what's the difference?

[angell1]

i keep hearing that noncahtolics are not held to the same standards when it comes to divorce and remarriage and they don’t need to follow the catholic understanding of marriage

what’s the difference between that and other sins? why should noncahotlics be held accountable for abortion then? or homosexuality and fornication? or a myriad of other things.

i’m sorry, i’m still not getting it

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church.

 

[angell1]

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church.

so? that doesn’t really have anything to do with the question. i’m talking about invalid marriages

 

[JerryZ]

i keep hearing that noncahtolics are not held to the same standards when it comes to divorce and remarriage and they don’t need to follow the catholic understanding of marriage

what’s the difference between that and other sins? why should noncahotlics be held accountable for abortion then? or homosexuality and fornication? or a myriad of other things.

i’m sorry, i’m still not getting it

We like to second guess God. Probably… and this is me, second guessing Him, when we are called to His presence all our presumptions go out of the window and we will have to answer for all our sins, even those we so fiercely want to avoid facing.

–

 

[TK421]

There is only one truth. “The different standard” is their knowledge of that one truth.

The declaration of annulments seems to be used rather liberally; from this we can assume the vast majority of protestant marriages, divorces, and remarriages would have been annulled. Maybe this reflects bad on Catholics also, but come what may, the divorce rate among protestants isn’t significantly different.

Also, understand that an annulment is a public recognition of a pre-existing reality. A marriage is either valid or it isn’t. The Church doesn’t “make” a marriage annulled; it declares what was already there.

 

[Gorgias]

i keep hearing that noncahtolics are not held to the same standards when it comes to divorce and remarriage and they don’t need to follow the catholic understanding of marriage

what’s the difference between that and other sins? why should noncahotlics be held accountable for abortion then? or homosexuality and fornication? or a myriad of other things.

i’m sorry, i’m still not getting it

Not a problem.

The misunderstanding comes, I think, from your comparison of a law made by the Church (that is, what the Church requires of its members who wish to marry) to a law made by God (prohibitions against murder, sexual expression outside of a marriage of a man and woman, etc). The Church law is applicable to Catholics; the moral law is universal and therefore is applicable to all people.

In the case of marriage, then, the Church has particular requirements of its members; but, it doesn’t hold non-Christians to them, and it doesn’t hold non-Catholic Christians to the parts that it requires of its members (i.e., the requirements for the ‘form’ of marriage).

Does that help?

Blessings,
G.

 

[angell1]

Not a problem.

The misunderstanding comes, I think, from your comparison of a law made by the Church (that is, what the Church requires of its members who wish to marry) to a law made by God (prohibitions against murder, sexual expression outside of a marriage of a man and woman, etc). The Church law is applicable to Catholics; the moral law is universal and therefore is applicable to all people.

In the case of marriage, then, the Church has particular requirements of its members; but, it doesn’t hold non-Christians to them, and it doesn’t hold non-Catholic Christians to the parts that it requires of its members (i.e., the requirements for the ‘form’ of marriage).

Does that help?

Blessings,
G.

um sorry, not really. this has to do with 2 nonchristians getting remarried, divorce and remarriage is adultery whether one is inside or outside the church. that’s what i’m not getting. most people seem to say it’s ok for catholics to attend such a wedding

 

[LittleRose]

um sorry, not really. this has to do with 2 nonchristians getting remarried, divorce and remarriage is adultery whether one is inside or outside the church. that’s what i’m not getting. most people seem to say it’s ok for catholics to attend such a wedding

The difference is between natural law and divine law, and our accountability for knowing each.

As the catechism states:

“The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . … The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties…”

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely."

In other words, whether we are Catholic or not, deep down we are all aware of the Natural law. We are therefore all accountable if we commit a violation of the Natural law (such as abortion or homosexual intercourse)

On the other hand, people who are not in touch with the fullness of truth in Catholic teaching may not be fully aware all of the precepts of divine law, especially as regards the sin of remarriage after a divorce. Furthermore, being separated from the Catholic Church, the Protestant will not be aware of Ecclesiastical law regarding the need for a decree of nullity for the first marriage. That’s not to say that it is only a sin for Catholics to remarry and not a sin for a Protestant or a non-christian. What it means is that the person outside the Catholic Church does not know it is adulterous, and this mitigates his/her responsibility to a substantial enough degree that a Catholic may attend the wedding in good conscience.

