What exactly is the Church's stance on a future marriage with a divorced man?

[kage_ar]

Here is an interesting philosophical question I just thought of.
Does the Church have an answer to when the union occurs? Like does it happen at the wedding? Or…

At the wedding.

This is the reason that the tribunal investigates the actual wedding, the state of mind and intention of the parties at that moment in time. Nothing can happen after the wedding that can invalidate a valid marriage. It is either valid from the wedding or it is not.

Those who seek to have the validity of a marriage reviewed need to have witnesses who knew them before and a the time of the wedding.

 

[Agripa]

Here is an interesting philosophical question I just thought of.
Does the Church have an answer to when the union occurs? Like does it happen at the wedding? Or…
If God knows us even before we are born and knows everything about our past, present and future, has he already joined two people together before the two persons came into existence?
I guess what I’m trying to ask is that does he “ok” a marriage that occured out of human free will at that particular time, or did God expect and conjoin a couple as he knew it was going to happen? Not that we do not have free will, but that he just already knows. Just curious as I have learned that God is not constrained by time as we know it.
If that is the case, is a marriage that fails not the one God meant to be ever binding in love with Him, but maybe one of the stepping stones along the way to what he meant for us?
We sin, but God forgives us, we make mistakes and are able to make things right with Him, why not the same for marriage?
I know the scripture that states when a man divorces his wife and marrys another, he is committing adultery…
Just thinkin’ out loud here. Opinions?

You are asking some great questions - more theological in nature I suppose. And at the risk of getting my head lopped off by the Taliban here on this site, i will try to answer a few of your questions since you have asked . . . .

Generally, the marriage must be consumated for it to be valid - in fact in “ye olden times” there was actually a priest who would confirm the nuptuals!!

Be careful with the whole thing about God knowing or joining people in advance - this gets into predestination and the Church’s position is that preordained things would tend to negate free will and the Church will tend to say that if one freely and willingly came to an alter, then there is a presumption that marriage is valid.

And I will also opine that as you grow older “in the Faith” but attempt to use rational thinking about notions of God, you are going to run into logical problems and a lot of heat from the Traditionalists out there. You will also run into what are called apologetic arguments which are rather flimsy ways of using reason to suppport what ultimately fails to be seen with reason.

So I can tell you most Catholics will recoil when you try to think that God allows for mistakes along the way until you get to the right relationship with the person you feel you should have been with all along.

 

[Lerin]

I’ve been through an annullment, and my ex-husband was not involved in the process.

I am also a convert to Catholicism… wasn’t Catholic at the time of marriage and neither was my ex. I am familiar with the Baptist faith (all the individual churches are a bit different) and want to ask one question… was he baptised? Many of the Baptist chruches I was part of growing up looked at baptism as a public show of your private faith but it wasn’t required… so I knew a lot of unbaptised Baptists.

If he wasn’t baptised, the process is VERY simple. Unbaptised persons cannot enter into a sacramental marriage.

If he was baptised, he needs to go through the process liek anyone else.

Annullment processes are as different as marriages… competely on a case-by-case basis. It doesn’t matter what happened AFTER the I-do, but what led up to it. The Tribunal will investigate whether his marriage was valid at the time of the I-do… which is determined by investigating the time leading up to the marriage, not what happened afterwards.

Though they are all different, I can tell you specifics about mine if you want to know. Send me a personal message if you want to.

As awful as it sounds, I too advise that you hold off on any engagement or wedding preparations… you don’t know whether he is vbalidly married or not at this point, and it can cause both scandal AND further heartaches.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ok, so even if the previous marriage had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, he still has to get it annulled? Does this bring the ex wife back into the picture?
On a different level, how do you convince someone to answer to Catholicism when they are not part of the Church?

Yes indeed that is true. The RCC maintains its right to speak to marriages that were not done by them and thus they will require that your prospective husband get an annulment. This happened to me, and so I am most clear on this. I got advice from my then diocese directly.

I have left the church, mostly for other reasons, but this did kind of function as the last straw. I will leave the rest of the conversation to the RCC members to discuss with you.

But technically, if you marry this man you can be denied communion until your correct it. I was told to live as “brother and sister”. As a woman of 50+ I found that unacceptable.

Message me privately if you wish, but I have no desire to persuade you in any direction. But I can answer questions, based on my own experience.

 

[dixieagle]

This is where I’m having a hard time. If the Tribunal has no power, and the ultimate power rests with God, then why is there any investigation at all. I really really don’t understand. Why God needs a Tribunal to tell Him that the marriage was not valid is beyond me.

