You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
1-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
Well yes, of course. Having said that, the Church allows the parties in a valid marriage to be dissolved in civil court and their belongings divided, when a grave reason exists. If you are validly married to a woman who chooses to abuse or abandon you or a man who later chooses to gamble away your life savings, you are morally allowed to obtain a legal separation, annulment, or even a divorce, if it is required for reasons of justice, safety from harm, etc. In that case, there is no marital debt with regards to physical relations. You are only bound to live as one not free to marry; that is, in a celibate manner.
2-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
While the marriage is putatively valid–that is, before it is found and declared defective–there is no sin if the parties, in good faith, treat the putative marriage as valid. Any children born of the putative marriage are considered to be the product of legitimate marital relations.
The Church does not even use the concept of “illegitimate children” any more, but some families who go through divorce and subsequent annulment understandably find the concept of the legtimacy of honoring the attempt at marriage very important, for obvious reasons. Assuming good faith, there is no retroactive immorality in a marriage later declared null.
3-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
The marriage contract is real and must be honored morally. Spousal relations, if they do not include a Catholic (whose marriage is not complete until it enjoys canonical form) are legitimate. Unlike a sacramental marriage, though, such a marriage may legitimately be dissolved later, under the right conditions (under the Pauline or Petrine privelege, for example.)
4-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
The parties are not free to marry and must act in a celibate manner until a civil divorce or annulment is obtained. My understanding is that if the only defect in the marriage is a defect in form, valid consent lacking canonical form is ratified retroactively by the Church upon convalidation. Nevertheless, a couple that includes a Catholic that is aware that their marriage is not yet valid are bound to abstain from marital relations until the process of marriage is completed, even if their marital consent has no other defect.
5-A marriage between two men or between two women in a religious ceremony. This is obviously an invalid “marriage.” However, is there a spousal relationship? For example, would a man commit adultery against his “husband” if he dated a woman while he was “married.”?
6-A marriage between two men or between two women in a civil ceremony. Same comments as no. 5.
Well, obviously the religious ceremony isn’t Catholic and violates the Catholic understanding of valid matter for marriage of any kind. The consent is not elevated beyond the consent given between two friends anywhere else outside the Church. To the degree that the consent is morally repugnant, the parties are each morally bound to repudiate the consent, whether or not the other party does. In fact, if the religious ceremony has no standing in civil law, it is actually less morally-binding than a civil ceremony would be.
A person who has legally contracted such a union must meet the requirements that allow a marriage under civil law before he or she can contract a marriage in the Church. The union must be dissolved under civil law before the person could marry in the Church. A Catholic must not give the appearance of having committed bigamy, but also may not violate civil law any more than divine law dictates that he or she must.
While they are not spouses, their promise may truly be one of friendship, as well. Homosexuals are bound to treat each other with the respect due to every human person, as much as anyone else is. To the degree that the relationship includes some virtue, it is binding in those terms, even though strictly only under those terms, and strictly under the moral compulsion to avoid future near occasions of sin. Even though the romantic relationship itself is morally repugnant, there can theoretically be understandings that are morally binding to the degree that the friendship is moral. In other words, the repugnant nature of the consent still does not free anyone to be a jerk, to be greedy, unkind, rude, to evade any legitimate duty to perform spiritual or corporal works of mercy, or any of that. The necessity to avoid near occasion of sin and to avoid giving public scandal has to be honored, though.
When one of the pair leaves the relationship or the couple dissolves it, as moral law dictates must happen, he or she is ethically bound to say so up front, provided there isn’t legitimate fear of reprisal to consider. When the separation occurs, the two are bound to be just in dividing their belongings, they are still bound to be charitable to each other, that kind of thing. They are also bound to follow the civil law with regards to any legal contract they set up, excepting where it violates divine law. But no, there is no marriage, no right to “consort”, none of that, no matter what the state calls it, because that violates divine law.
Also, if a domestic partnership law were to be on the books that clearly DOES NOT imply a spousal relationship, a Catholic could morally enter into it. In other words, if civil law were to allow single adults to enter into relationships that were theoretically the equivalent of a two-person monastery, so that there is no public scandal, then a pair of same-sex Catholics could use that law for the financial or other legal advantages it legitimately offers.