 

[angell1]

The difference is between natural law and divine law, and our accountability for knowing each.

As the catechism states:

In other words, whether we are Catholic or not, deep down we are all aware of the Natural law. We are therefore all accountable if we commit a violation of the Natural law (such as abortion or homosexual intercourse)

On the other hand, people who are not in touch with the fullness of truth in Catholic teaching may not be fully aware all of the precepts of divine law, especially as regards the sin of remarriage after a divorce. Furthermore, being separated from the Catholic Church, the Protestant will not be aware of Ecclesiastical law regarding the need for a decree of nullity for the first marriage. That’s not to say that it is only a sin for Catholics to remarry and not a sin for a Protestant or a non-christian. What it means is that the person outside the Catholic Church does not know it is adulterous, and this mitigates his/her responsibility to a substantial enough degree that a Catholic may attend the wedding in good conscience.

so marriage is not part of natural lawy but divine law? and wouldn’t it be causing scandal if people knew i was cahotlic and attending/ wouldn’t it make it look like i was ok with remarriage?

 

[1ke]

Angel,

**There is no difference. ** People have become used to divorce and remarriage in our culture and try to make it somehow “ok” or just ignore the obvious.

That said, we have no way to know with certainty if prior non-Catholic marriages were valid or invalid. And, of course with the non-baptized a natural marriage is dissoluble under certain circumstances such as the non-Christian converting to Christianity and marrying a believer.

Therefore, in general, with non-Catholics we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt since we really cannot know with certainty the validity/invalidity of their attempt at marriage.

So, yes, if a non-Catholic is “remarrying” after a divorce on the surface it would appear an invalid marriage. But, if their first spouse had been married before, then they had a ligamen impediment and really were not validly married. Therefore, this marriage would be valid. That is only an example of how tangled non-Catholic marriage attempts have become due to their continued drifting from the biblical principles of the essential properties of marriage and the prohibition of divorce.

If you, knowing the facts of their specific circumstances, believe that they are entering an invalid marriage and you should not attend. If you believe it would send a wrong message regarding condoning divorce/remarriage, you should not attend. If you have reason to believe that their prior attempt(s) at marriage would be viewed by the Catholic Church as invalid (or if they are unbaptized and could possibly have a Pauline Privilege situation going on) then perhaps you can attend.

As I have said in several previous threads you have started-- it is a prudential judgment on your part.

It is even a prudential judgment to attend when you know it is an invalid marriage-- for example, two Catholics marrying outside the Church. We would typically not support this or attend. But, pastoral guidance can be given if for example the parents of these two people believe it would cause irreparable harm to the family relationship. If there is hope that by attending the parents can continue to work towards getting their children back in to the Church then it *can *be permissible to attend if they are clear that they are not condoning the marriage outside the Church, object to it, etc.

Kinda like the fact that a non-contracepting spouse can have marital relations with the contracepting spouse to preserve the conjugal union if they make their objection known and continue to try to move the marriage to a state without contraception.

 

[1ke]

Angel,

**There is no difference. ** People have become used to divorce and remarriage in our culture and try to make it somehow “ok” or just ignore the obvious. God’s law on marriage is natural law and it applies to ALL people, everywhere.

That said, we have no way to know with certainty if prior non-Catholic marriages were valid or invalid. And, of course with the non-baptized a natural marriage is dissoluble under certain circumstances such as the non-Christian converting to Christianity and marrying a believer.

Therefore, in general, with non-Catholics we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt since we really cannot know with certainty the validity/invalidity of their attempt at marriage.

So, yes, if a non-Catholic is “remarrying” after a divorce on the surface it would appear an invalid marriage. But, if their first spouse had been married before, then they had a ligamen impediment and really were not validly married. Therefore, this marriage would be valid. That is only an example of how tangled non-Catholic marriage attempts have become due to their continued drifting from the biblical principles of the essential properties of marriage and the prohibition of divorce.

If you, knowing the facts of their specific circumstances, believe that they are entering an invalid marriage then you should not attend. If you believe it would send a wrong message regarding condoning divorce/remarriage, you should not attend. If you have reason to believe that their prior attempt(s) at marriage would be viewed by the Catholic Church as invalid (or if they are unbaptized and could possibly have a Pauline Privilege situation going on) then perhaps you can attend.

As I have said in several previous threads you have started-- it is a prudential judgment on your part.