If Catholics truly believe that God is almighty, full of grace and omnipotent, then this does not make sense.

You profess to be Catholic, and that marrying in the Church is important to you and to your family. However, it seems that, and I don’t mean to offend here, that your faith formation and understanding of Church teachings in the area of marriage is seriously lacking.

The Catholic Church presumes that each and every marriage is entered into in good faith and with correct intentions by both parties. The Church presumes this even of non-Catholics. The Church also follows God’s own teachings regarding marriage; any marriage entered into freely, without impediment, CANNOT be dissolved, declared null, etc. A civil divorce only dissolves the legal contract but does not have any effect on a valid marriage; that is where the tribunal comes in. As God himself has not, to my knowledge, issued a declaration of nullity for anyone, the tribunal, with the authority of His Church behind it, investigates the circumstances of a marriage at the time of the wedding to determine if any impediment existed.

Now, from what you have mentioned about his wife (and she is still presumed to be that in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise) it may well be that there was, indeed, some impediment to a true, valid marriage. Also, if he was quite young, and indeed felt pressured, then that, also, could result in a decree of nullity.

So, take some of the good and accurate advice other posters have given and, if your Catholic faith is truly important to you, aim your friend in the direction of your parish priest.

 

[Phemie]

I’ve been through an annullment, and my ex-husband was not involved in the process.

I am also a convert to Catholicism… wasn’t Catholic at the time of marriage and neither was my ex. I am familiar with the Baptist faith (all the individual churches are a bit different) and want to ask one question… was he baptised? Many of the Baptist chruches I was part of growing up looked at baptism as a public show of your private faith but it wasn’t required… so I knew a lot of unbaptised Baptists.

If he wasn’t baptised, the process is VERY simple. Unbaptised persons cannot enter into a sacramental marriage.

But they can enter into VALID marriages which is what the Tribunal looks at, not at whether or not it was sacramental.

It’s the same process, unless both were unbaptized at the time of the marriage and one converted. Then he might go for Pauline privilege.

 

[dixieagle]

The Church must eveolve in many quarters, certainly this is one area. Us “cradle” Catholics know full well the tale of the wife, eyes black and blue, crying to the priest about how horrible her marriage is, only to have the priest tell her she must pass through many Good Fridays before she can participate in Easter!! Again, you must follow your heart and don’t look for validation from the poster’s here - its folly to debate them. Their eyes look elsewhere.

I think that the Church has, indeed, “evolved” in her understanding in this area. I know of several abused spouses who were granted decrees of nullity, and none who were denied, but that is my experience.

Telling the OP to “follow her heart” is unhelpful for someone who professes to be Catholic.

 

[dixieagle]

Here is an interesting philosophical question I just thought of.
Does the Church have an answer to when the union occurs? Like does it happen at the wedding? Or…
If God knows us even before we are born and knows everything about our past, present and future, has he already joined two people together before the two persons came into existence?
I guess what I’m trying to ask is that does he “ok” a marriage that occured out of human free will at that particular time, or did God expect and conjoin a couple as he knew it was going to happen? Not that we do not have free will, but that he just already knows. Just curious as I have learned that God is not constrained by time as we know it.
If that is the case, is a marriage that fails not the one God meant to be ever binding in love with Him, but maybe one of the stepping stones along the way to what he meant for us?
We sin, but God forgives us, we make mistakes and are able to make things right with Him, why not the same for marriage?
I know the scripture that states when a man divorces his wife and marrys another, he is committing adultery…
Just thinkin’ out loud here. Opinions?

You seem to be describing here a God who manipulates us; He does not, though He is omniscient. When we make wrong choices, we can be sure that it is NOT God pulling the strings!

 

[1ke]

Here is an interesting philosophical question I just thought of. Does the Church have an answer to when the union occurs? Like does it happen at the wedding?

Yes, the Church does have an answer: At the time the vows are exchanged. The couple confers the Sacrament upon each other. It becomes indissoluable when consummated.

Or…
If God knows us even before we are born and knows everything about our past, present and future, has he already joined two people together before the two persons came into existence?
I guess what I’m trying to ask is that does he “ok” a marriage that occured out of human free will at that particular time, or did God expect and conjoin a couple as he knew it was going to happen? Not that we do not have free will, but that he just already knows. Just curious as I have learned that God is not constrained by time as we know it.
If that is the case, is a marriage that fails not the one God meant to be ever binding in love with Him, but maybe one of the stepping stones along the way to what he meant for us?
We sin, but God forgives us, we make mistakes and are able to make things right with Him, why not the same for marriage?

