marriage of non practicing Catholics

[Kevin]

52 minutes ago, Josh said:

Kevin can you explain to me what you were talking about in the other thread and this one? I was sorta confused. The Church taught something infallibly then changed? Is that possible?

I never said "infallibly". Without opening a can of worms about what statements are infallible and how exactly they are infallible (like the fact that the Feeneyites have been let back in when they clearly go against the Council of Trent)--from 1983 to 2009 the Church allowed those who had left the Church to make a formal act of defection that removed from them the requirement to marry under the Catholic form. Then, in 2009, they decided to change the rule and no longer allow it, so those who converted from Catholicism to a sect of Protestantism and married in their Protestant Church are not really married, not even a natural marriage such as even two atheists can have, but just not married at all, and so in the eyes of the Church, whenever they have sex they are in fact fornicating in the same way as if the man had picked up a Prostitute off the street. And I've even asked a Canon lawyer about this who told me this was the case, though he thought the requirement of form should be dropped.

So yeah, sometimes, the difference between fornication and a chaste marriage is just the year you were married in, according to the Church.

[Papist]

5 minutes ago, Kevin said:

I never said "infallibly". Without opening a can of worms about what statements are infallible and how exactly they are infallible (like the fact that the Feeneyites have been let back in when they clearly go against the Council of Trent)--from 1983 to 2009 the Church allowed those who had left the Church to make a formal act of defection that removed from them the requirement to marry under the Catholic form. Then, in 2009, they decided to change the rule and no longer allow it, so those who converted from Catholicism to a sect of Protestantism and married in their Protestant Church are not really married, not even a natural marriage such as even two atheists can have, but just not married at all, and so in the eyes of the Church, whenever they have sex they are in fact fornicating in the same way as if the man had picked up a Prostitute off the street. And I've even asked a Canon lawyer about this who told me this was the case, though he thought the requirement of form should be dropped.

So yeah, sometimes, the difference between fornication and a chaste marriage is just the year you were married in, according to the Church.

Is the Church's official stance on these that of fornication?  Or just your opinion?

[Kevin]

37 minutes ago, Papist said:

Is the Church's official stance on these that of fornication?  Or just your opinion?

What is it, if who people who are not married have sex? The position of the Church is that people in this situation do not have even a natural marriage, so they are committing fornication in her eyes. Unless they're like the OP's friend and fake it, because of course it's better to be an insincere lapsed Catholic who may not even believe God exists at all than a Protestant who wouldn't be willing to fake it.

That's the Church for you. The ritual is always the most important thing, not the intention behind it. That's why we have the Feeneyites who would say the Baptism of Blood isn't a real Baptism because it doesn't have water.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Kevin

[Papist]

2 minutes ago, Kevin said:

What is it, if who people who are not married have sex? And the position of the Church is that people in this situation do not have even a natural marriage. Unless their like the OP's friend and fake it, because of course it's better to be an insincere lapsed Catholic who may not even believe God exists at all that a Protestant who wouldn't be willing to fake it. That's the Church for you.

Who's not married? 

[Kevin]

Just now, Papist said:

Who's not married? 

You asked "Is the Church's official stance on these that of fornication?  Or just your opinion?"

I'm referring to the "these" you mention there. You asked about my statements in the previous thread and I tried to explain them---there used to be a rule that would allow those who had left the Church to marry without the form of a Catholic marriage and still be married in the eyes of the Church (like, they're family members). But that rule was changed, so now all baptized Catholics who marry in a non-Catholic ceremony without dispensation, something someone who converted away would never seek, cannot be regarded as really married at all, so when they have sex, they are fornicating in the eyes of the Church (and the Church would likewise bind that persons family members who might still be Catholic to treat their family member as though they were living in sin).

[Papist]

9 minutes ago, Kevin said:

You asked "Is the Church's official stance on these that of fornication?  Or just your opinion?"

I'm referring to the "these" you mention there. You asked about my statements in the previous thread and I tried to explain them---there used to be a rule that would allow those who had left the Church to marry without the form of a Catholic marriage and still be married in the eyes of the Church (like, they're family members). But that rule was changed, so now all baptized Catholics who marry in a non-Catholic ceremony without dispensation, something someone who converted away would never seek, cannot be regarded as really married at all, so when they have sex, they are fornicating in the eyes of the Church (and the Church would likewise bind that persons family members who might still be Catholic to treat their family member as though they were living in sin).

