Jesus Christ Instituted the Marraige laws and it does say till Death us do part, not till heaven everlasting. If that was so a woman would have no chance to ever get married again, Bbut you will notice in the bible, someone asked Jesus of the 7 brothers who married the same woman, and who’s wife would she be in heaven? Jesus said" There is no marraige given or taken in heaven, for you are like angels.ETC.
I understood Drawmack to intend two baptized people, one a man, one a woman, with no impediments to marriage, except possibly the one about to be noted, depending on if you wish to classify it as an “impediment”. They are old enough, they are free of compulsion, they have never been married, the man in is not in holy orders, etc. Assume they are in compliance with all civil laws. They are attempting (the sacrament of) marriage before a Baptist minister, and they have not corresponded with any Catholic bishop about dispensations. Here now is the note. The only difference is one couple was not baptized Catholic or otherwise Catholic in any way, and the other couple was baptized Catholic as a child (or one of them was) and has not defected by a formal act. The Church law has it that if one of the parties was baptized Catholic as a child, then the marriage will not be valid because that person is obliged to marry according to form, yet they are not so doing, nor have they obtained a dispensation. Please leave out the consideration of what if they are in a persecuted country with no access to Catholic priests/deacons/bishops for many years at a time. For ease, assume they are in the United States now. Also, I don’t think Drawmack is worried about cluttering the issue with disparity of cult.
I stated that they were two of the same type of marriage and again you attempt to tell me I’m being vague and not defining them as the same type of marriage. Yes, yes – keep not answering – keep telling me that the two couples could be different after I’ve stated they are the same in all respects except that one is Catholic and one is not – keep hiding from the question – you are strengthening your case with every post.
Very good. Now what is the problem(?) - too much assuming. That is the whole problem let’s assume any civil divorce is sufficient, let’s assume every participant knows what they are doing, let’s assume any and every form equals all other form. Now does that leave marriage? - yes! What he needs to understand is marriage exists in many forms, but only one form of marriage is proper and that is the problem. Many want a pass to accept their condition and those conditions are all over the place (same-sex, divorce, underage, etc., etc.). My opinion is this he needs to avoid looking at why some desires to marry are wrong and others are legitimate, but that may develop the answer which is undesirable.
Okay let’s let both couples “be a divorce woman on her second trip down the isle she is marrying a guy twice divorced man” That marriage is recognized by all parties accept the catholic church, it fits your discription. They can be recognized by the state, protestant church, gay community, etc., etc. EVEN the catholic church if none are catholic (!), but none of them who are catholic will be recognized married in their current form. The reason is their original pledge to marry is still held valid. I hope you understand the answer which was requested.
Whether a couple is properly prepared is in the judgement of the priest performing the marriage. Generally, it includes interviewing the couple, pre-cana classes and sometimes a retreat.
Not at all. Let’s say you have two people who go in to get driver’s licenses. One has documents that list an age of 21 when he/she is indeed 14. The other has documents that are free from clerical error. One will have get a valid license. The other will get a card that looks like a valid license but is, in fact, worthless. A Catholic who stands before a Baptist minister (without dispensation) and presents him/herself as free to enter into the marriage is basically using false credentials. He/she is NOT free to enter into the marriage and the marriage attempted will not be valid.
A little. I see you might be wise about suggesting he look at if the desires to marry are where his real question lies.
If a baptized Catholic is not validly married, then that is precisely a case of needing to not have relations with their civil spouse. They are not validly married if they did not marry according to form, etc. I thought Drawmack’s point was that such a form is required by the Church, perhaps sort of with a side implication that it is beyond what Jesus said, or perhaps just that he wants us to consider that it may merely be an *ecclesial *law (not divine). He/she asked about the word “form” in a prior post. I stated how I was interpreting him so that he could clarify and tell me/us where I misunderstood him. Drawmack, please clarify. Do you mean to ask/talk about if all marriage is the same (same-sex, different sex, whatever the couple wants, etc.), or are you asking about eccesial law, or what?
So, you’re saying if a Baptist man and woman get married and then divorced, then then woman remarries the Catholic Church would recognize this second marriage as valid? However, if a Catholic man and woman got married and then divorced (no annulment) then the woman got remarried this second marriage would not be valid?
Why? Why does this person need to get a dispensation? I can understand that case where the person is not free to marry (for example a divorced [but not annulled] person avoiding a Catholic wedding), but in the case where the person is free to marry why do they need the dispensation to make it valid? As I see it, the wedding is either valid or it is not. Now if there is a reason, according to Catholic theology or whatever, that the marriage is not valid (any myriad reasons can be included here) then fine it is not valid. For example if a Baptist minister performs a homosexual marriage the Catholic Church would not recognize this. However, if you have two people who can, validly, be married in the Catholic Church but instead get married in a Baptist Church why do they need to get a dispensation? Why, if they are not Catholic, is the marriage recognized but if they are Catholic is the marriage not recognized? That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Here is my question, as simple and clear as I can make it.
I’m just trying to get an answer to the question. I really wish that just one person, on the apologitics forums, would actually answer the question instead of posing straw men defenses and doing end runs around it!In case if I was not clear, I have no wish to assume something wrong, like that any civil divorce is sufficient for remarriage, or that same-sex marriage is equivalent to marriage, etc. To my knowledge I am an orthodox Catholic. Not that you said otherwise. I’m just saying in case it was not clear.
Just to give you a little back round. I was married by a judge. I am Catholic. Eleven years later, I was married in the Catholic Church. It cost me more to be married by the judge than it did to be married in the Church.I would suspect that you’re right about the actual ceremony being performed for free, or a very minimal fee to cover costs of communion supplies. However, I’ve never heard of couple getting those encounter weekends for free.
Not everyone goes on a weekend retreat.