God knows what we will choose, but we have free will to make that choice. If we enter into the Sacrament of Marriage with free will then we have bound ourselves to the convenant and our spouse by our very act of giving and receiving consent.

Christ teaches us that marriage was ordained by God as a permanent, exclusive, fruitful union.

I know the scripture that states when a man divorces his wife and marrys another, he is committing adultery…
Just thinkin’ out loud here. Opinions?

No it doesn’t state that.

A person may separate from an adulterous spouse. Scripture does not say they can remarry.

 

[1ke]

Generally, the marriage must be consumated for it to be valid - in fact in “ye olden times” there was actually a priest who would confirm the nuptuals!!

This is not accurate.

A *valid *marriage occurs at the time the vows are exchanged. A marriage that is ratified but not consummated is dissolvable by the Pope, but it is completely valid.

And I will also opine that as you grow older “in the Faith” but attempt to use rational thinking about notions of God, you are going to run into logical problems and a lot of heat from the Traditionalists out there. You will also run into what are called apologetic arguments which are rather flimsy ways of using reason to suppport what ultimately fails to be seen with reason.

This is also inaccurate. The Church herself teaches there is no conflict between Faith and Reason.

So I can tell you most Catholics will recoil when you try to think that God allows for mistakes along the way until you get to the right relationship with the person you feel you should have been with all along.

Because God has taught us the truth, and this isn’t it.

 

[katillac1]

You seem to be describing here a God who manipulates us; He does not, though He is omniscient. When we make wrong choices, we can be sure that it is NOT God pulling the strings!

No no I didn’t mean that at all. We make our own choices, I’m just bringing up the question that out of our choices, God knows which one to bind in Him. Why does it have to be the first marriage?
That aside, my wonderings are not important…

---

Also, new news:
My boyfriend has told me that when all of that crud was happening, he turned to God first. He knows of the scriptures in the Gospels that forbid divorce and that really bothered him, but he took at look at Matthew 19:9. It clearly says, “I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman.” Underline added.
He went to a few pastors to make sure that this passage means what it says and they assured him that in his case, he was not committing sin by divorcing her. This is what keeps his mind at ease now.
Why is Matthew forgotten when this question arises? Mark and Luke, indeed do not add the unfaithful part, but the fact that one Gospel adds it should mean that in this circumstance of infidelity, the divorce is indeed valid in the eyes of God. With that said, why should the annulment be necessary.
With that passage, you cannot say he is still a married man and is being adulterous with me.

 

[1ke]

If he wasn’t baptised, the process is VERY simple. Unbaptised persons cannot enter into a sacramental marriage.

If he was baptised, he needs to go through the process liek anyone else.

Not exactly. The unbaptized certainly do contract valid marriages. An unbaptized person is in a valid natural marriage.

A valid marriage between two baptized persons is also a Sacrament.

An unbaptized person can petition for a decree of nullity.

They can also *potentially *have a **valid **marriage **dissolved **via the Pauline or Petrine Privilege depending upon whether both spouses were unbaptized or only one.

Kat–** It’s in the book**.

 

[1ke]

No no I didn’t mean that at all. We make our own choices, I’m just bringing up the question that out of our choices, God knows which one to bind in Him. Why does it have to be the first marriage?
That aside, my wonderings are not important…

---

Also, new news:
My boyfriend has told me that when all of that crud was happening, he turned to God first. He knows of the scriptures in the Gospels that forbid divorce and that really bothered him, but he took at look at Matthew 19:9. It clearly says, “I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman.” Underline added.
He went to a few pastors to make sure that this passage means what it says and they assured him that in his case, he was not committing sin by divorcing her. This is what keeps his mind at ease now.
Why is Matthew forgotten when this question arises? Mark and Luke, indeed do not add the unfaithful part, but the fact that one Gospel adds it should mean that in this circumstance of infidelity, the divorce is indeed valid in the eyes of God. With that said, why should the annulment be necessary.
With that passage, you cannot say he is still a married man and is being adulterous with me.

You are correct, it was not a sin to divorce her.

However, that does not mean he is free to remarry.

The Matthew passage has been hashed out many times in the Scripture forum. The Catholic Church teaches with authority.

Remember, what your boyfriend is reading is a translation-- and a poor one. The original word is “porneia” which means “illicit” or “illegal” marriage-- that is the concept of nullity. The word does not mean “unfaithful”. A marriage that was not valid from the start. An illicit/illegal marriage would be, for example, a marriage between siblings (legal in Roman law for a time, but against the Divine Law) or other close relatives.