Well yes, of course. Having said that, the Church allows the parties in a valid marriage to be dissolved in civil court and their belongings divided, when a grave reason exists. If you are validly married to a woman who chooses to abuse or abandon you or a man who later chooses to gamble away your life savings, you are morally allowed to obtain a legal separation, annulment, or even a divorce, if it is required for reasons of justice, safety from harm, etc. In that case, there is no marital debt with regards to physical relations. You are only bound to live as one not free to marry; that is, in a celibate manner.
2-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
While the marriage is putatively valid–that is, before it is found and declared defective–there is no sin if the parties, in good faith, treat the putative marriage as valid. Any children born of the putative marriage are considered to be the product of legitimate marital relations.
The Church does not even use the concept of “illegitimate children” any more, but some families who go through divorce and subsequent annulment understandably find the concept of the legtimacy of honoring the attempt at marriage very important, for obvious reasons. Assuming good faith, there is no retroactive immorality in a marriage later declared null.
3-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
The marriage contract is real and must be honored morally. Spousal relations, if they do not include a Catholic (whose marriage is not complete until it enjoys canonical form) are legitimate. Unlike a sacramental marriage, though, such a marriage may legitimately be dissolved later, under the right conditions (under the Pauline or Petrine privelege, for example.)
4-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
The parties are not free to marry and must act in a celibate manner until a civil divorce or annulment is obtained. My understanding is that if the only defect in the marriage is a defect in form, valid consent lacking canonical form is ratified retroactively by the Church upon convalidation. Nevertheless, a couple that includes a Catholic that is aware that their marriage is not yet valid are bound to abstain from marital relations until the process of marriage is completed, even if their marital consent has no other defect.
5-A marriage between two men or between two women in a religious ceremony. This is obviously an invalid “marriage.” However, is there a spousal relationship? For example, would a man commit adultery against his “husband” if he dated a woman while he was “married.”?
6-A marriage between two men or between two women in a civil ceremony. Same comments as no. 5.
Well, obviously the religious ceremony isn’t Catholic and violates the Catholic understanding of valid matter for marriage of any kind. The consent is not elevated beyond the consent given between two friends anywhere else outside the Church. To the degree that the consent is morally repugnant, the parties are each morally bound to repudiate the consent, whether or not the other party does. In fact, if the religious ceremony has no standing in civil law, it is actually less morally-binding than a civil ceremony would be.
A person who has legally contracted such a union must meet the requirements that allow a marriage under civil law before he or she can contract a marriage in the Church. The union must be dissolved under civil law before the person could marry in the Church. A Catholic must not give the appearance of having committed bigamy, but also may not violate civil law any more than divine law dictates that he or she must.
While they are not spouses, their promise may truly be one of friendship, as well. Homosexuals are bound to treat each other with the respect due to every human person, as much as anyone else is. To the degree that the relationship includes some virtue, it is binding in those terms, even though strictly only under those terms, and strictly under the moral compulsion to avoid future near occasions of sin. Even though the romantic relationship itself is morally repugnant, there can theoretically be understandings that are morally binding to the degree that the friendship is moral. In other words, the repugnant nature of the consent still does not free anyone to be a jerk, to be greedy, unkind, rude, to evade any legitimate duty to perform spiritual or corporal works of mercy, or any of that. The necessity to avoid near occasion of sin and to avoid giving public scandal has to be honored, though.
When one of the pair leaves the relationship or the couple dissolves it, as moral law dictates must happen, he or she is ethically bound to say so up front, provided there isn’t legitimate fear of reprisal to consider. When the separation occurs, the two are bound to be just in dividing their belongings, they are still bound to be charitable to each other, that kind of thing. They are also bound to follow the civil law with regards to any legal contract they set up, excepting where it violates divine law. But no, there is no marriage, no right to “consort”, none of that, no matter what the state calls it, because that violates divine law.