I agree that marriage preparation is extremely important. But, it doesn’t change the fact that I suspect the Catholic Church’s desire for Catholics to marry in the Catholic Church is monetary in nature.
I was married in the Catholic Church and it cost me nothing.
Neither question can be given a proper answer, but to help let me explain none of the divorced parties can be in communion with the Catholic Church until both an annulment and a blessing. So who in this group wants to be in communion with the Catholic Church ?
Trying my best to simplify the answers because you wrote “free to marry” which means she has a dispensation which implies she had marriage education and is current on other sacraments then the catholic church considers her marriage valid- (I think you did not mean that). If she self proclaims herself “free to marry” she lacks authority for such. Which is not to say the Church will always ignore this marriage, this marriage can be petitioned to the church for radical sanate. Now is that what you meant? There are other possibilities and other caveats but trying to keep it simplistic your girl does not have authority to declare anybody to include herself free to marry nor does she have authority to award a sacrament. Now comes the mud - she can have this as a Natural Marriage - void of Catholic communion.
Again with the obfuscation in an attempt to end run around my question. All that I intended by free to marry was she wasn’t a nun or anything like that. She was a woman, of legal age, who had never been married or taken any type of vows which precluded her from marriage.
Drawmack,
This is rather unfortunate, the answers are posted, and yet the problem presides. This is because you did not take the time to answer the earlier questions. See you are recognizing some things as age, vows, and nuns but dismissing other things of equal or greater importance. Another obvious problem is not understanding the church communications as they have specific meaning for “free to marry” , “marriage”, “valid”, “invalid”, “licit” and 'illicit" etc. So you have your answer I even highlighted it and underlined it. I hope you know the best Natural Marriage which meets the definition of many is still different than a sacramental marriage (even if this couple splits). See until you see the differences the answers are elusive. Civil authority has a definition, homosexuals have a definition, Protestants have a definition, Natural Law imposes marriage without writing a word, etc., etc. So to judge catholic marriages without understanding them is your decision not mine. You asked for answers and you received those answers.
Truly I am sorry if I sounded like I was making a straw-man. That portion of the quote from me was addressed to Texas-Roofer. I was worried about something he said, not what you said. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear in my paragraph workings. I am trying to be sure we are addressing your *actual *question. I just don’t promise I know the answer…
So, I’m rude to question in the apologetics forum huh?
Okay, I guess that the final answer is I have to be Catholic in order to receive an answer about a Catholic teaching. So, then entire concept of apologetics and evangalization is useless?
Thank you for actually answering my question to the best of your ability and not attempting to explain why my question isn’t valid or simply dismissing me as being rude.Truly I am sorry if I sounded like I was making a straw-man. That portion of the quote from me was addressed to Texas-Roofer. I was worried about something he said, not what you said. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear in my paragraph workings. I am trying to be sure we are addressing your *actual *question. I just don’t promise I know the answer…
Thanks for clarifying the question. The Church has bound that Catholic woman you mention to marry according to form, while the Church does not currently bind non-Catholic baptized parties in the same way. By fiat/law the Church has declared that the marriage will be invalid. It did not used to be so. Historically, the Church used to not regulate marriage in this way. A set form was not required. Now it is. Because the woman is so bound by law, she is not legally free to marry in some other form, so she is not free to do what she is doing, hence she does not succeed in doing it. She is legally unable to do the contract (marriage is viewed somewhat like a contract by the Church if I understand properly).
Your question then probably is, why? Why did they do this? I don’t know for sure. The Church only regulated marriage as it became necessary. The laws in our current code of canon law have evolved, often in response to a need. Much of Church history works that way, like they often only clarify certain doctrines when there is a need to on account of a bunch of people arguing about it. Marriage, being a rather public sort of thing, has public consequences for the common good. There are reasons it might come to need regulating, such as if women are abducted and forced to marry. The law-making body then eventually responds by making a law about how she is not free to contract marriage unless she is first separated and completely safe from her captor. That way she cannot be coerced by kidnapping into marriage and all that entails, property, children, inheritance, dowries, her freedom, etc. (This is a real example, not a hypothetical. They have such a canon.) My best guess is that overall, they (the Church) have felt that right now it is overall in the best interest of all for the better functioning of marriages/society to bind/regulate a Catholic’s ability to contract a valid marriage by requiring them to marry according to form, or to get a dispensation. By the way, that woman CAN validly marry before the Baptist minister if she requests and is granted permission by the appropriate bishop. If they think it is for the best, they will grant the dispensation. They are not doing it based upon if the Baptist preacher will get money so the Catholic priest won’t get money. Truly, I’ve seen no sign of this in my dealings. Rather, they want to promote lasting, stable, just relationships among the flock. I assume they see nothing to be gained along those lines by making a general law binding non-Catholic baptized individuals (and typically a canon law would only apply to a Catholic). They clearly do for the baptized Catholic person.
It is obvious to me that marriage as a whole is struggling painfully along, barely surviving in these current times. I understand the Church’s interest in trying to stem the tide. I’m not convinced they have done all that can be done, but I don’t really know, either. Nor can I truly claim to know the mind of a lawmaker (the Church). I’ve read many of the canons in our canon law, though, and it seems designed as other laws are, for the benefit of those the laws apply to, so that overall things go smoothly, fairness is preserved, the minimum needed is all that is bound, so as to achieve a good effect, etc.
It isn’t standard doctrine training to instruct Catholics *why *certain canon laws were put into effect. You might have better luck asking a canon lawyer, particularly one with a background in the history of the law. There is one regular member on this site who is a canon lawyer, but he is not on the thread. I haven’t “seen” him in a while, but then, I am a spotty member. He often answers questions about annulments and the like. Your question is a little different from what I usually see him answer.
Feel free to ask if I can clarify anything.
Tracy,