I am doing a poor job of it, but I am trying to understand what is you point for bring that 1983-2009 change into this thread. Apparently, you have ill will at the Church in regard of this 1983-2009 change. How is this helping the OP?  Help me out here.  I am not understanding.

[Kevin]

I am simply pointing out that since the OP's line is absolute submission to the Church's current position even on matters that are obviously not infallible and so the Church can clearly get it wrong, then she should realize there is probably no chance of her friend's marriage being valid, and so if she wants to be consistent in her advice to other people on how they should treat similar issues, she already has her answer and doesn't need to even ask.

[vee]

The OP has also struggled with scruples, as she herself has said in the past, so that affects her in some way.  I myself have not had scruples but knowing those who have it is not an easy thing to live with.  Pray for her and her friends she is concerned about. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Kevin, other posters have not said that the marriage would be invalid .. I don't know where you are getting that from. It might be invalid or it might be valid depending on their intent. What I'm concerned with is that the Holy Eucharist would be received without a conversion of heart to the faith. I don't understand why you think its causing scandal to meet with my friend. I'm probably the only practicing Catholic friend she has and I'm trying to be a good friend and also a witness to the faith. I'm not giving any implicit or explicit support of any sin just by being a friend. Even if my friend was marrying somewhere on the beach without the Church, I could still be her friend though not go to the wedding. We are not asked to cut people out of our lives, but to help them come to God. St Gemma even hired a prostitute as a servant (or something similar) just to get her out of prostitution. We shouldn't act in ways that support sins but talking and meeting with a non practicing friend and inviting her to Mass is not that. She has expressed interest in visiting Mass and I'm trying to be a good friend to her. And she's not even living with her boyfriend but she lives at home. I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

Anyone - am I mistaken? 

5 hours ago, Kevin said:

I am simply pointing out that since the OP's line is absolute submission to the Church's current position even on matters that are obviously not infallible and so the Church can clearly get it wrong, then she should realize there is probably no chance of her friend's marriage being valid, and so if she wants to be consistent in her advice to other people on how they should treat similar issues, she already has her answer and doesn't need to even ask.

I feel like you are posting here to debate with me and I'm making this thread to seek help not to debate anyone. No it doesn't mean the Church is wrong on non infallible issues because the Church has authority to make canon law. My friends wedding would depend on her disposition and intent. I don't know that. I was asking something else. 

1 hour ago, vee said:

The OP has also struggled with scruples, as she herself has said in the past, so that affects her in some way.  I myself have not had scruples but knowing those who have it is not an easy thing to live with.  Pray for her and her friends she is concerned about. 

Thank you yes I'd appreciate not having these debates because I get very anxious and I just made this thread to ask for help and clarification. 

8 hours ago, Kevin said:

The bar isn't "high", rather, it's a completely arbitrary. It's like an obstacle course where the judges change the rules whenever they feel like on a whim---like, they see a guy with a haircut they don't like, so they disqualify him. He asks, what does my hair have to do with this obstacle course? And then he notices another guy with the same haircut as him doesn't get disqualified---he was born and raised with that kind of haircut, but you we know you were born and raised with a normal haircut, so your required to run this race with that haircut. And again he asks, what on Earth does my haircut have to do with running an obstacle course? And he gets the same answer.

Well, if you know for a fact that your friend doesn't intend to mend his/her ways and rejoin the Church, there's no way there marriage is valid, surely you must realize this? It would be no different than if someone who had converted to Protestantism pretended to not have converted for her family's sake and got married in a Catholic Church only to go back to being a Protestant. There's no way an annulment court wouldn't say that marriage was entered upon in good faith.

Really, by your own logic, aren't you scandalizing everyone around you by continuing to associate with this person? Doesn't it make it seem to them like you approve of the relationship they have? If they aren't actively Catholic, that means any kind of relationship they are developing is almost certainly sinful, as those baptized in the Church have to remain in the Church, or nothing they do can possibly be chaste? Shouldn't you tell this person they need to come back to the Church or you will cut ties with them for fear of causing a scandal and then pray for their conversion? I think that's the only consistent thing you can do if you believe the Church and its canonical ruling are always just and right.