Also, if a domestic partnership law were to be on the books that clearly DOES NOT imply a spousal relationship, a Catholic could morally enter into it. In other words, if civil law were to allow single adults to enter into relationships that were theoretically the equivalent of a two-person monastery, so that there is no public scandal, then a pair of same-sex Catholics could use that law for the financial or other legal advantages it legitimately offers.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
that is precisely why a marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise, unless an easily identifiable defect such as lack of form is discovered, but in that case, there was no question that it was ever valid. That is why we have a canon law tribunal to investigate the facts. But a putative marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise. the question is tricky as posed in OP because it skirted the issues.Well, actually, it is more of a tricky question than it might appear. Because defects preventing validity may not make themselves felt until after the attempted marriage fails, in the big picture it is not always so black-and-white as “married” and “unmarried.”
.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I have been corrected on this point. Retroactive validation is possible, but convalidation and retroactive validation are not the same thing.My understanding is that if the only defect in the marriage is a defect in form, valid consent lacking canonical form is ratified retroactively by the Church upon convalidation.
Nevertheless, a Catholic who enters into a civil marriage that is invalid because it lacks canonical form or suffers from some other defect is both morally bound to abstain from marital relations (which divine law forbids until the marriage is valid) and also morally bound to honor the terms of consent as required by civil law and human decency that divine law does not forbid or grave reason does not release him or her from for as long as the civil contract legally exists. You don’t have to physically hang in with an abusive, unsafe, or unjust situation until the paperwork is filed, but you do have to do everything civil law, charity, and simple justice requires unless divine law forbids.
M
markomalley
Guest
I’m afraid I don’t agree. From the CCC:Many seem to be focused on the sexual aspect. I don’t think the OP mentioned that at all. In addition to physical intercourse, adultery can be committed by lesser acts. A validly married spouse commits adultery according to the standard Christ stated, when he dates another person without engaging in intercourse. This behavior is a little more grave than just “spending social time.”
The next question would be how do we view such behavior when involved in an invalid marriage or non-marital relationship. I would say consider how such acts would be classified if one were dating (in more than a casual manner), and then dated another person. Cheating is betraying a promise that’s been made to another, whether the promise is explicit or implicit. That doesn’t mean one has to stay with his steady date forever - it’s not marriage. But if one is no longer able to keep his end of a contract, he is obliged to explain this to his date.
If we are talking about a marriage that’s been ruled invalid, the whole annulment process has probably done the trick of breaking the news to the “spouse”. But I would also suggest that while a gay marriage may not be valid, it is a legal and moral commitment. We may not agree with the motive or the act, but if a party to that act comes to the same conclusion, he has an obligation to end it honorably with respect for the other party. It would be the same way if you went into business with your best friend.
2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.
Please note: *Marital *infidelity.
First point: if there is no marriage, there can, by definition, be no instance of adultery. That is not to say that there cannot be betrayal, but all betrayal is not adultery.
As far as a relationship between two homosexuals, regardless of what the State calls it, it does not meet the Church’s definition of marriage. Therefore, the concept of one homosexual person committing adultery against another homosexual person with whom he or she has a relationship that the State (but not the Church) has sanctioned is nonsensical. There axiomatically cannot be a marriage; therefore, there can be no adultery. Could it be a betrayal of some promise made between two people? Certainly. But not adultery.
You also mention the concept of Christ condemning adultery of the eyes. True enough, morally, the types of relationships you mention (dating) would qualify in this regard. But only in the instance of a validly married couple. Again, you could have betrayal…but not adultery.
Keep in mind Canon 1152:
Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.
The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (p 1376) points out in the commentary on the above Canon:
“…Only actual adultery, i.e., a completed act of sexual intercourse with a third party, gives rise to the innocent spouse’s right to separation. Inappropriate expressions of affection, intense but platonic relationships, and even “affairs” in cyberspace with a third party may be considered breaches of the obligation of marital fidelity. However, these indiscretions do not constitute the ‘adultery’ that gives the wronged spouse a right to a separation”
S
sophie71
Guest
Please know that I did not intend to pose a “tricky” question or to “skirt” the issues. I attempted to present different scenarios **briefly **in hopes of soliciting responses. A more detailed presentation of the hypotheticals sometimes runs the risk of turning off readers. I am glad that most readers seem to understand that I am in good faith in my posting and I sincerely appreciate their responses provided in the same spirit. Thank you.that is precisely why a marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise, unless an easily identifiable defect such as lack of form is discovered, but in that case, there was no question that it was ever valid. That is why we have a canon law tribunal to investigate the facts. But a putative marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise. the question is tricky as posed in OP because it skirted the issues.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Actually, I think we do substantially agree.I’m afraid I don’t agree…
My main points were that
*]Adultery within a marriage need not involve sexual relations, but could simply include what was described above as “spending social time.” You seem to agree from a moral point of view. I was interested to read the canon law which is less broad on this matter.