It is even a prudential judgment to attend when you know it is an invalid marriage-- for example, two Catholics marrying outside the Church. We would typically not support this or attend. But, pastoral guidance can be given if for example the parents of these two people believe it would cause irreparable harm to the family relationship. If there is hope that by attending the parents can continue to work towards getting their children back in to the Church then it *can *be permissible to attend if they are clear that they are not condoning the marriage outside the Church, object to it, etc.

Kinda like the fact that a non-contracepting spouse can have marital relations with the contracepting spouse to preserve the conjugal union if they make their objection known and continue to try to move the marriage to a state without contraception.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

so? that doesn’t really have anything to do with the question. i’m talking about invalid marriages

Firstly why are you assuming that all non-catholic marriages are invalid.

As to your question that non-Catholics are held to a different standard… Each person is bound by what they know. If a person knowingly rejects the teachings of God, that is sin.

How do you know that non-Catholics are not held responsible for anything? Only God will do the accounting and judging.

When I as a Catholic entered into my marriage, having taken the prep course, I knew what was expected of me and the significance of what I was doing…I am bound to that.

If a person is of another christian denomination and has the same understanding of marriage as I had as a Catholic, they are held to that same standard.

If a person grew up in an atheistic home and married a waitress in Vegas because they thought it would be fun then got divorced…That person would not have had the understanding prior to the marriage. They are held to that standard.

Same goes for any sin. That is my understanding.

 

[1ke]

Firstly why are you assuming that all non-catholic marriages are invalid.

No, she isn’t.

It is quite clear in this thread and in the others she has posted she is talking specifically about non-Catholics who have prior marriages. The marriage in question is a “remarriage”.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

No, she isn’t.

It is quite clear in this thread and in the others she has posted she is talking specifically about non-Catholics who have prior marriages. The marriage in question is a “remarriage”.

ok sorry, I think I have to read other threads in order to get the gist…the OP specifically told me that she was talking about invalid marriages (I perhaps wrongly assumed that she though ALL marriages outside the CC were invalid).

Lurking only from now on!

 

[angell1]

Angel,

**There is no difference. ** People have become used to divorce and remarriage in our culture and try to make it somehow “ok” or just ignore the obvious. God’s law on marriage is natural law and it applies to ALL people, everywhere.

That said, we have no way to know with certainty if prior non-Catholic marriages were valid or invalid. And, of course with the non-baptized a natural marriage is dissoluble under certain circumstances such as the non-Christian converting to Christianity and marrying a believer.

Therefore, in general, with non-Catholics we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt since we really cannot know with certainty the validity/invalidity of their attempt at marriage.

So, yes, if a non-Catholic is “remarrying” after a divorce on the surface it would appear an invalid marriage. But, if their first spouse had been married before, then they had a ligamen impediment and really were not validly married. Therefore, this marriage would be valid. That is only an example of how tangled non-Catholic marriage attempts have become due to their continued drifting from the biblical principles of the essential properties of marriage and the prohibition of divorce.

If you, knowing the facts of their specific circumstances, believe that they are entering an invalid marriage then you should not attend. If you believe it would send a wrong message regarding condoning divorce/remarriage, you should not attend. If you have reason to believe that their prior attempt(s) at marriage would be viewed by the Catholic Church as invalid (or if they are unbaptized and could possibly have a Pauline Privilege situation going on) then perhaps you can attend.

i don’t think they have any intention of becoming christian. i’m still not sure if i should attend or not really and how it would be viewed. i don’t have much detail besides the fact that he had a previous marriage so it’s hard to decide with very little informaiton

As I have said in several previous threads you have started-- it is a prudential judgment on your part.

what does prudential judgment mean exactly? and what if i make the wrong judgment?

It is even a prudential judgment to attend when you know it is an invalid marriage-- for example, two Catholics marrying outside the Church. We would typically not support this or attend. But, pastoral guidance can be given if for example the parents of these two people believe it would cause irreparable harm to the family relationship. If there is hope that by attending the parents can continue to work towards getting their children back in to the Church then it *can *be permissible to attend if they are clear that they are not condoning the marriage outside the Church, object to it, etc.

i think i need to get mor pastoral guidance then

Kinda like the fact that a non-contracepting spouse can have marital relations with the contracepting spouse to preserve the conjugal union if they make their objection known and continue to try to move the marriage to a state without contraception.

thanks, your answers are always very helpful