 

[katillac1]

The Matthew passage has been hashed out many times in the Scripture forum. The Catholic Church teaches with authority.

Remember, what your boyfriend is reading is a translation-- and a poor one. The original word is “porneia” which means “illicit” or “illegal” marriage-- that is the concept of nullity. The word does not mean “unfaithful”. A marriage that was not valid from the start. An illicit/illegal marriage would be, for example, a marriage between siblings (legal in Roman law for a time, but against the Divine Law) or other close relatives.

What I quoted was out of my Bible, but yes his did say the same thing. I got my dad’s out and his says:
“I now say to you, whoever divorces his wife (lewd conduct is a separate case*) and marries another…”
*“literally ‘except for porneia’ i.e. immorality, fornication, even incest. A growing number of scholars consider this to refer to Christians who, prior to their conversion, had married within the prohibited degree of blood relationship as stated in Lv 18, 6-18. The same position seems to be taken in Acts 15, 20. As it stands, however, this Matthean clause of exception and that of Mt 5, 32 cannot be easily reconciled with the absolute prohibition of divorce repeated in Mk 10, 11 and Lk 16,18. Whatever may have been the situation prevailing among the Chrisitians for whom Matthew wrote, the more stringent understanding of Jesus’ words prevailed throughout the Church”
The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1970.

It seems that immorality and fornication would fit with infidelity. Also the scriptures seem to be split on the strict version and the Matthean version. Just because the more strict version has been more popular does not make the Matthean version incorrect. All that means is that the authors lived in a slightly different time in cultures that are not stoic. It is impossible to know what exactly came out of Jesus’ mouth so please do not say one version is Law and the other is promoting evil just because that is the feeling of the majority. They are both in the Bible!
By saying that Matthew is incorrect, you are saying that he is not infallible. What then, makes the other versions Law? You then have to accept that all writers in the Bible can be wrong. So why does the Catholic Church accept some scripture as Divine and say others are just parables. Why is the Luke version law and the Matthean clause get dismissed.
Remember it says that the scholars consider…

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

You are correct, it was not a sin to divorce her.

However, that does not mean he is free to remarry.

The Matthew passage has been hashed out many times in the Scripture forum. The Catholic Church teaches with authority.

Remember, what your boyfriend is reading is a translation-- and a poor one. The original word is “porneia” which means “illicit” or “illegal” marriage-- that is the concept of nullity. The word does not mean “unfaithful”. A marriage that was not valid from the start. An illicit/illegal marriage would be, for example, a marriage between siblings (legal in Roman law for a time, but against the Divine Law) or other close relatives.

Here is Matthew 19:9
“I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm

 

[kage_ar]

Remember, Bible publisher footnotes are NOT infallible.

Stick to the defined Doctrine and Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church, it never will contradict Scripture. If your footnotes contradict the Church, the footnotes are in error.

 

[katillac1]

Remember, Bible publisher footnotes are NOT infallible.

Stick to the defined Doctrine and Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church, it never will contradict Scripture. If your footnotes contradict the Church, the footnotes are in error.

Very true,
My point however, is that the Catholic Church takes it’s doctrine out of Scripture. Otherwise it is made up, no doubt with prayer and thought, but scripture and doctrine writers were/are not puppets. They are not like Muhammad and believe that God spoke to them directly from an angel. You can argue with me all you want, but that is what I believe. The stories of such happenings I believe actually happened, (like Moses) but most of these stories were passed on orally for hundreds of years before they got penned down. Quoting Christian stories does not mean that you become totally accurate.
Also, if Catholics believe what you said, why are there Bibles that are not hand written by the Pope? We would not have Bibles or footnotes at all if we believed that only defined Doctrine and Dogma of Catholics are completely correct.

 

[noclevername]

Say a couple are married 15 years and for whatever reason they divorced and the tribunal finds their marriage invalid and annuls it, does that mean during their 15 years of marriage they were living in sin?

 

[Phemie]

Say a couple are married 15 years and for whatever reason they divorced and the tribunal finds their marriage invalid and annuls it, does that mean during their 15 years of marriage they were living in sin?

No, because sin requires intent and knowledge. They had neither the knowledge that their marriage was invalid and no intent to live as man & wife without being validly married.

 

[Lerin]

1ke and Phemie… thank you for clarifying that.

I was told that if we were both unbaptised (which didn’t apply to me, as I was baptised in my case) that it was a much quicker process… that it would only be about 3 months as opposed to 18 months to 2 years in my diocese at the time.

I don’t know if my information was faulty or if it was my understanding that was lacking.