*]I then went on to address what I think was part of the OP’s question, how such infidelity would be viewed in the context of a non-marital (but committed to whatever degree) relationship. And by use of the word “betrayal,” you seem to agree that such would also generally be sinful (although there’s certainly wiggle room for extenuating circumstances that might mitigate or eliminate the sinful nature of such actions.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Also, a promise made towards an immoral end may not morally be honored. The person has to be honored and respected, fairness and charity in the process of dissolving the union is required, but an illicit union must not be preserved. It must be abandoned, and in that respect there is a degree to which “betrayal” is a moral necessity. If the other person feels this an unacceptable and immoral betrayal, well, that is unfortunate. Their personal sense of things does not override the objective truth of moral law.First point: if there is no marriage, there can, by definition, be no instance of adultery. That is not to say that there cannot be betrayal, but all betrayal is not adultery.
As far as a relationship between two homosexuals, regardless of what the State calls it, it does not meet the Church’s definition of marriage. Therefore, the concept of one homosexual person committing adultery against another homosexual person with whom he or she has a relationship that the State (but not the Church) has sanctioned is nonsensical. There axiomatically cannot be a marriage; therefore, there can be no adultery. Could it be a betrayal of some promise made between two people? Certainly. But not adultery.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The betrayal would be betrayal of the morally-sound aspect of the friendship, and simple violations of human decency. There is a degree to which you cannot help fut hurt the feelings of someone when you end a relationship, illicit or not, but that a relationship is illicit is not carte blanche to go out and act as if the feelings of a partner in an illicit relationship have no importance. To the extent that it is reasonably possible in the context of the legitimate demands of your other (licit) relationships and commitments, you are bound to treat the former partner with dignity and show consideration for his or her feelings. I would hope it goes without saying, but we are only saying that it is not Christian to be a jerk.…by use of the word “betrayal,” you seem to agree that such would also generally be sinful (although there’s certainly wiggle room for extenuating circumstances that might mitigate or eliminate the sinful nature of such actions.
C
climer97007
Guest
It is one thing to have a recognized marriage, and another for that recognized marriage to be sacramental. The marriage in Vegas can easily be recognized. Without approval of the Bishop, it would lack proper form. And good luck getting the Bishop to approve that one.So a Catholic can marry a Mormon in a Mormon Church and your suggesting that the Catholic Church views their marriage as sacramental?
Or a Catholic marrying another Catholic, but they get legally married in a Las Vegas Casino…are you suggesting that that is also a sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church? That doesn’t seem right…
It is still another thing when considering Mormons, as they have no valid baptism, since their baptism is not recognized by the Catholic Church. The Morman church teaches a false idea of who Jesus is, who the Holy Spirit is, who God is. So, a Mormon getting married to a Baptized Catholic is not two baptized individuals getting married. Still, such a union can be recognized, though not likely sacramental, especially if witnessed in a Mormon temple. Now you are on the verge of being an apostate, of being guilty of leaving the Catholic Church, depending upon what you did and said in the Mormon temple.
Gene
S
speck
Guest
Sister Laura (white teaching the RCIA class) responded to the following question: "If you were married in a civil ceremony, is it adultery, if you have sex with someone other than your spouse? *Her response was, “did you know that all marriages were civil ceremonies until around the 11th century?” Sister went on to say that just because you weren’t married in a church does not mean that God doesn’t recognize your marriage. Anyhow, she said a lot more but I don’t have time to tell it all.
God Bless!
*she may have said “until the 11th century”, however the point she makes remains the same.
God Bless!
*she may have said “until the 11th century”, however the point she makes remains the same.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Be very careful that you don’t misrepresent the good Sister Laura and what her point may have actually been.Sister Laura (white teaching the RCIA class) responded to the following question: "If you were married in a civil ceremony, is it adultery, if you have sex with someone other than your spouse? *Her response was, “did you know that all marriages were civil ceremonies until around the 11th century?” Sister went on to say that just because you weren’t married in a church does not mean that God doesn’t recognize your marriage. Anyhow, she said a lot more but I don’t have time to tell it all.
