Would you attend this wedding?

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Wow, things seem quite complicated now.

I think that at this point I can break it down to several elements present here:

1. I’m not comfortable going in the first place because I have issues with divorce and remarriage in church (any church).
2. I don’t want to commit a sin by supporting an invalid marriage which this seems to be according to our Catholic teaching. I’m not a Protestant and thus don’t accept their understanding of marriage and divorce, just like I don’t accept their positions on other matters of faith and morals. As a Catholic I only accept what Jesus said about marriage and divorce, and not Calvin. (My FIL belongs to a reformed church of calvinist tradition. The fiancee was raised in a non-denominational church.)
3. My husband would appreciate me being there but will not force me to go (because he’d rather not go either but has promised his father and can’t go back on that now if he wants to mantain good relations with him, which he does. As I said in the first post, it was a long and painful story, although adultery was not the reason his father left the marriage.).
   The only reason I’d go is for his sake in order to be supportive. He told me yesterday that he very much appreciates that but that given all the circumstances I really shouldn’t bother. Guess that’s settled now.

The discussion has certainly made me realise that I should not go because it would be against my conscience to do so. And of course, I’ll be very close to giving birth and the trip to the wedding is the last thing I’ll need at that time. I very much appreciate all the comments and ‘technical’ information many have provided. At least now I am fully aware of my own motives and reasons for making this decision.

 

[hansard]

I’m with NewEnglandPries (a few posts back) on this. If you don’t actually know the status of previously marriages, then you cannot judge the sin or otherwise involved in this one.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I’m with NewEnglandPries (a few posts back) on this. If you don’t actually know the status of previously marriages, then you cannot judge the sin or otherwise involved in this one.

True, I don’t disagree. I don’t know. But putting sin aside, what also bothers me here is that they have decided to marry in a completely random church. This suggests to me that they are not taking the religious element of their marriage at all seriously, but as some kind of a nice gesture, something that is traditionally done, and perhaps they also want a nice venue. These are some of the reasons they have hinted at in conversation. And I have a problem with that. IMO, a civil ceremony would be equally nice, and perhaps more meaningful.

 

[EasterJoy]

Um, no.

There are 2 completely different situations presented. In the linked question, it is a Catholic marrying outside of canon law form.

In this thread, it is 2 people celebrating an adulterous relationship.

In this thread, it is two people who are not Catholic and who have never been Catholic. There is no reason to believe the FIL took his vows the first time without the reservation that divorce was permissible, which would render his first vows invalid, even by our standards. There is no reason to believe that there is an appearance of adultery in this case, since the current relationship did not displace the first. Rather, the appearance is that the first marriage dissolved because the persons in it always considered it theoretically open to dissolution when they made their vows. In other words, by all appearances, the first marriage is null.

You won’t believe that his first marriage is null unless the Church declares it null. That would be fine, except it is impossible for the FIL to get that declaration unless he becomes a Catholic. He has apparently gone to an Anglican priest, the closest thing he has, and that priest has determined that the second marriage would not be adulterous. That is about as much as the FIL can do in this instance, short of becoming a Catholic.

So in other words, essentially the only marriages of divorced persons that you think it is no sin to attend would be if the divorced persons were marrying in the Catholic Church! This is because you are concerned about scandal? Really? If you had two sets of relatives in the exact same position, you would attend the Catholic marriage, because the Church declared the first marriage null, but would call it a sin to attend the non-Catholic marriage, because one of their priests instead of ours declared the first marriage null. Can you step outside the Church in your mind’s eye and see the point? On theory, you would have to admit that there is a good chance the Church would declare the FIL’s first marriage null. Yet because he has not gotten a declaration that is impossible for him to get, you won’t believe that in all good faith he believes it to be so.

The OP has her own reasons for not attending the wedding, and they are valid reasons. If she decides to attend, though, she does not necessarily commit a sin. If she discerns that the couple did their best in good faith and according to their theological understanding to determine that the FIL’s first marriage was null, then she could go, since the ideal, getting a formal declaration from the Catholic Church, is impossible.

 

[EasterJoy]

True, I don’t disagree. I don’t know. But putting sin aside, what also bothers me here is that they have decided to marry in a completely random church. This suggests to me that they are not taking the religious element of their marriage at all seriously, but as some kind of a nice gesture, something that is traditionally done, and perhaps they also want a nice venue. These are some of the reasons they have hinted at in conversation. And I have a problem with that. IMO, a civil ceremony would be equally nice, and perhaps more meaningful.

Well…I live in a state where there are a lot of people who describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious”. I’d say that a great many of them would not consider getting married in a “random church” a sign that they don’t take the religious element of their marriages at all seriously, but rather that they don’t take denominational lines at all seriously. Some do use church as a pretty backdrop for weddings and funerals, but others might say that they take God very seriously, but have learned to take most of His followers with a very large grain of salt. From their standpoint, this can be a very large difference. You would be in a better position that I would to discern which group this couple would place themselves in.

Having said that, you aren’t bound to see things their way, either. As long as your husband is OK with it and thinks there will be no hard feelings over your absence, I think you’ll probably be happier to quietly make use of that graceful reason to miss this one. Don’t feel guilty about it. It is OK.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Having said that, you aren’t bound to see things their way, either. As long as your husband is OK with it and thinks there will be no hard feelings over your absence, I think you’ll probably be happier to quietly make use of that graceful reason to miss this one. Don’t feel guilty about it. It is OK.

Thanks