Can you explain this second paragraph to me? No it doesn't mean that. The situation with my friends wedding is more complex - I'd probably ask my priest for clarification. But even if it was this way I don't understand how it would cause scandal just by being a friend. We can be someone's friend and not support all their actions. Those are two different things.

Can someone please explain to me if I'm right? 

Edited December 21, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Lilllabettt]

13 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Also, a "let's get married in the Church to make grandma happy" Church wedding isn't necessarily more likely to be invalid. The bar for what counts as a valid marriage is actually much lower than people here would seem to think. A couple doesn't need to understand all the deep theological significance of the sacrament of matrimony; they just have to have the intention to be married in only the most basic sense in which the Church understands marriage. I.e., they just have to intend and consent to a life-long, exclusive union which is open to new life. 

mmmm I think you underestimate how few marriages meet the above criteria. 

How many people today really believe that divorce and remarriage are not options for couples that "fall out of love?"  I would venture to say that even among Christians the vast majority do not believe marriage is life-long as the Church understands it.

It seems plain on its face that people who follow the form solely out of obligation to family are far more likely to enter invalid marriages than those that follow the form out of personal respect for and devotion to the Church's teaching.  

 

 

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

7 hours ago, Kevin said:

The bar isn't "high", rather, it's a completely arbitrary. It's like an obstacle course where the judges change the rules whenever they feel like on a whim---like, they see a guy with a haircut they don't like, so they disqualify him. He asks, what does my hair have to do with this obstacle course? And then he notices another guy with the same haircut as him doesn't get disqualified---he was born and raised with that kind of haircut, but you we know you were born and raised with a normal haircut, so your required to run this race with that haircut. And again he asks, what on Earth does my haircut have to do with running an obstacle course? And he gets the same answer.

I can appreciate where it might feel arbitrary to someone without an insider's view of the process (and perhaps you're just needing a place to vent your feelings, in which case technical explanations won't be very helpful). But the criteria of what makes a valid marriage truly is not arbitrary. It's possibly that individual tribunals might have abused some of the provisions of the law, but that doesn't mean the Church officially endorses this.

Also, to try to put some things in perspective...if a marriage is invalid, it's invalid for a specific reason. This reason is called a "ground." Sometimes the grounds for a marriage trial aren't immediately obvious to tribunal staff, so they have to ask a lot of general questions to get a sense of why specifically the marriage was invalid. Because of this, a person going through the process might have to answer a lot of questions that are irrelevant to their own particular case. For example, someone petitioning for a declaration of nullity because they felt forced into a marriage might wind up being asked questions about possible drug or alcohol abuse, because substance abuse can support an argument on a completely different ground. 

Skilled tribunal staff should be able to determine the relevant grounds fairly quickly, and should therefore be able to avoid asking unnecessary uncomfortable questions. But if this doesn't always happen, it means we're dealing with an imperfect situation, not that the Church herself is being arbitrary. 

[Lilllabettt]

31 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

 

Can someone please explain to me if I'm right? 

You are correct. You are kind of being trolled.

[Sponsa-Christi]

4 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

mmmm I think you underestimate how few marriages meet the above criteria. 

How many people today really believe that divorce and remarriage are not options for couples that "fall out of love?"  I would venture to say that even among Christians the vast majority do not believe marriage is life-long as the Church understands it.

It seems plain on its face that people who follow the form solely out of obligation to family are far more likely to enter invalid marriages than those that follow the form out of personal respect for and devotion to the Church's teaching.  

You can actually be unclear on a theoretical level on the Church's teachings on divorce and have a valid marriage, as long as you yourself intend to have a life-long union when you make your wedding vows. E.g., on your wedding day, you can be thinking: "Divorce and remarriage is okay for most people, but my beloved and I will be together forever because our love is so special!" and still have a valid marriage. 