God Bless!
*she may have said “until the 11th century”, however the point she makes remains the same.
I don’t think that in the context of that question it should be assumed that your teacher was saying that the bishops have no authority to make laws concerning marriage that are binding upon Catholics, or that the Church may not make any laws that are more binding than they were in the 11th century, or that God doesn’t care about rules made by bishops. The topic of the question put to her was about when sex outside of marriage is fornication and when it is adultery. She may only have been saying that even with a marriage that happens in the context of a civil ceremony, God knows what kind of treachery to the person you have made vows to has been added on top of your violation of the sanctity of your own body and that of your illicit lover.
If Sister Laura was saying that the violation of sex outside marriage is greater when committed by a person who had previously made marriage vows, even marriage vows not recognized by the Church, than the same violation commited by a person who had not made any marriage vows to a third party, I don’t know that the bishops would disagree with her. After all, they hold that those who have made civil vows are not free to contract marriage a different spouse until those civil vows are dissolved. Think about it: if the state allowed bigamy, neither Sister Laura nor the bishops would hold that a Catholic who had entered into an invalid but civilly-recognized marriage ought to be considered free to marry in the Church!
If Sister Laura really thinks God does not care about rules made by bishops…well, let’s just hope that if it were put so bluntly, she would not say anything like that. That is not an appropriate sentiment for a person charged with handing on the facts of the faith.
And by the way, if you were never saying that her point was anything like that, but that you took her as I did, or even in a third way that is correct but that I had not considered, I apologize to you and clarify: you never said any such thing.
S
speck
Guest
I mean you no disrespect, but I did not misrepresent her in any way. It seems that you have way “over thought” this. I honestly don’t know how you drew all that out of such a simple statement of fact. Now I am afraid to tell the rest of what she said. I don’t want to get drawn into a debate. So I will just ask you the following: Was anything that I said that the sister said factually wrong? I myself don’t know the answer to that, but I trust that Sister Laura knows what she is talking about. If not, then I am sure there are many knowledgeable members in here that will let me/us know. It seems to me that the main point she made was very simple and obvious and it had to do with what God and the bible had to say about marriage(s) which occurred when they were all civil marriages… and I was hoping to steer the conversation to addressing that. This had nothing to do with attacking Bishops or their authority and so I accept your thoughtful apology and wish you the best.
God Bless
God Bless
V
Vico
Guest
A Catholic tribunal will only address the validity of a marriage (or attempted marriage) where there is at least one Catholic by baptism.I have been wondering when is a spousal relationship formed because there are many moral precepts that revolve around the relationships between spouses and between spouses and other people. Is there a spousal relationship- as understood by the Catholic church- in the examples below. Any reference to valid or invalid is assuming a Catholic tribunal‘s decision.
1-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
2-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
3-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
4-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
5-A marriage between two men or between two women in a religious ceremony. This is obviously an invalid “marriage.” However, is there a spousal relationship? For example, would a man commit adultery against his “husband” if he dated a woman while he was “married.”?
6-A marriage between two men or between two women in a civil ceremony. Same comments as no. 5.
I am particularly interested in responses to numbers 3-6. Thanks.
For Tribunal decisions:
For 4, there is no marriage at all, not even putative, due to lack of form, so no Catholic spousal relationship. Sexual activity with another is sin other than adultery.
For 1 and 3, there is a spousal relationship for any valid Catholic marriage. Three would have to result from a Catholic conversion of a married couple since a civil ceremony involving a Catholic would not be marriage (rather case 4).
For 2, the marriage is a putative marriage (if the consent of both is valid) until the marriage is determined invalid, so there is a putative Catholic spousal relationship. Consent: perpetual, exclusive, intention of children, and raising them as Catholic.
