based on creeds and beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence. When peoples’ religion makes them unable to celebrate what would normally be a joyous occasion (if not for dogma), that’s when I take offence. You’re whole belief system is set up to excempt people from your good graces if they don’t believe exactly as you do. There could be no truer sense of the word bigot. That is what you must be to be true to the Christian faith. It’s disgusting.

refraining from participating in an event you consider sinful or immoral is not all that unusual in anyone’s faith.

no one is speaking nastily to the married couple, or planning on disrupting their wedding. at most, the Catholic would not go. there’s nothing hateful or outrageous about politely declining to attend an event you consider spiritually / morally illicit, no matter how joyous others are about that same event.

 

[hellopeople]

there’s nothing hateful or outrageous about politely declining to attend an event you consider spiritually / morally illicit, no matter how joyous others are about that same event.

Even if that IS the case, many will see it as both hateful and outrageous. I know that if someone declined an invitation to my wedding because of their religious beliefs I would take it VERY personally and it would certainly effect my relationship with that person.

 

[1ke]

That is just your opinion though. It might be the opinion of the church as well, but not the church of the people that the people getting married follow. How would you feel if one of your cousins said that you were committing adultery because you weren’t getting married in a Mormon church (just a random example) and that you were living in sin. What would be your reaction?

The moral law applies to all, it is not an opinion. Christians can see from the bible that Jesus did not permit divorce. It is adultery.

If i were a Mormon who had strayed from the Mormon faith and someone cared enough about me to tell me I was sinning and that Jesus loved me and didn’t want me to sin, I would respect that.

You would probably think “well the mormon church is not right, that belief is stupid, and I don’t really want anything to do with this person that thinks I am living in sin.” So, the question is, do you think that you think it is worth it to burn bridges with your relative because you don’t agree with their CHRISTIAN marriage.

Ask the Christian martyrs who went to lions rather than deny Christ if it is worth it to “burn bridges” for Christ.

If you aren’t willing to do the same, you aren’t worthy to be called a Christian. We all pray we’ll never be called to that test and we all pray for the virtue of courage should we be called.

We should not falter in these lesser inconveniences such as making someone “angry” by loving them enough to tell them the truth, to want to help them reach heaven and avoid hell.

 

[1ke]

And of the tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity, you think yours to be so exalted that you wouldn’t even chance celebrating with family members if the opportunity arose.

I believe the Catholic Church to have the fullness of truth, yes.

Exalted or not, it is the truth. And therefore, in good conscience I must act on the truth as I know it to be. Even when that is uncomfortable.

I celebrate with family often. I celebrate when there is something to celebrate. Sin is never something to celebrate.

I’m astounded that people make these kinds of decisions based on creeds and beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence.

It seems you find no compelling evidence. I do.

I will act on the truth and live according to it.

I’m astounded by people who claim to adhere to a religion and then don’t make decisions consistent with the creed and beliefs. What is the point of that? It’s a non-belief system.

When peoples’ religion makes them unable to celebrate what would normally be a joyous occasion (if not for dogma), that’s when I take offence.

Dance around the circle of the warm fuzzy Jesus all you want. I prefer truth over what “feels good.”

You’re whole belief system is set up to excempt people from your good graces if they don’t believe exactly as you do.

This is not a true statement at all.

There could be no truer sense of the word bigot. That is what you must be to be true to the Christian faith. It’s disgusting.

You don’t get it at all.