During a Catholic wedding, the couple explicitly promise to have a life-long union, and the Church presumes that people actually mean what they say when they make promises like this. For this to be a ground for nullity, you would have to prove that either you were somehow totally unaware of what the Church taught in this regard (which would be hard to argue under most non-extreme circumstances), or else that you were consciously and deliberately lying when you pronounced your wedding vows. 

I would imagine, also, that most people who bother to get married at all these days do so because they like the idea of a permanent union and do in fact intend it in some basic way at the time of their wedding. 

[Lilllabettt]

11 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

You can actually be unclear on a theoretical level on the Church's teachings on divorce and have a valid marriage, as long as you yourself intend to have a life-long union when you make your wedding vows. E.g., on your wedding day, you can be thinking: "Divorce and remarriage is okay for most people, but my beloved and I will be together forever because our love is so special!" and still have a valid marriage.

[...]

I would imagine, also, that most people who bother to get married at all these days do so because they like the idea of a permanent union and do in fact intend it in some basic way at the time of their wedding. 

I disagree.

I think the vast majority of people believe, when they get married, both that there is a reasonable possibility their relationship will not work "forever," and that in the case it does not, they can divorce. 

I have been a bridesmaid many times and nearly always hear some version of this during preparations for the wedding:

"Are you nervous?"

"Maybe a little."

"But you're saying 'I do.' People change you know? What if he changes into someone you don't love anymore? People grow apart."

"That's true, but there's always divorce." 

It's very common for unchurched people to accept the possibility that divorce may end their relationship at some point. Very, very common for unchurched people to think marriage is a promise to be exclusive until one partner needs a divorce.  

There are a whole bunch of reasons the Church has to give individuals the benefit of the doubt in presuming they have a valid marriage. But I think on a statistical level its readily apparent how rare valid marriage is in this day and age. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 minute ago, Lilllabettt said:

I disagree.

I think the vast majority of people believe, when they get married, both that there is a reasonable possibility their relationship will not work "forever," and that in the case it does not, they can divorce. 

I have been a bridesmaid many times and nearly always hear some version of this during preparations for the wedding:

"Are you nervous?"

"Maybe a little."

"But you're saying 'I do.' People change you know? What if he changes into someone you don't love anymore? People grow apart."

"That's true, but there's always divorce." 

It's very common for unchurched people to accept the possibility that divorce may end their relationship at some point. Very, very common for unchurched people to think marriage is a promise to be exclusive until one partner needs a divorce.  

There are a whole bunch of reasons the Church has to give individuals the benefit of the doubt in presuming they have a valid marriage. But I think on a statistical level its readily apparent how rare valid marriage is in this day and age. 

To be fair, neither of us can know what "the vast majority of people believe," since neither of us has taken a comprehensive survey! We're both speaking from our own experiences, with the limitations that implies. 

In my own experience, though, I have known a number of lapsed Catholics who chose to marry only civilly, who nevertheless intended to marry for life. So this is a situation that can and does happen. 

Also, nervous mumblings on a wedding day aren't always the same thing as a stated intention or deeply-held belief. I can imagine a situation where bride might have muttered "there's always divorce..." just to get a chatty friend to stop talking! (Not accusing you of being that chatty friend, though!) That being said, though, if you were a first-hand witness to that, you would be a really good witness to call upon in case (God forbid) the bride ever did petition for a declaration of nullity. 

[Lilllabettt]

Just now, Sponsa-Christi said:

To be fair, neither of us can know what "the vast majority of people believe," since neither of us has taken a comprehensive survey! We're both speaking from our own experiences, with the limitations that implies. 

In my own experience, though, I have known a number of lapsed Catholics who chose to marry only civilly, who nevertheless intended to marry for life. So this is a situation that can and does happen. 

Also, nervous mumblings on a wedding day aren't always the same thing as a stated intention or deeply-held belief. I can imagine a situation where bride might have muttered "there's always divorce..." just to get a chatty friend to stop talking! (Not accusing you of being that chatty friend, though!) That being said, though, if you were a first-hand witness to that, you would be a really good witness to call upon in case (God forbid) the bride ever did petition for a declaration of nullity. 

 I am not that person who agrees to be a bridesmaid and then spends the next year sighing loudly at the bride-to-be about why she shouldn't get married.