Non tribunal:
Since 5, 6 are not between a man and women, there is not approved form of Catholic marriage, so there is no marriage or Catholic spousal relationship. Sexual activity with another is sin other than adultery.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think that the snippet you posted about what she said raises a great many questions not about what her facts were, but about exactly what her point was, to tell you the truth.I mean you no disrespect, but I did not misrepresent her in any way. It seems that you have way “over thought” this. I honestly don’t know how you drew all that out of such a simple statement of fact. Now I am afraid to tell the rest of what she said. I don’t want to get drawn into a debate. So I will just ask you the following: Was anything that I said that the sister said factually wrong? I myself don’t know the answer to that, but I trust that Sister Laura knows what she is talking about. If not, then I am sure there are many knowledgeable members in here that will let me/us know. It seems to me that the main point she made was very simple and obvious and it had to do with what God and the bible had to say about marriage(s) which occurred when they were all civil marriages… and I was hoping to steer the conversation to addressing that. This had nothing to do with attacking Bishops or their authority and so I accept your thoughtful apology and wish you the best.
God Bless
For instance: there is no difference between what the Bible says and what the Church says.
P
PJM
Guest
=sophie71;6375425]I have been wondering when is a spousal relationship formed because there are many moral precepts that revolve around the relationships between spouses and between spouses and other people. Is there a spousal relationship- as understood by the Catholic church- in the examples below. Any reference to valid or invalid is assuming a Catholic tribunal‘s decision.
1-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
2-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
3-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
4-A marriage between a man and woman in a civil ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is invalid.
5-A marriage between two men or between two women in a religious ceremony. This is obviously an invalid “marriage.” However, is there a spousal relationship? For example, would a man commit adultery against his “husband” if he dated a woman while he was “married.”?
6-A marriage between two men or between two women in a civil ceremony. Same comments as no. 5.
As an FYI:I am particularly interested in responses to numbers 3-6. Thanks.
Marriage is:
Only between One man and one women
It is the Bride and groom themselves that “effect” [cause marriage to be a Sacrament] by being able to be married, and freely and knowingly consenting to do so
Then affirming this mutual consent through married sexual union [freely consumated]
The Preist /Deacon/ Church are only witneses to the Blessed event. As are others of diferent faiths and even civil ceremonies.
Therefore:
Marriage that fits the above requirements of ability to marry, freely agreed to and freely entered into, and then consumated, are seen as vaild marriags even from other faiths, and even in civil ceremonies.
Any mariage of a man and a women, free to marry; and freely consenting to do so that has been consumated cannot be set aside or voided.
Love and prayers,
Pat
P
Phemie
Guest
Not sure what you are saying here. A divorced non-Catholic, formerly married to another non-Catholic, who wishes to marry a Catholic will have to petition the Marriage Tribunal for a decree of nullity since his marriage is presumed valid.A Catholic tribunal will only address the validity of a marriage (or attempted marriage) where there is at least one Catholic by baptism.
S
speck
Guest
You seem to have avoidance issues with the important point she made. So can we just agree to disagree?I think that the snippet you posted about what she said raises a great many questions not about what her facts were, but about exactly what her point was, to tell you the truth.
Woah! Suffice to say that the bible hasn’t changed it’s position since it was written. I’ll leave the rest to any Historians or History Buff’s who might desire to discuss this with you.For instance: there is no difference between what the Bible says and what the Church says.
God Bless.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re asking here. This is a Catholic forum. Are you asking the Church stance on when a person is a Husband or Wife in compliment to their other, sacramentally? If that is the case, then only 1A would apply. In 1-B, you say yourself that the Catholic Church deems the marriage invalid.1-A marriage between a man and woman in a religious ceremony. For discussion sake, the marriage is valid.
Governmental entities vary in from state to state, and if you’re looking for that scenario, you’ll get a whole hodgepodge of answers based on political science and geography.
Non-catholic (and unfortunately, some Catholic) moral realtivists would probably just say all of them are okay, or have a couple that bother them personally, but, since they don’t “hurt” anybody else, what the heck?
I guess I don’t know what you’re after.
A marriage involving a Catholic is determined to be valid, and therefore the people are spouses to each other in the eyes of God and His Church, if their marriage is in accordance with Canon Law.
To civil authorities it’s up to the civil authority and the laws of the State
To moral relativists, moderns, and progressives, it’s anybodies guess.
I’ll read the rest of the thread to see how others are viewing your question, or whether you piped back on after a few answers.
Peace to you,
Steven
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Well, there you go.From the Catholic Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.