That said -- these are not nervous wedding-day mumblings. I have heard them in different settings from brides-to-be and grooms-to-be, faithful Catholic, fallen away Catholic,  and not Catholic.  I have heard them from people in relationships as they talk about the possibility of marriage and whether marriage is for them. These words reflect a deeply ingrained cultural orientation towards divorce and remarriage as something that is permissible if the situation warrants it. The secular world looks at this thinking as a sign of mature reflection and an indication that one has realistic expectations for marriage and relationships. 

Of course it can and does happen that secular people today are idealistic and counter-cultural enough to really believe in marriage for life, for their own relationship at least.  It is rare. Sad to say, believing that your marriage is for life, come what may, is a rather high bar for the modern world. 

 

[Kevin]

3 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I feel like you are posting here to debate with me and I'm making this thread to seek help not to debate anyone. No it doesn't mean the Church is wrong on non infallible issues because the Church has authority to make canon law. My friends wedding would depend on her disposition and intent. I don't know that. I was asking something else. 

Neither does it mean the Church is right. If the Church had to be right on such a mater, it would be an infallible teaching, but it isn't. As we both know, the requirements for the Catholic form for baptized Catholics can and has changed. So it may in fact be that the rule will change and he requirement dropped before your friends get married. Or maybe not. It all depends on a choice that might be right or wrong.

But even if I am bitter and exaggerating, there is no question in my mind that your friend's marriage would be invalid--that is, if it ended, the Church would pretty easily annul it--because there was no real intent on their part to remain Catholic. You already know the answer to this question---either your friend converts back to the Church and does everything to get right with the Church, which includes going to confession, or her marriage is invalid because it was performed under false pretenses.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Kevin I think the way it works is being an unpracticing Catholic doesn't in itself invalidate a marriage in the Church but intent to divorce / not have kids does. I cant say how it is with my friend. Its different if a Catholic gets a non Catholic wedding with no permission or a priest there - that's not valid for sure. However for the first case the Sacraments might be received in sin which is bad. And theres a chance of it being invalid too if the intent is wrong.

Anyway I'll ask my priest about that to check if I'm right. Thank you to everyone who replied. This thread is causing me some anxiety and I think I'll just ask my priest. Thank you to the people who answered my question. Kevin I think you are trying to interpret Church teaching on your own and making conclusions that the Church doesn't make. I'd recommend talking to a priest I will. But some who replied here have studied canon law and their conclusion is different. I think you are relying on a personal understanding of the Church teachings and that can be incorrect for anyone. Also just because something is not infallible doesn't make it wrong. 

Edited December 21, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maggyie]

11 hours ago, Papist said:

If a Catholic friend of yours told you he/she does not attend Mass intentionally. Then one day attends with you, would you instruct that he/she ought to refrain from receiving Communion?  Why?

I would not, because I don't know in the interim if they went to confession, if they had a vision of Jesus and just experienced perfect contrition, if what they told me wasn't the whole story (maybe they said they intentionally missed but there are mitigating circumstances etc). Nor is it appropriate to interrogate someone on whether any of the above has taken place.

When attending Mass of any kind including wedding Masses, I am not the Holy Communion police for the other faithful. Frankly laity are rarely qualified to perform that task since they don't have any spiritual authority over others' souls. If one has "feels" about whether others are in the state of grace, one must ascribe these to pride or scruples and squelch them. 

Now definitely it's important to make sure people are instructed in general about Holy Communion and the need for proper disposition. But the only person qualified to tell someone they specifically can't receive Holy Communion due to unworthiness is their pastor, spiritual director, bishop etc. it ain't me, and it ain't MLF or any of us here. 

[Kevin]

2 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Kevin I think the way it works is being an unpracticing Catholic doesn't in itself invalidate a marriage in the Church but intent to divorce / not have kids does. I cant say how it is with my friend. Its different if a Catholic gets a non Catholic wedding with no permission or a priest there - that's not valid for sure. However for the first case the Sacraments might be received in sin which is bad. And theres a chance of it being invalid too if the intent is wrong.

It really isn't different. If the heart of the person getting married is much that they do not agree with the Church, then a Priest should not consent to marry them under the Catholic form in the first place. I'm not speaking from bitterness here. This seems to me pretty cut and dry.